4 ms·

> Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test

by csa 1mo ago

> Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework. Please don’t spread propaganda. I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. A generous interpretation supporting your thesis is that AA spots took away spots from very marginal asian and white students. Marginal asian and white admits even at Harvard are usually not terribly impressive, such that I’m not sure that this trade is a loss for the school or the student body. An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). People act like so many deserving asians and/or whites were denied spots due to AA, when the reality is that the folks who theoretically “lost” a spot were already so marginal that admission was a bit of a crapshoot anyway. They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.

SR2Z 1mo ago
> I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Harvard has used tests of "character" to exclude racial and religious minorities for more than 100 years. The heart of this scandal is another test of "character" that systematically disadvantaged Asian kids. Call me misinformed if you want, but I'm going to accuse you of sticking your head in the sand. > Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. Please actually respond to what I'm saying. I have had these opinions for a while, definitely before the current president. I think I'm pretty well-informed (at least as well-informed as you!) > An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. I know lots of Asian kids who volunteered, founded clubs, participated in extracurriculars, had excellent test scores, and were still rejected by Harvard. I know plenty non-Asian kids who did half that and got in. I don't believe that Asian students are systemically less personable than non-Asian kids; I do believe that a sufficiently woke admissions office can hold a lot of shitty racist opinions about Asian people. > That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). So that's why Asian admits need to score 150 points higher than white kids on their SAT to get in at Harvard? Because everything else about them like their personality and achievements outside of school are so "marginal?" > The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. > They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality. The Supreme Court correctly called a spade a spade because there was obvious racial discrimination in those admissions processes. When an Asian kid needs to score 450 more points on the SAT than a black kid to get in, there is no other reasonable conclusion. I am finding a lot of your statements to also be sort of offensive. Asian kids are just as witty, personable, community-oriented, etc. as anyone else. Harvard lost because THEY COULD NOT PROVE OTHERWISE. Discrimination based on that stuff is legal, discrimination based on race is not - all that Harvard actually had to do was prove this stuff you're saying, and they couldn't.

by csa 1mo ago

SR2Z 1mo ago

> I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Harvard has used tests of "character" to exclude racial and religious minorities for more than 100 years. The heart of this scandal is another test of "character" that systematically disadvantaged Asian kids. Call me misinformed if you want, but I'm going to accuse you of sticking your head in the sand. > Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. Please actually respond to what I'm saying. I have had these opinions for a while, definitely before the current president. I think I'm pretty well-informed (at least as well-informed as you!) > An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. I know lots of Asian kids who volunteered, founded clubs, participated in extracurriculars, had excellent test scores, and were still rejected by Harvard. I know plenty non-Asian kids who did half that and got in. I don't believe that Asian students are systemically less personable than non-Asian kids; I do believe that a sufficiently woke admissions office can hold a lot of shitty racist opinions about Asian people. > That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). So that's why Asian admits need to score 150 points higher than white kids on their SAT to get in at Harvard? Because everything else about them like their personality and achievements outside of school are so "marginal?" > The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. > They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality. The Supreme Court correctly called a spade a spade because there was obvious racial discrimination in those admissions processes. When an Asian kid needs to score 450 more points on the SAT than a black kid to get in, there is no other reasonable conclusion. I am finding a lot of your statements to also be sort of offensive. Asian kids are just as witty, personable, community-oriented, etc. as anyone else. Harvard lost because THEY COULD NOT PROVE OTHERWISE. Discrimination based on that stuff is legal, discrimination based on race is not - all that Harvard actually had to do was prove this stuff you're saying, and they couldn't.