I agree admissions should be by merit only.No more affirmative action and
especially no more LEGACY PREFERENCE that discriminates against
smarter Asians in favor of less qualified whites.
I agree admissions should be by merit only.No more affirmative action and
especially no more LEGACY PREFERENCE that discriminates against
smarter Asians in favor of less qualified whites.
Do not mention the actual group that benefits from the Ivy League admissions policies
4) Men — especially white male athletes — have an unfair admissions advantage over women
The process at my college (and many elite liberal arts schools) was particularly brutal to qualified women. We simply had more qualified women than men in the pool; to keep a gender balance on campus, many ended up in the rejection pile. (Rarely do you hear people debate this form of affirmative action.)
There’s another reason that men — specifically, well-to-do white men — had an advantage over women: athletics. Division III athletics allowed a regressive system of affirmative action for the demographic that needs it the least: white wealthy males.
No one can give a solid enough answer of why it’s important for an elite liberal arts school to have a strong D-III athletic program. Some claim it raises student morale; others theorize athletes go into more lucrative fields post-graduation (business, law) and are more likely to donate down the line. In some cases, it seems as simple and silly as a better football team making wealthy donors happy: They have reason to tailgate on campus and bragging rights at the water cooler among other liberal arts alum.
The most farcical aspect of this system was it favored underwhelming white male candidates. White female athletes who were unspectacular candidates were still generally qualified enough to get admitted the traditional way.
I witnessed the cynical strategy of deferring black male athletes to the general committee, their cases then championed on the grounds of increasing diversity. This saved tips in the athletic committee for more underqualified white men, while robbing non-athlete black students in the regular committee.
It was unsettling then, and it’s infuriating now. White males with wealthy, educated parents and substandard academic profiles and SAT scores had a back door into elite schools through athletic talents that couldn’t net them Division I scholarships. You wouldn’t want to pay to see the teams play, but these students were admitted as if they were contributing to revenue-producing sports teams at larger universities.
It just seems too logical and moral not to ask about sex or race on the application.
go away run wrote:
It just seems too logical and moral not to ask about sex or race on the application.
What would be logical to use? Obviously not tests like the SAT/ACT with their known racial, gender and social economic bias. HS grades are very hard to put in context. Personal interviews and essay's have tons of bias.
There is some argument for gender balancing for things like social interactions (i.e. 60%+ male or female isn't good) and just resource usage (i.e. bathrooms and the like). But maybe that isn't a big deal and having schools that are all 60% woman wouldn't be a big deal.
Saying take people on merit sounds great but actually defining merit is almost impossible especially when looking at the marginal differences between the last 1000 kids let in and the next 1000 kids who were rejected at places like harvard, stanford, and so on. You could swap either group and end up with the same results.
They will justify by claiming discriminatory policies are required to counter systemic racism and some liberal court will agree.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
go away run wrote:
It just seems too logical and moral not to ask about sex or race on the application.
What would be logical to use? Obviously not tests like the SAT/ACT with their known racial, gender and social economic bias.
If your premise is that no test can be devised to determine a person's intelligence, skills, or aptitude for a particular position or project, then you are not even in reality. If you are just referring to the SAT or ACT, then this is an exaggerated statement at best. Deliberately false statement at worst.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Saying take people on merit sounds great but actually defining merit is almost impossible.
This is ridiculous statement. It is quite possible for an institution or employer to determine merit. It is quite possible to determine who is qualified, who has the intelligence, who has the abilities, who has the skills necessary, and who has the characteristics needed to perform and succeed at a particular position or project.
go away run wrote:
They do. Poor kids pay nothing while rich kids pay $75k. But all should be judged on merit, not skin color. It is amazing that highly educated people could think it is okay to discriminate based on race. A 36 ACT gets denied because he is white while a 31 ACT gets in because he is black. They are bypassing thousands of more qualified kids. And the white kid could be from rural Mississippi raised by a single mother earning $25k while the black kid could be from Manhattan raised by parents earning $1M. Income is not considered in admissions but race is. The black kid could have gone to a primarily white school with rich kids at the same time that the white kid attended a school with almost all poor black kids.
Good point.
Elite schools love to point to their "need-blind" admission practices.
Imagine them pointing to "race-blind" practices -- there would be hell to pay.
Rebulphitudinal wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
What would be logical to use? Obviously not tests like the SAT/ACT with their known racial, gender and social economic bias.
