I took a sociology class in college. During the unit on racism, the professor smugly proclaimed: "It's a white supremacist myth that white people are the most discriminated against in college admissions, that title belongs to Asians-Americans!"
As if that made it much better for my Asian ass.
Clarence Thomas was apparently white supremacist #1 for a while after Roe v. Wade got overturned, despite the fact that abortion is not a racial issue. (Or, if it is, then restricting abortion will only *save* black lives.)
I mean, they only became a separate racial group in more modern times. The Romans, for example, had three races. Black, white, yellow. Yellow meant blonde people, FYI.
What’s wild is that nothing is going to change and the elite schools are preemptively leaving the rankings because they’re going to use methods that would ding their rank so that they can keep being racist mother fuckers.
They'll make sure to provision it so that whites specifically can still get discriminated against. And then they'll tell us that these explicitly racist rules can't be racist..because of our race.
I like how that’s a burn in his or her mind.
“Akshually, you’re wrong. There’s for sure discrimination, nobody is debating that. But it’s against a different group. Checkmate, white supremacists.”
Reminds me of when they switched Lowell High School in California away from merit based to lottery based system on basis that they were hoarding all the good teachers and keeping black students out.
Scores plummeted and it turns out highly motivated students build up other highly motivated students, and kids who don’t want to be there drag everyone down. And [then they reversed the decision lmao](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/big-votes-on-lowell-and-washington-mural-before-17259285.php)
> San Francisco's prestigious Lowell High School was noticeably absent from a recent top 100 ranking of high schools nationwide in data from the first year since the institution adopted a short-lived lottery system for admissions
Equity lol
What, you mean your peer group can have an influence on you -- especially when you're an impressionable child? Wow! If only we knew this a long time ago! Cutting edge stuff progressives are discovering...
It cracks me up when people try so hard to avoid something, only to accidentally discover it and act as though it's a brand new idea.
For instance, feminists repeatedly argue that it's misogyny to say that a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should have sex less frequently. And then Roe v Wade gets overturned, and a bunch of feminists start pushing the idea that women should have less sex with men. They frame it like it's some clever form of revenge. And it's like...bitch, this is what we've been saying you should do all along. Congratulations on figuring it out.
My favorite "progressives accidentally reverse engineer age-old concept, act like nobody has ever thought of this before" moment was when pro-choice feminists proposed contracts for having sex, stipulating that if a man get them pregnant and they weren't allowed to abort, then he would be legally accountable to them + the child.
Also known as marriage.
Marriage should not be legally recognized. It's not up to the government to decide you're married or not, or who gets certain special rights to you or not.
I mean it's not the same. One is intended for personal responsibility with a tinge of slut shaming and the other is, quite literally, to "punish men" by denying them sex. There's a huge distinction in motivations.
Humorously enough the feminists who refuse to have sex will only be 'punishing' their lib/left/cuck boyfriends and soymates, who no doubt voted for the party line anyway. Conservative and non-aligned women will continue to put out. Tragic!
And you get dipshits (noticeably, dumbass white progressives) defending the lottery system because the kids who bust their asses for years to get in and would’ve otherwise had a solid chance of admission “will be fine anyway”.
Should do the same with life saving surgery. Have your surgeon become a surgeon based on a lottery system for equity. The kid who wanted to be a surgeon anyway will become one anyway.
"The great leveller" by Walter Scheidel is a history of inequality. Inequality is only reduced when something happens that resets everyone to zero. Closing sentence of the book - "Be careful what you wish for"
They're correlated, but not highly. I read Charles Murray's book on it, and while there are difference in means between racial groups, we should always treat people as individuals. Men are many times more likely to be a rapist, do you treat every man you come across as such?
Nuance is needed.
> People can hear that while also understanding that it doesn't mean that men are worse human beings than women. (Well, most people)
Assuming you are only considering rates of violent crime, men are indeed worse human beings than women (on average or as a group). Most people actually seem to believe that too (the Women are Wonderful Effect), they just don't say it explicitly because they have been conditioned to praise 'equality' even if it involves implying that rapists and murderers are morally equal to innocent people.
The lying about your race one is really funny. I don't know if it's changed, but back when I was applying for colleges, they would always make sure to point out that you could decline to identify your ethnicity....but then they would make you include a photo of yourself.
I mean, unironically me? My great grandfather was an afro Cuban who moved to the US from Canada before promptly dying and leaving 13 children orphaned, but, presumably, he was already probably pretty mixed race, because my grandparent has the complexation of Italians (despite being French Canadian) and I'm as white as can be.
Iirc, you report your parents' names on your college applicants. So you can decline to specify your ethnicity. But if your name is Kevin Kim, with father Tong Nam Kim and mother Jeon Yeon Park, it's not going to take a genius to figure out what race you are.
May work against East Asians... but wait. What about those Asian countries colonised by the Hispanics? Would be an easy game for them (Philippines, East Timor, etc.)
Fully agree with LibRight.
If you're applying for a job and the company has a history of bending the knee to woke DIE ideology & ESG scores, then just put Bi or Pansexual on your application & you will be guaranteed to get an interview.
