SCOTUS

[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...

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?

Who said that Asians are more "diligent" than some other group?

Or do you mean (generalization acknowledged) that Asian Americans in specific have focused their diligence on academics sometimes to the exclusion of other pursuits?

[ggait]

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

Not really. Just doesn't work that way.

Legacy preferences, of course, mostly admit white, wealthy, suburban kids with good test scores and grades.

But the kids who get squeezed out by the legacy kids are other mostly white, suburban kids with slightly better test scores and grades. And the reason the legacy white kids get in is because their parent are richer and are more likely to full pay the tuition.

The legacy kids do not squeeze out minorities. Because minorities has been its own very powerful tip/hook. The legacy kids (and the recruited athlete kids) squeeze out the highly qualified kids who are unhooked/untipped. If you give some kids a hook, that makes it harder for the unhooked.

If you get rid of legacies and also the minority hook but keep the fetish on high test scores, most of the white legacies would still get in over the now unhooked minority candiadtes.

End of day, it really is all about ability to pay and ability to enroll. Ability to be admitted is not the key aspect. If you want diversity, the school has to throw FA dollars at the diverse kids.

End of day, losing the minority tip in admissions will make diversity more expensive for schools to achieve. And it will require schools to back off of using test scores.

[DocBarrister]

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

Not really. Just doesn't work that way.

Legacy preferences, of course, mostly admit white, wealthy, suburban kids with good test scores and grades.

But the kids who get squeezed out by the legacy kids are other mostly white, suburban kids with slightly better test scores and grades. And the reason the legacy white kids get in is because their parent are richer and are more likely to full pay the tuition.

The legacy kids do not squeeze out minorities. Because minorities has been its own very powerful tip/hook. The legacy kids (and the recruited athlete kids) squeeze out the highly qualified kids who are unhooked/untipped. If you give some kids a hook, that makes it harder for the unhooked.

If you get rid of legacies and also the minority hook but keep the fetish on high test scores, most of the white legacies would still get in over the now unhooked minority candiadtes.

End of day, it really is all about ability to pay and ability to enroll. Ability to be admitted is not the key aspect. If you want diversity, the school has to throw FA dollars at the diverse kids.

End of day, losing the minority tip in admissions will make diversity more expensive for schools to achieve. And it will require schools to back off of using test scores.

I suspect legacy candidates are taking many spots that would otherwise go to Asian candidates.

That’s starting to change as more and more legacy candidates are Asian.

DocBarrister

[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

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.

These days, it’s not an admissions choice between an athlete and a “pure” academic student. It’s a choice between an athlete and a concert violinist, composer, scientific researcher, writer, or community activist. At least for the “elite” schools, it’s very rare these days to see students with nothing but high test scores and GPAs be competitive in the admissions process.

In my day, being top 10% in class rank and SATs with a varsity letter in a sport made you a strong applicant for admission to schools like Penn and Hopkins. Today, an applicant like that would struggle to gain admission to a second tier state school.

Kids these days are just better rounded.

DocBarrister

[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?

Who said that Asians are more "diligent" than some other group?

Or do you mean (generalization acknowledged) that Asian Americans in specific have focused their diligence on academics sometimes to the exclusion of other pursuits?

You must have missed the word "if". Since it is Asians who are disadvantaged more then any other group by admissions preferences I chose to use them.

[a fan]

Nice discussion today, fellas. Well done.

[ggait]

I suspect legacy candidates are taking many spots that would otherwise go to Asian candidates.

That’s starting to change as more and more legacy candidates are Asian.

Fair point.

Hooks mostly squeeze out the unhooked with strong stats. Alot of them are probably Asians and white girls. And some white boys too.

Hooks (like legacy) don't squeeze out other hooks (minorities, athletes, celebrity kids, etc.).

Since the legacy hook is pretty weak (as compared to minority or athlete), getting rid of legacies (counter-intuitively) probably does not increase diversity.

