Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

Well even though I do feel the Asian students are definitely being treated unfairly, I know the guy behind it had ulterior motives, - to get rid of affirmative action on a Federal level. And using Asian students as a convenient vehicle to abolish all race based admissions.

So I'm kind of glad this didn't go through. If it did, I wanted all legacy admissions to go with it then.

It makes sense to me why underprivileged black and Latino kids get a bump to get into Harvard. I don't understand why the hell Asian students need to score higher than privileged white kids as well?

These schools are protecting the loafer wearing, country club, sweater- wearing, white kids more than any other group. That is the #1 priority - all the legacy students.
You mean Jewish kids. What is the real ratio of non jewish white kids in Ivy League... not that high.
 
What about underprivileged white kids? They can just go fuck themselves because they were born the wrong colour?

How progressive.

Also feel bad for jungle asians who get lumped in with math asians and fucked.

I said privileged white kids - the ones wearing loafers and whose fathers are CEO's giving donations to these schools. The ones in the rowing team, country club folk, etc.

Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth.
 
Last edited:
How is he not? He has major rallies all the time?
Who else can you namedrop that got elected President with the use of Twitter?

Thought so, brah. Trump is above average.

You're both confusing popularity with leadership. Just because someone is popular with a specific audience doesn't mean they're a good leader, it just means they're popular. History is filled with popular leaders who were also bad leaders.
 
You're both confusing popularity with leadership. Just because someone is popular with a specific audience doesn't mean they're a good leader, it just means they're popular. History is filled with popular leaders who were also bad leaders.

You just described Hillary Clinton with your post. Bravo.
 
You're both confusing popularity with leadership. Just because someone is popular with a specific audience doesn't mean they're a good leader, it just means they're popular. History is filled with popular leaders who were also bad leaders.

It's in the eye of the beholder, really. Sometimes there are legit bad leaders who end up leading their followers down a path of doom, but Trump has not done that, and calling him a definitive bad leader is just partisan politics.
 
I said privileged white kids - the ones wearing loafers and whose fathers are CEO's giving donations to these schools. The ones in the rowing team, country club folk, etc.

Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth.

What about a non white kid whose "fathers are CEO's giving donations to these schools. The ones in the rowing team, country club folk, etc?"
 
What about a non white kid whose "fathers are CEO's giving donations to these schools. The ones in the rowing team, country club folk, etc?"

Ideally, I want everything to be purely on merit - regardless of any factors.
 
Ideally, I want everything to be purely on merit - regardless of any factors.
Athletic merit - best performing athletes for the school. Donor merit - most demonstrated willingness to finance the school. Connection to the school merit - most points of contact.

When people say merit, they need to be a lot more specific than how it's currently used. Because merit can be applied within a wide variety of criteria.

You mean grades and test score merit. I really think people need to stop thinking that way. The appeal of someplace like Harvard is the connections and doors it opens. But it doesn't create those opportunities through grades and test scores. It creates them by admitting students who have these other things - like connections and money.

If Harvard admitted solely on the basis of grades and test scores, it would destroy the very reason that people want to go to Harvard in the 1st place. Because all of the monied and connected kids who aren't that smart would simply go elsewhere and their connections would go with them.

The thing is that many of the "It should be about merit" applicants know this. If they wanted to be recognized for their brains, they would all apply to Berkeley, MIT, Harvey Mudd, etc. But they apply to Harvard and Yale and such because they want the non-academic rewards, not the academic ones. And that's where they're lying to themselves. They want to attend Harvard for the connections and the opportunities but they think Harvard can do that by admitting people strictly on academic criteria without concern for connections and opportunities? Makes no sense.
 
Athletic merit - best performing athletes for the school. Donor merit - most demonstrated willingness to finance the school. Connection to the school merit - most points of contact.

When people say merit, they need to be a lot more specific than how it's currently used. Because merit can be applied within a wide variety of criteria.

You mean grades and test score merit. I really think people need to stop thinking that way. The appeal of someplace like Harvard is the connections and doors it opens. But it doesn't create those opportunities through grades and test scores. It creates them by admitting students who have these other things - like connections and money.

If Harvard admitted solely on the basis of grades and test scores, it would destroy the very reason that people want to go to Harvard in the 1st place. Because all of the monied and connected kids who aren't that smart would simply go elsewhere and their connections would go with them.

The thing is that many of the "It should be about merit" applicants know this. If they wanted to be recognized for their brains, they would all apply to Berkeley, MIT, Harvey Mudd, etc. But they apply to Harvard and Yale and such because they want the non-academic rewards, not the academic ones. And that's where they're lying to themselves. They want to attend Harvard for the connections and the opportunities but they think Harvard can do that by admitting people strictly on academic criteria without concern for connections and opportunities? Makes no sense.

