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

[San Griente]

This is the conclusion of capitalism. Unless we get off the planet, or develop robots to do all our work and then distribute wealth in a new way not based on productivity. It's nice to say we shouldn't work hard, but if someone else does, they win and you're left behind. So everyone gets sucked into working like a bitch.

You only have to work like a bitch for one or two generations. Then you’ve got capital and use that to make money.

 

[panamaican]

Just adding some information from the researchers who testified.


Divergent: The Time Path of Legacy and Athlete Admissions at Harvard
Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom
NBER Working Paper No. 26315
Issued in September 2019
NBER Program(s):The Education Program, The Law and Economics Program

Applications to elite US colleges have more than doubled over the past 20 years, with little change in the number of available seats. We examine how this increased competition has affected the admissions advantage that legacies and athletes (LA) receive. Using data on Harvard applications over 18 years, we show that non-legacy, non-athlete (NLNA) applications grew considerably and that LA applications remained flat. Yet, the share of LA admits remained stable, implying substantial increases in admissions advantages for legacies and athletes. We develop a simple theoretical model of university admissions to frame our empirical analysis. Viewed through the lens of the model, stability in the share of LA admits implies that elite colleges treat the number of LA admits and overall admit quality as complements. Our empirical analysis reveals that, if the admissions advantages for LA applicants had been constant throughout this period, there would have been a large increase in the number of minority admits.

 

[panamaican]

And another paper.


Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard
by Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, and Tyler Ransom
Duke University University of Georgia University of Oklahoma
NBER & IZA & IZA
September 11, 2019
Abstract

The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University provided an unprecedented look at how an elite school makes admissions decisions. Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.

 

[Hog-train]

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.

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.

 

[panamaican]

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 should look at the 2 papers I added to this thread and I recommend reading the ruling itself. The amount of data in there is fascinating.

The real problem is the legacies, athletes, donors and children of faculty. Per one paper - 43% of the white students admitted under those categories wouldn't have gotten in at all otherwise. It's, unfortunately, not a race thing. If it was, that's easy to point at and change. It's old fashioned class-ism.

On the long view side of things - Asians make up 20+% of the student body and have for a few years. By the next generation, they'll be a big part of the legacy community (and the double legacy) and the donor and the faculty community. If they make more inroads into prep schools, they might even start replacing the athlete groups as well. Where my son goes to school, out of a class of 30, we have 3 East Asians, 1 Indian, and my kid who's half-Indian. That's a decent haul for prep school. The long term effect of the Asian student body will eventually change the ALDC group as well.

 

[Hog-train]

You should look at the 2 papers I added to this thread and I recommend reading the ruling itself. The amount of data in there is fascinating.

The real problem is the legacies, athletes, donors and children of faculty. Per one paper - 43% of the white students admitted under those categories wouldn't have gotten in at all otherwise. It's, unfortunately, not a race thing. If it was, that's easy to point at and change. It's old fashioned class-ism.

On the long view side of things - Asians make up 20+% of the student body and have for a few years. By the next generation, they'll be a big part of the legacy community (and the double legacy) and the donor and the faculty community. If they make more inroads into prep schools, they might even start replacing the athlete groups as well. Where my son goes to school, out of a class of 30, we have 3 East Asians, 1 Indian, and my kid who's half-Indian. That's a decent haul for prep school. The long term effect of the Asian student body will eventually change the ALDC group as well.

I want all legacy out. Don't care if it's going to be more Asian in the future (even though I'm Korean-American.)

We're supposed to be helping those that are less fortunate with some upward mobility - not keep the privileged even more privileged. The privileged already have built in advantages like expensive tutoring and hired guns that help them get in - they should get in the rest of the way on their own merit. Not have to score less higher than normal kids - that's bullshit.

I personally have gone to school in my earlier years (JHS) in a predominantly Latino/black school in NYC. These kids have NO CHANCE at a good education. I know. - I went there. Luckily, my parents pulled me out in the beginning of 7th grade and I went to a better school.

 

[panamaican]

I want all legacy out. Don't care if it's going to be more Asian in the future (even though I'm Korean-American.)

We're supposed to be helping those that are less fortunate with some upward mobility - not keep the privileged even more privileged. The privileged already have built in advantages like expensive tutoring and hired guns that help them get in - they should get in the rest of the way on their own merit. Not have to score less higher than normal kids - that's bullshit.

I personally have gone to school in my earlier years (JHS) in a predominantly Latino/black school in NYC. These kids have NO CHANCE at a good education. I know. - I went there. Luckily, my parents pulled me out in the beginning of 7th grade and I went to a better school.

I won't disagree on the unfair fact that many of the supposedly meritocratic systems in this country are designed to reward those who already have rather that those who do not. Unfortunately, because of historical reasons those "have vs. have not" breakdowns correspond with racial breakdowns as well.