Since the minority hook is now gone, getting rid of test scores increases diversity. And increasing financial aid increases diversity.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Interesting that Military Academies are exempt and still allowed to use Affirmative Action. Jackson in the dissent:

"The court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom."

[Seacoaster(1)]

Opinion: Without the Burden of Affirmative Action, Harvard Now Can Become a True Meritocracy

By Jared Kushner and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

[runrussellrun]

This case, settled by the Supremes, was about the sickening practice of "character" ranking in the admissions standards.

Asians, according to the elites at Harvard, are of the lowest character in their applicant pool. Fact.

Sickening and insane

This IS the core of the plaintiffs action. Fact.

Discovery is a beeawwch, eh Harvard. (note the DATE of this article

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/h ... cants.html

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them.



....but whatever SASS magazine says

10 10 cloud deck

[jhu72]

Opinion: Without the Burden of Affirmative Action, Harvard Now Can Become a True Meritocracy

By Jared Kushner and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

[runrussellrun]

Asians aren't funny, we guess. Only the best at Harvard.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018 ... he-scenes/

By Caroline S. Engelmayer, Crimson Staff Writer
June 16, 2018

Harvard admissions officers assign numerical scores from 1 to 6 to each College applicant they consider and use those scores to determine Harvard hopefuls' fates, according to court filings submitted Friday.

The filings—part of a lawsuit alleging Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in its admissions process—reveal previously unknown details of the University’s secretive admissions process. Anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions first filed the lawsuit against Harvard in 2014.

In Oct. 2016, Harvard provided SFFA with data on hundreds of thousands of students who applied to the College between fall 2009 and spring 2015. In addition to drawing on this data, SFFA's Friday filing also references statistical analysis and opinions given by outside experts.

Harvard applicants are assigned ratings in approximately 14 categories including academic achievement, extracurricular involvement, athletic prowess, strength of character, up to four teacher recommendations, counselor recommendations, a “personal” and “overall” rating by staff, and a “personal” and “overall” rating by an alumnus, according to the documents filed by SFFA.

The ratings range from 1 to 6, with 1 marking the highest possible score. Admissions officers can also add a “+” or “-” to a score to distinguish stronger candidates from weaker ones. As an example, a briefing submitted by SFFA indicates that a “2+” rating is stronger than a “2,” which is in turn stronger than a “2-” rating.

“Those who have an overall score of 3- or worse are almost always rejected,” Duke Professor of Economics Peter S. Arcidiacono, who analyzed several years’ worth of admissions data, wrote in a briefing submitted by SFFA. “In contrast, those who receive an overall rating of a 1 are always accepted (in both datasets).”

Federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is overseeing the case, redacted a portion of the SFFA documents that included Harvard-provided information regarding what typically happens to applicants who receive an overall rating of 1 or 2 or a score of 3 or lower.

The filings also detail guidelines for admissions officers—called “Reading Procedures”—that outline criteria applicants must meet to receive certain scores. Burroughs redacted most of the information on the “Reading Procedures” in the court documents, but a few pieces of information remained visible.

The Harvard documents report that an applicant who receives a “1” academic rating usually “has submitted academic work of some kind that is reviewed by a faculty member,” while a candidate with a “2+” academic rating typically has “perfect, or near-perfect, grades and testing, but no evidence of substantial scholarship or academic creativity.”

[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...

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?

Who said that Asians are more "diligent" than some other group?

Or do you mean (generalization acknowledged) that Asian Americans in specific have focused their diligence on academics sometimes to the exclusion of other pursuits?

You must have missed the word "if". Since it is Asians who are disadvantaged more then any other group by admissions preferences I chose to use them.

Great, “if”

However, what are you relying upon to say that Asians ARE “ the most disadvantaged “?

If 2.5 x higher than population then surely that is not such evidence.

Asians were receiving lower scores on attributes other than test scores.

The claim is that Asians were/are better qualified by test scores than other applicants who were accepted under the scoring system. They did not get a bump for racial diversity because already over represented. If no legacy no bump. If not athlete no bump. If no “world class” extracurricular no bump. If no overcoming of adversity no bump. The measure that may have been misused was sociability…certainly a desirable quality.

