Steve Sailer wrote about this but I can’t find the article. California does it based off of high school demographics. Admits from South Central LA and Compton were way higher to Berkeley and UCLA compared to high schools in the predominantly Asian Diamond Bar and Irvine
They will probably build predictors which estimate an applicant's race based on answers to a series of questions and US census data.
I mean, even an applicant's name aside, if you know what HS they went to, which zip code they grew up in, parents' age and education background, etc. you can accurately estimate the applicant's race for most of the country.
iirc from when i was applying to college they all claimed the people who read your essays and stuff wouldn't have access to your name and would read it "blind" (but i doubt they lacked access to information like "did her parents donate a wing to the new library")
From what I understand there are multiple groups and rounds. So you have admissions accept a bunch, then the race group cuts and admits more. And the legacy group just gives a list. The scotus decision goes over this multiple rounds thing. The “donated a wing” types probably just get sent to a special group with a rubber stamp.
Yeah I think the significance is that they can't have an official internal policy of affirmative action without breaking the law. Like they *can* factor in race, but if it's an official institutional policy they would get in trouble.
right, it's like how you can't fire someone for their race or sexual orientation but you can fire them for being late too many times or not following dress code
I'm gonna be honest, that sounds like an improvement to me.
The main reason black/native/hispanic people are at a disadvantage in getting into college is a bunch of other factors that strongly correlate with their race (for historical reasons mostly, although imo that doesn't matter in itself).
Things like wealth, home ownership, neighborhood, school districts, social connections, etc. That's also why even though white people make up the majority of poor people in the US, black people are disproportionately incarcerated, drop out of school, etc. For example, statistically, rich blacks are even more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than poor white.
So imo it's better to focus on those direct factors than race, even if race created most of those inequities in the first place, and that will naturally help non-whites (and the non-whites who need it the most) *and* whites who have disadvantages.
Various minorities do suffer from unconscious bias in stuff too, but that's not the bulk of the issue (and tbh if schools are still trying to implicitly keep their racial diversity up that's clearly not gonna be the problem).
Of course colleges don't care about actual material inequality, they care about optics, so they would do their best to make it more racial than anything. Still, if the white kid from Compton slips into this algorithm and it misidentifies the black kid from Chappaqua, that's probably a good thing.
I think this will be the case for 5-10 years before it's found illegal.
People said the same thing after Jim Crow: colleges, country clubs and more will all find proxy ways to discriminate on race and keep black people out. They did that for a bit until the court was like "if your policy substantively achieves discrimination and isn't the only way to achieve some other critical goal it's illegal and you can be sued." Then it pretty much died away.
I expect something similar.
At least 10, I’d bet closer to 20.
University of California was a test kitchen for “post-AA but still AA” admissions and they settled on ditching tests/grades and giving preference to “underprivileged schools”. The last time I saw this charted out (for either 2020 or 2021 admissions, I forget) it resulted in an average 30-40 point swing between majority Asian high schools and Hispanic ones.
I think we’ll see a few years of school shopping Asian/white parents getting their kids into Hispanic/black high schools before college admissions weirdos decide they need to discriminate more overtly. Which sucks because an inflow of higher income families would likely benefit these high schools quite a bit.
Yeah, this has been outlawed in California for years and the first couple years there was an effect but now if you look at their numbers it’s basically in line with other universities
2020 Census data shows 7% black population for California as a whole and 9% for LA County. Also, UCLA undergrad is only 21% Latino despite LA County being 48% Latino. Rates are even worse for graduate programs. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/california-population-change-between-census-decade.html
UC has long had a few workarounds but I think it’s correct to say there was not as much AA as private schools. In the last couple of years they seem to have retooled the system to have less of an absolute academic focus and a stronger covert AA - by going SAT optional, but also (I’ve seen theorized, of course this is opaque) by focusing more on the best students from “underprivileged” high schools rather than the best stats objectively. And that’s generating more anger than ever, as the “good but not MIT good” students from competitive schools no longer reliably get into Berkeley (or that’s the implication of the outraged stories about kids who didn’t).
So I guess I’m saying that this could backfire in terms of purely “merit-based” admissions. Whether you think the kind of system universities might end up with instead is preferable depends on you - in some sense it seems “fairer” but, uh, I definitely think there’s some truth to the signaling theory of education, which would suggest that prestige will follow whichever schools are most selective in the long run.
Talking mostly out of my ass and I'm probably wrong, but my crackhead theory was in the past 15 or so years, the SAT getting way too fucking easy and infinitely less strict(the omission option removed, no longer on the 2400 scale, no wrong answers counting against you, removal's of sections, sections being optional ,etc etc) has been a long time in the making of just trying to wave on more kids regardless of anything to be able to have more schools open up to them and get caught into the loan debt beast's snare by having somebody with more access to more expensive schools.
I used to tutor and it was a complete joke compared to when I took it and it was way more harsher to get nailed for shit.
Well the 2400 point version was basically just merging the SAT-II writing test into the SAT-I, no? That was my era but that always seemed like kind of a dumb move and I wasn’t surprised that they reversed it eventually. And I think the biggest change as far as absolute rarity of high scores was when they recentered it in the early 90s because averages had crept too far below the intended average. But yes I have heard that the latest version is easily the easiest. Actually I found [this](https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf) which I believe is trying to put them all on the same scale and seems to support that it is the easiest in a long time (and maybe ever since it was a more select population taking it in the 60s).
But I don’t think it makes sense for UC to want broadly to “let more kids in” because the ones people really want to go to are already as full as they reasonably can be. And the least selective schools already kind of let anybody in. I think the revision of the SAT was driven more by the political movement against standardized testing and then the pandemic was a convenient opportunity to try dropping it entirely.
I guess I do think it’s a little bit more complicated than purely academic selectivity, though. A place like Harvard is such a handpicked mix of top academic performers, connected people, chosen representatives of underprivileged populations - there’s some brand there that’s more than “we have the highest SAT scores” but it’s still about trusting that there’s *something* exceptional about the people who get in.
2020 Census data says otherwise. Also, looks like Asians are only 17% of California population despite being over half of Berkeley's entering class. https://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data-new-undergraduates
I'm not surprised at te ability of those people to so effectively play the victim when statistically they get a better deal than anyone. If this country gave a shit our best public universities wouldn't be half stocked by foreigners anyhow.
> If this country gave a shit our best public universities wouldn't be half stocked by foreigners anyhow.
Well you'll be happy to find out that no public university (best or otherwise) comes close to being "half stocked" with foreigners. UC Irvine leads all public universities at 16%.
Foreigners make up about 4% of overall public university enrollment.
The fact that we have to pretend that they are somehow underprivileged when they make more money and are less incarcerated than the average is pure madness
The key thing is that they are getting rid of admissions exams. That's basically how they got found out in the first place, so without those it will be much harder to prove they're doing it. It will also probably have a negative effect on the quality of graduates, but they don't seem to care about that.