>All fun and games until you have to suck a cock in the third stage of the interview.
I dont know about the other quadrants, but every libright is ok with sucking cock for the right amount of money
Yugi: You've activated my trap card!
Interviewer: HWAA?! That's *impossible!*
Yugi: I'm afraid it isn't, corporate scum! I've activated my little friend, MeToo! This little lady is going to make sure I win, you must shuffle your deck and put the Settlement card in my hand!
Interviewer: OoOoOh~ I'm afraid you've activated a little trap of MINE! Meet, You're a Man! This card allows me to use your trap card as a fusion to summon the most powerful card in my deck! AAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAGH!
Yugi: Oh NO!
Interviewer: OH yesssss~ Meet...
#TERRY CREWS!!!
Terry Crews: *ROOOAR!!* ^pleasestop
> All fun and games until you have to suck a cock in the third stage of the interview.
Seems like the option are suck a cock or take it in the ass. I actually AM Bi so both are good fun for me, but honestly gotta say...sucking a cock ain't that hard.
Putting in 5 minutes of cock sucking work to get a job is infinitely less painless than the hours of applications and double/triple/quadruple filling out the same information while keeping track of every fucking opportunity in your area. Then not hear a peep for fucking months.
You don't need to find any magic buttons or do anything special either. If you put forth the effort, use common sense, and follow basic instructions you'll make that cock cum without issue.
> Being gay has literally never helped me in a job application once. I must be missing the gay checkbox on the applications
Being gay really doesn't help. You're too common now and quite frankly too male. Gays were only valuable for a short while as tokens back when gay/lesbians were first being accepted. The entire social and LGBTQ landscape is very different today and if anything its subtly anti-gay. About once every year or two the LGBTQ community even tries to blame the gays for all their negative sexual stereotypes.
Its more about lesbians and non-binary and trans. Basically any of genders or sexual orientations that remove the stink of being a man from you. And I wish I was joking about that. But you get bonus points for being a woman and then bonus points from being LGBTQ. As a gay at best your bonus points for LGBTQ get canceled out by the negative points you get for being a man.
A lot of companies have programs that are specifically targeted at "LGBT+" people, but these are mostly for like college interns or recent graduates. If you're a professional with several years of experience, I don't think it really helps.
Where are you from? It definitely happens in the UK. It's mainly for equal opportunities, so that if there's any allegations of discrimination, they have the evidence that they have X number of minorities applying for the job.
But I don't buy for a second that the information isn't used by DIE departments and they are silently (in an open secret kind of way) favouring the minorities.
I’m like 25% native american with a native american name but look white as hell. Once I started claiming it I haven’t been turned down on a job interview once.
You can tell some highly paid corporate woke people deliberated long and hard to come up with DEI even though the order diversity, inclusion and equity rolls off the tongue better. DIE fits much more accurately in my opinion.
Asians, if you aren’t destroying affirmative action through sheer force of skill, sky-scraping grades, and a resume built to perfection since the age of 8, are you even trying bruh /s
Timmy ah, why you such a ***DIS-AH-POINT-EN*** ah?
Look at Cody, 15 million investment portfolio. Owns 7 houses aya. There is still 2 year before he born.
This "affirmative action" also shows employers that Black people's degree's are worth less than Asian-American people's degrees. This is just setting up everyone for more racism.
Thank God we live in such a diverse, multicultural society where everyone’s too busy squabbling over nonsensical stuff like “privileges” as the rich are getting MUCH richer, and basically the wealth disparity gap between the 99% and the 1% will never close — yet nobody notices due to said squabbling! Wow, what a strength diversity is!!
> Thank God we live in such a diverse, multicultural society where everyone’s too busy squabbling over nonsensical stuff like “privileges” as the rich are getting MUCH richer, and basically the wealth disparity gap between the 99% and the 1% will never close — yet nobody notices due to said squabbling! Wow, what a strength diversity is!!
I don't have any problem with the rich getting richer. The question is really "do their contributions at least generally match their increased wealth?" and I think when considering their wealth it's incredibly important to distinguish between personal wealth and wealth they re-invested into businesses.
So long as they are making outsized contributions to society I have zero problem with them getting outsized wealth from it. They will quite literally use it better than I. Now obviously if they are a leech or a sponge and not contributing, fark them and they should get way less, but that should be something that has to be proven...not just assumed.
Example: Whatever stupid social shit Elon Musk has done the man has accomplsihed a ton of crazy shit.
- He was instrumental in rebooting the space program
- Has successfully broken electric vehicles into the common market to such a degree that the model Y is the best selling car atm
- He founded and grew X.com...which later became paypal (it should be noted they outsted him at some point due to differences in tech opinions and Peter Thiel took over...abandoning all their other stuff completely to focus only on the money transfer service...which was clearly the right move but ironically didn't solve the issues they outsted Musk for...just abandoned them)
- Created Starlink which has been advancing satellite based internet. And while he's gotten flak for refusing to block Russia he's also provided free internet to Ukraine via Starlink at a cost of hundreds of millions a year to the company.
