One thing I have consistently noticed about Leftists is their inability to argue in favor of the things they support, such as slavery and other forms of forced association.
You thinking that I need to argue that discrimination based on race is immoral. That’s laughable.
The Democrat party wholly endorses discrimination based on race.
A significant amount of racism exists in the United States. It always has and it most likely always will. There are numerous laws and lawsuits throughout our history to prove it.
Nope. BS Lawsuit. They'd get nothing if I were on their jury.
Trust me, I know someone REALLY well, aka blood related with all higher scores and more accomplishments in the fields listed. This person didn't get in either, they accepted the denials and moved on till they were accepted. Racism? In a country that elected a black man President, twice? Gotta be a whiny liberal looking to blame someone else.
A significant amount of racism exists in the United States. It always has and it most likely always will. There are numerous laws and lawsuits throughout our history to prove it.
So why are liberals opposed to laws that treat everyone equally and fairly?
Why are R's so against making voting easier? Republican voter suppression tactics which are all designed to give white votes more power.
Unfortunately, Asians aren't allowed entry into the 'House of Victimhood', with all its perks, so they mean absolutely nothing to Dims. Jews aren't either.
True. You’re not allowed to outperform as a minority.
Asians are finally getting their collective heads out of their asses and realizing the Dems are not their friends.
Let me guess - the person made excuses for being rejected that blamed minorities?
Can you people who parrot this line (and similar derivatives of it) endlessly not understand the concept of a finite resource?
I'll make it easy: There are a finite number of med school spots, college spots, scholarships, jobs, ect. When you give these out for ANY REASON OTHER THAN MERIT, is is a LOGICAL CERTAINTY that a more deserving candidate had their spot taken to make room. This is math. No different that 2+2 equals 4.
It is not conjecture. Is is not "excuses" or "blaming minorities" It is reality, a place that you and others like you are seemingly unfamiliar with.
further thought, at 4.4 weighted his class rank was probably meh
No. At my kids' high school, you have to take at least a year of PE, 2 years if you aren't on a high school sports team. You also have to take 2-3 years of foreign language. There are no "Honors" level foreign language classes, so only a small fraction of that can be AP. You also have to take at least 1 semester of fine arts (again, not honors) and something Economimcs related. All of the math prior to AP Calc and AP stats is not honors/weighted. And if you want to take something like AP Chem, Bio, or Physics, you usually take a non-weighted pre-requisite sciences classes first. Same with AP computer science. And most electives are non-weighted. Basically, probably half or more of all classes from grades 9-12 are non-weighted. This guy sounds like a great student who probably got 1 B total in all of high school.
Maybe they just didn't want one more computer loser incel....
Good joke, but actually correct.
Admissions directors look to find a balanced class of kids, who will use all the school facilities and create a vibrant campus life.
They need to find the tuba player, a capella singer, majorette, dancer, athlete, actor, newspaper editor, dj etc in each class.
A kid with test scores & grades, but not showing much outside interest or social skill often gets rejected.
I actually understand that reasoning. College isn't just about exams and schools want interesting people.
However, this is often used as a way to shoehorn in blatant race-based discrimination. Harvard so much as admitted to this during their questioning by the Supreme court. If I say I only want "interesting" people in my restaurant, and then just conveniently decide that I only find white people "interesting" that would not fly under the Civil Rights Act. The statistics of SAT scores vs race vs admissions rates make it painfully obvious that these colleges aren't just filtering out "nerd incels", they are openly favoring certain racial groups over others.
At this point I wouldn't mind putting some type of government compliance officer to sit and observe the admissions board of every elite school to enforce our Civil Rights Laws. They have made in plainly obvious that they will simply refuse to comply themselves.
The plaintiff claims he was rejected for non-meritocratic reasons (racial discrimination), and offers as proof his 1. GPA and SAT scores (very good but hardly singular in the elite applicant pool). 2. A few intangibles. "See? I'm a great coder! I even got a job for it!"
There is no way to boil down intangibles into numbers, plug those numbers into an equation, and yet that the result of that equation be representative of an idealized concept of "meritocracy." The people who make the equation might claim that they're being quantitative and objective, but their biases can't be separated from the result. i.e., "What matters for determining the applicant's quality is what I believe should matter."
Ultimately, measuring merit can never be done with absolute precision, so long as it's other humans determining the criteria. We would would need an AI with beyond-human intelligence. Something that can look at the totality of who we are and what we can become. Something that knows us far better than any human can know another human. (a chilling concept to me, but whatever)
So...what do we want here? Do we want to revolve all college admission and the course of a person's entire life around a single test, like the Chinese gaokao? Asian-style test structures become all-consuming and are probably a major contributor to the collapsing birth rates over there. We've never had that in the Western educational environment. Or most of the rest of Western society for that matter.
