Supreme Court to Take Up Harvard, UNC Affirmative Action Cases

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

I'm for racial fairness, for ALL races. How about you.

I have no clue what mental gymnastics have to be done to see this any other way. If you make any decisions based on race alone, it's the definition of racist.

racist
[ rey-sist ]SHOW IPA



See synonyms for racist on Thesaurus.com
📓 High School Level
noun
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Any twerp pushing for racial diversity should shut up or say something to the NFL or NBA because I don't see too many lesbian Asians in wheelchairs on the teams.

CORRECT. The NFL and NBA are not diverse enough and we demand proportional racial representation by population in these sports. #Diversity #Equity

Claiming that sports should be based on merit and skills is racist.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
"Affirmative action" has never been about "leveling the playing field" or "diversity". It has always been about keeping racism alive, brought to you by the party of racism, the democrats.

They aren't trying to help minorities, especially black people. They are constantly reminding black people they are black, and are incapable of doing anything for themselves because they are oppressed. And they are, by the same rich white liberals claiming to be fighting for them. It equates to keeping them on the plantation dependent on their masters.

They're just hoping the minorities in this country never figure out who the real racists are.

a reply to: CptGreenTea


If that's who's earned it, that's who should be there. PERIOD.

Jaden

I'll take a more nuanced assessment of this issue being a minority and one who has also graduated from an elite school. Generally, I don't like "race quotas" but I do support affirmative action in terms of outreach.

The problem I have with these cases is that they attempt to over simplify the admissions process at elite schools. Admissions at elite schools has never been solely about merit as defined by GPA & SAT scores. NEVER. There has always been a qualitative aspect to admissions down to something as simple as being from a state where they don't have a lot of students. You have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard coming from Iowa than if you are say from Connecticut. Having a high GPA / SAT score is only maybe 50% of the admissions criteria.

These schools are essentially like fraternities and sororities. They are elite clubs. Academic qualifications are a big part of admissions, but it much more than that. The schools are trying to create a student body that is diverse across all kinds of backgrounds. In addition, there are far more people who are "qualified" than can actually be admitted.

What is actually happening with these cases is that many people feel entitled to attend certain schools. Graduating from these schools opens doors and acts as a social calling card in the upper classes. This is why there was the scandal a couple of years ago with the celebs / wealthy paying off admissions counselors at UCLA / USC / Stanford, etc.

When applicants don't get accepted, they look for someone to blame. The easy choices is a "minority" who may not have had as high of a score (but very well may be more qualified in other ways). You don't need perfect GPAs and high SAT scores to do well at these schools. Academic achievement is certainly a metric, but it also has diminishing returns as well in terms of performance.

When it comes to elite schools, admissions is a crap shoot. If someone is truly qualified, they will get into an elite school. It just may not be your first choice. Someone may get accepted to Harvard but dinged at Yale. They get into Princeton but a no from Stanford. If you don't get into any, you simply weren't qualified. This is why college applicants have their 1st choice schools. Reach schools. Safety schools.

These cases are nothing more than upper class rejects feeling their life is going to be a failure because they didn't get accepted at a certain school.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
"Affirmative action" has never been about "leveling the playing field" or "diversity". It has always been about keeping racism alive, brought to you by the party of racism, the democrats.

They aren't trying to help minorities, especially black people. They are constantly reminding black people they are black, and are incapable of doing anything for themselves because they are oppressed. And they are, by the same rich white liberals claiming to be fighting for them. It equates to keeping them on the plantation dependent on their masters.

They're just hoping the minorities in this country never figure out who the real racists are.

Yup.

And all the colleges had to do was simply enroll more students and expand the classes and staff. But NO that would actually cause another problem !! 😵🥥

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

I'm for racial fairness, for ALL races. How about you.

I have no clue what mental gymnastics have to be done to see this any other way. If you make any decisions based on race alone, it's the definition of racist.

racist
[ rey-sist ]SHOW IPA



See synonyms for racist on Thesaurus.com
📓 High School Level
noun
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Any twerp pushing for racial diversity should shut up or say something to the NFL or NBA because I don't see too many lesbian Asians in wheelchairs on the teams.

Sports isn't really a direct comparison. There isn't much nuance in sports by in large. It is one of the few areas where there is a true meritocracy. You either win or you didn't. Not much else really matters most of the time. Therefore, the rules and playing field are quite level. If you can run a 4.4 40 yard dash and catch the ball, odds are you will make the team regardless of any other flaws. Academics and professional life doesn't work that way.

