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

Hi, TEST SCORES ARE NOT THE END ALL BE ALL IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

Literally the first point I made. Until you understand that, this discussion will inevitably elude you.

Academia is about the quest for knowledge and the furtherance of our understanding of that knowledge. A test isn't going to tell you about a person's aptitude aside from the ability to memorize information and use it on a multiple choice test.

This ain't China, our universities are the best in the world for a reason.

Your right if you are getting some kind of humanity degree but I would say they are damn important in any STEM , law or medical field.

And since we have all these perfect SAT and very high SAT and academics out there that's the best place to start for the above fields. Then you add in the other stuff to sort out the best you can find.

Now what fields do you think all these Asians are looking at.
 
Hardly. You don't want the kids who are great in the classroom. You want the kids who will be great in the real world. Sometimes they're the same kids, sometimes they're not.

But the best place to start is in the academic and sort from there.

Sure some people or "book smart" and shit in the real world.

I have worked with plenty of them over the years but that doesn't mean you dont have plenty that can be both.
 
1541205804220.gif


@Falsedawn's posts ITT.
 
i never would have expected so many leftists would be in favor of discrimination as long as it's not against black or latino. truly shocking.

did anyone also know the sky is blue?
 
But the best place to start is in the academic and sort from there.

Sure some people or "book smart" and shit in the real world.

I have worked with plenty of them over the years but that doesn't mean you dont have plenty that can be both.
Which is what they've done. They get 40000 applications of top end academic kids and then try to figure out which of them is going to be great in the real world. They accept them and reject the others.

There's no one with a 2.5 GPA and a 1000 SAT getting into Harvard. Everyone is bright, hard-working and ambitious. So, it's in the all the intangibles and non-academic stuff that Harvard has to sort through to attempt to find the next CEO, Senator, industry innovator, run of the mill financial analyst.

The conversation about Harvard is worth having but I find it unbelievable how many people act as if strict grades and test scores are the hallmark of what will make a successful person. The high school class president wasn't always the smartest kid in class. The homecoming king and queen aren't always the best test takers. These are people who have risen to the top of something based on the assessment of their peers...without having to be the smartest or hardest working.

Yet, in this case, people seem to throw all of that out the window for a standard that they know isn't valid. That's what makes no sense to me.
 
Uh yeah, and their arguments are literally the same as Fisher. They feel that someone else got in above them because of race when they felt they were the better candidate.

Cool, you have a perfect SAT score, Harvard literally could fill a class with perfect SAT scores and still have to reject a substantial amount of those perfect scores. Either pick something more eye popping to hinge your fate on, or hope for the best with the review.


Only a few hundred students each year score perfectly. Out of 1.7 million.
 
Here in Korea, the focus on passing tests starts in Elementary school. And it sucks. It sucks for me as a teacher. It sucks for the kids who study their asses off on weekdays and then get apology/reward spoiled on weekends of luxury restaurant meals and going to theme parks. It's the weirdest combination of abused yet spoiled at the same time.

The lack of a fun childhood definitely does have an affect on personality. For example, they tend to take things too seriously and just lack an ear for humor in general.
 
But the best place to start is in the academic and sort from there.

Sure some people or "book smart" and shit in the real world.

I have worked with plenty of them over the years but that doesn't mean you dont have plenty that can be both.
rote learners?
 
Why not just look at the highest earners per ethnicity and based the admission from that since we're after the "real life success"?
 
Harvard Discrimination Trial Is Ending, But Lawsuit Is Far From Over
November 2, 2018

gettyimages-1025377112_slide-a4ae5cdae3953096a74ac1efb067891674af0abf-s800-c85.jpg

The Harvard University admissions trial comes to a close on Friday. At the heart of this controversial federal lawsuit is the question of just how much a school can consider race in admissions.

The plaintiff, a group called Students for Fair Admissions, has accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. It argues the school considers race too much, forcing Asian-Americans to meet a higher bar to get in.

Because affirmative action is at the center of this debate, the 15 days of court proceedings attracted a large audience. The public benches in the Boston courthouse were regularly filled to capacity with students, parents, school officials and community members.

But the judge's findings in this case will likely be followed even closer. There is no set timeline for those findings; however, court watchers believe U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs may release her opinion in early 2019. Both sides say they plan to appeal, which means the fate of affirmative action policies could once again end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

For supporters of affirmative action, diversity on college campuses is on the line. Leaders in the higher education world say taking away race-conscious admissions would result in homogeneous classes. But others, like the plaintiff, say that is an overreaction. They argue that considering someone's race opens the door to racial bias.

What each side has argued

Like many discrimination lawsuits, this case was largely made with statistics. Early in the trial, the plaintiff's attorneys pointed to recruitment numbers and a Harvard program that sends recruitment letters to high school students based on standardized test scores. According to school policy, Asian-American males living in rural states need to score a 1370 on the PSAT to get a letter. White males, however, only need a 1310.

"That's race discrimination plain and simple," argued attorney John Hughes.

