3 ms·

Race-based affirmative action is under regular legal attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com

Race-based affirmative action is under regular legal attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-sup... As far as I know, legacy admissions have never been challenged before the SCOTUS. Furthermore, legacy admissions tend to reward underachieving students from privileged families, while affirmative action intends to reward overachieving students from underprivileged circumstances (e.g. programs admitting the top N% of graduates from every high school help good students who went to bad schools).

microcolonel 6y ago
Being admitted to a school whose standards you do not meet is not a reward, but the first step toward creating the circumstances to argue that the means of evaluation is racist. Bad schools hurt, but discriminating by race at matriculation is about the most hamfisted imaginable way to achieve the outcome you're talking about. If the goal is to find and admit students whose worst academic years are behind them, overadmitting 1st generation Nigerian Americans because they look similar to African Americans is not the way. P.S. it seems you switch from "tend" to "intend" mid sentence, so I don't grasp what comparison you're trying to draw, maybe give that another shot.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > it seems you switch from "tend" to "intend" mid sentence I'm fairly confident in the effect of legacy admissions. As for affirmative action programs, I'm confident in the intent of those programs, but less confident in their effect. Thus the switch in wording.