If we want to be fair, then NCAA D1 sports should also not be allowed to accept "unqualified" applicants either. Most NCAA basketball players at D1 schools can barely be considered literate based on their SAT scores. Duke. GA Tech. All have significantly different admissions requirements for their star athletes.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
"Affirmative action" has never been about "leveling the playing field" or "diversity". It has always been about keeping racism alive, brought to you by the party of racism, the democrats.

They aren't trying to help minorities, especially black people. They are constantly reminding black people they are black, and are incapable of doing anything for themselves because they are oppressed. And they are, by the same rich white liberals claiming to be fighting for them. It equates to keeping them on the plantation dependent on their masters.

They're just hoping the minorities in this country never figure out who the real racists are.

Yup.

And all the colleges had to do was simply enroll more students and expand the classes and staff. But NO that would actually cause another problem !! 😵🥥

Expanding enrollment doesn't work well because it takes away from the prestige of said degree.

Agree 100%.

originally posted by: ancientlight
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
I agree that the only way to determine if someone is accepted should be based on ability/motivation, nothing else, definitely not race.
Also, don't forget that 'inclusive , diverse, and equal ' are Marxists terms.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I'll take a more nuanced assessment of this issue being a minority and one who has also graduated from an elite school. Generally, I don't like "race quotas" but I do support affirmative action in terms of outreach.

The problem I have with these cases is that they attempt to over simplify the admissions process at elite schools. Admissions at elite schools has never been solely about merit as defined by GPA & SAT scores. NEVER. There has always been a qualitative aspect to admissions down to something as simple as being from a state where they don't have a lot of students. You have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard coming from Iowa than if you are say from Connecticut. Having a high GPA / SAT score is only maybe 50% of the admissions criteria.

These schools are essentially like fraternities and sororities. They are elite clubs. Academic qualifications are a big part of admissions, but it much more than that. The schools are trying to create a student body that is diverse across all kinds of backgrounds. In addition, there are far more people who are "qualified" than can actually be admitted.

What is actually happening with these cases is that many people feel entitled to attend certain schools. Graduating from these schools opens doors and acts as a social calling card in the upper classes. This is why there was the scandal a couple of years ago with the celebs / wealthy paying off admissions counselors at UCLA / USC / Stanford, etc.

When applicants don't get accepted, they look for someone to blame. The easy choices is a "minority" who may not have had as high of a score (but very well may be more qualified in other ways). You don't need perfect GPAs and high SAT scores to do well at these schools. Academic achievement is certainly a metric, but it also has diminishing returns as well in terms of performance.

When it comes to elite schools, admissions is a crap shoot. If someone is truly qualified, they will get into an elite school. It just may not be your first choice. Someone may get accepted to Harvard but dinged at Yale. They get into Princeton but a no from Stanford. If you don't get into any, you simply weren't qualified. This is why college applicants have their 1st choice schools. Reach schools. Safety schools.

These cases are nothing more than upper class rejects feeling their life is going to be a failure because they didn't get accepted at a certain school.

The thing is, there is a large difference between the original stated criteria and goals, and how it is practiced.

I can assure you I have been passed over several times for promotions in serious jobs, with serious impact, for minority individuals who demonstrably were underqualified. This matters when the programs themselves impact a lot of people.

For example, I currently work on a project that impacts almost 200,000 people. They promoted a highly intelligent, hardworking woman of color to leadership.

However, she is much less experienced than many of us, and not sufficiently experienced. Some of us have the requisite experience. She will one day rise to the occasion, but she has made classic mistakes due to inexperience that others would not have. These mistakes again impact dozens of staff and 200,000 people. What about those people?

If we look at the original court documents for affirmative action, they argued explicitly that they would not be pushing forward less qualified students, but instead equally qualified students. What we are seeing is that in academics and in my example, the professions, they are taking sometimes objectively less qualified individuals over some who have worked harder and longer.

I think the professions exemplify the issue better. How is it just to accelerate a 27 year old woman of color for diversity quotas over a 40 year old who has worked their ass off for years, just because the latter is white? What if the job is high impact and needs a more experienced person? What about the rights and hard work of the latter?

The professions also exemplify the issues with affirmative action better because unlike the 100,000 college spots, as you said if you work hard you will get in somewhere good most likely, there are far fewer prestigious professional jobs especially in one's field.

There is a huge difference between applying for one of 5,000 spots for the freshman class at a school, versus three positions at a government agency or JP Morgan.

