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

[Ornife]

so what you're saying is...your daughter is a genius?

Related to a Sherdog forum poster.

Not surprised.

 

[Seano]

so what you're saying is...your daughter is a genius?

My daughter is a good student. I try to avoid being the dad who tells everyone how great his kid is.

The point is that she is going to school and repeating shit she did 5 years ago.
I also have several friends that teach who confirm my suspicions.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

My daughter is a good student. I try to avoid being the dad who tells everyone how great his kid is.

The point is that she is going to school and repeating shit she did 5 years ago.
I also have several friends that teach who confirm my suspicions.

Oh I get it...I was just cracking a joke for some levity. I also have friends who are teachers. they have their fair share of horror stories.

 

[Arkain2K]

Such an interesting issue.

As one of the people interviewed noted when pointing out the drop in enrolment among black students, the best place to try and intervene to correct the decline is much earlier in the system, before students have fallen behind, or early enough on that gifted children receive the preparation they need.

To me, that seems like the obviously better path, so much so that even if the admissions test was scrapped, I would personally still want the earlier-intervention instituted, as it would have a more lasting and important effect, even if the admissions numbers had been “shored up” by other means.

Of course the downside of that plan is that it takes time. It is not going to effect children taking tests next year, only ones coming into the education system next year. And even then if it was immediately implemented (oh, and a plan was researched and-designed and rolled out well) it would likely miss the mark and require many years of work and adjustment (what are the chances of getting something that large and complicated right on the first go?).


So you could either 1- begin to fix the system and wait to see the effects on admissions numbers or 2- fix the admissions numbers and hope that fixes the system.

1’s not guaranteed to work, at all if ever, and 2 is guaranteed to “work” immediately.

The real problem is politicians' knee-jerk reaction to this problem is always to artificially forcing Equal Outcomes instead of building Equal Opportunities.

The media is not helping either when they run racebaiting headlines like "Only seven Black students are admitted to elite school", when they should be asking "Why only seven Black students scored high enough to get in elite school?"

There is nothing wrong with exams, the real issue here is not all students are ready for it, somr don't even know it even existed, and most have parents who don't even care if they take the exam or not.

NY politicians completely ignore the mediocre state of their segregated middle schools - as well as the massive cultural differences in attitudes towards education between Asian-American families compared to other ethnic groups - while blaming the inevitable outcome on the neutral and color-blind exam is not the way to do it.

As it is with all problems in life, the first step to fixing it is to acknowledge that it actually exists.

 

[woodguyatl]

Read slowly:
1) 10% of the Harvard Class comes from 19 schools. 3% comes from just 2 of those schools. This is predetermined. These seats are set aside for those schools.
2) 83% of Athletes get admitted. A school with a <5% admissions rate is admitting 83% of its athlete applicants. Do you really think that the Athletes are just that much smarter than the regular applicant pool?
3) More than 25% of the admittees have a family member who previously went there. Again, <5% admissions rate but they can fill a full quarter of their class specifically for legacies.

Glad that you can finally acknowledge that are many different factors to the personal score. And that within Asian applicants, Asian scores differ based on those factors...just like for everyone else. Low income students scored differently. Extracurriculars scored differently. In fact, within Asians, all of the various non-academic criteria were scored based on the specific criteria...just like for everyone else. All high income students were different from low income students. Harvard specifically sought out low income students. All extracurriculars were different based on the extracurricular. Asians with the right extracurriculars scored higher than those with the wrong ones.

You keep retreating to the SAT scores. Why don't you address the actual data which showed that Asians didn't need high SAT scores to overcome their low personal scores. They needed high SAT scores to overcome legacies, donors and athletes.

But that doesn't fit your race-based obsession so you're ignoring it.

Legacies, athletes, the children of donors and the kids who went to the right high schools (10% of the freshman class comes from 19 pre-selected high schools) all received preferential admissions criteria and had test score well below the Harvard average.

Not blacks, not whites. Donors. Legacies. Athletes. Students from 17 boarding schools. 61 students from 2 private schools in Boston.

But hey who cares about being accurate when you can be a hypocrite and just accuse people of taking a position based on race?

The athletes admission % is artificially high because they are recruited and thus apply knowing they are going to be admitted.

 

[woodguyatl]

My daughter is in 7th grade and was reading Tale of Despereaux for school. She read that shit in the second grade. She's doing math she did in elementary school too. Its bullshit.

This reinforces my decision to pay stupid money for my daughter to attend a really great private school where she isn’t bored every day.

 

[Seano]

This reinforces my decision to pay stupid money for my daughter to attend a really great private school where she isn’t bored every day.