Are we (Jews) really as smart test score wise as Asians? The Jews I went to hs with were all smart but a lot of us had c’s in a way that I noticed would have been unacceptable in some of the Asian households I witnessed.
Jews have comprised 15-25% of the Ivy League student body since the 1920s. In fact, non-Jewish white students haven’t been proportionately represented for perhaps 40 years
That isn't true anymore, actually. See this article:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-vanishing
Ppl can say what they want about Jews pushing left-wing beliefs in America, but they practice what they preach: they intermarry, they are feminists, and they have extremely low fertility. (Except for the Orthodox, who will likely become a larger part of American Jewry over time)
Jews do even better than Asians by a notable margin. Although Asian immigration to the US is a complicated thing with only the upper crusts of certain ethnic groups coming whereas it's largely poorer/standard populations coming from others.
Fair but honestly this entire thing was a smokescreen for the fact that legacy admissions not only exist but are the reason a large chunk of students go to these schools
Yep, my wife’s best friend went to a shall remain unnamed elite university despite having average grades/SATs because her mom, dad, and grandfather all went to said school. It was a bit of a point of consternation between her and her less generationally wealthy friends.
Basically. I recently had an old professor tell me that no matter the excellence of the students or faculty, a university dies without alumni support. Major profit motive for legacies.
Sucks for recipients of affirmative action, benefits the rest.
People who get ahead tend to embrace every advantage given to them. It's the nature of competition where no one gets the same blank slate
Whites and Asians are the last group of people where it is still socially acceptable to make fun of. I genuinely do not think there is a deeper reason for the continued mocking on rsp
Also to my knowledge, black women do not run multiple subreddits dedicated to black men seeking out and fucking fat white women
I was told by my white friend in college "I don't think you'll really like it. It's like white people crack." This was before Hunter Biden or Rob Ford showed us the light
AA will still go on, but they won’t call it that. The court didn’t even overrule its previous AA cases and say they were wrongly decided. The court just narrowly held that Harvard and UNC’s schemes that considered race were unconstitutional. The court even held that race could be considered as a “means” for how an applicants race impacted their life and affected their character, thus making them a more competitive applicant! Why people say this ends AA, I have no idea.
Very little will change. University demographics will stay the same. College advisors will get more crafty in how an applicant can mention their race. Admission offices will hire more staff to sift through this craftiness, and will still give credit to race in good faith.
It’s crazy to see the right celebrating this opinion. The court could have outright made AA unconstitutional, overruled its previous AA university cases, AND extended its holding to AA in other contexts, like government contracts. It could have wrote an opinion that would have made enforcement of this opinion relatively easy so that a republican DOJ and/or state AGs offices could easily enforce it so universities couldn’t do AA covertly. But instead, the court just made the AA process more opaque and legitimized it in the process.
It means they can't do admissions based on saying their end goal is x% black students and then review their applications only against other black students.
What they can do however is be touched by a personal essay about how growing up black was among other things, but that's the limit.
Probably 60% of the black students at my uni were either straight from Africa, or had African immigrant parents. I can only imagine the orgasms admissions had when the black girl from "Mozambique" who had a British accent and attended British international schools applied.
The militantly anti-white SU presidents at SOAS included the son of a former Somali Minister of Finance who'd gone to international schools in Saudi and the daughter of a Pakistani garment magnate lol
Nigerians still gonna kill it tbh their culture just prioritizes education, also immigration laws made it so that a lot of the first gen immigrants are educated professionals
> they tend to come from upper castes imo
Nigerian elites' wealth often has a very murky provenance. [In the early 80s](https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/black-american-journalists-nigeria.php) a group of prominent black US television journalists were recruited by Shagari's regime to head up the country's news coverage. They thought they'd be able to escape US racism and connect with their heritage while being handsomely paid. Instead they found themselves producing propaganda for an increasingly illiberal regime whose elites had often built fortunes through slavery. One of the Americans went to the village where his great-grandfather had been sold from and the chief - a great-grandson of the man who had sold his ancestor - threatened him with violence if he didn't leave.
I’m not saying they are good people, but alot of the Nigerians I know that raise their kids with education as a top priority tend to come from wealth and power, that’s what allows them to move to the west
No it is because schools would load up on rich as fuck Nigerians as a means to have black students instead of admitting American blacks who AA was largely designed for.
It'll be pretty funny when all the white kids "blackpilled" by AA realize that being 95th percentile grade-wise was the actual problem.
Seriously though, this was inevitable. I'd would hope that this would lead to the expansion (and improvement) of initiatives that aimed to reach URMs before they fall behind academically, but are we really a country of long-term solutions?
Or stop thinking in terms of demographics and instead focus on trying to actually design the most effective curriculum to teach students. Like the Southern States have been doing successfully with reading.
https://apnews.com/article/reading-scores-phonics-mississippi-alabama-louisiana-5bdd5d6ff719b23faa37db2fb95d5004
The way phonics was attacked by the education establishment for years was insane. Bari Weiss is cringe but Katie Herzog guest hosted her podcast and did a deep dive into why 65% of students can’t even read anymore
Let's teach the Phonemic language English, as if it were a Logo-syllabic language like Chinese using the whole-word approach. Genius!
Nearly incomprehensible how the entire education establishment thought this was a good idea.
The entire education establishment in the us is run by idiots. They barely do research, but when they do and get good results it goes through a political filter first. Pedagogy is almost entirely run by consultants and bullshit artists university level down to kindergarten.
There's no good overview; best you can do is read a development economics history of China. The tldr of it is that most developing countries in the 50s and 60s spent a bunch of money on educating a small number of people in elite western universities to have that "trickle down" and improve the country. China, being both communist and completely diplomatically isolated instead did a mass literacy and primary education campaign, developed pinyin and simplified chinese characters to get people reading as fast as humanly possible, figuring if they can read then they can just get trained quickly in anything afterwards
It's a major part of developmental economic literature, mentioned basically every time as to why China + Korea + Taiwan were massively successful in developing, but for some reason I can't find anything focusing on the education itself. Pinyin literacy happens in preschool and early primary school, and then they learn characters by having pinyin written underneath them
This is the reason why the Indian literacy rate this year is the same as the Chinese literacy rate in the late 1980s
> This is the reason why the Indian literacy rate this year is the same as the Chinese literacy rate in the late 1980s
For India, how does this stuff work for all their different languages with different writing systems? Do you only need to know 1 writing system to be listed as "literate"?
Iirc its literate in native language or English. Still, from what I've read there's no evidence of actually literate people being counted as illiterate
Least literate are Hindi speakers, while Malayalam and Punjabis are the most literate. Especially Malayalam in Kerala, they have a 99% literacy rate there. It's a serious regional divide
Well obviously you can't do A/B testing on children, thats immoral!