Going back to schools, it's factually true the algorithms privilege people of color (except Asians). It's easy to claim it's just entitlement when you are getting privileged by it. Many individuals get passed over due to these issues. That mattered to their life path. That mattered to their opportunities. Before people think I'm only mad because I didn't get in, no, I worked my way up from public college to ending at Columbia University, an Ivy League. I got in, yes.

But, I have seen the serious blockages in hiring and promotion practices.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
"Affirmative action" has never been about "leveling the playing field" or "diversity". It has always been about keeping racism alive, brought to you by the party of racism, the democrats.

They aren't trying to help minorities, especially black people. They are constantly reminding black people they are black, and are incapable of doing anything for themselves because they are oppressed. And they are, by the same rich white liberals claiming to be fighting for them. It equates to keeping them on the plantation dependent on their masters.

They're just hoping the minorities in this country never figure out who the real racists are.

Yup.

And all the colleges had to do was simply enroll more students and expand the classes and staff. But NO that would actually cause another problem !! 😵🥥

Expanding enrollment doesn't work well because it takes away from the prestige of said degree.

Anyone that thinks an educational degree requires prestige, is an idiot.

The idea of any school providing prestige to a student, just because they attended, is stupid.

An educational degree should indicate capability and that a student mastered the required material to hold that degree.
That is it.

originally posted by: Archivalist

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
"Affirmative action" has never been about "leveling the playing field" or "diversity". It has always been about keeping racism alive, brought to you by the party of racism, the democrats.

They aren't trying to help minorities, especially black people. They are constantly reminding black people they are black, and are incapable of doing anything for themselves because they are oppressed. And they are, by the same rich white liberals claiming to be fighting for them. It equates to keeping them on the plantation dependent on their masters.

They're just hoping the minorities in this country never figure out who the real racists are.

Yup.

And all the colleges had to do was simply enroll more students and expand the classes and staff. But NO that would actually cause another problem !! 😵🥥

Expanding enrollment doesn't work well because it takes away from the prestige of said degree.

Anyone that thinks an educational degree requires prestige, is an idiot.

The idea of any school providing prestige to a student, just because they attended, is stupid.

An educational degree should indicate capability and that a student mastered the required material to hold that degree.
That is it.

That isn't the real world though. If prestige didn't matter, then affirmative action at Harvard doesn't matter either because one can easily go to a different school.

The reality is that different schools convey different levels of prestige and social acceptance. This is just a fact. I didn't say it is right or we have to like it. This is why you had some wealthy people willing to bribe more than the actual cost of tuition to get their little snowflakes a spot at certain schools. It isn't about the money, but the prestige a degree from certain schools carry.

Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

Harvard had 57,786 applicants last year. They had a 6% acceptance rate or about 3,467 acceptances. The freshman class is 15.9% black or about 554 students. So if we assume every one of the black students "unqualified" that would open up 554 spots. Basically, if there were no affirmative action, the chances of acceptance for typical student increased by .1%.

The reality is whether there is affirmative action or not, the odds of anyone getting into Harvard is basically zilch.

If someone didn't get into Harvard and was truly "qualified" they most likely got into Princeton or Yale instead. I am sure their life will turn out just fine.

Another number to chew on to illustrate. 2.2 million take the SAT every year. The top 1% of scores is about 22,000 students. Almost all of them probably apply to Harvard.

Remember, Harvard only accepted 3400 students last year. They could literally accept nothing but perfect SAT scores and still would have to deny admittance to majority of applicants. Again, acceptance doesn't have sh!t to do with just GPA/SAT scores.

a reply to: Edumakated

Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

It makes a world of difference to the 554 students that weren’t picked because……

Drumroll………….of their skin color. How ironic.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

It makes a world of difference to the 554 students that weren’t picked because……

Drumroll………….of their skin color. How ironic.

How intentional is more like it.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

It makes a world of difference to the 554 students that weren’t picked because……

Drumroll………….of their skin color. How ironic.

But it doesn't make a world of difference. Statistically, they still would not have been accepted, affirmative action or not.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I'll take a more nuanced assessment of this issue being a minority and one who has also graduated from an elite school. Generally, I don't like "race quotas" but I do support affirmative action in terms of outreach.

The problem I have with these cases is that they attempt to over simplify the admissions process at elite schools. Admissions at elite schools has never been solely about merit as defined by GPA & SAT scores. NEVER. There has always been a qualitative aspect to admissions down to something as simple as being from a state where they don't have a lot of students. You have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard coming from Iowa than if you are say from Connecticut. Having a high GPA / SAT score is only maybe 50% of the admissions criteria.

