Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling

[Grace T.]

I won't get into whether affirmative action is something which should go away or not. But am interested in a discussion surrounding the impact of college admissions. Here's my best guess as to what happens:

You see it even from the first press release from Harvard. Roberts left a hole open in the majority opinion. He said that essays about racial hardship such as discrimination are perfectly fine so long as they are used to judge such things as leadership and resiliency as opposed to setting up a racial preference. Harvard noted that line in its press release. Colleges, especially the blue non-tech ones, are going to respond by widely dropping standardized testing. They'll rely on athletics, legacies, donors, school quotas, state quotas to hold down Asian numbers. Asian numbers will rise in response (mostly at the expense of noncompetitive minority applicants and white women) but won't reach the level proportionate to competitive applicants (Roberts declined to use a disparate impact test since conservatives hate that discrimination test). Essays will largely be a contest of oppression, to the extent they already aren't, about how so and so overcame their racial, economic, LGBTQ, disability or other obstacles. Minority applicants still have a boost, it's just that boost has been nerfed. So between two equally placed applicants (say an African American and Asian American with equivalent grades) the African American applicant will still have a distinct advantage, even if less competitive but still in the range of "qualified".

Winners:
Minority athletes
African American, Hispanic, Native American Minorities who are competitive or marginal in their academics
Asians who are SJWS, extroverted, athletes or have unique less popular majors
Legacy whites
Kids who don't test well on standardized tests
LGTBQ/Disabled

Losers:
Asians who are conservative, introverted, raised in strict families (leading to lower social scores) or forced by families to pursue certain majors like premed
White women
Kids who test well but don't do well on grades
Nonlegacies
White athletes
Non LGTBQ/NonDisabled
African American, Hispanice Native American Minorities who are not competitive in their academics

 

[kickingandscreaming]

I won't get into whether affirmative action is something which should go away or not. But am interested in a discussion surrounding the impact of college admissions. Here's my best guess as to what happens:

You see it even from the first press release from Harvard. Roberts left a hole open in the majority opinion. He said that essays about racial hardship such as discrimination are perfectly fine so long as they are used to judge such things as leadership and resiliency as opposed to setting up a racial preference. Harvard noted that line in its press release. Colleges, especially the blue non-tech ones, are going to respond by widely dropping standardized testing. They'll rely on athletics, legacies, donors, school quotas, state quotas to hold down Asian numbers. Asian numbers will rise in response (mostly at the expense of noncompetitive minority applicants and white women) but won't reach the level proportionate to competitive applicants (Roberts declined to use a disparate impact test since conservatives hate that discrimination test). Essays will largely be a contest of oppression, to the extent they already aren't, about how so and so overcame their racial, economic, LGBTQ, disability or other obstacles. Minority applicants still have a boost, it's just that boost has been nerfed. So between two equally placed applicants (say an African American and Asian American with equivalent grades) the African American applicant will still have a distinct advantage, even if less competitive but still in the range of "qualified".

Winners:
Minority athletes
African American, Hispanic, Native American Minorities who are competitive or marginal in their academics
Asians who are SJWS, extroverted, athletes or have unique less popular majors
Legacy whites
Kids who don't test well on standardized tests
LGTBQ/Disabled

Losers:
Asians who are conservative, introverted, raised in strict families (leading to lower social scores) or forced by families to pursue certain majors like premed
White women
Kids who test well but don't do well on grades
Nonlegacies
White athletes
Non LGTBQ/NonDisabled
African American, Hispanice Native American Minorities who are not competitive in their academics

I'm having difficulty understanding how the ruling will drive changes in admissions. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no enforced guidelines regarding what % of the admission decision is based on each element of the school's admission criteria. Now, schools can't use race. But how many applicant essays DON'T make it clear that they are part of a protected group with non-privileged lived experiences? What stops schools from reverse engineering to ensure the essay is a high enough % of the decision process to get any numbers they want?