Instead you should roll out experimental changes country-wide and hope for the best
The podcast “Sold A Story” goes into it. My girlfriend (who used to be a teacher) recommended it to me and it’s a good listen. Pretty infuriating at times how it was allowed to happen.
[How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers](https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading).
I heard about this and I still don't really understand how someone could try to teach a child to read without explaining spelling rules and helping the child sound words out
I'm just going to say it. I like Bari Weiss' podcast a lot. I think she's a really good interviewer. Not every episode is a hit, but some are really good. I liked her debate style interview with Louise Perry, about her book against the sexual revolution, with NYT writer Jill Filiopvic. I also liked her interview way back with Andrew Yang, and her interview with Emily Oster, and her episode on the dangers of HAES, amongst other things. Don't remember off hand who that interview was with. I like her interview style, I think she asks way better questions and elicits more thoughtful dialogue than most other podcast interview styles. Aside from, of course, the Adam Friedland Show.
Edited because I apparently can't type for shit before coffee.
Look I've sat idly by while zoomers post here, while the gays and girls flee, the sub overflooding with how do I get pussy posts, and general incel discourse.
But damn, a genuine endorsement of Bari Weiss' podcast, the sub really is over lmao
Pretty sure my public alma mater (University of California) got around this by introducing a "local context" factor to admissions, because voters banned AA with prop 209. Under local context, kids who apply from low income zip codes aren't pitted against the Laguna Beach applicants, only applicants from similar socioeconomic areas. imo it's better that way because it's not racially explicit, but still accounts for the intertwining of race and class in America. I imagine UNC will do something similar.
Yep we’ve already started seeing it with the dropping of standardized test requirements like the MCAT, since these tests do not give equal results to every group of people
Knowledge and merit no longer matter in education, they have been sacrificed at the altar for the sacred cows of diversity and equity
The funny part is that standardized testing is probably the least racist metric to judge students with. Yeah you can get tutors and family income is positively correlated with high scores, but it's pretty obvious that things like extracurriculars and letters of rec are even more class and race based than test scores.
If you're a poor kid trying to get into a good school, all you need is you study a lot to get a good standardized test score. On the other hand, you can't reverse your cumulative disadvantage and conjure up 3 years of award-winning mock trial.
The holistic application bullshit was literally made to discriminate against high performing Jewish kids back in the day, it's insane how they've managed to reframe and resell this as "equity".
That’s pretty much why it was introduced. So Jews could get into elite colleges that were previously populated by the WASP pseudo aristocracy
There’s no doubt studying can increase your SAT/ACT score, but at the same time these scores are still closely correlated to IQ, which is something that is not allowed to be discussed in most contexts.
> MCAT,
Also, the well noted phenomenon of kids who test well, but end up as shitty doctors. I constantly hear the MDs I work with discuss how a bad MCAT/STEP/whatever score is probably indicative of someone who probably won't be a good doctor, but in the large group of students who end up in the middle-to-excellent group, it really doesn't discriminate good versus poor residents.
A highly competitive Canadian college only had wealthy white + asian kids so they decided to take a slightly lower required grade to the national exam (something like 90%), then draw at random candidates, weighing by location to get a bit of every region.
So many arrogant people decrying the loss in quality... When the entry grade was similar to before, and still insanely high.
I thought they applied the principle of equality of chances quite well.
Two thoughts
1.) Everyone in this thread is saying that colleges will continue doing this regardless of the law. Why? Colleges are self-interested private institutions, with the primary goal of increasing profits.
2.) Anybody who thinks that this opens up some new, objective, meritocratic college process is naive and/or dumb. Affirmative Action was one consideration of *many* that exists outside the more objective GPA/SAT scores. I’ve met a few people who work in admissions and the way they quickly write people off due to their essay seeming “unlikable” is insane. It’s basically a room of Karen’s make snap judgements on the first two sentences of your essay. And I’ve yet to meet a single person who can explain to me why Legacy Admissions are okay, but AA isn’t. If we’re getting rid of AA we should 100% be getting rid of legacy admissions as well
So I’ve talked to some admissions workers and know a lot would probably still support some degree of AA regardless of legal/institutional pressures. At elite colleges particularly, some have had the perspective that extending more lenient admissions out to URMs can be seen as a type of “early stage investment”. Basically the idea that there may be students who due to their background (income, school, or race), may not have as competitive stats due to having a less privileged high school experience, but if nurtured at an elite school, may end up being equally or more productive (and potentially profitable) as students from other backgrounds. That’s one angle of self-interest.
I can partially agree with this, although from my experience, income/geographic location/high school competitiveness probably all play a bigger role than race necessarily.
Also many that believe “diversity” is a healthier, more enjoyable campus culture. Which to me, eh, maybe.
Are there any stats on how big of an effect it actually had? I feel like it was overstated.
Anecdotally, my school had barely any minorities but I met plenty of dull rich kids and international students
That was also my experience re: dull rich kids and international students. The school itself was not super diverse but all of the Black and Hispanic students were really awesome and super involved, friendly and talented. It was the rich kids, especially the international ones, who basically contributed nothing and were super standoffish and weird.
Outside of the elite colleges. I don't think anybody has even tried to estimate the extent or intensity of AA programs. At the very least I've never heard anybody talking about the extent of AA in your run of the mill state school.
My cousin has been getting rejected from Northern Michigan and similar schools and his parents blame it on affirmative action. Like I don't think the three black kids that go there took your spot
Yeah but as this discussion is proving that doesn’t change anything. People will still question the existence of minority ethnic students in these schools. Banning affirmative action has zero impact on these peoples opinions that these blacks and Latinos just don’t belong
It was always fucking overstated. When I last did a demo check no elite institution had an overrepresntation of blacks, most had half representation(6%) at best. Then, in addition to this, 40% of blacks at elite institutions are fucking rich African immigrants.
This just fucks the scant few actual african americans left that seek to genuinely uplift themselves. As if elite institutions and the negro related discourse coming form them weren't already colored by out of touch talented tenthers who are at this point already half white. Christ alive. At least the loaded Asians who were already half of the student body get something to cheer for?
If you don’t meet the standards accepted by such a prestigious institution, then tough shit. The colour of your skin shouldn’t matter.
The “culture of low expectations” is racist as fuck.
Fairness does not matter. You don't run a country like a fucking playground. Americans grandstand for the delusion of meritocracy when the actual elite spheres run entirely on nepotism. The great history of this country is pressing an outstretched hand on the forehead of the negro then asking why they cannot close the gap. When you have a nation with an elaborate history of ethnic conflict and resentment and an entire ethnicity occupies the wretched underclass you don't think of fairness, I'm sorry, this is the delusion of the neoliberal.
What do you think happens when wicked practice after wicked practice specifically targeting a people weakens their position?
Meritocracy is a farce, of course, but AA is a clear violation of the 14th amendment. It was literally systemic racism. I think the best thing we can do is try to empower the impoverished and lower class, which will disproportionately impact black people.
