SCOTUS

[a fan]

Right... and how much has gone to Ukraine over the past year?

+1. Man, I hope this reluctance to arm the world that's hitting the Republican voters is permanent, and not just a flash in the pan.

Iraq and Syria was ~$2.9 Trillion, and the meter is still running on veteran care.

[MDlaxfan76]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

[tech37]

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Disagree. "a whole lot of folks" are struggling to realize the so-called American Dream themselves (truly a struggle). In general (of course there are exceptions), it's not a conscious effort to hold others back as you claim.

[a fan]

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Disagree. "a whole lot of folks" are struggling to realize the so-called American Dream themselves (truly a struggle). In general (of course there are exceptions), it's not a conscious effort to hold others back as you claim.

I don't think it's conscious. But what I do think is that it's REALLY difficult to get Americans to listen when you tell them the playing field is nowhere close to level when it comes to public k-12 education in America.

And yes, part of the unwillingness to listen is that they're struggling. So the tendency is to waive these thoughts away with a "I'm struggling, too....so quit complaining".

To me, the response should be, "you're struggling? Ok. How can we help?"

[DocBarrister]

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

Amen. Especially on the electrician part. We've starved Federal money from blue collar job training long enough.

Great place to get money? Balance the budget. We blew well over $400 billion last year on payments on interest. Wasted money because the wankers in charge don't believe in paying for what we get.

Only one party has been serious about job training and reducing the deficit … the Democrats.

DocBarrister

[tech37]

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Disagree. "a whole lot of folks" are struggling to realize the so-called American Dream themselves (truly a struggle). In general (of course there are exceptions), it's not a conscious effort to hold others back as you claim.

I don't think it's conscious. But what I do think is that it's REALLY difficult to get Americans to listen when you tell them the playing field is nowhere close to level when it comes to public k-12 education in America.

And yes, part of the unwillingness to listen is that they're struggling. So the tendency is to waive these thoughts away with a "I'm struggling, too....so quit complaining".

To me, the response should be, "you're struggling? Ok. How can we help?"

Who's asking the question?

[get it to x]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

[a fan]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

Right... and how much has gone to Ukraine over the past year?

Want some figures that will blow you all away, and tell you why some folks feel like they're getting hammered on taxes?

Everyone looks at the 50's as the point where the US was at its best, economically.

In 1952, Corporate Tax revenue made up 31% of total Federal Revenue.

Anyone want to take a swing at where it is now, after a few decades of corruption?

Hint: it's now in the single digits.

[a fan]

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Disagree. "a whole lot of folks" are struggling to realize the so-called American Dream themselves (truly a struggle). In general (of course there are exceptions), it's not a conscious effort to hold others back as you claim.

I don't think it's conscious. But what I do think is that it's REALLY difficult to get Americans to listen when you tell them the playing field is nowhere close to level when it comes to public k-12 education in America.

And yes, part of the unwillingness to listen is that they're struggling. So the tendency is to waive these thoughts away with a "I'm struggling, too....so quit complaining".

To me, the response should be, "you're struggling? Ok. How can we help?"

Who's asking the question?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Can you rephrase?

[DocBarrister]

You guys are mostly missing the point.

At most selective schools, the legacy admits are quite well qualified. Because they are upper SES, they typically have strong test scores.

They are just not super duper stars. But with a smidge of a break/tip they can get in. And the KEY is that their parents usually can full pay. Which means those kids ENROLL at very high rates. Legacy admissions isn't about getting mom and dad to donate a new library. It is about getting mom and dad to stroke the tuition checks.

The game really is not about who can get admitted. The game is about who can ENROLL. And enrollment requires (i) admission and (ii) ability to pay. (i) without (ii) doesn't mean anything to the school or the kid. The game is about YIELD (i.e. enrollment), not about admission.

Most schools (except MIT) have partially/completely moved beyond test scores. Once you do that, you have tons of leeway on who you admit.

But the KEY is how you spend the FA dollars to enable kids to ENROLL. Previously, a top school (relying heavily on test scores) could admit a lot of hi stat kids who a very likely full payors (including legacies). Which conserved a lot of FA dollars for the lower stat and higher need minority kids.

20% of Harvard kids attend for free -- many of them minority. But importantly, a very high 45% of Harvard kids full pay.

Now, the high need pool will have more white, Asian and female kids of modest means. How the schools decide to handle the increased need of their admit pools will determine what the outcome is going to be.

Given that, the impact at Berkeley and UNC (not so many FA dollars) should be expected to be quite different from the impact at the $$$ privates like HYPS.