Or do we want to continue to consider intangibles, like we always have? Legacy admissions, athletic admissions, race-based considerations. Should they all go? Personally, I see some value to all three, from a financial standpoint, a cultural standpoint, or both.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The plaintiff claims he was rejected for non-meritocratic reasons (racial discrimination), and offers as proof his 1. GPA and SAT scores (very good but hardly singular in the elite applicant pool). 2. A few intangibles. "See? I'm a great coder! I even got a job for it!"
There is no way to boil down intangibles into numbers, plug those numbers into an equation, and yet that the result of that equation be representative of an idealized concept of "meritocracy." The people who make the equation might claim that they're being quantitative and objective, but their biases can't be separated from the result. i.e., "What matters for determining the applicant's quality is what I believe should matter."
Ultimately, measuring merit can never be done with absolute precision, so long as it's other humans determining the criteria. We would would need an AI with beyond-human intelligence. Something that can look at the totality of who we are and what we can become. Something that knows us far better than any human can know another human. (a chilling concept to me, but whatever)
So...what do we want here? Do we want to revolve all college admission and the course of a person's entire life around a single test, like the Chinese gaokao? Asian-style test structures become all-consuming and are probably a major contributor to the collapsing birth rates over there. We've never had that in the Western educational environment. Or most of the rest of Western society for that matter.
Or do we want to continue to consider intangibles, like we always have? Legacy admissions, athletic admissions, race-based considerations. Should they all go? Personally, I see some value to all three, from a financial standpoint, a cultural standpoint, or both.
I agree with you on many points. I've actually argued with some of my fellow conservatives against going completely "test scores and nothing else", as I don't want a Chinese gaokau system either.
It's also entirely possible that this individual actually was the "cookie cutter" perfect taker taker that colleges rightfully try to avoid. You are correct that is impossible to fully quantify all the intangibles of a college application, that is why you have to look at the macro picture here.
And on that maco level, it is clearly obvious that there are racial quotas. The data in not unambiguous here. Being a member of a certain racial group is enough to give you an effective multi-hundred point boost on the SAT at many of these colleges, before any of the other intangibles are even considered. Colleges don't even try to hide this, as it fits perfectly in line with the ideas of "racial equity" that are so popular in academia. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.
That is why I think the only way to stop this racial discrimination, while still allowing colleges to consider other factors, is to have government oversight over these admissions boards. I normally would not be a fan of the Federal government interfering in this way, but they have left us no choice.
One thing I have consistently noticed about Leftists is their inability to argue in favor of the things they support, such as slavery and other forms of forced association.
You thinking that I need to argue that discrimination based on race is immoral. That’s laughable.
Yes, it is completely immoral to force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with. Supporting it is the exact same thing as supporting rape.
Nobody is entitled to anyone's goods, services, time, or body (unless as an adult they agreed to a contract stating that they would deliver said good/service/time/body at an agreed upon time for an agreed upon exchange).
The Democrat party wholly endorses discrimination based on race.
And right winger BaseballIsFun said “hold my beer”.
Another thing about Leftists that I've noticed is that they cannot distinguish between "you should not be put in a cage for X" from "X is good".
I personally am repulsed by businesses that would e.g. outwardly discriminate against White's. But it is insane that businesses can't go out of their way to deny service to anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose (including disallowing Whites). You should not be entitled to anyone else's work, but the govt mandates slavery by picking characteristics x,y,z that you can not discriminate against. It's insane that in 2025 we allow such things.
A significant amount of racism exists in the United States. It always has and it most likely always will. There are numerous laws and lawsuits throughout our history to prove it.
So why are liberals opposed to laws that treat everyone equally and fairly?
Colleges claimed they need affirmative action for a 'diverse' class. But now that it's 'banned', their demographics have barely changed. So they're obviously still discriminating.
Much like conservatives, the politicians and other leaders don't follow what their voters want.
Let me guess - the person made excuses for being rejected that blamed minorities?
Can you people who parrot this line (and similar derivatives of it) endlessly not understand the concept of a finite resource?
I'll make it easy: There are a finite number of med school spots, college spots, scholarships, jobs, ect. When you give these out for ANY REASON OTHER THAN MERIT, is is a LOGICAL CERTAINTY that a more deserving candidate had their spot taken to make room. This is math. No different that 2+2 equals 4.
It is not conjecture. Is is not "excuses" or "blaming minorities" It is reality, a place that you and others like you are seemingly unfamiliar with.
You sound like him - blaming minorities any time you don’t get what you want.