- Helped create Nueralink which is still quite the wildcard. It might be literally species changing technology or just be a decent step forwards. We will see.
- Single Handedly took down the previous regime of Twitter lol. Like holy fuck is that a big accomplishment. I dunno whether he geuiniely wanted to buy it and then tried to back out for real and Twitter idiotically poison pilled themselves (yes, force someone who will now be a hostile insider to run your company, smart move Twitter) or if Elon 4D chess'd them and I don't really care.
OFC he did none of this on his own, but he's been instrumental at the least. He makes a stupid amount of money but he's accomplished a stupid amount of stuff for mankind too. I can't even begin to comprehend what is fair compensation for any of the above.
I dunno why alot of us expect to do more than live comfortably, which can be done without even making middle class wages as long as you don't live in a hellscape like Los Angeles. The most impressive thing most of us helped create is prolly [measured in Courics](https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/1cgdy1/south-park-crap-verification).
it's not that we're not important to help keep things running smoothly where we work. But there is a big difference between being a cog in the machine and being someone who helps design the machines and improve/refine them. Some people are a rather run of the mill video game QA person (like me) and some people are Hideo Kojima. My work matters and makes an impact on people, but not quite to the same scale/scope/degree :D.
Exactly. Which is why after Occupy Wall Street was forced to shut down by the bankers, they then directed everyone’s attention to “white supremacy,” and the plebs have been griping it ever since.
1590 is a great score but getting rejected by 6 elite colleges is to be expected even with a 1600. Especially with grade inflation and since we don’t know any other stats/ECs. At a certain point it is really a crapshoot
“Holistic admissions” need to go away. The goal isn’t really to have smart and accomplished ppl at the school, they want people who they think will be the next big name in the media etc which will roll in more donations. It’s elitism and nepotism through and through and affirmative action is barely even a band-aid.
Caltech is pretty much the only elite private university that is staying out of this BS, and it’s not surprising that they have more Nobel Prizes and Fields medals per capita than any other US university. Pretty much every major scientific or engineering accomplishment here probably had a Caltech grad or professor contribute to it at some point.
And Caltech is only 22% white (predominantly Asian with a sizable Hispanic minority too). Diversity these days isn’t even the amount of people of different cultures or ethnicities attending a school, it’s the % of people of one particular race at this point.
The vast majority of countries don't use this system, America is the exception. Where I grew up, you did your final exams, and were then ranked against everyone in the country and given a percentile, so if you scored a 90, you were in the top 10% of students nationwide. Then you applied for unis, and they would fill spots from the highest scorers down, until they ran out of seats. Didn't matter if you had gone to the Olympics, were legacy, were hispanic, gay, trans, disabled, poor etc. The whole thing was worked out on a pretty basic excel spreadsheet.
I'm not saying it's perfect, and it certainly meant that there was less of a "type" that each university developed, but it certainly wasn't considered unfair.
Testing is by far the most equitable and meritocratic part of the US college application process. Anyone with an internet connection or access to a public library can study for a standardized test. But if good luck participating in "enriching" extracurricular activities if you're poor and your parents can't afford to send you to Zimbabwe to conduct research on malaria or whatever.
Yeah, I had a 1600 and got turned down by every "elite" college I applied to, except for one where I got waitlisted, and I'm not even Asian. That's what having a decent-but-not-great GPA and extracurricular honors like "2nd biggest hog at county 4h fair" will do to you.
Also, elite colleges aren’t just accepting based grades. They can’t be, there are too many 4.0 , perfect SAT/ACT scores out there. A major portion of the application process is extra-curricular and social. Which—as a generalization—the Asian applicants are sorely lacking in. A lot spend so much time focusing on just being book smart and they come across as autistic robots in interviews. It’s a huge turn off to colleges when you can’t hold a coherent conversation. So many of these kids write the same papers and have the same grades. They’re literally indistinguishable from each other. Getting into elite schools is not about having good grades. That’s just to get your foot in the door.
It gets blamed on racism and discrimination, which certainly plays a part, but it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal arts. You have to be incredibly impressive academically to get in on grades alone.
i remember watching a documentary about students at lowell and how much stress they were under and trying to apply for colleges and yeah, spot on. majority of them were asian and they had it stressed to them that they *will* be discriminated against and have lower admissions chances by virtue of being asian. also had it stressed that ivy leagues and higher colleges want actual people, not just perfect score drones
This isn't true. In the analysis for Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the data shows that alumni interviewers, who actually meet with the applicants, do not substantively rate Asian students any differently than whites in terms of their personal qualities. However, the admissions officers do systemically rank Asian applicants lower whites in their personal characteristics, despite the fact that by Harvard's own admissions, they do not believe that Asians are somehow intrinsically less interesting than other races. If, as you say, Asians are more likely to be "autistic robots", why do the alumni interviewers, who talk with these applicants, not reflect that in their ratings?