The difference in legacy admit rates are extremely different from the general admit rate at elite schools.

For example, legacy applicants have an admission rate of 14% at Harvard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/l ... ities.html

That’s about 4x the general admission rate for Harvard, which is around 3.4%.

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blo ... ance-rate/

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Johns Hopkins and Amherst have dropped legacy preferences. Let’s see if Harvard, which really f*cked up the struggle to preserve affirmative action, can begin to make amends by eliminating their legacy preference program.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

MD’s last paragraph is just a statement of fact. It’s not something to be believed or not believed … it just is.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

You guys are mostly missing the point.

At most selective schools, the legacy admits are quite well qualified. Because they are upper SES, they typically have strong test scores.

They are just not super duper stars. But with a smidge of a break/tip they can get in. And the KEY is that their parents usually can full pay. Which means those kids ENROLL at very high rates. Legacy admissions isn't about getting mom and dad to donate a new library. It is about getting mom and dad to stroke the tuition checks.

The game really is not about who can get admitted. The game is about who can ENROLL. And enrollment requires (i) admission and (ii) ability to pay. (i) without (ii) doesn't mean anything to the school or the kid. The game is about YIELD (i.e. enrollment), not about admission.

Most schools (except MIT) have partially/completely moved beyond test scores. Once you do that, you have tons of leeway on who you admit.

But the KEY is how you spend the FA dollars to enable kids to ENROLL. Previously, a top school (relying heavily on test scores) could admit a lot of hi stat kids who a very likely full payors (including legacies). Which conserved a lot of FA dollars for the lower stat and higher need minority kids.

20% of Harvard kids attend for free -- many of them minority. But importantly, a very high 45% of Harvard kids full pay.

Now, the high need pool will have more white, Asian and female kids of modest means. How the schools decide to handle the increased need of their admit pools will determine what the outcome is going to be.

Given that, the impact at Berkeley and UNC (not so many FA dollars) should be expected to be quite different from the impact at the $$$ privates like HYPS.

The difference in legacy admit rates are extremely different from the general admit rate at elite schools.

For example, legacy applicants have an admission rate of 14% at Harvard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/l ... ities.html

That’s about 4x the general admission rate for Harvard, which is around 3.4%.

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blo ... ance-rate/

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Johns Hopkins and Amherst have dropped legacy preferences. Let’s see if Harvard, which really f*cked up the struggle to preserve affirmative action, can begin to make amends by eliminating their legacy preference program.

DocBarrister

Doc, how long ago did Hopkins drop legacy?

I've been arguing that it's inevitable for the most selective schools if they're well endowed...
That's right, Bloomberg dough is what made it possible for Daniels to finally implement it in 2020.

I expect Harvard and other Ivies will do so in the wake of this ruling; but you may understand that the admissions folks have been wanting to do it for quite awhile, right?

But it's us alumni...

[MDlaxfan76]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

That reality makes me sad as well.

Your subsequent statements make my point, or at least my "in denial" point.
Presumably you don't want those advantages to be unfair.

But the in denial crowd enable the don't want to lose advantage crowd to maintain the realities.

Fortunately, there are also at least some people who indeed counsel initiative and resilience in the face of disadvantage, offering a little helping hand, a little encouragement.

Denial crowd doesn't participate unfortunately. They just scold and berate and put down...

And that's sad, as our society could surely use their energies to the positive.

[DocBarrister]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna66770

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC
The ruling is the culmination of a decades-long effort to end the consideration of race in admissions.

So...who is likely to actually benefit versus who assumes they will benefit?

I'm going to use generalized terms below, but obviously sentiments are not uniform, I'm just talking about the generalized demographics.

Certainly, for now Asians, who currently over 2.5X overrepresented in the most highly selective schools relative to share of US population, but hope to achieve an even greater share of admissions. That's who ostensibly sued.

But who backed those suits and are cheering, thinking they will gain a larger share going forward?
Whites...and particularly white men. Rich white men and their families financially backed the suit, lots of other white men were led to believe the current situation is unfair to them...so think they should cheer. https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

Men receive the largest boost in admissions benefit on average, so...when does the challenge to gender-based admissions happen? Surely the targets of gender balance are discriminatory?

Women would hold way more admissions acceptances if we decided to only consider high school test scores and SAT's...close to 60:40.

Whites, whether rich or poor, think they are being discriminated again because some Blacks and Hispanics are accepted with lower scores than some white men who are rejected. And yet, Blacks and Hispanics remain under-respected proportionally in these schools.