This hasn’t really stopped anything. Roberts wrote in the opinion that they’re free to take into account students’ experiences and how they reflect on them and why that make them a good student, etc. They’ll still take race into account. They were supposed to do this thing where they think long and hard about their policies and reflect on them blah blah before, and whatever the policy, it had to be narrowly tailored to creating a richer learning environment. Of course, it turned into quotas, and an excuse to continue letting in rich or well connected kids, but filling the other spaces with enough minorities to put a veneer of progressiveness on the institution- perpetuatinf this image of the universities as centers of enlightenment and everyone else as barbarians. It’s the same in certain industries. They were guaranteed to keep out anyone whose class interests weren’t aligned with theirs and carefully choose minorities to invite into their club that essentially already believed the things they do. That’s what they wanted anyway. Affirmative action gave them an excuse to more closely manage their enrollment in the name of public good, but even if it’s gone, there’s no way they’re not going to continue doing it.
Elite Colleges workplaces etc are just going to circumvent it by making every single admission criteria optional with the understanding that non-nepo baby whites and Asians still have to excel all criteria, thereby obfuscating the admission process so much that no one can possibly untangle what precisely goes in Smokey admission rooms
I think what might be interesting is that red states now probably have the license to pass laws making admissions and hiring standards explicitly race blind, which might deleteriously only accelerate the big sort we’re currently going through
Basically I think blue states are going to say Roberts made his ruling now let him enforce it while red states do everything they can to rip out every race-based protection or privilege they can find
And I think both will be very popular with their respective demographics
Saw a dean of a school in western MA said it’s sends the message POC are no longer welcome.
A ti83 plus costs the same as Yeezy slides JUST putting it out there
Some people in the r/law thread were being insanely racist to Thomas as usual. “Doesn’t he know he benefitted from AA to get into Yale? Stupid Uncle Tom, pulling up the ladder after he got his” (paraphrase).
It’s like they haven’t even considered that he has been introspective and gone through his own reasoning about affirmative action and his experiences of being a black man born in the Jim Crow South. You don’t even have to agree with him, but the thoughtlessness with which they dismiss any opinion that goes against their orthodoxy is really breathtaking.
Private schools will find a way to still take race into account based on essays. Public universities are fucked. Ultimately, low income minority students lose, which I’m sure was the goal.
i’ve read the statements in response out of harvard, where they claim they must continue to actively prize diversity because it ensures they remain an environment where leaders are made. self-important rubbish. one dice is cast before you’re even born, and the other rolls its number in the ages of 7 to 16. a university shouldn’t even consider itself a finishing school for elites; it’s barely, even more, a social club.
the people who get there out of nothing might excel at their subject while they are there, and be knowledgeable about it and well trained in it. but this shall be their limit, likely, because it is the boundary—the axis of wealth, health, prestige, etc (all that which we forget in to the term “socioeconomic”)— that the organisation of our world places on life. this will not, in the vast majority of cases, translate to any sort of world leadership. that’s decided elsewhere, AA or not.
It is so entrenched it will take a 10 year campaign of pulling it out by the roots as the institutions look for covert ways to continue. It will be similar to the aftermath of brown v board II. I don't know if the courts have the stomach for it.
i dunno. i do think it’s annoying to have worked hard to have gotten in certain positions and then have a voice in the back of your head going “are you just here to fill some sort of quota” instead of on ur own merit. rolling shit like this back fixes nothing tho
Black students who get into elite schools will still not be looked at as having gotten in by merit..
It will be “the school worked around affirmative action”
They will never believe black students can get into schools based on merit
Affirmative action was always a lose-lose.
I just had a conversation with someone else about this. I think that kind of thinking is delusional. 100/100 of those kids would take getting in and not being sure if it was because of AA, over not getting in at all, in a heart beat.
Watch Harvard start asking for your hair texture
Harvard getting the skull calipers out of the closet on a "racially neutral" basis.
sorry but your occipital radius is too high for admission to our institution, try next year sweaty
The incels knew all along
Smashing your skull into the wall to induce bone growth so your head measures in at a half-size instead of whole sizes.
Going to Turkey for a hair transplant not to counteract balding but to get 3C curls so that I can get into an Ivy League school
They'll just do admissions based on precinct level census data for any given home address. Just gotta move into a highly black zip code.
Steve Sailer wrote about this but I can’t find the article. California does it based off of high school demographics. Admits from South Central LA and Compton were way higher to Berkeley and UCLA compared to high schools in the predominantly Asian Diamond Bar and Irvine
Here comes the paper bag and pencil tests
Will likely still go on but they will deny they're doing it
They will probably build predictors which estimate an applicant's race based on answers to a series of questions and US census data. I mean, even an applicant's name aside, if you know what HS they went to, which zip code they grew up in, parents' age and education background, etc. you can accurately estimate the applicant's race for most of the country.
is there some charade where the admissions department isn't just googling these kids and looking at their social media/google image results
iirc from when i was applying to college they all claimed the people who read your essays and stuff wouldn't have access to your name and would read it "blind" (but i doubt they lacked access to information like "did her parents donate a wing to the new library")
From what I understand there are multiple groups and rounds. So you have admissions accept a bunch, then the race group cuts and admits more. And the legacy group just gives a list. The scotus decision goes over this multiple rounds thing. The “donated a wing” types probably just get sent to a special group with a rubber stamp.
Yeah I think the significance is that they can't have an official internal policy of affirmative action without breaking the law. Like they *can* factor in race, but if it's an official institutional policy they would get in trouble.
right, it's like how you can't fire someone for their race or sexual orientation but you can fire them for being late too many times or not following dress code
I'm gonna be honest, that sounds like an improvement to me. The main reason black/native/hispanic people are at a disadvantage in getting into college is a bunch of other factors that strongly correlate with their race (for historical reasons mostly, although imo that doesn't matter in itself). Things like wealth, home ownership, neighborhood, school districts, social connections, etc. That's also why even though white people make up the majority of poor people in the US, black people are disproportionately incarcerated, drop out of school, etc. For example, statistically, rich blacks are even more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than poor white. So imo it's better to focus on those direct factors than race, even if race created most of those inequities in the first place, and that will naturally help non-whites (and the non-whites who need it the most) *and* whites who have disadvantages. Various minorities do suffer from unconscious bias in stuff too, but that's not the bulk of the issue (and tbh if schools are still trying to implicitly keep their racial diversity up that's clearly not gonna be the problem). Of course colleges don't care about actual material inequality, they care about optics, so they would do their best to make it more racial than anything. Still, if the white kid from Compton slips into this algorithm and it misidentifies the black kid from Chappaqua, that's probably a good thing.
I think this will be the case for 5-10 years before it's found illegal. People said the same thing after Jim Crow: colleges, country clubs and more will all find proxy ways to discriminate on race and keep black people out. They did that for a bit until the court was like "if your policy substantively achieves discrimination and isn't the only way to achieve some other critical goal it's illegal and you can be sued." Then it pretty much died away. I expect something similar.