These schools are essentially like fraternities and sororities. They are elite clubs. Academic qualifications are a big part of admissions, but it much more than that. The schools are trying to create a student body that is diverse across all kinds of backgrounds. In addition, there are far more people who are "qualified" than can actually be admitted.

What is actually happening with these cases is that many people feel entitled to attend certain schools. Graduating from these schools opens doors and acts as a social calling card in the upper classes. This is why there was the scandal a couple of years ago with the celebs / wealthy paying off admissions counselors at UCLA / USC / Stanford, etc.

When applicants don't get accepted, they look for someone to blame. The easy choices is a "minority" who may not have had as high of a score (but very well may be more qualified in other ways). You don't need perfect GPAs and high SAT scores to do well at these schools. Academic achievement is certainly a metric, but it also has diminishing returns as well in terms of performance.

When it comes to elite schools, admissions is a crap shoot. If someone is truly qualified, they will get into an elite school. It just may not be your first choice. Someone may get accepted to Harvard but dinged at Yale. They get into Princeton but a no from Stanford. If you don't get into any, you simply weren't qualified. This is why college applicants have their 1st choice schools. Reach schools. Safety schools.

These cases are nothing more than upper class rejects feeling their life is going to be a failure because they didn't get accepted at a certain school.

I do agree with your overall point about the approach that some admissions offices take with respect to trying to build a complete, holistic student body, juggling both GPA/educational achievement and "other" stuff (which can volunteering, leadership roles in clubs, basically good things that "make you standout" among your peers).

My undergrad school placed emphasis on building a student profile that was not "one dimensional" with acing tests being your only attribute. This is sort of the calling card of a liberal arts education.

OTOH, when it comes to STEM, and science fields where everything revolves around data, it's a hard sell to reject candidates if they are the most qualified, in terms of their academic performance. This is what I see in the software industry, building on changes in school and working up. An interview for a programmer job 20 years ago was, sitting down with several HR/colleagues, shooting the breeze, talking shop, and if it seemed like you had some knowledge and you were likable, you got the job. Now? For top software roles, you are spending weeks studying for the battery of algorithm and coding questions you will be subjected to over the course of hours, sometimes multiple sessions, to PROVE you can hack it. There is really little room for wiggling through on your likability or your background. You can either do the work, or you can't. It is about as cold and objective as it can get.

This hyper-competitiveness is the result of the best and brightest coming here to search out education and employment, and it has raised the bar significantly. 20 years ago, you were competing with Joe or Jill down the street, or maybe in a different state, for a job or a seat at a good school. That competition pool is now global.

So while I agree with what you say to an extent, for liberal arts fields, yeah, there can be other measurable to fall back on to get you into school. Surprise surprise, liberal arts fields are not overflowing with kids from abroad knocking down doors. It's the STEM schools that are highly sought out and highly competitive.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

Harvard had 57,786 applicants last year. They had a 6% acceptance rate or about 3,467 acceptances. The freshman class is 15.9% black or about 554 students. So if we assume every one of the black students "unqualified" that would open up 554 spots. Basically, if there were no affirmative action, the chances of acceptance for typical student increased by .1%.

The reality is whether there is affirmative action or not, the odds of anyone getting into Harvard is basically zilch.

If someone didn't get into Harvard and was truly "qualified" they most likely got into Princeton or Yale instead. I am sure their life will turn out just fine.

Another number to chew on to illustrate. 2.2 million take the SAT every year. The top 1% of scores is about 22,000 students. Almost all of them probably apply to Harvard.

Remember, Harvard only accepted 3400 students last year. They could literally accept nothing but perfect SAT scores and still would have to deny admittance to majority of applicants. Again, acceptance doesn't have sh!t to do with just GPA/SAT scores.

You avoided my point about how this is being applied in the professions, though, which it absolutely is.

Unlike the huge amount of enrollment spots, even in elite schools, there are far fewer quality openings at quality organizations, in one's profession of choice.

In these contexts absolutely there are white people being passed over for those few spots, and no they often are not getting into "Princeton and Yale" instead. Or, you just can't get promoted or do so very very slowly, artificially so.

Regarding these elite schools and SATS or MCATs, GREs, etc for grad school, it's been demonstrated that you have to have a far lower score as a non-white or asian to get in for any of them.

a reply to: Edumakated

www.forbes.com... 923ed274ce0

Harvard said getting rid of race considerations in its admissions would result in “steep declines in diversity,” noting taking race out of the equation entirely would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: CptGreenTea


If that's who's earned it, that's who should be there. PERIOD.