So, what are these schools, which believe in their brains, hearts, and guts that a diverse campus improves the educational experience of all of the students going to do?

Are they just going to accept double, triple the number of Asian students and eliminate most Black and Hispanic and Native, etc acceptances? Are they going to accept 60% women, 40% men?

Nope, I think what we'll see is alternative ways to accomplish the various cultural and demographic balances that the schools are looking to achieve.

I think we'll see higher emphasis on socio-economic status and an elimination in legacy advantage. And yes, there will be increasing percentages of women versus men.

Asians will likely grow a little, but where the give-up will come is with Whites, and particularly white men.

Teeth gnashing to come...

... would largely agree but would add, given that the conservative grifters on the court have found ways around laws to get what they want, the colleges and universities who believe in diversity are equally capable of maintaining the status quo or extending it by going around the law.

There will be raising up in the streets I would suspect.

The ruling leaves plenty of latitude for UNC and Harvard to meet their diversity goals, they just have to do it a little differently. If you really cared about "underserved" minorities, you would be more interested in narrowing the academic skills gap. The problem isn't lack of admissions, it's the lack of qualified minority applicants, especially in the case of "Hahvad". The main issues are cultural emphasis on schooling and access to a first class K-12 education.

But conservatives are generally hostile to education and financial support for education, schools, and teachers.

UC Berkeley has had nearly a quarter century to figure out how to maintain diversity without affirmative action, which was banned in California in the 1990s.

The Dean of Admissions at Berkeley has openly admitted failure in that effort.

BERKELEY, Calif. — The University of California at Berkeley has labored to enroll more Black and Latino students in the quarter century since the state barred the consideration of race or ethnicity in its admissions.

Still, those groups remain underrepresented at the renowned public university here on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay. The gap is huge for Latino students. They account for 55% of California's public school students, state data show, but 19% of UC-Berkeley undergraduates.

… Olufemi Ogundele, UCBerkeley's dean of admissions, said he wishes the university could do more to represent the breadth of the nation's most populous state.

"There is no replacement for being able to consider race," he said. "It just does not exist. And we're trying to do some dynamic things here. I'm digging into context and all of these details. But there's no alternative there."

https://www.stltoday.com/uc-berkeley-an ... 839cd.html

DocBarrister

[tech37]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

MD’s last paragraph is just a statement of fact. It’s not something to be believed or not believed … it just is.

DocBarrister

Oh fine! Here's another "just is" for you and mdlax... keep supporting billions going to the killing fields in Ukraine and then complain about socioeconomic inequalities here in US... or that the Dems have everything under control... F'ing insanity.

[DocBarrister]

You guys are mostly missing the point.

At most selective schools, the legacy admits are quite well qualified. Because they are upper SES, they typically have strong test scores.

They are just not super duper stars. But with a smidge of a break/tip they can get in. And the KEY is that their parents usually can full pay. Which means those kids ENROLL at very high rates. Legacy admissions isn't about getting mom and dad to donate a new library. It is about getting mom and dad to stroke the tuition checks.

The game really is not about who can get admitted. The game is about who can ENROLL. And enrollment requires (i) admission and (ii) ability to pay. (i) without (ii) doesn't mean anything to the school or the kid. The game is about YIELD (i.e. enrollment), not about admission.

Most schools (except MIT) have partially/completely moved beyond test scores. Once you do that, you have tons of leeway on who you admit.

But the KEY is how you spend the FA dollars to enable kids to ENROLL. Previously, a top school (relying heavily on test scores) could admit a lot of hi stat kids who a very likely full payors (including legacies). Which conserved a lot of FA dollars for the lower stat and higher need minority kids.

20% of Harvard kids attend for free -- many of them minority. But importantly, a very high 45% of Harvard kids full pay.

Now, the high need pool will have more white, Asian and female kids of modest means. How the schools decide to handle the increased need of their admit pools will determine what the outcome is going to be.

Given that, the impact at Berkeley and UNC (not so many FA dollars) should be expected to be quite different from the impact at the $$$ privates like HYPS.

The difference in legacy admit rates are extremely different from the general admit rate at elite schools.

For example, legacy applicants have an admission rate of 14% at Harvard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/l ... ities.html

That’s about 4x the general admission rate for Harvard, which is around 3.4%.

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blo ... ance-rate/

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Johns Hopkins and Amherst have dropped legacy preferences. Let’s see if Harvard, which really f*cked up the struggle to preserve affirmative action, can begin to make amends by eliminating their legacy preference program.

DocBarrister

Doc, how long ago did Hopkins drop legacy?