But note, a whole lot more Asians than proportional to population DO score well.

[Brooklyn]

Opinion: Without the Burden of Affirmative Action, Harvard Now Can Become a True Meritocracy

By Jared Kushner and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

https://cdn.creators.com/198/351956/351956_image.jpg

[jhu72]

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.

... good luck with this. You really believe they have a reluctance at this point in time. They are trying to put 5 guns in the hands of every US citizen, even the 4 year olds. There is no reluctance, not even a flash in the pan. Their concern is not violence or even cost, if we were arming the Russians, they would be all for it.

[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?

Who said that Asians are more "diligent" than some other group?

Or do you mean (generalization acknowledged) that Asian Americans in specific have focused their diligence on academics sometimes to the exclusion of other pursuits?

You must have missed the word "if". Since it is Asians who are disadvantaged more then any other group by admissions preferences I chose to use them.

Great, “if”

However, what are you relying upon to say that Asians ARE “ the most disadvantaged “?

If 2.5 x higher than population then surely that is not such evidence.

Asians were reviewing lower scores on attributes other than test scores.

The claim is that Asians were/are better qualified by test scores than other applicants who were accepted under the scoring system. They did not get a bump for racial diversity because already over represented. If no legacy no bump. If not athlete no bump. If no “world class” extracurricular no bump. If no overcoming of adversity no bump. The measure that may have been misused was sociability…certainly a desirable quality.

But note, a whole lot more Asians than proportional to population DO score well.

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

[runrussellrun]

Opinion: Without the Burden of Affirmative Action, Harvard Now Can Become a True Meritocracy

By Jared Kushner and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

https://cdn.creators.com/198/351956/351956_image.jpg

Is that the Al Gore family on that ladder?

All of his kids attended Harvard.

I know one of the Obama kids went there.... Both ?

Glad to see you are coming around.

Asians arent' funny....they just aren't. Right Harvard

Lacrosse if filled with Asian lacrosse players. Filled. Just hit any "recruiting" event, you will be amazed at the "diversity" the lacrosse world embraces.

D1 lacrosse players act as if they are obtaining "knighthood" . Take a look at the US lacrosse womens rosters.......a sea of white.

Harvard is gonna do what it wants. The lawsuit only proves what anyone with a clue already knew.......they are doucebags

[ggait]

I know one of the Obama kids went there.... Both ?

One Harvard, one Michigan.

Barry and Michelle are only HLS alumni. Which does not count as a legacy for getting into Harvard College. Columbia and Princeton undergrads.

But being First Daughter definitely helps.

[runrussellrun]

I know one of the Obama kids went there.... Both ?

One Harvard, one Michigan.

Barry and Michelle are only HLS alumni. Which does not count as a legacy for getting into Harvard College. Columbia and Princeton undergrads.

But being First Daughter definitely helps.

....nothing about ALL of Gores kids attending ?

They must make people laugh.

[jhu72]

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

Not really. Just doesn't work that way.

Legacy preferences, of course, mostly admit white, wealthy, suburban kids with good test scores and grades.

But the kids who get squeezed out by the legacy kids are other mostly white, suburban kids with slightly better test scores and grades. And the reason the legacy white kids get in is because their parent are richer and are more likely to full pay the tuition.

The legacy kids do not squeeze out minorities. Because minorities has been its own very powerful tip/hook. The legacy kids (and the recruited athlete kids) squeeze out the highly qualified kids who are unhooked/untipped. If you give some kids a hook, that makes it harder for the unhooked.

If you get rid of legacies and also the minority hook but keep the fetish on high test scores, most of the white legacies would still get in over the now unhooked minority candiadtes.

End of day, it really is all about ability to pay and ability to enroll. Ability to be admitted is not the key aspect. If you want diversity, the school has to throw FA dollars at the diverse kids.

End of day, losing the minority tip in admissions will make diversity more expensive for schools to achieve. And it will require schools to back off of using test scores.

Legacy Preferences