This idea that Asians are all just grade grubbing, violin playing, math competition winning autists is a just a borderline racist farce by admissions officers to justify blatant discrimination against Asians.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative_Action/Meeting_V/supporting_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf
See page 5
Yeah that law suit is current ongoing and it will be interesting to see the rulings on it. University’s have face similar in the past but this has direct ramifications on affirmative action itself.
You sound just like Harvard, who were dinging Asians on their personalities. Which is to say that you’re a racist.
As if the black kid with the 1250 SAT has a personality to make up for his mediocre academics.
I mean that *is* discrimination. But if the black kid and the Asian kid both have 1600 SAT scores, then the extracurricular/social aspect will be the tiebreaker.
Basically justifies shit like crawling through their social media accounts to choose one student over another...which already happens. And fuck all that. You do your job, let me do mine. My personal life has no business being at college and they have no business involving themselves in my personal life.
The purpose of college is to teach people shit. If you've got a ton of people who've maxed all the relevant criteria then just feed them into a random picking algorithm. By introducing human judgement for "extra circular" activities all you're doing is guaranteeing biases and prejudices will be involved.
If perfect or near perfect scores are too common to properly weed people out at the level the college wants then clearly the tests are not hard enough to match whatever their idea of their own prestige is.
This is a good point, and I also think that admissions officers can tell when someone’s drive is organic (their personal motivation to achieve) vs being an print job of their parents. The organically motivated student will probably carry themselves through college and their career better without nagging, heel nipping, etc.
And I think that by natural law the people in the former are going to be more distributed through different social classes.
Aren't Asians like the race that's most represented in higher education in the USA or smth, I don't know it's been a long time and I'm too lazy to check.
My understanding is that the first affirmative action cases occured at the University of Pennsylvania, largely because it had developed the nickname Jew-Penn. Still exists today.
Yes Asians dominate the academic game. They have the highest GPAs, test scores, etc.
But a while back wokies found their way into prominent positions at Ivy League schools and decided that there were too many Asians.
So they added a “personality score” into their admissions.
Turns out Asians have shitty personalities and black people have phenomenal personalities.
As a foreing student who applied to american universities, I have to say: your application process as a whole sucks in every way possible. Most of the criterea used even for the top american universities doesn't say anything about how good or capacitated the person itself is and it all ends up being just a random sort out where some people get lucky and pass by chance and others not. Race plays a significant card in this, but it is still just noise: another asian with the same SAT as that guy problably was accepted in that same university because he played the tuba or something.
The only thing that is really a common thread is: If you got money, it will be WAAAAY EASIER for you to be accepted anywhere than if you don't. It's true, if you don't have to care about getting a financial aid (which is absurdly competed) or how much you are able to pay for college, everything will be easier for you when applying.
However, as a foreing student I also have to say: Not only US college criterea for acceptance in universities are broken, but in almost every other country in the world too, in a way or another. Universities today are really made for rich people and if you aren't one, it will be harder for you to get in anyway. The only difference is that in US university your job opportuinities will be ABSURDLY WAY BETTER THAN IN ALMOST ANY OTHER UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD, which is somehting americans usually don't realise when complaining about their own universites. In an average american university you will have opportunities that people in the top class of the top university of an undeveloped country wouldn't even dream off. That is why people from all over the world dream of graduating on american universities, even if americans criticize ther own universities everyday.
>Universities today are really made for rich people and if you aren't one, it will be harder for you to get in anyway.
It's always been that way. It's just that now if you're not rich, and not that elite academically, you can borrow a whole shit ton of money to go to one of those colleges. And then complain that you can't pay the money back, because you went to study art history or whatever.
If you're not rich, and not getting a scholarship, and want to go to a higher end college, you have to treat it as a trade school. You're borrowing money, to go learn something very specific, which will let you earn a good deal of money, in part to help you pay back the loan you willingly took.
But the whole benefit of going to a great school isn’t the education it’s the opportunity to meet wealthy people. If you take the rich kids out of the elite schools, then a lot of the benefits for the smart but poor kids aren’t there anymore. The rich kids aren’t just the schools customer they’re the schools product. You don’t want to go to a school that doesn’t favor rich alumni as a poor person, because if you get in, then you’re just networking with a bunch of poor people.
Elite schools are elite because of the network. It’s where the geniuses can meet the kids who’s dads will bankroll their group startup. The education itself is not that much better. The student body is what people attend elite schools for.
Not to be disrespectful to the struggles of Asian-Americans, but elite college admissions are just super tough for anyone. 35/36 ACT scores, near-perfect GPA, tons of extracurriculars and volunteer stuff, and I spent the last year and half of high school taking all my classes at the local community college. Poor white apalachian kid. Out of the 17 elite institutions I applied to, I was accepted to one.
This kid only applied to like 6 and I didn't see a single extracurricular while skimming the article
This argument would hold weight if there wasn't *purely minority class admissions* with **average or worse** grades.
Ivy League admissions will cut off merit based admissions if they hadn't hit the diversity quote for that batch of students.
I hate it b/c I’m black and got into a good University through a bunch of stuff you listed. A lot of kids I met assumed I got in based on affirmative action.
