481–490 of 660 posts
Asians have the highest "personality" scores among alumni interviewers who meet with the applicants and the lowest "personality" scores among admissions officers who don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Income equality is outcome equality, which is unenforceable.
it should be opportunity equality, rather than outcome equality. Everyone should have the chance at getting educated, but not everyone needs to pass or excel - it is up to the individual to succeed, but it is up to society to provide the opportunity to succeed. That is why schooling (primary, secondary and tertiary) should be free for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They got a fair shot. A judge just determined it. And what happens if the Supreme Court overrules that? Are you just going to blindly agree then too? > I got a fair shot. I didn't get in. Can the plaintiffs move on? How do you even know you got a fair shot. That's the whole point of this case. You're just blindly asserting that.
I didn't get into _any_ elite schools. That's a reflection on me. Elite schools judge 17 year olds by their future worth. That's perfectly fine by me. I was diligent enough in school to know that if I didn't do as well on a test I should blame myself for being lesser , not the institution.
This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20..…
For perspective, here are the Harvard vs US demographics, sorted by most to least represented [1,2,3,4]: Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x) Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x) Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x) Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x) African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x) Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x) non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x) [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/adm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"White people" is a vast generalization, it includes people that came in US much later than the history you are talking about. How can you even consider punishing them for something they did not do, just because they are the same race as the people that did something bad a long time ago? This is racism in the purest form.
Most (all?) of Europe benefited from colonialism and slavery, it wasn't just America doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Harvard admits on legacy status.
This is unrelated.
If Jews have had a hard time getting into Harvard in the past, and Harvard uses legacy status, then that means that Jews will.habe a harder time in the future for getting into Harvard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, why not just lump most of it under "socioeconomic disadvantages" category (mostly based on the family's financial situation)? E.g., poor asian kids shouldn't be grouped with the less poor asian kids and shouldn't have been at a disadvantage compared to a rich african american kid for admission purposes. This proposed approach sounds so obvious, I feel like there has gotta be some caveat in it that I…
I think this is the ultimate solution. Of course people will still try to game this system by e.g. sending their kids to high school in poorer districts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would give affirmative action based on economic status, not race But race also matters in terms of starting position.
Yes, a lot in terms of cultural differences. So Asian-americans are being discriminated against because their parents make them study hard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
FWIW, I'm a white person who used to think of affirmative action as unfair discrimination. That was true until I spent time volunteering teaching technical skills to kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods. Now that I have had an up close experience with these communities, I'm here to tell you institutional racism is real and we're far from it making sense to end these programs. There simply is not a quick easy solution…
I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.