 

[crush]

I'm having difficulty understanding how the ruling will drive changes in admissions. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no enforced guidelines regarding what % of the admission decision is based on each element of the school's admission criteria. Now, schools can't use race. But how many applicant essays DON'T make it clear that they are part of a protected group with non-privileged lived experiences? What stops schools from reverse engineering to ensure the essay is a high enough % of the decision process to get any numbers they want?

Lawyers will be making more money

 

[Grace T.]

I'm having difficulty understanding how the ruling will drive changes in admissions. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no enforced guidelines regarding what % of the admission decision is based on each element of the school's admission criteria. Now, schools can't use race. But how many applicant essays DON'T make it clear that they are part of a protected group with non-privileged lived experiences? What stops schools from reverse engineering to ensure the essay is a high enough % of the decision process to get any numbers they want?

That's absolutely right. Roberts left open a huge loop hole. What they can't do is they can't set up a system to recreate the quota numbers by instructing people to only admit the people who use these types of essays. That's what they had....a formal point correction system....if you were African American, you were given additional points on your score. So race is still going to be a factor, but only so far as it impacts the individual, as opposed to a group. If it were a gaming boost, you'd say the boost got nerfed. If they find evidence of overt reverse engineering, Roberts says that would be illegal.

In practice it means an African American applicant with a noncompetitive score (say 1250 applying to Harvard on the SATs, which BTW, for this reason, the non-tech universities are quickly going to nix) is not going to make up the gap in scoring with an Asian American with a 1560. But one who is in the ballpark (say a 1400) might. So, Asian American numbers will rise, but not in the proportion of the qualified applicants: it will still be easier to apply as an African American than an Asian American but you gotta be in the ballpark (or use an athletic exemption). A similar effect to what happened when the UC "dropped" race based admissions.

The court did not address one of the big complaints of Asian Americans: that they were awarded consistently lower personality/social scores. The court did warn that it cannot be pretextual (use stereotypes to keep racial groups out), but it's suggested from the essay line you can take into account things like sociability or resilience. So, Asian Americans pursuing more rare majors, or who have parents that encourage them to socialize, or who are extroverts should do better. Asian Americans who are introverted, pursuing premed or other stereotypical fields, or who have strict parents won't get the boost and may be in for a disappointment.

Lawyers will be making more money

Roberts declined to use a disparate impact test. Disparate impact is a theory of discrimination liberals came up with in the 70s/80s. It says to show discrimination all you have to show is that it had a substantial impact on a protected class. For example, if purple people performed more poorly on tests, we can conclude that testing is a discriminatory way to hire/recruit people. Conservatives hated it for this reason, and Roberts declined to pursue this line of reasoning in his opinion. So you won't be able to prove that universities failed to follow the Roberts decision because Asian admissions did not rise proportionately. You'll have to litigate (and prove) each case of discrimination separate. Short of finding a smoking gun (like a memo saying we are going to use essays to reverse engineer the quotas), that's awfully hard to do, expensive, and like hiring discrimination cases, few lawyers are willing to take it up on contingency. I'm sure we'll see more lawsuits...they just aren't going to be the boon either side thinks they'll be.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

The court did not address one of the big complaints of Asian Americans: that they were awarded consistently lower personality/social scores.

Do they really call it a "personality" score? That sounds very subjective, at best. Given how Asian Americans scored consistently lower, I'd say they have already reverse-engineered the acceptance criteria.

 

[Grace T.]

Do they really call it a "personality" score? That sounds very subjective, at best. Given how Asian Americans scored consistently lower, I'd say they have already reverse-engineered the acceptance criteria.

I can't remember what they call it. Maybe "social". There were 4: academic, extracurricular, leadership and maybe "social".

They have their values. Leadership says it all. The non-tech elite schools value extroverts over introverts, maturity over shelteredness, social awareness over conservativity, activism over passivity. The problem is that high performers (whether academics or athletes) tend to have parents who restrict them in certain activities (such as dating) and push them to excel in their field (they call them helicopter parents). You see it across all high performers (for example, a Latina who really loves music but her parents think she should pursue something more practical like pre med) of all social backgrounds, but for cultural reasons it tends to much more so among Asian American families.

