I worked in a school made up mostly of poor Black and Latino kids from very rough housing projects. I'm glad that these kids with 1200s -1300s on their SATs were given an opportunity to go to some of the Ivies and other elite schools in the northeast. I don't know what it is like living in a place with piss in the elevators, people shooting guns off the roofs and random violence but it certainly effects your ability ro learn. The problem is that many Asians live in these same projects, are poor, but are not given the same opportunities. Consideration should be given to poor disadvantaged kids of every race.
I had no problem when my rich white suburban nieces and nephews with outstanding scores were denied admission to Wharton and other Ivies.
I would have no problem with your proposal is there was an infinite number of spots at these schools. The issue is that "giving these opportunities" necessitates taking rightfully earned opportunities away from other people. It would be like giving CJ Albertson Mantz's olympic spot because he didn't have all the same fancy training aids and cushy pro runner lifestyle. Maybe Albertson would have qualified with that stuff, maybe he wouldn't have. However, all we have to go off of are the actual results that the two men worked for. Putting our hands of the scale after the fact would be wrong, and is it also illegal when done on the basis of race.
Your nieces and nephews might live in wealthy suburban neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean every, or even the majority or white kids do. There are plenty of trailer parks full of white children who have terrible home lives. Under the current system Barack Obama's daughters' would be given preference over all of them. That is simply wrong, and must stop.
What's more impressive: a) the kid who spends $5k on SAT prep classes, takes the SAT 3 times, and gets a 1500 the third time or b) the kid who never takes an SAT prep class, takes the SAT once and gets a 1350?
I worked in a school made up mostly of poor Black and Latino kids from very rough housing projects. I'm glad that these kids with 1200s -1300s on their SATs were given an opportunity to go to some of the Ivies and other elite schools in the northeast. I don't know what it is like living in a place with piss in the elevators, people shooting guns off the roofs and random violence but it certainly effects your ability ro learn. The problem is that many Asians live in these same projects, are poor, but are not given the same opportunities. Consideration should be given to poor disadvantaged kids of every race.
I had no problem when my rich white suburban nieces and nephews with outstanding scores were denied admission to Wharton and other Ivies.
I would have no problem with your proposal is there was an infinite number of spots at these schools. The issue is that "giving these opportunities" necessitates taking rightfully earned opportunities away from other people. It would be like giving CJ Albertson Mantz's olympic spot because he didn't have all the same fancy training aids and cushy pro runner lifestyle. Maybe Albertson would have qualified with that stuff, maybe he wouldn't have. However, all we have to go off of are the actual results that the two men worked for. Putting our hands of the scale after the fact would be wrong, and is it also illegal when done on the basis of race.
Your nieces and nephews might live in wealthy suburban neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean every, or even the majority or white kids do. There are plenty of trailer parks full of white children who have terrible home lives. Under the current system Barack Obama's daughters' would be given preference over all of them. That is simply wrong, and must stop.
Let me build on your analogy:
Should a school be required to recruit the kid that runs 4:10 as a sophomore and 4:06 as a junior on 100 MPW over the kid that runs 4:32 as a sophomore and 4:08 as a junior on 40 MPW?
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.
Good luck with that. It has been proven over and over that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action and quotas. White men are the primary beneficiaries of legacy admissions and privilege. Far more unqualified white men are admitted to positions and schools than black men. See the example of drunk incompetent and unqualified pete hegseth holding one of the most important positions in the world. At Cornell black students are only 5% of the student population. So good luck convicing anyone that Cornells refusal to admit him was based on race.
Again, very true, on the micro-level. Students like these do exist, I knew a few myself. However, when you look look at the stats on a macro level, it is obvious there is systematic discrimination against whites and asains going on. The evidence was so convincing the Supreme Court ruled against Harvard a few years ago.
Do you seriously believe that every black and latino student had so many "positive experiences" that they were able to overcome 200+ point gaps in average SAT scores? And at the same time, every white and asian was just some loser incel with good stats? Come on, that makes no sense logically.
I worked in a school made up mostly of poor Black and Latino kids from very rough housing projects. I'm glad that these kids with 1200s -1300s on their SATs were given an opportunity to go to some of the Ivies and other elite schools in the northeast. I don't know what it is like living in a place with piss in the elevators, people shooting guns off the roofs and random violence but it certainly effects your ability ro learn. The problem is that many Asians live in these same projects, are poor, but are not given the same opportunities. Consideration should be given to poor disadvantaged kids of every race.
I had no problem when my rich white suburban nieces and nephews with outstanding scores were denied admission to Wharton and other Ivies.
