4 ms·

They’re not less qualified, that’s the whole problem. There is no stack rank of qualified candidates for a collegiate cohort, because it is not a precise or ac

They’re not less qualified, that’s the whole problem. There is no stack rank of qualified candidates for a collegiate cohort, because it is not a precise or accurate process. There are more students who apply to Harvard each year with perfect SAT scores and who are valedictorians than there are openings in a given Harvard cohort.

_y3h9 5y ago
Then why not choose randomly from them? If an Asian student and a black student both get perfect, identical results from huge amounts of hard work and intelligence, why should the Asian student be discriminated against? What have they done wrong, other than be part of a larger group that tends to put more effort in? Why should they be punished for other groups not putting in the same amount of effort theirs does? How is decreasing their probability of success based on race factors they cannot control anything but blatant and disgusting racism?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Because we can do better than "random" to create superior outcomes for society. Right now, society hurts some racial groups and helps other racial groups. Picking candidates based on their race, once everyone remaining is qualified, helps undo some small part of that societal damage. Improving campus diversity helps the kids too, as it exposes them to a more representative group of people that they're likely to encounter into the world, rather than one or a few massively overrepresented groups to the exclusion of other, less resource-available and marginalized groups. It makes the school better at preparing kids for post-college life. Getting into Harvard, for the people who would do well at Harvard, is only one of many potential successful life paths for those kids. I think it's well past time we stop pretending like it's either Harvard or the streets. Besides, if you're so disgusted by racism, you should be in support of trying to correct for it, not opposed. Doing nothing (what you suggested by applying "randomness") is how the current racist systems continue to thrive. Doing nothing is what the racists want, so they can keep on being racist, and holding down the "inferior" races (as they see it).
  - 988747 5y ago
    >> Picking candidates based on their race, once everyone remaining is qualified, helps undo some small part of that societal damage. Picking candidates based on their race is called "racism". You don't "undo societal damage" against one race by being racist against other races. >> Besides, if you're so disgusted by racism, you should be in support of trying to correct for it, not opposed. You correct racism by making society race-blind, not by flipping the direction of racist policies.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Picking candidates based on their race is not racism as it does not suggest one candidate is superior to another due to their race. Acknowledging the racism of others is not the same as supporting ideas or policies that promote one racial group as superior in any way to any other racial group. You can not correct racism by making society race blind, but you can perpetuate racism that way! Why do you think the racists prefer we remain at the status quo? There is no substantive difference between what you’re suggesting here and what a white supremacist would suggest in the same situation, having already successfully poisoned the well for minorities in the US.
cuteboy19 5y ago
This is not true. As the Harvard lawsuit showed, Harvard very clearly penalized Asian Americans by giving them lower personality scores.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Showed? You mean "argues", right? This has been case law via the Supreme Court for over fifty years, and only because the court is currently so thoroughly packed with a singular ideology is it getting considered again.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    No, the facts were pretty obvious and statistical in nature. The only argument was whether this was legal or not. Even pro-Affirmative action groups like Vox agree that there is discrimination against Asians
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Ah, you're doing that thing where you presume your argument is correct. Got it. Worthless to argue against, since you're not willing to entertain subtleties or nuance, and totally against the spirit of HN, but not much I can do about it except stop replying to you.
      - 988747 5y ago
        It's simple really: Colleges are removing the admission criteria that everyone, regardless their race, can be good at (i.e. SAT tests), and they add the criteria that only Black people are good at (i.e. being black). That's just plain racism, but this time it's not against Black people so it is "good racism".
        trevorboaconstr 5y ago
        Lol. Affirmative action has little impact on black admission rates at Ivy League schools. This has been shown time and time again. Whatever sort of historical anger Asian Americans have needs to be directed towards the group that maintains the status quo. “We use public documents from the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University lawsuit to examine admissions preferences for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). More than 43% of white admits are ALDC; the share for African American, Asian American, and Hispanics is less than 16%. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected absent their ALDC status. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students away from whites.” https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744 Plus, as a percentage of student population, Asian Americans are over represented at elite colleges. Both Black and Hispanic Americans have seen their representation decrease over the last 40 years. Asian Americas, in relative terms of US population, hold 4-5x the seats in top colleges. In some case 10x! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmativ... But yeah, let’s blame the 4% black population at UCLA, or the 8% at Harvard for taking Asian Americans deserved spot. Oh, and probably 2-3 % of all black admits are international students. How about the focus be on expanding school capacity? College admission rates have hit all time lows because of increased competition and a failure to increase capacity. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-pandemic-ivy-league-acceptance-rate-low/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-pandemic-ivy-league-accep... Its pretty ridiculously that in 1980 most Ivy League schools had admission rates between 20 and 30%. Low admission rates are not a sign of good health for our education system.