Unless you were to shift to a strictly test based regiment (like Europe, though they also have their exemption for the superelite whether billionaires, politicians, powerful bureaucrats, royalty or aristocrats), the process is always going to be somewhat subjective. It even is for athletics...given we don't keep moneyball statistics in youth soccer, how do you know one striker is really better than another when you are recruiting.

 

[crush]

That's absolutely right. Roberts left open a huge loop hole. What they can't do is they can't set up a system to recreate the quota numbers by instructing people to only admit the people who use these types of essays. That's what they had....a formal point correction system....if you were African American, you were given additional points on your score. So race is still going to be a factor, but only so far as it impacts the individual, as opposed to a group. If it were a gaming boost, you'd say the boost got nerfed. If they find evidence of overt reverse engineering, Roberts says that would be illegal.

In practice it means an African American applicant with a noncompetitive score (say 1250 applying to Harvard on the SATs, which BTW, for this reason, the non-tech universities are quickly going to nix) is not going to make up the gap in scoring with an Asian American with a 1560. But one who is in the ballpark (say a 1400) might. So, Asian American numbers will rise, but not in the proportion of the qualified applicants: it will still be easier to apply as an African American than an Asian American but you gotta be in the ballpark (or use an athletic exemption). A similar effect to what happened when the UC "dropped" race based admissions.

The court did not address one of the big complaints of Asian Americans: that they were awarded consistently lower personality/social scores. The court did warn that it cannot be pretextual (use stereotypes to keep racial groups out), but it's suggested from the essay line you can take into account things like sociability or resilience. So, Asian Americans pursuing more rare majors, or who have parents that encourage them to socialize, or who are extroverts should do better. Asian Americans who are introverted, pursuing premed or other stereotypical fields, or who have strict parents won't get the boost and may be in for a disappointment.


Roberts declined to use a disparate impact test. Disparate impact is a theory of discrimination liberals came up with in the 70s/80s. It says to show discrimination all you have to show is that it had a substantial impact on a protected class. For example, if purple people performed more poorly on tests, we can conclude that testing is a discriminatory way to hire/recruit people. Conservatives hated it for this reason, and Roberts declined to pursue this line of reasoning in his opinion. So you won't be able to prove that universities failed to follow the Roberts decision because Asian admissions did not rise proportionately. You'll have to litigate (and prove) each case of discrimination separate. Short of finding a smoking gun (like a memo saying we are going to use essays to reverse engineer the quotas), that's awfully hard to do, expensive, and like hiring discrimination cases, few lawyers are willing to take it up on contingency. I'm sure we'll see more lawsuits...they just aren't going to be the boon either side thinks they'll be.

Lawyers always find a way to make $$$ on this planet. It's one of the big reasons life sucks here sometimes. Our institutions are corrupt as fook with PAY-FOR-PLAY. I know many good men & women who teach at Big U and I have BFFs everywhere that are Principles and teachers in our school prison systems. What they have made my friends put up with and enforce the last few years is wrong and Un-American. My BFF Bruno and I talked yesterday and he's set for the rest of his life but he has to obey the boss and do everything politically correct or else. My other pal Jason has 10 more years to get 90% of his pay for life. He's hoping they will offer him a deal to leave early and he will take 80% just to get out of hell he says. One of his 8th grade psychopath student left a bullet on his desk a few years ago because the punk hated his tough love discipline. This is the same guy who home schooled all his kids. Two of them got full rides to Cal Baptist. However, the housing cost was insane so they both came home and are now commuting on a bus from Corona. Like I said years ago, our education system is a prison of indoctrination and brainwashing. They forced our children to take poison in their arms and wear a damn mask just to attend Big U. Plus, you have to STFU and follow the PC game or your out.

 

[Grace T.]