Jaden

it's as if they are saying, you are too smart to go to our dumb ass school coz we don't have teachers smart enough to teach you.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: Edumakated
Let me demonstrate how silly this is lawsuit is and that affirmative action has practically NO IMPACT on the typical applicant's chances.

Harvard had 57,786 applicants last year. They had a 6% acceptance rate or about 3,467 acceptances. The freshman class is 15.9% black or about 554 students. So if we assume every one of the black students "unqualified" that would open up 554 spots. Basically, if there were no affirmative action, the chances of acceptance for typical student increased by .1%.

The reality is whether there is affirmative action or not, the odds of anyone getting into Harvard is basically zilch.

If someone didn't get into Harvard and was truly "qualified" they most likely got into Princeton or Yale instead. I am sure their life will turn out just fine.

Another number to chew on to illustrate. 2.2 million take the SAT every year. The top 1% of scores is about 22,000 students. Almost all of them probably apply to Harvard.

Remember, Harvard only accepted 3400 students last year. They could literally accept nothing but perfect SAT scores and still would have to deny admittance to majority of applicants. Again, acceptance doesn't have sh!t to do with just GPA/SAT scores.

You avoided my point about how this is being applied in the professions, though, which it absolutely is.

Unlike the huge amount of enrollment spots, even in elite schools, there are far fewer quality openings at quality organizations, in one's profession of choice.

In these contexts absolutely there are white people being passed over for those few spots, and no they often are not getting into "Princeton and Yale" instead. Or, you just can't get promoted or do so very very slowly, artificially so.

Regarding these elite schools and SATS or MCATs, GREs, etc for grad school, it's been demonstrated that you have to have a far lower score as a non-white or asian to get in for any of them.

I don't agree with racial quotas as I stated in earlier post. Government agencies tend to be pretty bad hiring for color instead of qualifications. Think police chiefs, etc. I personally have not seen it as much in the private professional setting. You either perform or you don't.

Being professional and black, I find it funny because the way some folks talk you'd think there are black folks everywhere at these high level jobs which simply isn't the case. When I came out of college, I worked at a strategy consulting firm. I was literally the first black in my position. There were only like 2 black partners in a company of like 6,000 people. I literally knew like every single black person at the firm. At best there was maybe 20 or so nationwide. If there is all this black priviledge from affirmative action, I certainly have not seen it.

There simply aren't a statistically significant number of black professionals. In addition, as I demonstrated, there aren't a ton at these schools either.

I support affirmative action in companies and schools making a concerted effort to find qualified minorities whether it is racial, geographic or whatever characteristic they feel helps add to the diversity of their student body or work force. These schools don't want one dimensional applicants. I also stress qualified.

I did my MBA at one of the elite business schools. I also worked in admissions. At top schools, every applicant has to have a "story" and depending on your background, it may be tougher or easier for you to get accepted. The only business school I did not get accepted to was Harvard and I am black, so I certainly didn't get the black advantage. One of my black co-workers was accepted. I was just as qualified, if not more so. However, he had what they wanted. I didn't. No biggie. I got in the other elite business schools because I was qualified. Another white co-worker of mine got into Harvard... he quipped the only reason he was accepted was he was from Iowa. He had the story they wanted. Ironically, he didn't get into UNC which is far less selective / prestigious. It is all a crap shoot.

For business schools, work experience is far more important even though GMAT / GPA matters as well. If you are working at McKinsey or Goldman, when you apply that is the cohort you are competing against. The expectations are higher. On the other hand, if you are a school teacher looking to change careers, you might actually have an easier time getting in. The McKinsey analyst applying to business school is a dime a dozen whereas a bright school teacher can provide a different life experience and thus may have a better story for admission.

To be frank, Asians with high GPAs and test scores are a dime a dozen. Again, that isn't what they are looking for necessarily. It is the other stuff that matters more so than anything. The volunteering, arts and other talents, career aspirations, etc. The stuff that makes you unique and special. if there are only 2500 spots available and you have 10,000 applicants all who have 4.0 GPAs / perfect SAT scores... you still have to reject 7500 people even though they are "qualified". The schools are in a position to pick and choose who they want. That is the reality.

I empathize and can understand how some might think it is reverse discrimination but I think it over simplifies what is happening with admissions at these elite schools.