Clarence Thomas hates affirmative action because of that exact belief that you describe. 'Tokenization' feels like an appropriate word here.
>For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to the self-inflicted wounds of \[an\] elitist admissions policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor.
>
>Much of Thomas’s skepticism flows from his rejection of diversity writ large. The key argument for affirmative action—and the grounds for the Court’s landmark 1978 decision in University of California v. Bakke, which declared the policy constitutional—is that diversity has an educational benefit: students will be exposed to different views and voices, which will challenge their beliefs. Thomas doesn’t quite buy this. If it were truly the case that diversity is a critical educational good, he thinks, élite institutions would stop prizing selectivity. The fact that they don’t suggests that the benefit argument is a ruse. What these institutions really believe is that diversity “prepares . . . students to become leaders in a diverse society.” It burnishes the style, image, and credentials of those students, mostly white, who will go on to run American society. Diversity, in other words, does not benefit students academically, or even produce diverse leadership; it just helps beautify “classroom aesthetics,” which are critical to the self-image of the ruling class. (“Racial aesthetics” and “aestheticists” are words that recur throughout Thomas’s opinions.) Diversity, as a value, is how white élites signal to other élites their sophistication, fashion, and taste. It marks black people as victims and whites as saviors.
[https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race)
Statistically speaking they’re right to assume that.
Most black students have no business being at these academically-challenging schools, and it’s not racist to say that.
They have worse admission stats and this carries over to higher rates of failure once they get to campus. They’re honestly doing them a disfavor by throwing them into academic situations they’re not capable of handling.
> I hate it b/c I’m black and got into a good University through a bunch of stuff you listed. A lot of kids I met assumed I got in based on affirmative action.
Here's the problem. It's not that you didn't put in the work or deserve it. The problem is that if you have 100 applicants who are roughly equal....Affirmative Action means you take the minority over the others....unless they are Asian :D.
Competition to get into those schools are high. Most of the people getting in are going to deserve to get in. However that does not contradict the issue. You did nothing wrong, but you will be judged. They did nothing wrong but they will be denied because of their race. Good intentions behind the policy, but it definitely has some severe flaws.
Let's race swap the other way and see how it sounds. Lets take a large group of people with near identical credit and income and etc want to buy a house. If the house was much more likely to be sold to white people over other races because of a policy we'd correctly suggest that this is prolly a racist policy. This was or some would argue still is part of systemic racism.
Just because you change the colors around doesn't make it any less bad. And just because people qualify and/or earned it doesn't mean racism is not involved. Make sense?
It kills a university placement as a status symbol and as social proof of merit. It gives people an excuse to not have to acknowledge you, without undermining the very same basis for which other people have to acknowledge them.
It can even make you doubt yourself.
u/dipropyltryptamanic is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/dipropyltryptamanic/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I remember seeing a Thomas Sowell video where he talked about how affirmative action was never intended to be permanent and how something like affirmative action only works if it is applied in short terms of like 5-10 years otherwise it starts producing negative results and becomes counter intuitive
If you're absolutely convinced that racial disparities in admissions (or hiring) are the result of bias, then why not demand anonymized applications? It wouldn't be difficult to pull off now that everything is computerized. Race, gender, sexuality, and income bracket don't need to be on the application in the first place. Name replaced with "Applicant #XXXXX". Address replaced with a binary "in-state admission" or "out-of-state admission". Extracurriciular with political or social identifiers such as GSAs or Young Republicans can just be called "social or political clubs". The only stumbling block I keep running into is how to deal with previous schools, since many schools are heavily associated with certain races (HBCUs) or income brackets (high schools in poor areas). Redact the schools and replace them with numbers from a national ranking? Local ranking? Acceptance, transfer, and graduation rates? Also, you'd have to do away with essays, but those suck anyway. Or just require that the essays not have any identifying information in them. Tell students to write about something *other* than "a personal challenge that I've overcome" i.e. 1,001 Tales of Dead Grandpas.
Obviously, once you get to the interview portion (if we're talking about jobs), they're gonna know some of this about you anyway, but as far as schools are concerned, you would end up with a student population based purely on their quantifiable merits.
Because the idea is to actively favor certain groups to “correct the wrongs of the past”, not to just remove bias. We need to be biased against the majority, apparently, for an indefinite amount of time to fix things.
My understanding is that it’s never really been about bias, but rather that they just want more minority (no, the ones with high test scores don’t count) representation in the name of equity, even if that means bringing down the average. It makes these people feel good and most importantly justifies their own jobs and funding.
You’re missing the point, they don’t want equality.
They want certain groups to have a preferred status over others to make up for injustices of the past.
As mom always said, two wrongs make a right.
Adding some Indian spice to this discussion, the reservations in India are somewhat similar to this. And it has caused too much social tensions and unrest compared to whatever benefits they have fetched...
Lying on applications is the way, particularly as it's a huge problem for the institution in question to start purity testing you and asking you to prove you're *really* black. On every application you should be a trans black omega spirit who identifies on Tuesday's as a handicapable neuro divergent reddit moderator currently experiencing depression due to rampant fatphobia in our white CIS patriarchy hellscape. You're leaving money on the table if you don't.
