If you agree with this decision on the grounds of supporting meritocracy, consider that the real travesty with regards to meritocracy in college admissions are legacy admissions.
How big a deal and how common is it in reality? "We have one fewer spots because we admitted the son of a donor" and "we won't accept you based on race" are different magnitude.
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
841–850 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#842The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
> I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Up until about 1971 (possibly later, but that's the date of Loving vs Virginia ), the US had formal, legal discrimination against black people. On finally removing that, there was at various times discussion of whether peopl…
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#843Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had no impostor syndrome. Many of my peers didn't either; it's certainly not the case that almost everyone feels it. There seemed to be little correlation between ability and impostor syndrome too, so it's not a question of ability. But I digress. Decades out, and understanding university admissions in-and-out: 1) At least an order of magnitude more people "belong" at MIT than there's space for. Elitist universitie…
> 1) At least an order of magnitude more people "belong" at MIT than there's space for. Elitist universities manufacture scarcity. This is how I've always felt when I'm involved in hiring (especially when I was at Google). I don't relate to the whole "nobody can do fizzbuzz" thing at all. There are so many ridiculously smart and talented people out there, and so many bottlenecks letting fewer of them through than wou…
Maybe you’re just being too kind.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#844The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
Is there a legal way to discriminate based on race? I thought that was pretty much illegal in most countries, despite efforts in sections of both left and right to keep racism alive...
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#8451. The largest beneficiaries of admissions policies at elite institutions are legacy admissions of wealth alumni’s kids. If SCOTUS wants to interfere with the admissions policies of private institutions based on the equal protections clause, maybe that’s a better place to start. 2. The vast majority of students attend colleges that accept almost everyone.
A typical class at Harvard has 2,500 student admits. Of those, 700 are black or Hispanic. If Harvard did away with legacy admissions, 25 additional Hispanic or black applicants would be admitted, so 725. However, if they did away with affirmative action, 450 would not be admitted, so you would be down to 275. Most of these 425 spots would go to Asian applicants and a chunk would go to white applicants.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#846Earlier quoted context omitted.
Affirmative Action is not about social-democratic "lets help poor black people". Nobody is gonna help poor people in America. Poor people are always told to "pull themselves by the bootstraps (sic!)" The beneficiaries of AA are: 1. Kids of rich black people (like children of OBAMA) 2. Rich international students from African continent (Nigeria, Ghana etc) 3. Rich white young women (for those colleges that do AA based…
> Rich white young women (for those colleges that do AA based on gender) Very few colleges prefer women. Of those that do, it's pretty much just the engineering focused ones and thus would pick up nearly as many Asian women as white women. Generally, (weak) male preferences are more common given the general male underrepresentation in higher ed.
Legacy female +black with subpar SAT scores (despite having enough money for SAT prep) is a perfect candidate in Harvard’s eyes
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#847I never understood why are people against standardized testing. I would rather fail test than be judged by someone then deemed not worthy.
I'm against building an entire education system around having children excel at standardized tests. Which is basically what will happen if it's the sole determinant of ability for universities.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#848Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patently false
Not "patently false", but, complicated: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-benefits-from-af... The central argument, and what Zimmerman backs with data, is that affirmative action benefited white men because it disadvantaged Asians and women, both of whom, statistically, will be more-likely to have higher academic scores.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#849The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
- totally obviously correct in a vacuum with no other factors
- reflective of how most white Americans think of the issue, because their experience of persistent racism is that it’s mostly unnoticeable or trivially ignorable
- what people motivated to reverse AA have reinforced for decades, because they want this to be the predominant intuition even for people with more context
- logically reasonable if you assume advantage barriers generally follow a similar pattern and even then if you assume good faith
- untenable on inspection for the same reason any social democratic institution needs to exist: a thing that’s supposed to be structurally fair intrinsically isn’t, and demands correction to address that
The problem is that an economic axis isn’t the only one involved. Sometimes it isn’t even involved at all. Racism is deeply embedded in American culture and history and outcomes, even when other factors are otherwise favorable. And at least in the US, this is a huge source of conflict among otherwise like minds even on the left.
It would be much better if those with an open mind to “can’t we just level the field” had a more open mind to the various axes of relative and historically intentionally stratified advantage. That applies to race, to sex, to sexuality and gender identity, to disability. And in each, structural inequality is much more particular and involved than access to money/resources.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Up until about 1971 (possibly later, but that's the date of Loving vs Virginia ), the US had formal, legal discrimination against black people. On finally removing that, there was at various times discussion of whether peopl…
Legacy is always brought up in these discussions. The amount of students who get into Harvard because of the boost from their race outnumbers the number of legacy students who get boosted from their status 20 to 1. Basically a race and legacy blind policy would reject 20 times more minorities than legacy applicants and then if the policy is race and legacy discriminatory.