A huge part of it (and part of why I send my kid to prep school) is understanding the system and how to manipulate it. And for many immigrant families, they don't know the system. Both of my parents are high education immigrants and when I tell them the things I'm learning after only a single year in the prep school environment, they're amazed. Once you understand how the institutions (college and the job world) are making their choices, you realize that so much of what you've been told isn't true.

Hard work is valued. But it's only if it's applied in really specific areas. General hard work is not. There is a set of cultural and social capital in play that many immigrant families don't realize is more highly valued than general raw ability. And rather than maximizing those things, they focus on the outwardly meritocratic components of grades and test performance.

I joke (partially) that I've got my kid playing lacrosse instead of basketball because it's a better way of gaming the college system. I'd have him play squash if that's what it took. He still has to work hard and be high ability. But high ability in basketball won't get him into as many elite colleges as high ability in lacrosse. The system rewards lacrosse more than it rewards hoops.

Similarly, my wife is a regular volunteer at the school because when it comes time for the teacher recommendations, we know that if they see us positively, they're going to write more positively about our son. We're building that social relationship as parents because of the payoff for something that has nothing to do with his academic ability. But this too is meritocratic. There are parents who don't volunteer at all, they never come to the school. We're outworking those parents and our kid will get the better teacher rec's because of it. Meritocratic.

So we're not talking about a failing of meritocracy in the truest sense. We're talking about a failure of knowledge. All of these families are working hard. Some of them are working hard on the wrong things or neglecting the right ones.

 

[Hog-train]

I won't disagree on the unfair fact that many of the supposedly meritocratic systems in this country are designed to reward those who already have rather that those who do not. Unfortunately, because of historical reasons those "have vs. have not" breakdowns correspond with racial breakdowns as well.

A huge part of it (and part of why I send my kid to prep school) is understanding the system and how to manipulate it. And for many immigrant families, they don't know the system. Both of my parents are high education immigrants and when I tell them the things I'm learning after only a single year in the prep school environment, they're amazed. Once you understand how the institutions (college and the job world) are making their choices, you realize that so much of what you've been told isn't true.

Hard work is valued. But it's only if it's applied in really specific areas. General hard work is not. There is a set of cultural and social capital in play that many immigrant families don't realize is more highly valued than general raw ability. And rather than maximizing those things, they focus on the outwardly meritocratic components of grades and test performance.

I joke (partially) that I've got my kid playing lacrosse instead of basketball because it's a better way of gaming the college system. I'd have him play squash if that's what it took. He still has to work hard and be high ability. But high ability in basketball won't get him into as many elite colleges as high ability in lacrosse. The system rewards lacrosse more than it rewards hoops.

Similarly, my wife is a regular volunteer at the school because when it comes time for the teacher recommendations, we know that if they see us positively, they're going to write more positively about our son. We're building that social relationship as parents because of the payoff for something that has nothing to do with his academic ability. But this too is meritocratic. There are parents who don't volunteer at all, they never come to the school. We're outworking those parents and our kid will get the better teacher rec's because of it. Meritocratic.

So we're not talking about a failing of meritocracy in the truest sense. We're talking about a failure of knowledge. All of these families are working hard. Some of them are working hard on the wrong things or neglecting the right ones.

^^^ I just feel any institution that takes billions in Federal taxpayer dollars, should be as meritocratic and fair for all as possible.

In fact, legacy should be illegal IMO for any school taking public money. Which nearly every school in the country takes - Harvard especially.

 

[panamaican]

^^^ I just feel any institution that takes billions in Federal taxpayer dollars, should be as meritocratic and fair for all as possible.

In fact, legacy should be illegal IMO for any school taking public money. Which nearly every school in the country takes - Harvard especially.

My point is that it is meritocratic if you're paying attention to the right criteria.

That's the why I made the basketball vs. lacrosse example. A student can work just as hard at both sports but lacrosse is more attractive to the Ivies. Is it unmeritocratic that they value lacrosse more than basketball? Is that unfair to basketball players?

I don't think so. I think that it's very meritocratic but it's up to the student to know that lacrosse is more important than basketball and then act accordingly.

Colleges value more than just test scores and GPAs. They are very meritocratic within the things that they value. The problem is when students and/or parents refuse to adapt to what the colleges value and insist on what they, the parent, values instead. That's just being stubborn.

If the parents want to focus on 2 things over other things then they, the parent, should find colleges that value those 2 things to the exclusion of other things. But if they want access to a college that value 5 things then they have to understand that meritocracy is based on all 5 things, not just 2. If you know the rules of the game and you refuse to adapt, that's not a lack of meritocracy, that's a failure to adapt.

 

[SammyPops]

You only have to work like a bitch for one or two generations. Then you’ve got capital and use that to make money.

Na bro. The trick to getting rich and that privilege is to exploit people of colour, usually blacks.

 

[SammyPops]

Just adding some information from the researchers who testified.