Not really a lot of options where I live.

You made the right decision. Public school was dumbed down when I was a kid so how bad must it be that I'm shaking my head at it now? The best we can do is stress extracurricular BS.

Its ridiculous to force kids to stagnate to spare the feelings of the underachievers.

 

[panamaican]

The athletes admission % is artificially high because they are recruited and thus apply knowing they are going to be admitted.

Yes. That's the point, athletes aren't being admitted under the same academic criteria as the rest of the student population. They're being admitted on a criteria that weighs non-academic accomplishments much more.

Harvard measures 4 different categories on a 1-5 scale and you have to be in the top of at least 1 of them to have a shot at admission. However, Harvard still needs people in the top of all 4 categories for their admissions class. Academics, athletics, extracurriculars, personal.

The way it's been explained is that to get a 1, the highest score, you have to be elite in that category. A 1 in academics isn't high SATs and GPAs. It's original research, one of a kind accomplishments. High SATs and GPAs is only a 2.

A 1 in extracurriculars is national level performance in that activity. Simply being involved or being state level recognition doesn't get you there. Being lead editor of the school newspaper doesn't rate, having an article published on a national level does.

For athletics, a 1 is someone who is believed to have a near guarantee of making the Harvard team and contributing. Simply playing at the HS level or being decent doesn't cut it.

For personal, a 1 is someone that the student's teachers and references state is someone who has demonstrated the type of drive, energy, personality that is extraordinarily uncommon by the reference's opinion. Note that this score is based on what other people say about the student, Harvard assigns the number but the information comes from references, not from Harvard (except the interview - which is why they say to always take the interview). If you didn't impress your high school teachers with your personality or your mentors with your personality then they're not going to speak of you in the terms that would get you a high personal score.

Each of those categories are weighed independently. If you're a "1" in any of them, you're pretty much guaranteed admission. Most people fall into the "2" and "3" level of those categories. But if someone is a 2 in academics and someone else is a 2 in extracurriculars or personal, the 2 in academics isn't automatically the preferred candidate.

But as I pointed out above - high test scores and GPAs puts a student in the "2" category, not the "1" category. People are under the mistaken belief that these students are "1"s when in reality they're "2"s. So, when they look at the admissions outcomes they're thinking how did this top end student end up not getting admitted over that student? And the reason is that the other student is also a "2" by the academic criteria (even if the raw numbers on SATs and GPAs are lower).

It's not Johnny's test scores directly against Mike's test scores. It's Johnny's a "2" academically and Mike is also a "2" academically, even though they might be 150 points apart on the SATs and have a .5 difference in GPAs. Neither of them are a "1" but neither of them are a "3". MEanwhile Jake is a "1" in athletics and Lucy is a "1" in personal with worse academic scores than Johnny and Mike. So Jake and Lucy are pretty much locks for admission and Johnny and Mike are not.

That's the situation in a nutshell.

 

[nac386]

Its interesting. The idea of making people better seems to be dead. Its now more about leveling things out. I see this in schools too, where exceptional kids are no longer identified but instead waste away with the fuck offs.

Yup, it's no longer about who is the most qualified, or best person for the job.

but rather, what is "most fair" and all about "equity."

This is precisely why leftists like Pan and many others hate Asians.

My daughter is in 7th grade and was reading Tale of Despereaux for school. She read that shit in the second grade. She's doing math she did in elementary school too. Its bullshit.

Don’t your schools have remedial, on grade level, and above grade level or GT classes? I’ve never heard of a school system that does not provide a GT track for higher performing kids.

 

[woodguyatl]

Yes. That's the point, athletes aren't being admitted under the same academic criteria as the rest of the student population. They're being admitted on a criteria that weighs non-academic accomplishments much more.

Harvard measures 4 different categories on a 1-5 scale and you have to be in the top of at least 1 of them to have a shot at admission. However, Harvard still needs people in the top of all 4 categories for their admissions class. Academics, athletics, extracurriculars, personal.

The way it's been explained is that to get a 1, the highest score, you have to be elite in that category. A 1 in academics isn't high SATs and GPAs. It's original research, one of a kind accomplishments. High SATs and GPAs is only a 2.

A 1 in extracurriculars is national level performance in that activity. Simply being involved or being state level recognition doesn't get you there. Being lead editor of the school newspaper doesn't rate, having an article published on a national level does.

For athletics, a 1 is someone who is believed to have a near guarantee of making the Harvard team and contributing. Simply playing at the HS level or being decent doesn't cut it.