Harvard Dean of Admissions William Fitzsimmons pushed back, saying that the college uses that tactic to attract people in rural areas who historically may not have considered the school and that those standards are not used once students enter the applicant pool.

The plaintiff also argued that Harvard officials should be considering race-blind admissions tactics. According to the plaintiff, it's possible to still get a diverse class without considering race, especially if Harvard increased its "tip" for applicants of low socioeconomic status. Harvard officials say doing that would lead to an unacceptable drop in the academic quality of an incoming class.

But it was Harvard's application rating system that took center stage in the trial. The plaintiff's analysis shows Asian-Americans routinely perform better in academic and extracurricular ratings in this system, but they consistently fall behind other ethnic groups in what is known as a "personal score."

When plaintiff's experts limited their analysis to only include top academic performers, the differences in personal ratings became wider.

"The magnitude of racial preferences is quite large," said Peter Arcidiacono, the Duke University economist who conducted the plaintiff's analysis.

Harvard denies the allegations, and the school's attorneys presented their own set of statistics.

According to David Card — a University of California, Berkeley economist and an expert witness for Harvard — it's misleading to focus so heavily on academic performance. In his analysis, he explains that the school receives several thousand applications with perfect GPAs and standardized test scores. But Harvard only has room for about 2,000 students in its freshman class each year, and school officials argue it takes high scores in multiple fields to get in.

Contrary to the plaintiff's findings, Card's analysis shows that being Asian-American did not impact an applicant's likelihood of getting accepted in a statistically significant way.

So why are these two analyses so different? That was another hotly debated topic. While both Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions were given the same set of application data to prepare for trial, SFFA excluded a group of students that includes recruited athletes, children of alumni and children of faculty. SFFA argued those students have higher admission rates than the general population and would have an outsized influence on the results. But Harvard said conclusions about admission biases cannot be made without looking at the entire applicant pool.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/6607...-trial-is-ending-but-lawsuit-is-far-from-over
 
Last edited:
This just goes to show that in today’s America, hiring or admitting the best takes a back seat to affirmative action and social pressures to have diversity in academics and business in every area except sports, the least important venture. Professional sports are entertainment that brings in tons of money, so the team owners and coaches are allowed to hire the best qualified candidates. No one ever will tell any sports team in America that they have too many black players in basketball or football, or too many white players in hockey. But that does not apply to the most important areas such as academics and business-that are required to often admit or hire less qualified candidates to promote diversity. They are forced to do so, but not in sports, because no one would pay to watch a basketball team that had to have x% of white, Asian, or Indian(dot not feather) players.
 
The Asian-American case against Harvard: What to watch for
By Joan Biskupic | November 24, 2018



The affirmative action case against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students has entered an important second phase, as both sides face December deadlines for final submissions to US District Judge Allison Burroughs.

In the case first filed four years ago this week, the organization Students for Fair Admissions asserts that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants, partly by giving them lower "personal" scores to lessen their chances of admission. At the root of the scores, the group contends, are stereotypes of Asians as "book-smart" and "one-dimensional," "not personable."

Harvard counters that the data evidence, considered at its fullest, reveals no Asian-American bias and that the challengers' overall claim is "predicated on data-mining" that omits factors showing that Asian-American applicants fare well overall.

Harvard lawyers also argue that the challengers' larger goal is eliminating racial affirmative action, which has helped African-Americans, Latinos and other traditionally disadvantaged minorities through the years. The closely watched dispute, which both sides believe is headed for the Supreme Court, would affect racial admissions nationwide and how easy -- or hard -- it is for students of all backgrounds to obtain a place on prestigious campuses.

At Harvard, the percentage of Asian-American students admitted has been steadily increasing, and for the most recently admitted class of 2022 reached about 23%. African-Americans were at about 15% and Latino at 12%. A category of mainly white students accounts for 50%.

Here's what to watch in upcoming months:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/24/politics/supreme-court-harvard-admissions-case/index.html
 
They simply keep overlooking what the information has shown. It is not minority students who are taking smart Asian seats. It's legacies, children of donors and athletes. The SAT scores of the athletes and legacies are lower than even the black and Hispanic students. The same with the donors.

Athletes with decent scores have an 83% admission rate. This is a school with a 4% overall admission rate. People should think about that for moment. All those bright hard studying academics are getting in at a 4% clip. Play a sport and you have a 20x better chance of getting into the school.

Harvard reserves 196 seats out of their 2040 seats for kids from 19 specific private schools. That's 10% of their class coming from 19 schools. That means that if you attend one of these 19 schools with ~100 graduates a year, you're competing for 10% of Harvard's seats against less than 2000 other kids (basically a 10% shot at admission). Meanwhile, the other 38000 applicants are competing for 1900 seats.

Well, if you go to the right prep school, it looks like you don't need to be the best of 40000 kids, just the best of the kids at 19 schools.

This people dreaming of some world where Harvard doesn't admit subpar blacks and hispanics don't realize that Harvard is not going to fill those spaces with academics. Harvard will seek more of the people who make money for the school and more of the same elite group of families that they've always selected.

