If he was a black lesbian he'd have been accepted everywhere he applied...
I don’t doubt that the admission policies work against Asian American students, but this video’s repeated emphasis on “PhD level” is silly and cringe to those in the know. A PhD is about skills quite different from coding, no matter how good, although the two skills may overlap. Most CS PhD graduates may well not be as good a programmer as this guy but that doesn’t mean much.
are you really so naive you believe that when inner city schools average 900, suburban schools average 1100, and elite private schools average 1400 on the SAT, that's natural "talent?"
…
If you want scare quotes around “talent,” why not around “natural” as well? Even if you want to complicate a discussion of intelligence (which some may consider nuthin but a g thang and others may view differently), a broader sense of academic aptitude as measured by tests in late high school nevertheless draws on both heredity and environment in ways that may be complicated but would still allow for substantial differences among those populations.
oh, come off it. kids do not get equal quality educations depending on location or eliteness. i am not talking about the geniuses. i am talking about AVERAGE. the "average" scorer shouldn't vary 500 points from one place to another. that is not "talent."
you are dangerously close to saying kids in the inner city are dumber, and kids at private schools smarter. hence your little "natural" joke.
as someone who waited too late to take the SAT one time, and had to take whatever locations were left, and ended up at an inner city school, it looked like it was 50 years old and a dump compared to where i went in the suburbs.
when you put in equal resources, same teacher quality, and the SAT scores are similar, i will believe the tests are fair and measure intellect. until then, the hierarchy elite private-suburban-city suggests it's resources.
or, and you would shout "affirmative action" if we did this, we could evaluate SAT scores relative to the graduating class -- like we do GPA. you don't seem to get that some genius at a crappy inner city school might get something like 1400. he would be the smartest kid there. he would be 500 points ahead of average for his area. and he would be the high promise kid for his neighborhood.
meanwhile, some private school kid with a 1390 might be not that naturally bright. he would be below average for his school. he would in absolute terms show up as relatively similar to the inner city genius. but he'd be kind of a screwup for his place.
to compare it to running, a lot of coaches would prefer the kid who runs 415 on 25 miles a week to the kid who gets 415 on 60 miles a week. one kid screams upside. the other kid screams fully milked.
to give a couple political examples, tucker carlson is the heir to the swanson tv dinner fortune, educated at boarding schools here and abroad, and all he could get in was trinity CT. ditto trump at fordham before penn.
to compare it to running, a lot of coaches would prefer the kid who runs 415 on 25 miles a week to the kid who gets 415 on 60 miles a week. one kid screams upside. the other kid screams fully milked.
If he was a black lesbian he'd have been accepted everywhere he applied...
And fully paid for. We all know this. Even woke progressives know this and admit it. Now UCSD faculty are saying as much with the premise of this thread. The only persons who don’t have an issue with social engineering to “adjust” for circumstances are “progressive,” aggrieved, liberal, white apologist socialists who want to mandate equality in every facet of society and do it with your tax dollars, not theirs. The same people who would never dare move to an impoverished inner city and work as a mentor, big brother or teacher, or adopt a disadvantaged kid, but who would lecture you on how yours are “good problems to have.”
UC's "technically" aren't allowed to use race but they do it regardless. Look at UCLA med. I believe black applicants were 28 times more likely (not 28% more likely – 2800% more likely) to be accepted than an Asian or white applicant with the same scores / grades:
Well, yeah. That's exactly the outcome you'd expect from illegal racial discrimination. The details are laid out in the link.
And only racial discrimination could be the answer for why more blacks were admitted than you think should be?
Yes. I've not seen any alternative, plausible explanation for consistent, systemic race-wide discrepancies between acceptance rate and objective credentials. It's precisely what other universities have been caught doing.
The defense in this thread is "well maybe there's other factors!" (hand waving) without explaining what those other factors are.
Well, yeah. That's exactly the outcome you'd expect from illegal racial discrimination. The details are laid out in the link.
And only racial discrimination could be the answer for why more blacks were admitted than you think should be?
Can we not at least all agree that the UCSD faculty themselves per the first link are correct, that the pool of matriculants has gone way downhill since we went to test-optional admissions? They are the white tower liberal institutionalists who are finally acquiescing to a reality that the rest of us already knew existed. Because they can no longer overlook it and sweep it under the rug.
And that’s incredibly sad for a UC. UCSD and UCLA are supposed to be hallowed institutions that were damn difficult to get into and only took way above average test scores. I mean, what is a UC education worth anymore when your matriculants can’t do third grade math? Is every graduate going to study psychology and be a social worker?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
And only racial discrimination could be the answer for why more blacks were admitted than you think should be?
Yes. I've not seen any alternative, plausible explanation for consistent, systemic race-wide discrepancies between acceptance rate and objective credentials. It's precisely what other universities have been caught doing.
The defense in this thread is "well maybe there's other factors!" (hand waving) without explaining what those other factors are.
By “objective credentials” all you mean is a standardized test score. And as much as you might complain about others on this thread, all that you are saying is just “no way that many blacks should be admitted!”
And only racial discrimination could be the answer for why more blacks were admitted than you think should be?
Can we not at least all agree that the UCSD faculty themselves per the first link are correct, that the pool of matriculants has gone way downhill since we went to test-optional admissions? They are the white tower liberal institutionalists who are finally acquiescing to a reality that the rest of us already knew existed. Because they can no longer overlook it and sweep it under the rug.
And that’s incredibly sad for a UC. UCSD and UCLA are supposed to be hallowed institutions that were damn difficult to get into and only took way above average test scores. I mean, what is a UC education worth anymore when your matriculants can’t do third grade math? Is every graduate going to study psychology and be a social worker?
You’ll find no post from me claiming that no test scores should ever be a part of admission considerations.
Totally cool that your z-score of 0.73 makes you irate that a black lesbian at 0.68 might be afforded different opportunities.
Keep fighting the good fight my hero!
As he should be. Racial discrimination in college admissions is illegal, both federally and in the state of California even before the SFFA ruling.
Yeah, yeah, since when are we talking about the law, whether it be immigration or open air heavy drug use or squatting on private property? I mean, this is California after all. Remember, we’re all illegals.
This post was edited 52 seconds after it was posted.
Yes. I've not seen any alternative, plausible explanation for consistent, systemic race-wide discrepancies between acceptance rate and objective credentials. It's precisely what other universities have been caught doing.
The defense in this thread is "well maybe there's other factors!" (hand waving) without explaining what those other factors are.
By “objective credentials” all you mean is a standardized test score. And as much as you might complain about others on this thread, all that you are saying is just “no way that many blacks should be admitted!”