For personal, a 1 is someone that the student's teachers and references state is someone who has demonstrated the type of drive, energy, personality that is extraordinarily uncommon by the reference's opinion. Note that this score is based on what other people say about the student, Harvard assigns the number but the information comes from references, not from Harvard (except the interview - which is why they say to always take the interview). If you didn't impress your high school teachers with your personality or your mentors with your personality then they're not going to speak of you in the terms that would get you a high personal score.

Each of those categories are weighed independently. If you're a "1" in any of them, you're pretty much guaranteed admission. Most people fall into the "2" and "3" level of those categories. But if someone is a 2 in academics and someone else is a 2 in extracurriculars or personal, the 2 in academics isn't automatically the preferred candidate.

But as I pointed out above - high test scores and GPAs puts a student in the "2" category, not the "1" category. People are under the mistaken belief that these students are "1"s when in reality they're "2"s. So, when they look at the admissions outcomes they're thinking how did this top end student end up not getting admitted over that student? And the reason is that the other student is also a "2" by the academic criteria (even if the raw numbers on SATs and GPAs are lower).

It's not Johnny's test scores directly against Mike's test scores. It's Johnny's a "2" academically and Mike is also a "2" academically, even though they might be 150 points apart on the SATs and have a .5 difference in GPAs. Neither of them are a "1" but neither of them are a "3". MEanwhile Jake is a "1" in athletics and Lucy is a "1" in personal with worse academic scores than Johnny and Mike. So Jake and Lucy are pretty much locks for admission and Johnny and Mike are not.

That's the situation in a nutshell.

That all makes perfect sense. When you are choosing among diamonds the rarest colors are still considered more valuable.

My point was more that unlike lots of gifted students, athletes are actively recruited and have an entire athletic departments that gets o have input and influence into the admissions process. I'm not sure that folks with potential "1's" in the other categories have the same inside track I am not aware of math departments, for instance, searching out and recruiting great math minds, but I could be wrong. Some skills are more equal than others.

@panamaican FYI - I edited after your "like".

 

[panamaican]

Don’t your schools have remedial, on grade level, and above grade level or GT classes? I’ve never heard of a school system that does not provide a GT track for higher performing kids.

Almost every school district has a track but, in many cases, you have to ask for it. Or you have to be nominated by your teachers. If you don't request it or your teachers don't nominate you, you don't get it.

In far too many circumstances, kids who should be in gifted tracks aren't there because the parents don't know what to ask for. Or because the teachers aren't nominating the truly gifted kids, they're nominating the compliant high performers. Bright but not gifted. However because they go to class and obediently perform as asked, teachers nominate them because those are the types of kids that teachers value most.

Gifted education in this country often does not go far enough to identify the truly gifted.

 

[nac386]

Almost every school district has a track but, in many cases, you have to ask for it. Or you have to be nominated by your teachers. If you don't request it or your teachers don't nominate you, you don't get it.

In far too many circumstances, kids who should be in gifted tracks aren't there because the parents don't know what to ask for. Or because the teachers aren't nominating the truly gifted kids, they're nominating the compliant high performers. Bright but not gifted. However because they go to class and obediently perform as asked, teachers nominate them because those are the types of kids that teachers value most.

Gifted education in this country often does not go far enough to identify the truly gifted.

I know, and I agree, but in the end if Seano is concerned about his daughter’s track it would be his job as her father to be her advocate and get her a more challenging course load.

 

[panamaican]

I know, and I agree, but in the end if Seano is concerned about his daughter’s track it would be his job as her father to be her advocate and get her a more challenging course load.

Completely agree. In this day and age, it doesn't make sense to complain about the school not challenging your child until after you've pushed for a GIEP or something similar.

 

[panamaican]

That all makes perfect sense. When you are choosing among diamonds the rarest colors are still considered more valuable.

My point was more that unlike lots of gifted students, athletes are actively recruited and have an entire athletic departments that gets o have input and influence into the admissions process. I'm not sure that folks with potential "1's" in the other categories have the same inside track I am not aware of math departments, for instance, searching out and recruiting great math minds, but I could be wrong. Some skills are more equal than others.

@panamaican FYI - I edited after your "like".

There are a number of aggressive talent search programs out there - Duke TIPS, Hopkins CTY, etc. Kids are being tracked and mentored from as early as 4th and 5th grade on a national level by these programs.

I think the bigger issue is that people don't realize how un-special intelligence is in terms of availability.

4 million kids graduate from high school ever year. The College Board, who administers the SAT, says that something like 2% of the population tests above 1500. 5% above 1400. 10% above a 1340.

That means of the 2 million kids who take the SAT you have 40,000 kids above 1500. 100,000 above 1400. 200,000 above 1340.