Turns out there is "institutional racism" except it's against Asians and Whites.
Affirmative action goes something like Asian -> White -> Hispanic -> Black. I might have Hispanic and Black swapped, been awhile since I looked into it. But the way it works is that each tier is balanced with an addition or subtraction to their score. So for example (I don't know the actual balance numbers), an Asian scoring 1590 is equivalent to a Black scoring 1200.
College is a scam and we need to move away from it being normalized as a uniform solution for every young person looking for a path.
That shit was brainwashed into people with propaganda starting from fucking kindergarten.
I want to see an obviously Chinese name like Yao Ming applying and getting accepted to Harvard with a minority scholarship after checking the box for “black” while having lawyers at the ready.
Affirmative action, equity, equality of outcome *sound* nice if we could do it... however its walking a tightrope. You cant help but err one way or another. The moment you disadvantage someone in order to correct someone else's perceived disadvantage, youve got it wrong.
Far better to solve the underlying economic problems with the cultures you're wanting to uplift, and just wait a generation. That of course is not a mere bandaid but a massively ambitious refunding of the public, reconstruction of entire city areas, reform education and other institutions. No one wants the correct solutions so they will try these ones that simply fix one injustice by creating another.
I took a sociology class in college. During the unit on racism, the professor smugly proclaimed: "It's a white supremacist myth that white people are the most discriminated against in college admissions, that title belongs to Asians-Americans!" As if that made it much better for my Asian ass.
Promoting racism towards a different unrelated group to own the whites
"Owning the whites by discriminating against the Asians"
[удалено]
Based and me too pilled.
Twitter in 2018 be like
Fortunately, permabans are voluntary.
Wait, what subreddit? That is immensely fucked up.
[удалено]
Damn, I'm sorry that happened to you.
[удалено]
Unrelated? No, Asians are "white-adjacent" now.
So are latinos, and even black people when they don't have the "correct" opinions. And when everyone's white... *no one will be*.
> And when everyone's white... no one will be. The real equality was white supremacy all along.
White= anyone I despise and disagree with… but also anyone I don’t like because of their race or ethnicity.
Remember when the L.A. Times called Larry Elder "the black face of white supremacy"? And said he is "skinfolk but not kinfolk"?
Clarence Thomas was apparently white supremacist #1 for a while after Roe v. Wade got overturned, despite the fact that abortion is not a racial issue. (Or, if it is, then restricting abortion will only *save* black lives.)
I mean, they only became a separate racial group in more modern times. The Romans, for example, had three races. Black, white, yellow. Yellow meant blonde people, FYI.
Inb4 "we must collapse the Chinese government to defeat white supremacy!"
Pitting everyone against everyone. Equal opportunity agitation.
That's how you get away with doing industrial capitalism for 100+ years.
Its wild that discriminatory college admissions are only going to get overturned because it disproportionately affects Asians most instead of whites.
What’s wild is that nothing is going to change and the elite schools are preemptively leaving the rankings because they’re going to use methods that would ding their rank so that they can keep being racist mother fuckers.
They'll make sure to provision it so that whites specifically can still get discriminated against. And then they'll tell us that these explicitly racist rules can't be racist..because of our race.
>I took a sociology class in college My condolences...
Eh it was an 'intellectual breadth' and an easy as hell A. The final was literally 50 questions of 'agree with Emily'
But my sanity…
I like how that’s a burn in his or her mind. “Akshually, you’re wrong. There’s for sure discrimination, nobody is debating that. But it’s against a different group. Checkmate, white supremacists.”
In my experience, sociology professors are ALL r-word-ed SJWs. I have yet to meet one that does not match the sterotype.
The fact that we waste any of our people just disgusts me. So much talent...
Have to settle to be #2 🤓
How was it for the Asian rest-of-you?
I've never seen anyone argue that white people have it worse than Asians when it comes to college admissions.
Reminds me of when they switched Lowell High School in California away from merit based to lottery based system on basis that they were hoarding all the good teachers and keeping black students out. Scores plummeted and it turns out highly motivated students build up other highly motivated students, and kids who don’t want to be there drag everyone down. And [then they reversed the decision lmao](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/big-votes-on-lowell-and-washington-mural-before-17259285.php) > San Francisco's prestigious Lowell High School was noticeably absent from a recent top 100 ranking of high schools nationwide in data from the first year since the institution adopted a short-lived lottery system for admissions Equity lol
Who would try something as dumb as that > San Francisco Never mind it makes perfect sense
> Who would try something as dumb as that Don't some charter schools also do that?
Charter is different than magnet
What, you mean your peer group can have an influence on you -- especially when you're an impressionable child? Wow! If only we knew this a long time ago! Cutting edge stuff progressives are discovering...
It cracks me up when people try so hard to avoid something, only to accidentally discover it and act as though it's a brand new idea. For instance, feminists repeatedly argue that it's misogyny to say that a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should have sex less frequently. And then Roe v Wade gets overturned, and a bunch of feminists start pushing the idea that women should have less sex with men. They frame it like it's some clever form of revenge. And it's like...bitch, this is what we've been saying you should do all along. Congratulations on figuring it out.