Lawyers always find a way to make $$$ on this planet. It's one of the big reasons life sucks here sometimes. Our institutions are corrupt as fook with PAY-FOR-PLAY. I know many good men & women who teach at Big U and I have BFFs everywhere that are Principles and teachers in our school prison systems. What they have made my friends put up with and enforce the last few years is wrong and Un-American. My BFF Bruno and I talked yesterday and he's set for the rest of his life but he has to obey the boss and do everything politically correct or else. My other pal Jason has 10 more years to get 90% of his pay for life. He's hoping they will offer him a deal to leave early and he will take 80% just to get out of hell he says. One of his 8th grade psychopath student left a bullet on his desk a few years ago because the punk hated his tough love discipline. This is the same guy who home schooled all his kids. Two of them got full rides to Cal Baptist. However, the housing cost was insane so they both came home and are now commuting on a bus from Corona. Like I said years ago, our education system is a prison of indoctrination and brainwashing. They forced our children to take poison in their arms and wear a damn mask just to attend Big U. Plus, you have to STFU and follow the PC game or your out.

Hmmm...I hadn't thought of that....if the SAT goes bye-bye homeschoolers will be at a distinct disadvantage. They'll view that as a feature and not a bug.

Lawyers only pursue cases that have the $$$ for them. If you are a working class person falsely accused of a crime, good luck finding a lawyer other than an overworked, underpaid PD who is going to give your case minimal consideration. Same with the employment discrimination unless you can make something out like a class action to pull in the big bucks. There are activist non profits but they'll have bigger fish to fry, at least until SCOTUS gets closer to flipping and they think they can make a test case out. Better Call Saul was very accurate...that's why he occupied this niche space where he was beloved by his clientele and looked down upon with scorn by the elite white shoe lawyers.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

I can't remember what they call it. Maybe "social". There were 4: academic, extracurricular, leadership and maybe "social".

They have their values. Leadership says it all. The non-tech elite schools value extroverts over introverts, maturity over shelteredness, social awareness over conservativity, activism over passivity. The problem is that high performers (whether academics or athletes) tend to have parents who restrict them in certain activities (such as dating) and push them to excel in their field (they call them helicopter parents). You see it across all high performers (for example, a Latina who really loves music but her parents think she should pursue something more practical like pre med) of all social backgrounds, but for cultural reasons it tends to much more so among Asian American families.

Unless you were to shift to a strictly test based regiment (like Europe, though they also have their exemption for the superelite whether billionaires, politicians, powerful bureaucrats, royalty or aristocrats), the process is always going to be somewhat subjective. It even is for athletics...given we don't keep moneyball statistics in youth soccer, how do you know one striker is really better than another when you are recruiting.

Speaking of Moneyball, I always feel like there is a potential opportunity - IF there is a correlation between high academic and test achievement in HS and income expectations after college. Private, second-tier colleges could focus resources on high achievers who are no longer getting into an IVY, Stanford, etc. It's a potential boost to future donations and would also provide a place to donate money to education for currently successful individuals who are from groups that feel they are getting the shaft from current college admissions. If they became successful enough, they might even compete with the traditional elite colleges for Asian Americans in the same way that Historically Black colleges compete for African Americans.

 

[crush]

 

[Grace T.]

Speaking of Moneyball, I always feel like there is a potential opportunity - IF there is a correlation between high academic and test achievement in HS and income expectations after college. Private, second-tier colleges could focus resources on high achievers who are no longer getting into an IVY, Stanford, etc. It's a potential boost to future donations and would also provide a place to donate money to education for currently successful individuals who are from groups that feel they are getting the shaft from current college admissions. If they became successful enough, they might even compete with the traditional elite colleges for Asian Americans in the same way that Historically Black colleges compete for African Americans.