I've been arguing that it's inevitable for the most selective schools if they're well endowed...
That's right, Bloomberg dough is what made it possible for Daniels to finally implement it in 2020.

I expect Harvard and other Ivies will do so in the wake of this ruling; but you may understand that the admissions folks have been wanting to do it for quite awhile, right?

But it's us alumni...

I agree. Not disputing your points. I also suspect many admissions committees would like to eliminate athletic admission preferences, but recognize that would invite even more blowback.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

MD’s last paragraph is just a statement of fact. It’s not something to be believed or not believed … it just is.

DocBarrister

Oh fine! Here's another "just is" for you and mdlax... keep supporting billions going to the killing fields in Ukraine and then complain about socioeconomic inequalities here in US... or that the Dems have everything under control... F'ing insanity.

Chill, bro. Enjoy a nice beverage … here’s a recommendation for some fine spirits:

https://www.leopoldbros.com/

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Disagree. "a whole lot of folks" are struggling to realize the so-called American Dream themselves (truly a struggle). In general (of course there are exceptions), it's not a conscious effort to hold others back as you claim.

I fully agree that a whole lot of people, indeed most, are "struggling" to realize their dreams in America.

But it is inarguably more challenging if one is born into a family in which a parent is missing, in jail, dead, addicted, in a neighborhood, and even household, where violence is commonplace, where clean water is absent, where good early nutrition is absent, where lead pipes and lead paint exist, where neighborhood schools lack air conditioning, clean water, and which are dangerous to reach through that neighborhood.

Where those with more affluence control the choices of where to invest, where to protect with police, where to put schools, where to put hospitals, where to put grocery stores, where to put public housing...

That set of disadvantages can be in poor urban or rural...harder, more of a "struggle".

And yes, many people are just thinking about themselves, their own family, their own struggles, their own safety, their own possessions..."in denial" as to the greater "struggles" faced by others.

It needn't be a conscious decision to "hold back others", but I'm not sure what you might think of making it more difficult for poor folks to vote, especially if they are of color, by moving polling stations out of their neighborhoods and into places where public transportation doesn't go...who votes for these a-holes who would make such decisions?...gotta be somebody, whether "conscious" or "in denial"...

[get it to x]

... After reading / listening to a lot of different folks, this will likely result in a loud cry on campuses for the abandonment of legacy admits. A number of the top schools, but not all have done this already. Those that have not are going to take a lot of grief. Likely athletic preference will take a hit as well. This is going to cause every group on campus to go after the sacred cows they object to most. This will result in questioning diversity well beyond the traditional race and ethnicity boxes. Why are we admitting international students, etc. This can do so much harm to the American educational system in the overreaction.

Counterpoint.... In short, a 'rising tide lifts all boats', and the current standard of admissions is a complete dump show. Admissions created this problem in the first place. The end goal should be that there are no stats based on race, ethnicity, creed, gender, etc. We needed those stats as we navigated our history these last 100 years, maybe....just maybe, we can move past all these silos and truly become symbiotic.

... I don't think we can or should move away from the statistics. The silos will still exist, it just makes it easier for the those interested in keeping minorities down to hide what they are doing. This move is not going to make minorities more trusting of the oligarchy. It is also not going to make the various minorities more trusting of each other either.

Is that because you do not trust whitey? At some point, or maybe I am just too naïve, we have to be in a position to scrub all this silo crapola and just begin to move on as one.

Diversity and division have the same root.

That's my point. At some point we have to move past it. Certainly is hard to achieve when there is no transformational leadership...and it seems the SCOTUS also understands this.

Yeah, but we already do the "division" game, fellas. Go to an average inner city or uber rural K-12 and look at the facilities and average teacher pay.....then go to the rich burbs and walk around on campuses that look like DIII colleges, with teachers pulling down six figure salaries. Then tell me we don't have division right out of the gate.

You gents willing to pay up and fix this "division"? My read from the National Republican party and 100% of their leaders has been a big, fat, "no".

I know some local Republicans who think this is catastrophic.......leaving all that talent on the sidelines, and refusing to invest in America's future. But I can't name a single National Republican who has any sort of plan to fix this gap. They're not even talking about it. Taxes are bad. Government is bad.

You guys sound like you disagree with that crew. Am I right?

Ready to pay, or at least divert some of our taxes away from corrupt institutions. We are a better country when everyone has a shot at success, whether it's as a chemical engineer or a master electrician. All of the best jobs require a skillset that requires a basic mastery of key subjects, mainly mathematics and reading, along with some critical thinking skill.

