Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

sorting-machine.pages.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#111

Post by JuniperMesos »

alistairSH wrote: post #71
az226 wrote: post #16

Pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell is the one chart showing the same student as Asian, 25%, White, 36%, Hispanic 77%, and Black 95%. This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past to kickstart the disproportionate enrollment demographics, but it was past due to get rid of it. The most interesting part following SCOTUS' ruling is that Harvard said it wouldn't change their wa…

What data do you have to support the assertion that affirmative action is no longer necessary to ensure proper representation of minorities on campus? I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.

What specific ethnic groups do and do not count as minorities? What specific ratio of people from various ethnic groups admitted to college campuses counts as "proper"? Why specifically do the enrollment numbers at college campuses today count as a "problem"?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#112

Post by nec4b »

alistairSH wrote: post #72
dahart wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like a platitudinal aphorism to me, it’s trite and cliche and overused and was delivered as if it’s insightful in hopes of ending the debate. Google appears to agree vigorously that “two wrongs don’t make a right” is a platitude. One problem with that platitude is that there are plenty of ways that two negative things can balance each other out or become positive in some way. Aren’t you making deep cultural…

You’re also deliberately ignoring the point that there might be no such thing as innocent third parties, but only people who aren’t aware they’re part of the problem, even if it’s subtle and unintended. I was about to post the same and that's 100% my take... sure, I didn't own slaves and I don't intentionally do anything racist... but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educate…

What about white kids on the other side of the town with drug addicted parents?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#113

Post by freejazz »

rayiner wrote: post #85
esafak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take something from me and the government takes it back that's two wrongs in your book??

If I steal something from you and then you retaliate by stealing something from my cousin, then that’s the definition of two wrongs.

In what way did your cousin ever have anything in this context? His admission wasn't rescinded, he never had it in the first place.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#114

Post by [deleted] »

blagie wrote: post #91
alistairSH wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data do you have to support the assertion that affirmative action is no longer necessary to ensure proper representation of minorities on campus? I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.

The open question is the meaning of "proper representation:" - One which maximizes Harvard's power network? - Most likely to succeed in the future? - Representative of the general public by race? - Representative of the general public in other ways (e.g. religion, political affiliation)? - Academically, best-qualified right now? - Academically, most potential? At birth? Now? - Most likely to donate? Etc. However defi…

[deleted]

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#115

Post by freejazz »

rayiner wrote: post #88
dahart wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? > Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? Did I imagine the 19th amendment?

> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? Wrong, but not illegal. > What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.

>You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.

Yeah, and?

No response on the 19th amendment?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#116

Post by nec4b »

exogeny wrote: post #35

Alright, I’m going to try to weigh in on this subject in good faith. Wish me luck! I grew up in suburban Pittsburgh and attended a very good public school. I had friends who lived only ten or fifteen minutes away but attended schools that were substantially worse by nearly every measurable standard. How should a university compare our applications on an apples-to-apples basis? Some people would say, “Just use standar…

>How exactly should those advantages be measured?

Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#117

Post by UncleMeat »

rayiner wrote: post #40
dahart wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended t…

Lots of problems in society that are hard to fix. But there's nowhere else in society where our solution to a problem is to subject people who had nothing to do with the problem to unfair treatment. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a good general principle.

Hm. How does this vibe with your blanket judgement about Bangladeshis?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#118

Post by UncleMeat »

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #95
Yizahi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the combination of extremely discriminatory, extremely corrupt, extremely predatory and then again discriminated differently by the fact if they are a sportsball player or not is rather amusing and at the same time baffling when observed from the other side of the globe. Of course it is too late by now, by have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam resu…

For the last 50 years you would get in severe trouble for using test scores alone thanks to disparate impact.

That is not true. Disparate impact has never meant "literally anything that produces disparate impact is against the law." I guess until the Trump admin has started using it to mean this when it affects white people.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#119

Post by digitaltrees »

Aunche wrote: post #77
digitaltrees wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't think the 50% admit rate for athletes, 40% admit rate for deans interest ie large cash donors, and 35% legacy admit rate were "the whole think"?

Legacy and donor admissions aren't the gotcha against race neutral admissions that you think they are. In fact, they go hand in hand. It's not a coincidence that the universities with strong legacy preferences all practiced affirmative action. Legacy students actually have slightly better grades and SAT scores than average, but this would unlikely to be the case if they used purely merit based admissions. https://en.…

I didn’t say it to be a gotcha. But let’s admit that legacy admissions and athletes represent a non meritocratic social goal, and then ask why those are legitimate social goals but racial diversity is not one?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#120

Post by freejazz »

rayiner wrote: post #92
dahart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh. Whoa. They should be happy with what the…

> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle. > They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here b…

> Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.

So those countries should deal with those issues, then? I really don't understand how you are allowed to post so much all over this website. No less in such an intentionally obtuse and argumentative manner.

Post reply on HN