One of the main functions of a degree is not what education you get but what doors it can open either for jobs or graduate schools. Problem is the blue elite universities are all connected into their social networks. So you start with a distinct disadvantage in recruiting if you are a second tier school since the better candidates will likely settle each for one lesser tier (1b or 1c). There's a couple ways you can recruit. The first is scholarships to throw free money away but a) there's a financing problem (where's the money come from) and b) the value of the scholarship needs to exceed the earning potential of other opportunities (you see this play out in sports scholarships). You could build a university straight on merit...there are some impediments like having to drop recruited athletics or arts if you are going to attract academic merit...but the primary obstacle is the liberal administrators don't want to give up on their social engineering. As a result, the ones that are trying this are Republican leaning colleges (like the ones that resisted lockdowns) but students applying will have the fear they are being tainted by overtly declaring they are conservatives: that only functions if conservative build other institutions across society to rival the blue ones whether journalism outfits, aircraft manufacturers, movie studios or ice cream companies. Short answer: politics and money serve as an impediment. Particularly since upper middle class people (who are the ones who have vested interests in preferences such as donor, legacy, private school preferences and athletics) are core constituencies of the Democratic party (the richy rich rich will always be able to buy themselves in with a building)

 

[crush]

I think were getting to a tipping point in this country. The rules and the law only applies to those who cheat, lie and steal from us. The Marxist and Socialists have hijacked and bought off my Dem and Liberal pals. Even the Rhinos and Republicans have been bought, bribed and blackmailed. The Military is the only way to separate each side and let the voters vote without all this cheating. PAY-FOR-PLAY has ruined our country. Thoughts Grace T? I always like what you have to say. I know Slobo doesn't like how much time you take with all your writing but I appreciate it most of the time

 

[crush]

Trump speaking to the Mom's of Liberty. Mother Nature is pissed off and so are the Mama Bears!!!

“I got 3, and they are gold."
“And maybe we’ll get 3 or 4 more, can you imagine?”
"Conservatives have to be activists because we're dealing with crazy people."
"The END of child sexual mutilation in all 50 states"!!!!!!!!
"We only kneel to Almighty God"

WE ONLY KNEEL TO ALMIGHTY GOD!!!

Subscribe to il Presidento's rumble channel here: https://rumble.com/c/ilDonaldoTrumpo Join our Amazing Patrioto Familia at http://www.ildonaldo.com

rumble.com

 

[crush]

I love Kash Patel!!



"As a brown man who is living the American dream, having been able to pay for my higher education through student loans, that I paid back- what a great week of rulings from the SC. Didn’t need affirmative action and don’t want a free ride."

 

[crush]

Big U is in a Big hot mess. We need to overhaul how we educate and teach our children.

From John Roberts: "As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: ‘People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,’" Roberts quoted Pelosi’s July 28, 2021, press conference. "‘He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.’"

 

[crush]

Boston University law students offered therapy in response to recent Supreme Court decisions
Law students were sent mental health resources to help 'navigate these times'

 

[Hüsker Dü]

'Galling': Hayes on the 'imperial mindset' of the Supreme Court conservatives

Chris Hayes: “There were no disputes. The court was not actually solving any problem between two parties. Instead, the conservative majority was functioning like a legislative body, pushing their preferred right-wing policy outcomes irrespective of the actual facts at hand.”

www.msnbc.com

 

[crush]

'Galling': Hayes on the 'imperial mindset' of the Supreme Court conservatives

Chris Hayes: “There were no disputes. The court was not actually solving any problem between two parties. Instead, the conservative majority was functioning like a legislative body, pushing their preferred right-wing policy outcomes irrespective of the actual facts at hand.”

www.msnbc.com

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[Grace T.]

'Galling': Hayes on the 'imperial mindset' of the Supreme Court conservatives

Chris Hayes: “There were no disputes. The court was not actually solving any problem between two parties. Instead, the conservative majority was functioning like a legislative body, pushing their preferred right-wing policy outcomes irrespective of the actual facts at hand.”

www.msnbc.com

I think it’s hilarious that the left got hoisted by its own petard by the Epc and title vii. I think that’s part of the reason it drove them nuts: that it’s suppose to be their toy.

I think it’s equally funny that the right won’t get the outcome it hopes because the right hates disparate impact.

I think it should serve as a warning sign for both sides on title ix. Either side could very well get the outcome they want on trans sports but it will come at a financial and other price for the women.

 

[crush]

I love Clarence Thomas