If your premise is that no test can be devised to determine a person's intelligence, skills, or aptitude for a particular position or project, then you are not even in reality. If you are just referring to the SAT or ACT, then this is an exaggerated statement at best. Deliberately false statement at worst.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Saying take people on merit sounds great but actually defining merit is almost impossible.
This is ridiculous statement. It is quite possible for an institution or employer to determine merit. It is quite possible to determine who is qualified, who has the intelligence, who has the abilities, who has the skills necessary, and who has the characteristics needed to perform and succeed at a particular position or project.
It isn't a very controversial opinion that the SAT is biased racially. Everyone who has looked at it has come to that conclusion. It is a result of them normalizing questions around white middle class males and that social context that they live in. There is even less controversy that you can study for the SAT and pick up 100-200 points which is a huge leg up for rich people who can afford a 1000 bucks for a tutor. You basically end up rewarding people for spending money on developing a skill that is only useful for taking SATs.
Could you make a test that was nonbiased? I doubt it. You can look at the poor history of the attempts to do that. You could make one that is less biased. Can your test be remotely accurate (i.e. a person scoring a 1000 is better than a 990) enough for picking out classes? No existing test has been., Heck the schools current scheme isn't that good. The correlation between kids in the top 1/3rd let in and bottom 1/3rd as fall as over all academic performance is weak. Pretty much everyone who isn't paying to get in is overqualified at elite schools.
It is hard to say what not letting people pay for admission would do. There is some value of have rich idiots there to let smart people get access to social networks.
simplicity works wrote:
Good point.
Elite schools love to point to their "need-blind" admission practices.
Imagine them pointing to "race-blind" practices -- there would be hell to pay.
Definitely. Can you imagine the outcry if Harvard goes from 45% white to 20% because instead of discrimating towards whites they went race-blind. There definitely would be hell to pay....
go away run wrote:
They do. Poor kids pay nothing while rich kids pay $75k. But all should be judged on merit, not skin color. It is amazing that highly educated people could think it is okay to discriminate based on race. A 36 ACT gets denied because he is white while a 31 ACT gets in because he is black. They are bypassing thousands of more qualified kids. And the white kid could be from rural Mississippi raised by a single mother earning $25k while the black kid could be from Manhattan raised by parents earning $1M. Income is not considered in admissions but race is. The black kid could have gone to a primarily white school with rich kids at the same time that the white kid attended a school with almost all poor black kids.
Race is the only thing that matters to those on the left, and academia is about as left-wing dominated as it gets. Race is the sole thing that defines human beings. BTW, racism is bad. #BLM
TBH, Asians should be making up 75%+ of the student body at these places. They deserve it. They worked for it and earned it.
You are making this too hard. The Ivies already have a formula. They pick the best of the whites and the best of the Asians and the best of the blacks by using the formula. But they don't pick the best of all of the students or there would be no minoritues admitted. Skin color matters to liberals.
go away run wrote:
You are making this too hard. The Ivies already have a formula. They pick the best of the whites and the best of the Asians and the best of the blacks by using the formula. But they don't pick the best of all of the students or there would be no minoritues admitted. Skin color matters to liberals.
If they picked the best of all the students it would be all minorities. It would 80% or so asian and south asian, 18% white and 2% the rest. It is only by limiting chinese and Indian nationals and Asian-Americans that the white american kids have a chance.
Getting rid of racial discrimination isn't going to let a white kid instead of a black kid. It is going to let in 2 asian kids (1 replacing the black kid and another the white kid who doesn't get to go). Maybe white culture will adapt to be competitive but I sort of doubt it.
And if you think I am joking go look at what happens at magnet schools that do blind admission. Go look at Thomas Jefferson. The population in the areas 20% asian and 50%, 10% black and 20% hispanic. The school is 70% asian, 25% white. And these are american-asians who are total slackers compared to the kids who have survived the elite Chinese and Indian high schools.
Skin color maters a lot to conservatives. You can notice how they are always mentioning it.
something they amazingly left out of the article....
Today, Jewish students account for about 30 percent of the Yale enrollment, far greater than the proportion of Jews in the United States population, which is maybe 2%
Yale, founded, 1701. U.S. slavery to 1864. Yale profited from slavery as did all North American institutions. No surprise Yale feels a need to make up for their role in slave trade and North American slavery. You will say: White people are hurt for not attending Yale. White people are able to attend many types of educational institutions and still become wealthy.
The United States was built on the backs of slaves:
https://www.curbed.com/maps/slave-labor-white-house-united-states-michelle-obama
This academic discrimination against whites and Asians has been going on since the 1980s.
Yeah right. Learning math is racist. It was invented by Arabs.