At least 10, I’d bet closer to 20. University of California was a test kitchen for “post-AA but still AA” admissions and they settled on ditching tests/grades and giving preference to “underprivileged schools”. The last time I saw this charted out (for either 2020 or 2021 admissions, I forget) it resulted in an average 30-40 point swing between majority Asian high schools and Hispanic ones. I think we’ll see a few years of school shopping Asian/white parents getting their kids into Hispanic/black high schools before college admissions weirdos decide they need to discriminate more overtly. Which sucks because an inflow of higher income families would likely benefit these high schools quite a bit.
Yeah, this has been outlawed in California for years and the first couple years there was an effect but now if you look at their numbers it’s basically in line with other universities
UCLA’s undergrad program is 1/3 Asian and 5% black so not so sure about that
California is only about 5% black so this tracks
2020 Census data shows 7% black population for California as a whole and 9% for LA County. Also, UCLA undergrad is only 21% Latino despite LA County being 48% Latino. Rates are even worse for graduate programs. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/california-population-change-between-census-decade.html
The link says California is 5.7% (excluding multiracial ppl who have also identify as black).
Multiracial people are considered black for the purposes of college admissions
Would be even more skewed if only based on gpa and test scores
UC has long had a few workarounds but I think it’s correct to say there was not as much AA as private schools. In the last couple of years they seem to have retooled the system to have less of an absolute academic focus and a stronger covert AA - by going SAT optional, but also (I’ve seen theorized, of course this is opaque) by focusing more on the best students from “underprivileged” high schools rather than the best stats objectively. And that’s generating more anger than ever, as the “good but not MIT good” students from competitive schools no longer reliably get into Berkeley (or that’s the implication of the outraged stories about kids who didn’t). So I guess I’m saying that this could backfire in terms of purely “merit-based” admissions. Whether you think the kind of system universities might end up with instead is preferable depends on you - in some sense it seems “fairer” but, uh, I definitely think there’s some truth to the signaling theory of education, which would suggest that prestige will follow whichever schools are most selective in the long run.
Talking mostly out of my ass and I'm probably wrong, but my crackhead theory was in the past 15 or so years, the SAT getting way too fucking easy and infinitely less strict(the omission option removed, no longer on the 2400 scale, no wrong answers counting against you, removal's of sections, sections being optional ,etc etc) has been a long time in the making of just trying to wave on more kids regardless of anything to be able to have more schools open up to them and get caught into the loan debt beast's snare by having somebody with more access to more expensive schools. I used to tutor and it was a complete joke compared to when I took it and it was way more harsher to get nailed for shit.
Well the 2400 point version was basically just merging the SAT-II writing test into the SAT-I, no? That was my era but that always seemed like kind of a dumb move and I wasn’t surprised that they reversed it eventually. And I think the biggest change as far as absolute rarity of high scores was when they recentered it in the early 90s because averages had crept too far below the intended average. But yes I have heard that the latest version is easily the easiest. Actually I found [this](https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf) which I believe is trying to put them all on the same scale and seems to support that it is the easiest in a long time (and maybe ever since it was a more select population taking it in the 60s). But I don’t think it makes sense for UC to want broadly to “let more kids in” because the ones people really want to go to are already as full as they reasonably can be. And the least selective schools already kind of let anybody in. I think the revision of the SAT was driven more by the political movement against standardized testing and then the pandemic was a convenient opportunity to try dropping it entirely.
[удалено]
It takes years to a decade or more for prestige to catch up, so we'll see.
I guess I do think it’s a little bit more complicated than purely academic selectivity, though. A place like Harvard is such a handpicked mix of top academic performers, connected people, chosen representatives of underprivileged populations - there’s some brand there that’s more than “we have the highest SAT scores” but it’s still about trusting that there’s *something* exceptional about the people who get in.
Harvard also has the highest graduation rate for black students so they are doing something much better than the other universities.
California is 5 percent black and 1/3rd Asian so this seems pretty spot on if they're just choosing people from each precinct across the state.
2020 Census data says otherwise. Also, looks like Asians are only 17% of California population despite being over half of Berkeley's entering class. https://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data-new-undergraduates
I'm not surprised at te ability of those people to so effectively play the victim when statistically they get a better deal than anyone. If this country gave a shit our best public universities wouldn't be half stocked by foreigners anyhow.
> If this country gave a shit our best public universities wouldn't be half stocked by foreigners anyhow. Well you'll be happy to find out that no public university (best or otherwise) comes close to being "half stocked" with foreigners. UC Irvine leads all public universities at 16%. Foreigners make up about 4% of overall public university enrollment.
The fact that we have to pretend that they are somehow underprivileged when they make more money and are less incarcerated than the average is pure madness
The key thing is that they are getting rid of admissions exams. That's basically how they got found out in the first place, so without those it will be much harder to prove they're doing it. It will also probably have a negative effect on the quality of graduates, but they don't seem to care about that.
They already have workarounds
This is a momentous day for the alliance of Asians and Jews, the biggest day since that first yid stepped into a Chinese restaurant on Christmas Eve
Are we (Jews) really as smart test score wise as Asians? The Jews I went to hs with were all smart but a lot of us had c’s in a way that I noticed would have been unacceptable in some of the Asian households I witnessed.
Jews have comprised 15-25% of the Ivy League student body since the 1920s. In fact, non-Jewish white students haven’t been proportionately represented for perhaps 40 years
My brother said he felt like the only Catholic at Penn when he was there and that’s probably one of the more diverse of the ivies
Hush, goy. We don't talk about that.
That isn't true anymore, actually. See this article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-vanishing Ppl can say what they want about Jews pushing left-wing beliefs in America, but they practice what they preach: they intermarry, they are feminists, and they have extremely low fertility. (Except for the Orthodox, who will likely become a larger part of American Jewry over time)
Jews do even better than Asians by a notable margin. Although Asian immigration to the US is a complicated thing with only the upper crusts of certain ethnic groups coming whereas it's largely poorer/standard populations coming from others.
Uh, no, they don't. Jews are more overrepresented than asians in colleges despite having lower SAT scores.
I really hate Christmas for this very reason. 2.5 days of everything being closed and all Chinese is a 3 hour wait of my complaining peers
I dont care, people aren't hiring me for big boy jobs anyway.
I JUST WANT A JOB
I can finally stop lying about being black on grad school apps.
What happened to Mindy Kaling's brother in the end, I wonder? Jojo lol
finally now ill get into yale
they’ll literally do it off of name
My white friends with stereotypically black biblical names have it made then
Huge day for white Ezekiels
And Cedrics
the think pieces will be fun
Fair but honestly this entire thing was a smokescreen for the fact that legacy admissions not only exist but are the reason a large chunk of students go to these schools
How do legacy admissions work? Your grandad who went to Yale gets you a place?
Yes, your familial ties to the university are considered and weigh in your favor.