But the simple minded don't care about the reality of what's happening there, they reached their conclusion prior to the trial.

One wrong doesn't justify another.

Still doesn't justify giving Asians lower personality scores WITHOUT even an interview. That's straight up discrimination in the name of diversity.
 
This just goes to show that in today’s America, hiring or admitting the best takes a back seat to affirmative action and social pressures to have diversity in academics and business in every area except sports, the least important venture. Professional sports are entertainment that brings in tons of money, so the team owners and coaches are allowed to hire the best qualified candidates. No one ever will tell any sports team in America that they have too many black players in basketball or football, or too many white players in hockey. But that does not apply to the most important areas such as academics and business-that are required to often admit or hire less qualified candidates to promote diversity. They are forced to do so, but not in sports, because no one would pay to watch a basketball team that had to have x% of white, Asian, or Indian(dot not feather) players.
In today’s America, such and such happens. But then I’m going to bring up an example right now where it doesn’t happen. Sports. So maybe I can’t define what goes on in today’s America with just one simple statement. Maybe I’m just exaggerating because I want my feelings to be heard.
 
Here in Korea, the focus on passing tests starts in Elementary school. And it sucks. It sucks for me as a teacher. It sucks for the kids who study their asses off on weekdays and then get apology/reward spoiled on weekends of luxury restaurant meals and going to theme parks. It's the weirdest combination of abused yet spoiled at the same time.

The lack of a fun childhood definitely does have an affect on personality. For example, they tend to take things too seriously and just lack an ear for humor in general.

What about the results? Does it work in the long run?
 
One wrong doesn't justify another.

Still doesn't justify giving Asians lower personality scores WITHOUT even an interview. That's straight up discrimination in the name of diversity.
Hardly. Not everyone gets an interview and the personality category covers more than a candidates in-person personality.

That's what I mean when I say that people are ignoring what the information says. Personality covers quite a bit. Not every takes an interview. That's the information. There are candidates of every race who are getting low personality scores and candidates of every race who don't take interviews.
 
This just goes to show that in today’s America, hiring or admitting the best takes a back seat to affirmative action and social pressures to have diversity in academics and business in every area except sports, the least important venture. Professional sports are entertainment that brings in tons of money, so the team owners and coaches are allowed to hire the best qualified candidates. No one ever will tell any sports team in America that they have too many black players in basketball or football, or too many white players in hockey. But that does not apply to the most important areas such as academics and business-that are required to often admit or hire less qualified candidates to promote diversity. They are forced to do so, but not in sports, because no one would pay to watch a basketball team that had to have x% of white, Asian, or Indian(dot not feather) players.
You don’t know a lot about professional sports. They discriminate all the time. Or did you think black people only just figured out how to throw a football instead of just catching them 10 years ago?
 
What about the results? Does it work in the long run?
Not for the ones who aren't academically inclined. It's awful for the ones who want to go into the arts.

The suicide rates among teenagers here don't lie
 
This just goes to show that in today’s America, hiring or admitting the best takes a back seat to affirmative action and social pressures to have diversity in academics and business in every area except sports, the least important venture. Professional sports are entertainment that brings in tons of money, so the team owners and coaches are allowed to hire the best qualified candidates. No one ever will tell any sports team in America that they have too many black players in basketball or football, or too many white players in hockey. But that does not apply to the most important areas such as academics and business-that are required to often admit or hire less qualified candidates to promote diversity. They are forced to do so, but not in sports, because no one would pay to watch a basketball team that had to have x% of white, Asian, or Indian(dot not feather) players.
This isn't exactly true though. Sports are a meritocracy. Getting drafted into a sport isn't nor is getting a chance to play college sports.

2 basketball players. Similar skill. One plays for Duke, the other plays for a D3 program. Which one gets drafted? The guy from Duke. Why? Because Duke has a reputation and D3 programs don't. 2 football players at the same position, one plays for Alabama, the other for the University of Delaware. Which one gets drafted higher - the guy from Bama.

How many great athletes get dumped into JUCO programs because they don't have the grades? When draft day comes up, many of them get overlooked for kids who went to big name programs. And how do you get into big name programs these days? Talent? Sure. But you also need the right connections. Play for the right camps, meet the right guys who can get your name on a coach's radar.

Sports are about athletic ability - right? But if you don't have the academic performance you don't get a scholarship to the schools that can get you drafted. So colleges are recruiting athletes based on something that has nothing to do with athletics. That's not sports meritocracy.

People commonly overlook that. In fact, they often argue that it's perfectly reasonable to recruit for sports based on the non-sport component of the applicant.

So, let's not stretch the sports analogy too far.
 
Not for the ones who aren't academically inclined. It's awful for the ones who want to go into the arts.

The suicide rates among teenagers here don't lie

Can you explain more about aren't academically inclined and the arts programs situation?

Is the first one because, hypothetically, all parents try to make their kids doctor/lawyer/mba/etc, even though the family has produced tradesman/labourers for centuries?
 
Back
Top