_y3h9 5y ago

Then why not choose randomly from them? If an Asian student and a black student both get perfect, identical results from huge amounts of hard work and intelligence, why should the Asian student be discriminated against? What have they done wrong, other than be part of a larger group that tends to put more effort in? Why should they be punished for other groups not putting in the same amount of effort theirs does? How is decreasing their probability of success based on race factors they cannot control anything but blatant and disgusting racism?

TameAntelope 5y ago
Because we can do better than "random" to create superior outcomes for society. Right now, society hurts some racial groups and helps other racial groups. Picking candidates based on their race, once everyone remaining is qualified, helps undo some small part of that societal damage. Improving campus diversity helps the kids too, as it exposes them to a more representative group of people that they're likely to encounter into the world, rather than one or a few massively overrepresented groups to the exclusion of other, less resource-available and marginalized groups. It makes the school better at preparing kids for post-college life. Getting into Harvard, for the people who would do well at Harvard, is only one of many potential successful life paths for those kids. I think it's well past time we stop pretending like it's either Harvard or the streets. Besides, if you're so disgusted by racism, you should be in support of trying to correct for it, not opposed. Doing nothing (what you suggested by applying "randomness") is how the current racist systems continue to thrive. Doing nothing is what the racists want, so they can keep on being racist, and holding down the "inferior" races (as they see it).
- 988747 5y ago
  >> Picking candidates based on their race, once everyone remaining is qualified, helps undo some small part of that societal damage. Picking candidates based on their race is called "racism". You don't "undo societal damage" against one race by being racist against other races. >> Besides, if you're so disgusted by racism, you should be in support of trying to correct for it, not opposed. You correct racism by making society race-blind, not by flipping the direction of racist policies.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Picking candidates based on their race is not racism as it does not suggest one candidate is superior to another due to their race. Acknowledging the racism of others is not the same as supporting ideas or policies that promote one racial group as superior in any way to any other racial group. You can not correct racism by making society race blind, but you can perpetuate racism that way! Why do you think the racists prefer we remain at the status quo? There is no substantive difference between what you’re suggesting here and what a white supremacist would suggest in the same situation, having already successfully poisoned the well for minorities in the US.

cuteboy19 5y ago

This is not true. As the Harvard lawsuit showed, Harvard very clearly penalized Asian Americans by giving them lower personality scores.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Showed? You mean "argues", right? This has been case law via the Supreme Court for over fifty years, and only because the court is currently so thoroughly packed with a singular ideology is it getting considered again.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  No, the facts were pretty obvious and statistical in nature. The only argument was whether this was legal or not. Even pro-Affirmative action groups like Vox agree that there is discrimination against Asians
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Ah, you're doing that thing where you presume your argument is correct. Got it. Worthless to argue against, since you're not willing to entertain subtleties or nuance, and totally against the spirit of HN, but not much I can do about it except stop replying to you.
    - 988747 5y ago
      It's simple really: Colleges are removing the admission criteria that everyone, regardless their race, can be good at (i.e. SAT tests), and they add the criteria that only Black people are good at (i.e. being black). That's just plain racism, but this time it's not against Black people so it is "good racism".
      - trevorboaconstr 5y ago
        Lol. Affirmative action has little impact on black admission rates at Ivy League schools. This has been shown time and time again. Whatever sort of historical anger Asian Americans have needs to be directed towards the group that maintains the status quo. “We use public documents from the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University lawsuit to examine admissions preferences for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). More than 43% of white admits are ALDC; the share for African American, Asian American, and Hispanics is less than 16%. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected absent their ALDC status. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students away from whites.” https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744 Plus, as a percentage of student population, Asian Americans are over represented at elite colleges. Both Black and Hispanic Americans have seen their representation decrease over the last 40 years. Asian Americas, in relative terms of US population, hold 4-5x the seats in top colleges. In some case 10x! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmativ... But yeah, let’s blame the 4% black population at UCLA, or the 8% at Harvard for taking Asian Americans deserved spot. Oh, and probably 2-3 % of all black admits are international students. How about the focus be on expanding school capacity? College admission rates have hit all time lows because of increased competition and a failure to increase capacity. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-pandemic-ivy-league-acceptance-rate-low/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-pandemic-ivy-league-accep... Its pretty ridiculously that in 1980 most Ivy League schools had admission rates between 20 and 30%. Low admission rates are not a sign of good health for our education system.