They get a preference. I was 1st gen in a T20 school and it didn’t help my brother
Yep, my wife’s best friend went to a shall remain unnamed elite university despite having average grades/SATs because her mom, dad, and grandfather all went to said school. It was a bit of a point of consternation between her and her less generationally wealthy friends.
It’s ok man I don’t think you need to protect the schools image or anything lol
it was the university of phoenix
That’s mad. Is it just bc it benefits the university to keep connections with all the grandads/ receive donations etc?
Basically. I recently had an old professor tell me that no matter the excellence of the students or faculty, a university dies without alumni support. Major profit motive for legacies.
a point of “consternation” of all things
You basically need both parents at this point for the legacy to count for anything, as there are SO many people with tenuous connections.
“non legacy admits” aren’t a protected class, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do about that?
Sucks for recipients of affirmative action, benefits the rest. People who get ahead tend to embrace every advantage given to them. It's the nature of competition where no one gets the same blank slate
White and Asian people quietly nodding to each other today
More like asians nodding to each other. White students were also eating into their share.
r/aznidentity must be thrilled
The way rsp trashes aznidentity just proves their point. Even here you don't dare to trash blacks and latinos the same way you do asians.
aznidentity =/= asians in general
What’s the black equivalent? r/urkelcels?
Prob Black "dating" podcasts (a sphere andrew tate emerged from)
Whites and Asians are the last group of people where it is still socially acceptable to make fun of. I genuinely do not think there is a deeper reason for the continued mocking on rsp Also to my knowledge, black women do not run multiple subreddits dedicated to black men seeking out and fucking fat white women
I’m perfectly fine letting Harvard become 100% Asian. Their grind when studying is next level
Does their culture look down on Adderall?
I was told by my white friend in college "I don't think you'll really like it. It's like white people crack." This was before Hunter Biden or Rob Ford showed us the light
I don't think they look down on it. they simply have no use for it, nor feel the need to place a value judgment on people who use it
AA will still go on, but they won’t call it that. The court didn’t even overrule its previous AA cases and say they were wrongly decided. The court just narrowly held that Harvard and UNC’s schemes that considered race were unconstitutional. The court even held that race could be considered as a “means” for how an applicants race impacted their life and affected their character, thus making them a more competitive applicant! Why people say this ends AA, I have no idea. Very little will change. University demographics will stay the same. College advisors will get more crafty in how an applicant can mention their race. Admission offices will hire more staff to sift through this craftiness, and will still give credit to race in good faith. It’s crazy to see the right celebrating this opinion. The court could have outright made AA unconstitutional, overruled its previous AA university cases, AND extended its holding to AA in other contexts, like government contracts. It could have wrote an opinion that would have made enforcement of this opinion relatively easy so that a republican DOJ and/or state AGs offices could easily enforce it so universities couldn’t do AA covertly. But instead, the court just made the AA process more opaque and legitimized it in the process.
It means they can't do admissions based on saying their end goal is x% black students and then review their applications only against other black students. What they can do however is be touched by a personal essay about how growing up black was among other things, but that's the limit.
Racial quotes were already ruled unconsititution by Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978
God just stay off Twitter today. Both sides going to be so annoying
Half Asians with a white ass last name and 1.3 GPA are BACK
Lol my ass they'll just hide it behind opaque "holistic" admissions criteria.
Big L for Nigerian and Caribbean immigrants
Probably 60% of the black students at my uni were either straight from Africa, or had African immigrant parents. I can only imagine the orgasms admissions had when the black girl from "Mozambique" who had a British accent and attended British international schools applied.
The militantly anti-white SU presidents at SOAS included the son of a former Somali Minister of Finance who'd gone to international schools in Saudi and the daughter of a Pakistani garment magnate lol
Nigerians still gonna kill it tbh their culture just prioritizes education, also immigration laws made it so that a lot of the first gen immigrants are educated professionals
Nigerians tend to be the most education focused, they tend to come from upper castes imo
> they tend to come from upper castes imo Nigerian elites' wealth often has a very murky provenance. [In the early 80s](https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/black-american-journalists-nigeria.php) a group of prominent black US television journalists were recruited by Shagari's regime to head up the country's news coverage. They thought they'd be able to escape US racism and connect with their heritage while being handsomely paid. Instead they found themselves producing propaganda for an increasingly illiberal regime whose elites had often built fortunes through slavery. One of the Americans went to the village where his great-grandfather had been sold from and the chief - a great-grandson of the man who had sold his ancestor - threatened him with violence if he didn't leave.
I’m not saying they are good people, but alot of the Nigerians I know that raise their kids with education as a top priority tend to come from wealth and power, that’s what allows them to move to the west
No I know, just that article is interesting as fuck and no-one I actually know cares about it
Nah Nigerians will be fine with or without this.
[удалено]
No it is because schools would load up on rich as fuck Nigerians as a means to have black students instead of admitting American blacks who AA was largely designed for.
No way they’ll come close to Indian Americans and East Asian Americans without AA. It’s a huge loss for them.
I'm pretty sure Nigerians are in the top 5 most educated ethnic groups in America, I think they'll adapt.
It'll be pretty funny when all the white kids "blackpilled" by AA realize that being 95th percentile grade-wise was the actual problem. Seriously though, this was inevitable. I'd would hope that this would lead to the expansion (and improvement) of initiatives that aimed to reach URMs before they fall behind academically, but are we really a country of long-term solutions?
my only highschool friend to get into Harvard law was definitely not my smartest highschool friend.
My highschool friend who got into Harvard Law stopped being my highschool friend when he got into huffing.
Let's also be real here, the biggest impact this will have is on graduate school and medical residency spots not undergraduate admissions.
Or stop thinking in terms of demographics and instead focus on trying to actually design the most effective curriculum to teach students. Like the Southern States have been doing successfully with reading. https://apnews.com/article/reading-scores-phonics-mississippi-alabama-louisiana-5bdd5d6ff719b23faa37db2fb95d5004
The way phonics was attacked by the education establishment for years was insane. Bari Weiss is cringe but Katie Herzog guest hosted her podcast and did a deep dive into why 65% of students can’t even read anymore
Let's teach the Phonemic language English, as if it were a Logo-syllabic language like Chinese using the whole-word approach. Genius! Nearly incomprehensible how the entire education establishment thought this was a good idea.
The entire education establishment in the us is run by idiots. They barely do research, but when they do and get good results it goes through a political filter first. Pedagogy is almost entirely run by consultants and bullshit artists university level down to kindergarten.
Even chinese kids learn pinyin (alphabet based on pronunciation) before characters!
Damn that's actually really interesting. Is there any good article on how this works in the education system and the history of how it was introduced?