A fully equal opportunity society is definitely the dream, but it simply ain't the reality in our predominantly capitalist society. Socio-economic advantages in opportunity are rather massive...it's not a caste system, but there are many more advantages than our dream would have them be.

But the sentiment is right to try and at least get closer to that opportunity society in which people can achieve what their efforts, genetic good fortunes and raw luck allow at an equal rate of probability rather than stacked easier for some than others by societally constructed frictions on some, advantages for others.

Starting with at least agreement on the sentiment makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of folks either really don't want such an opportunity society, at least not for all, and others are in severe denial of the structural advantages they currently enjoy.

Your last paragraph makes me sad. People are often victims of themselves and their own lack of initiative. Stop telling people they don't stand a chance because of their circumstances. They might believe you.

That reality makes me sad as well.

Your subsequent statements make my point, or at least my "in denial" point.
Presumably you don't want those advantages to be unfair.

But the in denial crowd enable the don't want to lose advantage crowd to maintain the realities.

Fortunately, there are also at least some people who indeed counsel initiative and resilience in the face of disadvantage, offering a little helping hand, a little encouragement.

Denial crowd doesn't participate unfortunately. They just scold and berate and put down...

Fairness is a funny thing. In a limited admittance situation, in order to make it fair for one group you need to make it unfair to another group. If Asians are more diligent than your average person, is it unfair for them to get shut out at the window of opportunity? On a national level, there are almost unlimited paths to success, provided you have access to a decent school and the right attitude. We need to instill a culture of achievement vs a culture of victimhood. It will be a long, uphill climb. And it's not just minority students. Have you seen some of those "Man in the street" interviews where young white people can't answer even the most basic of questions? Like what continent the US is a part of?

[MDlaxfan76]

You guys are mostly missing the point.

At most selective schools, the legacy admits are quite well qualified. Because they are upper SES, they typically have strong test scores.

They are just not super duper stars. But with a smidge of a break/tip they can get in. And the KEY is that their parents usually can full pay. Which means those kids ENROLL at very high rates. Legacy admissions isn't about getting mom and dad to donate a new library. It is about getting mom and dad to stroke the tuition checks.

The game really is not about who can get admitted. The game is about who can ENROLL. And enrollment requires (i) admission and (ii) ability to pay. (i) without (ii) doesn't mean anything to the school or the kid. The game is about YIELD (i.e. enrollment), not about admission.

Most schools (except MIT) have partially/completely moved beyond test scores. Once you do that, you have tons of leeway on who you admit.

But the KEY is how you spend the FA dollars to enable kids to ENROLL. Previously, a top school (relying heavily on test scores) could admit a lot of hi stat kids who a very likely full payors (including legacies). Which conserved a lot of FA dollars for the lower stat and higher need minority kids.

20% of Harvard kids attend for free -- many of them minority. But importantly, a very high 45% of Harvard kids full pay.

Now, the high need pool will have more white, Asian and female kids of modest means. How the schools decide to handle the increased need of their admit pools will determine what the outcome is going to be.

Given that, the impact at Berkeley and UNC (not so many FA dollars) should be expected to be quite different from the impact at the $$$ privates like HYPS.

The difference in legacy admit rates are extremely different from the general admit rate at elite schools.

For example, legacy applicants have an admission rate of 14% at Harvard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/l ... ities.html

That’s about 4x the general admission rate for Harvard, which is around 3.4%.

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blo ... ance-rate/

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Johns Hopkins and Amherst have dropped legacy preferences. Let’s see if Harvard, which really f*cked up the struggle to preserve affirmative action, can begin to make amends by eliminating their legacy preference program.

DocBarrister

Doc, how long ago did Hopkins drop legacy?

I've been arguing that it's inevitable for the most selective schools if they're well endowed...
That's right, Bloomberg dough is what made it possible for Daniels to finally implement it in 2020.

I expect Harvard and other Ivies will do so in the wake of this ruling; but you may understand that the admissions folks have been wanting to do it for quite awhile, right?

But it's us alumni...

I agree. Not disputing your points. I also suspect many admissions committees would like to eliminate athletic admission preferences, but recognize that would invite even more blowback.

DocBarrister

Yup, there's going to a lot of pressure...already is... However I also think that a far better argument can be made that athletics, or for that matter any pursuit, which requires grit, determination, commitment, resilience in the face of adversity, has merit in a full educational and developmental experience. I happen to think that athletics provide an ideal opportunity for such characteristics to emerge and flourish.

But that's me. A lot of non-athletes don't recognize that set of virtues as being reasonable to reward over pure academic excellence.