Divergent: The Time Path of Legacy and Athlete Admissions at Harvard
Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom
NBER Working Paper No. 26315
Issued in September 2019
NBER Program(s):The Education Program, The Law and Economics Program

Applications to elite US colleges have more than doubled over the past 20 years, with little change in the number of available seats. We examine how this increased competition has affected the admissions advantage that legacies and athletes (LA) receive. Using data on Harvard applications over 18 years, we show that non-legacy, non-athlete (NLNA) applications grew considerably and that LA applications remained flat. Yet, the share of LA admits remained stable, implying substantial increases in admissions advantages for legacies and athletes. We develop a simple theoretical model of university admissions to frame our empirical analysis. Viewed through the lens of the model, stability in the share of LA admits implies that elite colleges treat the number of LA admits and overall admit quality as complements. Our empirical analysis reveals that, if the admissions advantages for LA applicants had been constant throughout this period, there would have been a large increase in the number of minority admits.

Maybe I'm missing the point or out of date, but legacies are key to these schools success. The schools want to connect the smartest students with the richest students, no?

 

[Doughbelly]

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.

That’s not how it works.

And if the doctor working on you only has a PhD, then you’ve got bigger problems.

 

[panamaican]

Maybe I'm missing the point or out of date, but legacies are key to these schools success. The schools want to connect the smartest students with the richest students, no?

You're not out of date. The schools reward legacies and donors because it's good for the schools long term financial and reputation success.

The thing is that legacy and donor's admissions are not about test scores and GPAs. THere are some people who think that the colleges should only focus on test scores and GPAs. The reality is that if the schools did that, they'd lose a lot of the donors and legacies that help sustain the reputation that makes the schools desirable in the first place.

But if people are concerned about academic meritocracy then they should be aware of the extent to which non-academic criteria (such as legacies and donors) impact admissions. And that impact appears to be significant.

 

[SammyPops]

You're not out of date. The schools reward legacies and donors because it's good for the schools long term financial and reputation success.

The thing is that legacy and donor's admissions are not about test scores and GPAs. THere are some people who think that the colleges should only focus on test scores and GPAs. The reality is that if the schools did that, they'd lose a lot of the donors and legacies that help sustain the reputation that makes the schools desirable in the first place.

But if people are concerned about academic meritocracy then they should be aware of the extent to which non-academic criteria (such as legacies and donors) impact admissions. And that impact appears to be significant.

Those people be crazy. I want the smartest people connecting with the top .1%

 

[panamaican]

Those people be crazy. I want the smartest people connecting with the top .1%

Harvard takes it one step further. They want people with the best odds of changing the world connected with the people most capable of financing it.

They don't care about smart unless it's world changing smart. They care about leadership. And anyone who's worked a real job knows that the smartest guy in the office is frequently not the best leader on the team. They'd rather have an above average leader than a brilliant follower.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

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.

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.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Those people be crazy. I want the smartest people connecting with the top .1%

Ya but it complex question and issue despite many pretending it is not.

Who is smarter and more capable:

- the guy who has zero life outside studying,is socially awkward, and has overbearing demanding parents, and scores a 95%
- A guy who is Captain of the football team, Plays on the chess team, is very capable socially, has two supportive parents who ensure he has a tutor at his disposal whenever needed, and scores a 93%
- a guy who grows up in a single parent home, with a mom who has a drug problem, is looking after a younger sibling, while living an exemplary life and scores a 92%


There are some people (if i am reading him right @Hog-train might be on) who would see this as fairly clear and would take the one with 95% first, then 93% second and 92% third.

I would probably reverse it or maybe take 93% first then 92% and 95% last. Why? Because its not all about grades. Schools are also training grounds with a mandate to get young people ready for life and careers and the guy with 95% is not showing in that resume the value he would have for anything outside a pure research job.

 

[ferrisjso]

I had a race and ethnic studies teacher who was really butthurt about Asians. Every time she'd give some reason it's impossible for Black's to be successful like they are poor, don't have have white priveledge act. Then someone would say "what about Asian immigrants" and she'd get all pissy. Then she actually blamed Asians for making blacks feel bad and that held them back too. I actually completely don't blame Black's for failing. They are people like anyone else. So you have to look at why they do. It's culture. Why do they have the culture they do? Partly because of white people, politics, slavery, it all plays a role. I don't blame them at all. But I think we need all begin to recognize that culture does drive success or failure in different ways. Everything is based on culture. And most people act like culture doesn't even exist. They think they hold thoughts they do just because it's common sense. Now I'm rambling...

It's not like there was a political attempt to prevent African Americans from accumulating wealth or anything like that which makes the examples uncomfortable. Pretty sure teacher mentioned that and you probably ignored them.

 

[Too Rolling Stoned]

Harvard takes it one step further. They want people with the best odds of changing the world connected with the people most capable of financing it.

They don't care about smart unless it's world changing smart. They care about leadership. And anyone who's worked a real job knows that the smartest guy in the office is frequently not the best leader on the team. They'd rather have an above average leader than a brilliant follower.

You just described Donald J. Trump with your post. Bravo.

 

[panamaican]

You just described Donald J. Trump with your post. Bravo.

No, I said an above average leader. He's not.