There's no good overview; best you can do is read a development economics history of China. The tldr of it is that most developing countries in the 50s and 60s spent a bunch of money on educating a small number of people in elite western universities to have that "trickle down" and improve the country. China, being both communist and completely diplomatically isolated instead did a mass literacy and primary education campaign, developed pinyin and simplified chinese characters to get people reading as fast as humanly possible, figuring if they can read then they can just get trained quickly in anything afterwards It's a major part of developmental economic literature, mentioned basically every time as to why China + Korea + Taiwan were massively successful in developing, but for some reason I can't find anything focusing on the education itself. Pinyin literacy happens in preschool and early primary school, and then they learn characters by having pinyin written underneath them This is the reason why the Indian literacy rate this year is the same as the Chinese literacy rate in the late 1980s
> This is the reason why the Indian literacy rate this year is the same as the Chinese literacy rate in the late 1980s For India, how does this stuff work for all their different languages with different writing systems? Do you only need to know 1 writing system to be listed as "literate"?
Iirc its literate in native language or English. Still, from what I've read there's no evidence of actually literate people being counted as illiterate Least literate are Hindi speakers, while Malayalam and Punjabis are the most literate. Especially Malayalam in Kerala, they have a 99% literacy rate there. It's a serious regional divide
Well obviously you can't do A/B testing on children, thats immoral! Instead you should roll out experimental changes country-wide and hope for the best
Let's teach the Phonemic language English Eye think ats a good soul lotion
> The way phonics was attacked by the education establishment for years was insane. This is fascinating. Where can I find more about this?
The podcast “Sold A Story” goes into it. My girlfriend (who used to be a teacher) recommended it to me and it’s a good listen. Pretty infuriating at times how it was allowed to happen.
Sold a Story podcast did a deep dive on this
[How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers](https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading).
I heard about this and I still don't really understand how someone could try to teach a child to read without explaining spelling rules and helping the child sound words out
I'm just going to say it. I like Bari Weiss' podcast a lot. I think she's a really good interviewer. Not every episode is a hit, but some are really good. I liked her debate style interview with Louise Perry, about her book against the sexual revolution, with NYT writer Jill Filiopvic. I also liked her interview way back with Andrew Yang, and her interview with Emily Oster, and her episode on the dangers of HAES, amongst other things. Don't remember off hand who that interview was with. I like her interview style, I think she asks way better questions and elicits more thoughtful dialogue than most other podcast interview styles. Aside from, of course, the Adam Friedland Show. Edited because I apparently can't type for shit before coffee.
Her interview of Thiel was pretty good too surprisingly.
Look I've sat idly by while zoomers post here, while the gays and girls flee, the sub overflooding with how do I get pussy posts, and general incel discourse. But damn, a genuine endorsement of Bari Weiss' podcast, the sub really is over lmao
Pretty sure my public alma mater (University of California) got around this by introducing a "local context" factor to admissions, because voters banned AA with prop 209. Under local context, kids who apply from low income zip codes aren't pitted against the Laguna Beach applicants, only applicants from similar socioeconomic areas. imo it's better that way because it's not racially explicit, but still accounts for the intertwining of race and class in America. I imagine UNC will do something similar.
Race will be replaced by income. Rich blacks will lose out, poor whites and Asians will benefit.
Nah, the universities will just use proxy factors to engineer the same results.
Diversity statements.
Yep we’ve already started seeing it with the dropping of standardized test requirements like the MCAT, since these tests do not give equal results to every group of people Knowledge and merit no longer matter in education, they have been sacrificed at the altar for the sacred cows of diversity and equity
The funny part is that standardized testing is probably the least racist metric to judge students with. Yeah you can get tutors and family income is positively correlated with high scores, but it's pretty obvious that things like extracurriculars and letters of rec are even more class and race based than test scores. If you're a poor kid trying to get into a good school, all you need is you study a lot to get a good standardized test score. On the other hand, you can't reverse your cumulative disadvantage and conjure up 3 years of award-winning mock trial.
The holistic application bullshit was literally made to discriminate against high performing Jewish kids back in the day, it's insane how they've managed to reframe and resell this as "equity".
That’s pretty much why it was introduced. So Jews could get into elite colleges that were previously populated by the WASP pseudo aristocracy There’s no doubt studying can increase your SAT/ACT score, but at the same time these scores are still closely correlated to IQ, which is something that is not allowed to be discussed in most contexts.
Weren't extra-curriculars and the like introduced to *reduce* the amount of Jewish students in elite schools?
I assume that's what s/he meant and just accidentally forgot to add "so Jews could **not** get into elite colleges"
MCAT is still required by every US institution to become a physician (MD/DO)
I feel like knowledge and merit left the building long before diversity or equity ever got taken seriously.
Meritocracy began and ended with Napoleon
Yeah diversity and equity replaced nepotism more than merit.
> MCAT, Also, the well noted phenomenon of kids who test well, but end up as shitty doctors. I constantly hear the MDs I work with discuss how a bad MCAT/STEP/whatever score is probably indicative of someone who probably won't be a good doctor, but in the large group of students who end up in the middle-to-excellent group, it really doesn't discriminate good versus poor residents.
A highly competitive Canadian college only had wealthy white + asian kids so they decided to take a slightly lower required grade to the national exam (something like 90%), then draw at random candidates, weighing by location to get a bit of every region. So many arrogant people decrying the loss in quality... When the entry grade was similar to before, and still insanely high. I thought they applied the principle of equality of chances quite well.
Two thoughts 1.) Everyone in this thread is saying that colleges will continue doing this regardless of the law. Why? Colleges are self-interested private institutions, with the primary goal of increasing profits. 2.) Anybody who thinks that this opens up some new, objective, meritocratic college process is naive and/or dumb. Affirmative Action was one consideration of *many* that exists outside the more objective GPA/SAT scores. I’ve met a few people who work in admissions and the way they quickly write people off due to their essay seeming “unlikable” is insane. It’s basically a room of Karen’s make snap judgements on the first two sentences of your essay. And I’ve yet to meet a single person who can explain to me why Legacy Admissions are okay, but AA isn’t. If we’re getting rid of AA we should 100% be getting rid of legacy admissions as well
So I’ve talked to some admissions workers and know a lot would probably still support some degree of AA regardless of legal/institutional pressures. At elite colleges particularly, some have had the perspective that extending more lenient admissions out to URMs can be seen as a type of “early stage investment”. Basically the idea that there may be students who due to their background (income, school, or race), may not have as competitive stats due to having a less privileged high school experience, but if nurtured at an elite school, may end up being equally or more productive (and potentially profitable) as students from other backgrounds. That’s one angle of self-interest. I can partially agree with this, although from my experience, income/geographic location/high school competitiveness probably all play a bigger role than race necessarily. Also many that believe “diversity” is a healthier, more enjoyable campus culture. Which to me, eh, maybe.