Sure - they're actually disadvantaged. Give them some boost (how much is a different question).
But I don't think the kids of Nigerian or Argentinian professionals are.
Yup. Nobody has a right to go to an elite private school. There’s plenty of great race blind publics out there that you can get into if you deserve it.
"Nobody has the right to come eat at my steakhouse. There is a burger King just down the street. That's why I put the Whites Only sign on the door"
Doesn't quite work does it?
Unfortunately raw academic scores are not the only thing that makes a good student. Lots of not very smart kids who ground their way to a bunch of APs and a 1550.
The ivies recognize this. Midwit entitled folks do not.
What's more impressive: a) the kid who spends $5k on SAT prep classes, takes the SAT 3 times, and gets a 1500 the third time or b) the kid who never takes an SAT prep class, takes the SAT once and gets a 1350?
Great question, it's number b).🥴
Problem is that difference often is never noticed and gets lost in the process.
Just taking 10 practice tests with an informed helper reviewing and teaching off your errors can get you an extra 100 points.
More self effort, or a prep program of course even better.
2 years of 1-2 hrs prep a week like you might get at an elite private boarding school can get you to the 1500+ level.
Top prep schools and college advisors understand you are judged 50/50 on test scores/gpa. Why then spend 15 min on test prep, and 10,000 hours on gpa?
Unfortunately raw academic scores are not the only thing that makes a good student. Lots of not very smart kids who ground their way to a bunch of APs and a 1550.
The ivies recognize this. Midwit entitled folks do not.
BS. Nobody dumb scores 1550. SAT prep helps by 100 points at most (in my case, 50 - 1530 to 1580).
Unfortunately raw academic scores are not the only thing that makes a good student. Lots of not very smart kids who ground their way to a bunch of APs and a 1550.
The ivies recognize this. Midwit entitled folks do not.
BS. Nobody dumb scores 1550. SAT prep helps by 100 points at most (in my case, 50 - 1530 to 1580).
GPT-4 (the base version before any of the fancy chain of reasoning stuff was implemented in the o-series) got a 1410 off one try and no specific training despite not being able to figure out how many r's are in the word 'strawberry' or realizing that ice cubes will melt if put into a very hot bucket:
You literally don't need a brain to be able to score in the top 90%.
BS. Nobody dumb scores 1550. SAT prep helps by 100 points at most (in my case, 50 - 1530 to 1580).
GPT-4 (the base version before any of the fancy chain of reasoning stuff was implemented in the o-series) got a 1410 off one try and no specific training despite not being able to figure out how many r's are in the word 'strawberry' or realizing that ice cubes will melt if put into a very hot bucket:
You literally don't need a brain to be able to score in the top 90%.
Until now computers have failed to solve mathematical problems. But the AI program AlphaGeometry has succeeded in finding proofs for dozens of theorems from the International Mathematical Olympiad
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.
We aren't. African American admissions at Harvard plunged to their lowest level since before the civil rights era immediately upon repeal of affirmative action. If you accept that talent is uniformly distributed, and I think this is a very good assumption, then you are fighting ghosts and straw men with your lib attacks. Real vestiges of the stain of slavery and jim crow exist. It's a messy complex issue. Life isn't always fair. This genius dude is not a victim.
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.
. If you accept that talent is uniformly distributed, and I think this is a very good assumption,
Why are there no white men in the NCAA 100m final? They make up a majority of the population, surely since talent is evenly distributed there must be come kind of systematic discrimination going on here.
I think to solve this, we should reserve five of the eight lanes for white men only, to approximately match their population proportion. Would you agree with me?
Unfortunately raw academic scores are not the only thing that makes a good student. Lots of not very smart kids who ground their way to a bunch of APs and a 1550.
The ivies recognize this. Midwit entitled folks do not.
BS. Nobody dumb scores 1550. SAT prep helps by 100 points at most (in my case, 50 - 1530 to 1580).
There are tons of kids smart enough to score 1550. Raw intelligence is not what colleges are selecting for. The elite colleges can and do select people who are smarter than mono-dimensional school-only obsessives.
BS. Nobody dumb scores 1550. SAT prep helps by 100 points at most (in my case, 50 - 1530 to 1580).
There are tons of kids smart enough to score 1550. Raw intelligence is not what colleges are selecting for. The elite colleges can and do select people who are smarter than mono-dimensional school-only obsessives.
Correct. However, they can't select for skin color, and that is the issue at hand, not this imaginary villian of the "mono-dimensional" asain that you guys love bringing up to justify racial discrimination.
There are tons of kids smart enough to score 1550. Raw intelligence is not what colleges are selecting for. The elite colleges can and do select people who are smarter than mono-dimensional school-only obsessives.
