Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

latimes.com

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#151

As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…

If affirmative action is what enabled your father to become a doctor, then it almost certainly sounds like the success story that motivates the action. I don’t know percent of the time a similar story is required to justify the means, but it sounds like you should embrace the path that your family’s life has taken. The alternative, presumably, would be effectively unfair knowing what could and then did become.

Something else that isn't really factored into most of these conversations is the level of gatekeeping around professions and schools where a much larger group of people can succeed or even flourish, yet never get the opportunity due to limited class sizes.

Around the healthcare debate specifically, there were a lot of people who talked about the restrictive policies that artificially limit the supply of doctors as well as the policies that prevent the creation of more hospitals.

When my dad was growing up, his father was a mechanic and he really just wanted to go be a mechanic to work with his dad...who told him that it wouldn't support 2 families. So instead...my dad became a dentist. Don't get me wrong, he's very smart (particularly with math) but how many people could be doctors? How many people could handle the curriculum at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, etc?

My guess is that it's a whole lot more than are actually admitted. Further, is the curriculum at these schools that much better than everywhere else or is it more a factor of surrounding yourself with highly motivated peers that makes it better?

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#152
There are different opinions on affirmative action, and I have to admit assessing people based on what group they are member of, even if your intentions are good, really doesn't sound that good to me.

I can recommend Thomas Sowell book on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_...

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#153

Whatever your opinion about recent supreme court decisions, this has all underscored what has been true for a long time: Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea. If it only takes 5 out of 9 people to make laws for 600 million, it only takes one seat change to revert them. (Edit: sorry, 300 - pre-caffeine posting)

They aren't legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is the opposite of what is being done here. The role of the judicial is to look at laws and actions and determine if they're legal within the meta framework. That is what was done here.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#154

I think universities can probably come up with a different set of non-protected criteria to lift underrepresented communities out of social/financial oppression. This might even provide greater access to some equally needing students that are looked over by racially-based criteria. In a perfect world, everyone would have equal opportunity and support throughout their primary education, and college admission could be…

Yeah, and I think it will be pretty simple to do. Just switch over to looking at what district the applicants graduated (or what neighborhood they grew up in) from and try to equally represent all school districts over time. For instance, if you have a poor high school that's never had anyone admitted to your university, then try to choose the next outstanding applicant coming out of that high school. That promotes diversity without involving race. Poor families can't easily change school districts just because they find themselves with a gifted child on their hands. I know because I've been there.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#156

Whatever your opinion about recent supreme court decisions, this has all underscored what has been true for a long time: Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea. If it only takes 5 out of 9 people to make laws for 600 million, it only takes one seat change to revert them. (Edit: sorry, 300 - pre-caffeine posting)

The judicial branch does not legislate. It interprets existing legislation. In this case they were interpreting the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Now, they may not have interpreted it the way you or I would, and they may not have interpreted it correctly. But that is what they do.

"Interpret" is just a word. In practice the Court has enormous power in interpreting laws, to the point where it can completely change the policy that laws implement, or strike them altogether.

We afford deference to the Court because we believe it follows a constrained legal procedure that makes the word "interpret" meaningful: this involves taking into account precedent and past case law. This approach tends to prevent justices from "interpreting" the law in ways that effectively re-write the law according to their instantaneous political preferences. This court is receiving criticism (and serious loss of public approval [1]) because it has abandoned those constraints, and keeps overturning longstanding precedent in ways that happen to correspond to the stated political preferences of the justices (and the politicians that appointed them.)

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#157
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The idea is that there are more kids who could succeed at the college than there are spots. So find the right bar and do lottery. A lot of this comes down to what you think the mission of college is. Is it to educate the highest achieving kids who apply? Or to graduate a certain type of student? Or something else? For me I know it’s not just to educate the highest achieving kids. If the top college in the world ended…

The way I see it, this is only a problem if you must go to one of the top schools in the nation, such as MIT, because you want to be able to graduate and secure an extremely competitive job at the best companies with no questions asked.

If you aren't actively trying to achieve stardom in the professional world, there are tons of good universities that will provide a great education and will look good on your resume, you just might not be hired right out of the gate at Apple with only one or two rounds of interviews.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#158
I admittedly skimmed the opinion, but is this the first case that establishes a private entity like Harvard University is bound by the Equal Protections Clause? I thought existing law and precedent only had it applied to state/state actors (and a few cases where private businesses acted like governments, eg company towns).

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#159

Whatever your opinion about recent supreme court decisions, this has all underscored what has been true for a long time: Legislating via the judicial branch is a bad idea. If it only takes 5 out of 9 people to make laws for 600 million, it only takes one seat change to revert them. (Edit: sorry, 300 - pre-caffeine posting)

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws. It doesn't write or institute any laws whatsoever. Now people need to get into college on merit instead of scoring high in the Victim Olympics. That's a great thing for our society.

Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions

#160

As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…

> I went to MIT ... I was valedictorian [presumably in high school] and had a perfect score on the SATs > I've always wondered if being Hispanic helped me get into college or into jobs I've been on plenty of hiring committees for engineers and product owners. The fact that you have stellar academics and went to MIT stands out well more than your name or whatever your skin color is. Good for you for your accomplishmen…

> AA had a purpose and place at some moment in time. I think that moment has passed.

Given how women and people with disabilities are still largely absent from these discussions and who still face massive challenges in breaking into some industries - let alone leadership roles in those industries - I think AA still had a place.

I think it's a mistake to say that absent AA we have a pure meritocracy. Instead the discrimination is simply based on criteria that we (US voters) no longer have a say in.

Post reply on HN