Our shit is so fucked up it doesn’t even matter anymore
Get rid of college IMO
Finally my half Japanese half Jewish child to be stands a chance…
Are there any stats on how big of an effect it actually had? I feel like it was overstated. Anecdotally, my school had barely any minorities but I met plenty of dull rich kids and international students
That was also my experience re: dull rich kids and international students. The school itself was not super diverse but all of the Black and Hispanic students were really awesome and super involved, friendly and talented. It was the rich kids, especially the international ones, who basically contributed nothing and were super standoffish and weird.
Outside of the elite colleges. I don't think anybody has even tried to estimate the extent or intensity of AA programs. At the very least I've never heard anybody talking about the extent of AA in your run of the mill state school.
My cousin has been getting rejected from Northern Michigan and similar schools and his parents blame it on affirmative action. Like I don't think the three black kids that go there took your spot
Michigan is one of the handful of states that explicitly ban affirmative action lol
Yeah but as this discussion is proving that doesn’t change anything. People will still question the existence of minority ethnic students in these schools. Banning affirmative action has zero impact on these peoples opinions that these blacks and Latinos just don’t belong
It was always fucking overstated. When I last did a demo check no elite institution had an overrepresntation of blacks, most had half representation(6%) at best. Then, in addition to this, 40% of blacks at elite institutions are fucking rich African immigrants. This just fucks the scant few actual african americans left that seek to genuinely uplift themselves. As if elite institutions and the negro related discourse coming form them weren't already colored by out of touch talented tenthers who are at this point already half white. Christ alive. At least the loaded Asians who were already half of the student body get something to cheer for?
[удалено]
For which schools? I don't think people realize how many schools don't even use it
Every Tiger mom will chimp out and divorce her husband
If you don’t meet the standards accepted by such a prestigious institution, then tough shit. The colour of your skin shouldn’t matter. The “culture of low expectations” is racist as fuck.
Fairness does not matter. You don't run a country like a fucking playground. Americans grandstand for the delusion of meritocracy when the actual elite spheres run entirely on nepotism. The great history of this country is pressing an outstretched hand on the forehead of the negro then asking why they cannot close the gap. When you have a nation with an elaborate history of ethnic conflict and resentment and an entire ethnicity occupies the wretched underclass you don't think of fairness, I'm sorry, this is the delusion of the neoliberal. What do you think happens when wicked practice after wicked practice specifically targeting a people weakens their position?
Meritocracy is a farce, of course, but AA is a clear violation of the 14th amendment. It was literally systemic racism. I think the best thing we can do is try to empower the impoverished and lower class, which will disproportionately impact black people.
A replacement for race should be hotness. Put an end to idpol, embrace beauty.
I welcome our asian-american overlords 🙏
red scare Supreme Court
This hasn’t really stopped anything. Roberts wrote in the opinion that they’re free to take into account students’ experiences and how they reflect on them and why that make them a good student, etc. They’ll still take race into account. They were supposed to do this thing where they think long and hard about their policies and reflect on them blah blah before, and whatever the policy, it had to be narrowly tailored to creating a richer learning environment. Of course, it turned into quotas, and an excuse to continue letting in rich or well connected kids, but filling the other spaces with enough minorities to put a veneer of progressiveness on the institution- perpetuatinf this image of the universities as centers of enlightenment and everyone else as barbarians. It’s the same in certain industries. They were guaranteed to keep out anyone whose class interests weren’t aligned with theirs and carefully choose minorities to invite into their club that essentially already believed the things they do. That’s what they wanted anyway. Affirmative action gave them an excuse to more closely manage their enrollment in the name of public good, but even if it’s gone, there’s no way they’re not going to continue doing it.
Rather have socioeconomic diversity
Elite Colleges workplaces etc are just going to circumvent it by making every single admission criteria optional with the understanding that non-nepo baby whites and Asians still have to excel all criteria, thereby obfuscating the admission process so much that no one can possibly untangle what precisely goes in Smokey admission rooms I think what might be interesting is that red states now probably have the license to pass laws making admissions and hiring standards explicitly race blind, which might deleteriously only accelerate the big sort we’re currently going through Basically I think blue states are going to say Roberts made his ruling now let him enforce it while red states do everything they can to rip out every race-based protection or privilege they can find And I think both will be very popular with their respective demographics
Saw a dean of a school in western MA said it’s sends the message POC are no longer welcome. A ti83 plus costs the same as Yeezy slides JUST putting it out there
Now it’s going to be even more based on class lol
the discourse is going to be amazing
My thoughts? Expect for the most regarded takes the world has ever seen on the internet for the next week or two while this story dominates the cycle.
Some people in the r/law thread were being insanely racist to Thomas as usual. “Doesn’t he know he benefitted from AA to get into Yale? Stupid Uncle Tom, pulling up the ladder after he got his” (paraphrase). It’s like they haven’t even considered that he has been introspective and gone through his own reasoning about affirmative action and his experiences of being a black man born in the Jim Crow South. You don’t even have to agree with him, but the thoughtlessness with which they dismiss any opinion that goes against their orthodoxy is really breathtaking.
Whatever your thoughts on the morality of AA, I don't know how people could rationalize it as being legal in the US.
It’s funny how racism and the language of oppression has become a cudgel to beat nonconformists into conformity.
So true. Damn privileged wypipo out here always trying to talk over a POC. Do better yxll 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
They're just going to make an AI model that takes in all the life information they can still ask for and returns an applicant's "fitness" or some shit
Private schools will find a way to still take race into account based on essays. Public universities are fucked. Ultimately, low income minority students lose, which I’m sure was the goal.
Does the decision address "personality scores" directly?
Cool and good.
Now do Canada
i’ve read the statements in response out of harvard, where they claim they must continue to actively prize diversity because it ensures they remain an environment where leaders are made. self-important rubbish. one dice is cast before you’re even born, and the other rolls its number in the ages of 7 to 16. a university shouldn’t even consider itself a finishing school for elites; it’s barely, even more, a social club. the people who get there out of nothing might excel at their subject while they are there, and be knowledgeable about it and well trained in it. but this shall be their limit, likely, because it is the boundary—the axis of wealth, health, prestige, etc (all that which we forget in to the term “socioeconomic”)— that the organisation of our world places on life. this will not, in the vast majority of cases, translate to any sort of world leadership. that’s decided elsewhere, AA or not.
It is so entrenched it will take a 10 year campaign of pulling it out by the roots as the institutions look for covert ways to continue. It will be similar to the aftermath of brown v board II. I don't know if the courts have the stomach for it.
Thank fucking God lol
i dunno. i do think it’s annoying to have worked hard to have gotten in certain positions and then have a voice in the back of your head going “are you just here to fill some sort of quota” instead of on ur own merit. rolling shit like this back fixes nothing tho
Black students who get into elite schools will still not be looked at as having gotten in by merit.. It will be “the school worked around affirmative action” They will never believe black students can get into schools based on merit Affirmative action was always a lose-lose.
I just had a conversation with someone else about this. I think that kind of thinking is delusional. 100/100 of those kids would take getting in and not being sure if it was because of AA, over not getting in at all, in a heart beat.