Correct. However, they can't select for skin color, and that is the issue at hand, not this imaginary villian of the "mono-dimensional" asain that you guys love bringing up to justify racial discrimination.
Are you ok with elite colleges be 50+% asian? I am, but usually the people babbling about meritocracy think that it would mean more whites go to elite colleges which wouldn’t be the case.
you can look his grades up, he attached them to his lawsuit, which is posted online if you dig and follow links. yes, they are nearly perfect. but they are also generally NOT gifted or honors classes. i thought regular classes were easy. if you are MIT or berkley and used to getting endless honor roll report cards, and your job is admissions, you will notice some kid who has a bunch of regular, non-honors classes. you will come across far less serious.
where i grew up, you could take about 4 honors classes a semester. 2/3 my classes were honors. math, science, english, a language. then an elective and a sport period. which was demanding. and at that rate a perfect grade point weighted is slightly over 5. and 20%+ of my class is taking at least some of those classes and over 4 weighted. and the gap between unweighted and weighted becomes possibly over a point. indicating a hard schedule.
How exactly does a kid give "grade point weighted slightly over 5."
A in honors/AP class = 5.0
A in regular class = 4.0
How in the world could a person get a GPA "slightly over 5"? If there is no grade over 5, it will be impossible to get a GPA over 5, or even a 5.0, even with weighting/honors.
Impossible where I live. And, as I mention, in my kids' high school, most of the math, languages and elective are not "5 point classes" until you get to the AP class of the subject. (For some reason, English/Language Arts does have Honors, but math, bio, chem, etc are all weight normally until you reach the AP level.)
where i grew up we took 6 classes. there was no A+ bonus. unweighted was 4 but gifted/honors maxed at 6 and AP at 5. so someone taking 3 honors/gifted classes maxed at 5; 4 honors maxes out over 5 -- 5.33.
it's basic math. (4x6+2x4)/6=32/6=5.33
or (3x6+3x4)/6=5.0
we had honors the whole time in STEM and above III in the language progression. that encouraged you to stay with your junior high language and take difficult classes pushing you towards fluency.
now, a kid could decide, say, i will not take many honors, i will not take hard language classes, and i will game myself a near 4.0 unweighted. but he will get destroyed on rank by people like me taking hard classes even if getting imperfect grades. my B- outranks his A.
maybe the kid's theory was some elite school would see the SAT and the straight As and ignore his class rank and low level of class difficulty is below almost everyone else applying with those test scores.
this is part of what you're missing. at the level he's trying to compete it's a ton of kids with perfect or near perfect testing who also made perfect or near perfect grades -- but in ambitious honors classes. and with a rank mirroring that. his transcript sticks out negatively.
How exactly does a kid give "grade point weighted slightly over 5."
A in honors/AP class = 5.0
A in regular class = 4.0
How in the world could a person get a GPA "slightly over 5"? If there is no grade over 5, it will be impossible to get a GPA over 5, or even a 5.0, even with weighting/honors.
Impossible where I live. And, as I mention, in my kids' high school, most of the math, languages and elective are not "5 point classes" until you get to the AP class of the subject. (For some reason, English/Language Arts does have Honors, but math, bio, chem, etc are all weight normally until you reach the AP level.)
where i grew up we took 6 classes. there was no A+ bonus. unweighted was 4 but gifted/honors maxed at 6 and AP at 5. so someone taking 3 honors/gifted classes maxed at 5; 4 honors maxes out over 5 -- 5.33.
it's basic math. (4x6+2x4)/6=32/6=5.33
or (3x6+3x4)/6=5.0
we had honors the whole time in STEM and above III in the language progression. that encouraged you to stay with your junior high language and take difficult classes pushing you towards fluency.
now, a kid could decide, say, i will not take many honors, i will not take hard language classes, and i will game myself a near 4.0 unweighted. but he will get destroyed on rank by people like me taking hard classes even if getting imperfect grades. my B- outranks his A.
maybe the kid's theory was some elite school would see the SAT and the straight As and ignore his class rank and low level of class difficulty is below almost everyone else applying with those test scores.
this is part of what you're missing. at the level he's trying to compete it's a ton of kids with perfect or near perfect testing who also made perfect or near perfect grades -- but in ambitious honors classes. and with a rank mirroring that. his transcript sticks out negatively.
AFAIK a lot of colleges just unweight to a 4.0 scale because every high school does it so differently
Are you ok with elite colleges be 50+% asian? I am, but usually the people babbling about meritocracy think that it would mean more whites go to elite colleges which wouldn’t be the case.