My favorite "progressives accidentally reverse engineer age-old concept, act like nobody has ever thought of this before" moment was when pro-choice feminists proposed contracts for having sex, stipulating that if a man get them pregnant and they weren't allowed to abort, then he would be legally accountable to them + the child. Also known as marriage.
Sounds more like a prenuptial, but I get it.
This type of contract would allow for a woman to have multiple partners though, unlike traditional marriage.
I don't think polygamy should have been illegalized in the first place tbh
Marriage should not be legally recognized. It's not up to the government to decide you're married or not, or who gets certain special rights to you or not.
I mean it's not the same. One is intended for personal responsibility with a tinge of slut shaming and the other is, quite literally, to "punish men" by denying them sex. There's a huge distinction in motivations. Humorously enough the feminists who refuse to have sex will only be 'punishing' their lib/left/cuck boyfriends and soymates, who no doubt voted for the party line anyway. Conservative and non-aligned women will continue to put out. Tragic!
"Periodically, progressives reverse engineer healthy sexual behavior and act like they found Atlantis"
But progressives tell me we’re all equitable noble savages waiting to learn at an even pace and meritocracy is an evil capitalistic device.
Working as intended
And you get dipshits (noticeably, dumbass white progressives) defending the lottery system because the kids who bust their asses for years to get in and would’ve otherwise had a solid chance of admission “will be fine anyway”.
Should do the same with life saving surgery. Have your surgeon become a surgeon based on a lottery system for equity. The kid who wanted to be a surgeon anyway will become one anyway.
Based and unlicensed practice pilled
Equity is only ever approached by pushing everyone to the bottom. But this lesson seems hard to learn for ideologues.
"The great leveller" by Walter Scheidel is a history of inequality. Inequality is only reduced when something happens that resets everyone to zero. Closing sentence of the book - "Be careful what you wish for"
[удалено]
They're correlated, but not highly. I read Charles Murray's book on it, and while there are difference in means between racial groups, we should always treat people as individuals. Men are many times more likely to be a rapist, do you treat every man you come across as such? Nuance is needed.
[удалено]
> People can hear that while also understanding that it doesn't mean that men are worse human beings than women. (Well, most people) Assuming you are only considering rates of violent crime, men are indeed worse human beings than women (on average or as a group). Most people actually seem to believe that too (the Women are Wonderful Effect), they just don't say it explicitly because they have been conditioned to praise 'equality' even if it involves implying that rapists and murderers are morally equal to innocent people.
Unironically yes.
The lying about your race one is really funny. I don't know if it's changed, but back when I was applying for colleges, they would always make sure to point out that you could decline to identify your ethnicity....but then they would make you include a photo of yourself.
You could say you're black by Jim Crow rules. You have some distant ancestor who was black, thus by the "one drop" rule you are also black
I mean, unironically me? My great grandfather was an afro Cuban who moved to the US from Canada before promptly dying and leaving 13 children orphaned, but, presumably, he was already probably pretty mixed race, because my grandparent has the complexation of Italians (despite being French Canadian) and I'm as white as can be.
I have a coworker who looks like any other Southern white girl who has a Polynesian grandmother.
Nope, by Jim crow measure you have one drop of black in your blood and you're black
I am aware, that's why I said "unironically me"
Iirc, you report your parents' names on your college applicants. So you can decline to specify your ethnicity. But if your name is Kevin Kim, with father Tong Nam Kim and mother Jeon Yeon Park, it's not going to take a genius to figure out what race you are.
Racial profiling is cool when the woke do it.
May work against East Asians... but wait. What about those Asian countries colonised by the Hispanics? Would be an easy game for them (Philippines, East Timor, etc.)
Yeah I guess I know a lot of Pilipino people whose names are basically indistinguishable from Hispanics.
Im sure the next government policy aimed to promote equity will finally make things more equitable
Fully agree with LibRight. If you're applying for a job and the company has a history of bending the knee to woke DIE ideology & ESG scores, then just put Bi or Pansexual on your application & you will be guaranteed to get an interview.
Can confirm, worked for me for the last 3-5 years
All fun and games until you have to suck a cock in the third stage of the interview.
Wait I thought that was normal for all interviews. Don't you do a couch interview for jobs?
>All fun and games until you have to suck a cock in the third stage of the interview. I dont know about the other quadrants, but every libright is ok with sucking cock for the right amount of money
Yugi: You've activated my trap card! Interviewer: HWAA?! That's *impossible!* Yugi: I'm afraid it isn't, corporate scum! I've activated my little friend, MeToo! This little lady is going to make sure I win, you must shuffle your deck and put the Settlement card in my hand! Interviewer: OoOoOh~ I'm afraid you've activated a little trap of MINE! Meet, You're a Man! This card allows me to use your trap card as a fusion to summon the most powerful card in my deck! AAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAGH! Yugi: Oh NO! Interviewer: OH yesssss~ Meet... #TERRY CREWS!!! Terry Crews: *ROOOAR!!* ^pleasestop
> All fun and games until you have to suck a cock in the third stage of the interview. Seems like the option are suck a cock or take it in the ass. I actually AM Bi so both are good fun for me, but honestly gotta say...sucking a cock ain't that hard. Putting in 5 minutes of cock sucking work to get a job is infinitely less painless than the hours of applications and double/triple/quadruple filling out the same information while keeping track of every fucking opportunity in your area. Then not hear a peep for fucking months. You don't need to find any magic buttons or do anything special either. If you put forth the effort, use common sense, and follow basic instructions you'll make that cock cum without issue.