I didn't say only test scores and grades, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I believe there is validity to a holistic approach - athletics, connections, diversity, etc - they do have value. Especially large donations to the school that actually benefit all the students - donations that is used to build a new lab for example.

It's just that it's gone too far and is now simply very unfair. The degree to which very high performing, but not connected students must outpace legacy and race based admissions is ridiculous.

Harvard's projected 2022 class is 36% LEGACY. Legacies are 5 times more likely to get in. That is bullshit. Sorry- but completely disagree with you.

The argument that students go for connections has "some" value, but the MORE CAPABLE students that didn't get in have more intrinsic value and will add more to society long term IMO.

Just let the cream rise to the top.

And let me state once again, I don't want affirmative action to be abolished. I think it's trying to address a real tangible problem - the inequalities of opportunities in our society.

I know for a fact that black and Latino schools in the inner city are complete garbage because I went to one. These kids have as much chance of going to an Ivy as going to the moon. So yes, I do agree that SOME latitude should be given to them.

But not to this degree and not to this degree for legacy students either. It's simply grossly unfair.

This would not be a problem at all if these schools were completely private. But IVY's get MORE money than other schools per capita amounting to billions in grants, endowments and subsidies.

They also don't have to pay any tax on their for-profit investments.

On top of that, Harvard LIED about the "personality score" part on the Asian students lawsuits because they gave a negative score WITHOUT INTERVIEWING many of them. That's shady.

Basically, they take a whole bunch of tax payer money. Therefore, they should be as egalitarian as possible. And they're not doing that.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say only test scores and grades, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I believe there is validity to a holistic approach - athletics, connections, diversity, etc - they do have value. Especially large donations to the school that actually benefit all the students - donations that is used to build a new lab for example.

It's just that it's gone too far and is now simply very unfair. The degree to which very high performing, but not connected students must outpace legacy and race based admissions is ridiculous.

Harvard's projected 2022 class is 36% LEGACY. Legacies are 5 times more likely to get in. That is bullshit. Sorry- but completely disagree with you.

The argument that students go for connections has "some" value, but the MORE CAPABLE students that didn't get in have more intrinsic value and will add more to society long term IMO.

Just let the cream rise to the top.

And let me state once again, I don't want affirmative action to be abolished. I think it's trying to address a real tangible problem - the inequalities of opportunities in our society.

I know for a fact that black and Latino schools in the inner city are complete garbage because I went to one. These kids have as much chance of going to an Ivy as going to the moon. So yes, I do agree that SOME latitude should be given to them.

But not to this degree and not to this degree for legacy students either. It's simply grossly unfair.

This would not be a problem at all if these schools were completely private. But IVY's get MORE money than other schools per capita amounting to billions in grants, endowments and subsidies.

They also don't have to pay any money on their for-profit investments.

On top of that, Harvard LIED about the "personality score" part on the Asian students lawsuits because they gave a negative score WITHOUT INTERVIEWING many of them. That's shady.

Basically, they take a whole bunch of tax payer money. Therefore, they should be as egalitarian as possible. And they're not doing that.
I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was paraphrasing the core intent.

When you say that the amount to which "very high performing, but not connected students must outpace legacy and race based admissions is ridiculous." That it is "unfair". In those circumstances, you're prioritizing the academics over the other elements.

You're not explicitly saying "tests and grades" but you are implicitly saying that tests and grades should be weighted more heavily than they currently are. That they should be higher on the merit ladder.

My point is that Harvard is Harvard precisely because the academics element was never higher than the legacy, donor, etc. considerations. The non-academic stuff was always higher. The
current obsession with high scores meaning merit for admission is relatively new, primarily because so many more people are applying to college and so many of them are academically excellent. It used to be that have a core set of knowledge, regardless of top end intellectual ability, was enough to get in.
Here's an article from 1956 discussing the problem: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1956/1/6/admissions-what-kind-of-wheat-to/?page=single

There's nothing shady about the personal score. The judicial ruling and the other research papers out there make clear that the personal score is based on the references from the student's teachers and such.
Because teacher and guidance counselor recommendation letters are among the most significant inputs for the personal rating, the apparent race-related or race-correlated difference in the strength of guidance counselor and teacher recommendations is significant. See [id. at 54:6–56:2; DD10 at 67–68].

The Court reiterates that to the extent that disparities in the personal ratings are explained by teacher and guidance counselor recommendation letters, Harvard’s admissions officers are not responsible for any race-related or race-correlated impact that those letters may have.

If there's a racial bias in the personal score, it's happening at the high school level where the teachers and guidance counselors are giving white students better recommendations than Asian students. That's not Harvard, that's the high schools.