Intelligence is very common. When Harvard only admits 1800 kids per year - great test scores are a dime a dozen. But every parent with a smart kid acts like their kid is 1 of 1 when they're really 1 of 40,000. The truly mind-blowing brains? Those kids are heavily recruited from early in their lives. They're on college radars from 11 and 12 years old. They're the kids taking college classes at 13. Graduating from HS at 15. They're well beyond the AP classes and generic curriculums of even gifted programs. SAT scores and GPAs have no real bearing on their level of ability - those kids aren't often all that concerned with maxing out standardized tests or class work (well, the girls might be, the boys rarely are).

Those kids are not struggling to stand out at the admissions level. 99.99% of us aren't raising one of those kids.

Something worth reading, if this is a subject that interests you: http://www.thinkingahead.com.au/wp-...s-of-Levels-of-Giftedness-September-20091.doc

Solid website are Hoagie's Gifted and Davidson Institute (they have a forum as well where parents can talk about how to advocate for their kids and even there, most of the kids being discussed aren't that level of ability).

In a sports context, most people are raising great high school talent but think they've got NBA talent. In truth, they've got D-1 benchwarmer talent that is working very hard. They don't realize just how much higher the upper end is.

 

[Bitcoin]

We should have 50 Asian Americans players as a requirement a year in the NBA based on this logic

 

[panamaican]

Harvard ruling is in. Harvard prevailed. I figured they would.

But it's guaranteed that it's going to be appealed so it's far from being finished.

 

[F1980]

The hell is this?

 

[panamaican]

The hell is this?

I don't know what source you're using but they're misrepresenting the issue that arose

In aid of realizing its mission, Harvard values and pursues many kinds of diversity within its classes, including different academic interests, belief systems, political views, geographic origins, family circumstances, and racial identities. See [Oct. 17 Tr. 182:17–183:7; Oct. 23 Tr. 24:13–20]. This interest in diversity and the wide-ranging benefits of diversity were echoed by all of the Harvard admissions officers, faculty, students, and alumni that testified at trial.

SFFA does not contest the importance of diversity in education, but argues that Harvard’s emphasis on racial diversity is too narrow and that the full benefits of diversity can be better achieved by placing more emphasis on economic diversity.

No one involved in litigating this issue argued that Harvard should be admitting solely on the academic and extracurricular rating. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants. It's a particularly glaring misrepresentation because Harvard evaluates students on 4 criteria.

The author compounds that misrepresentation by tying it to admissions rate while not pointing out the application rates are very different as well. If 100 kids from one city apply and 10 kids from another city apply, the city with 100 kids could get 20 kids admitted and the other city could get 3 kids admitted. Yet, even though the admissions numbers are 20 to 3 (a 7x advantage), the admissions rates would be in favor of the smaller amount of kids, 30% to 20% (a 1.5x advantage). Who's actually ahead there? The city with the most admittees or the city with the better admissions rate?

I recommend that people read the actual ruling if they'd like something closer to the full picture.

 

[F1980]

I don't know what source you're using but they're misrepresenting the issue that arose



No one involved in litigating this issue argued that Harvard should be admitting solely on the academic and extracurricular rating. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants. It's a particularly glaring misrepresentation because Harvard evaluates students on 4 criteria.

The author compounds that misrepresentation by tying it to admissions rate while not pointing out the application rates are very different as well. If 100 kids from one city apply and 10 kids from another city apply, the city with 100 kids could get 20 kids admitted and the other city could get 3 kids admitted. Yet, even though the admissions numbers are 20 to 3 (a 7x advantage), the admissions rates would be in favor of the smaller amount of kids, 30% to 20% (a 1.5x advantage). Who's actually ahead there? The city with the most admittees or the city with the better admissions rate?

I recommend that people read the actual ruling if they'd like something closer to the full picture.

The judge admitted that based on Academics and extracurricular activities, Asians would dominate even more, but for the sake of diversity, they have to block Asians that score higher on test scores so that someone with a darker skin color that scored lower, can get his spot.

I dont know about you, but if Im terminally ill, I want the best doctor to work on me, not a doctor who got his pHD because of diversity quota.

 

[panamaican]

The judge admitted that based on Academics and extracurricular activities, Asians would dominate even more, but for the sake of diversity, they have to block Asians that score higher on test scores so that someone with a darker skin color that scored lower, can get his spot.

I dont know about you, but if Im terminally ill, I want the best doctor to work on me, not a doctor who got his pHD because of diversity quota.

I don't know why I bother. You take a single quote, out of context, and have constructed a narrative around it. I'm going to assume that you haven't read the judicial opinion yet?