And, again, Harvard is egalitarian. They have a list of criteria that they value and they are egalitarian in how they measure that criteria. What you're criticizing is that they don't prioritize their criteria in the manner that you'd prefer. Your preference is that academics should be a higher priority than it currently is. But that's no more egalitarian than a preference for legacies and donors.

Frankly, from the stats, academics are overrated for Harvard's purposes. They're not trying to produce the smartest people in the country. They're trying to produce the most influential leaders for the future. Smart is important but leadership has always been about more than that.
 
You're both confusing popularity with leadership. Just because someone is popular with a specific audience doesn't mean they're a good leader, it just means they're popular. History is filled with popular leaders who were also bad leaders.

What are these supposed qualifications and and traits that a make good leader?

Sounds like you are just regurgitating corporate news talking points and trying to disguise it with some pseudo intellectual political science 101 index points.

Go ahead, elaborate. I’ll wait.
 
I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was paraphrasing the core intent.

When you say that the amount to which "very high performing, but not connected students must outpace legacy and race based admissions is ridiculous." That it is "unfair". In those circumstances, you're prioritizing the academics over the other elements.

You're not explicitly saying "tests and grades" but you are implicitly saying that tests and grades should be weighted more heavily than they currently are. That they should be higher on the merit ladder.

I'm not the one saying that. Harvard, itself, says they weigh academics and extracurriculars as higher than the other factors - This was revealed in the actual court papers.

Here's the actual legal court document:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2014cv14176/165519/420

All the factors are below and they are NOT weighed equally ACCORDING TO HARVARD during court:

Harvard application readers rate each applicant on a score of 1-6 on these categories:
  • Academic
  • Extracurricular
  • Athletic
  • Personal
  • Recommendation letters (2 teachers, counselor)
  • Alumni (interview) personal and Overall rating
There's nothing shady about the personal score. The judicial ruling and the other research papers out there make clear that the personal score is based on the references from the student's teachers and such.

If there's a racial bias in the personal score, it's happening at the high school level where the teachers and guidance counselors are giving white students better recommendations than Asian students. That's not Harvard, that's the high schools.

This is simply untrue. The personal score is not only based on interviews from their high schools. It is comprised of interviews with Harvard STAFF as well as other factors including DIVERSITY.

Diversity AKA race.

Kind of funny some students were not interviewed AT ALL by the staff, yet still got lower scores.

Also kind of shady that Harvard ALUMNI interviews were just as good as their other counterparts trying to get in. Yet STAFF interviews - they got the lowest score. (again, often without being interviewed at all by staff.)

And Harvard's own INTERNAL investigation showed bias against Asian students. Of course, they tried to fight to keep this internal investigation from being released in court, but failed to do so.

Harvard's own internal investigation showed bias, yet you are claiming there is no bias. Yea ok.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the one saying that. Harvard, itself, says they weigh academics and extracurriculars as higher than the other factors - This was revealed in the actual court papers.

Here's the actual legal court document:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2014cv14176/165519/420

All the factors are below and they are NOT weighed equally ACCORDING TO HARVARD during court:

Harvard application readers rate each applicant on a score of 1-6 on these categories:
  • Academic
  • Extracurricular
  • Athletic
  • Personal
  • Recommendation letters (2 teachers, counselor)
  • Alumni (interview) personal and Overall rating


This is simply untrue. The personal score is not only based on interviews from their high schools. It is comprised of interviews with Harvard STAFF as well as other factors including DIVERSITY.

Diversity AKA race.

Kind of funny some students were not interviewed AT ALL by the staff, yet still got lower scores.

Also kind of shady that Harvard ALUMNI interviews were just as good as their other counterparts trying to get in. Yet STAFF interviews - they got the lowest score. (again, often without being interviewed at all by staff.)

And Harvard's own INTERNAL investigation showed bias against Asian students. Of course, they tried to fight to keep this internal investigation from being released in court, but failed to do so.

Harvard's own internal investigation showed bias, yet you are claiming there is no bias. Yea ok.

You seem to be under the impression that Harvard is in the business of admitting the best academic performers into into its student body, as are this gaggle of the oblivious.

Clearly, Harvard is not selecting for the best academic credentials. It is selecting for something else. If you haven't figured out what game Harvard is playing and adapted your strategy in response (still a long shot), then why should Harvard grant you entry when you clearly aren't capable of connecting the dots and coming to the right conclusion.

Harvard is not in the same game as any other institution, including Yale, MIT, etc. Harvard is in the business of Harvard.

This is the ironic part about this whole lawsuit. By trying to clamor their way in this way, they clearly demonstrate why they don't belong there. Just take your lumps and go to Cornell or Hopkins or Chicago like the rest of the other Harvard rejects.
 
Back
Top