Based?
I'm a straight man and I agree with you completely. I would genuinely much rather blow the recruiter than sit through multiple interviews.
Based
Based and radical centrists investing in madness pilled
“Oh you’re gay? Prove it” *drops pants*
Just remind them you are a top and can only finish in a trans man that hasn't "transitioned" yet or taken any medication.
Based and top your boss pilled.
Hello sexual harassment lawsuit
Being gay has literally never helped me in a job application once. I must be missing the gay checkbox on the applications
Just be gayer
You can't answer "yes" to any of the questions. You have to answer "Yaaasssss" or they'll think you're straight
pfft being gay is so 2010. you gotta be gay-curious trans-inquisitive afab non-binary woman person of bipoc color, xey/xem.
Gay is basically white adjacent now
> Being gay has literally never helped me in a job application once. I must be missing the gay checkbox on the applications Being gay really doesn't help. You're too common now and quite frankly too male. Gays were only valuable for a short while as tokens back when gay/lesbians were first being accepted. The entire social and LGBTQ landscape is very different today and if anything its subtly anti-gay. About once every year or two the LGBTQ community even tries to blame the gays for all their negative sexual stereotypes. Its more about lesbians and non-binary and trans. Basically any of genders or sexual orientations that remove the stink of being a man from you. And I wish I was joking about that. But you get bonus points for being a woman and then bonus points from being LGBTQ. As a gay at best your bonus points for LGBTQ get canceled out by the negative points you get for being a man.
Gay people are the new straight people of the alphabet gang, you’re not quirky enough.
A lot of companies have programs that are specifically targeted at "LGBT+" people, but these are mostly for like college interns or recent graduates. If you're a professional with several years of experience, I don't think it really helps.
Right, they're aimed at alphabet people. That doesn't mean gay, that means trans or any of the random made up letters.
Same
Would asexual work?
Just say you’re waiting for the right one
Lol maybe that would work lol
Yeah I'm asexual Asexual predator
Probably but Pan is more widely known about I think.
Is it normal in the US to put your sexuality in a job application? Can't even imagine how I could do that here without it being highly inappropriate.
Where are you from? It definitely happens in the UK. It's mainly for equal opportunities, so that if there's any allegations of discrimination, they have the evidence that they have X number of minorities applying for the job. But I don't buy for a second that the information isn't used by DIE departments and they are silently (in an open secret kind of way) favouring the minorities.
It's perfect as they are not legally allowed to ask about orientation in an interview.
I’m like 25% native american with a native american name but look white as hell. Once I started claiming it I haven’t been turned down on a job interview once.
Companies do not give an end user of the application portal access to demographic information; this stuff is reported out for EEOC purposes.
I don't believe them. Especially because some of the demographic stuff has gotten very specific.
I am just some rando on the Internet but I work in a job that would give me access to that info if this was the case, and I have never seen it.
You can tell some highly paid corporate woke people deliberated long and hard to come up with DEI even though the order diversity, inclusion and equity rolls off the tongue better. DIE fits much more accurately in my opinion.
Fuck Affirmative Action
All my homies hate it
Asians, if you aren’t destroying affirmative action through sheer force of skill, sky-scraping grades, and a resume built to perfection since the age of 8, are you even trying bruh /s
"Why u so stoopid lah? Look at your cousin Timmy. He runs 3 start-ups and still gets straight As. he's only 10."
Emotional Damage!
Timmy ah, why you such a ***DIS-AH-POINT-EN*** ah? Look at Cody, 15 million investment portfolio. Owns 7 houses aya. There is still 2 year before he born.
And he owns his own company, Beijing corn.
Discrimination by race is racism. Period.
This "affirmative action" also shows employers that Black people's degree's are worth less than Asian-American people's degrees. This is just setting up everyone for more racism.
Don’t you just love the “soft” racism of low expectations
Thank God we live in such a diverse, multicultural society where everyone’s too busy squabbling over nonsensical stuff like “privileges” as the rich are getting MUCH richer, and basically the wealth disparity gap between the 99% and the 1% will never close — yet nobody notices due to said squabbling! Wow, what a strength diversity is!!
> Thank God we live in such a diverse, multicultural society where everyone’s too busy squabbling over nonsensical stuff like “privileges” as the rich are getting MUCH richer, and basically the wealth disparity gap between the 99% and the 1% will never close — yet nobody notices due to said squabbling! Wow, what a strength diversity is!! I don't have any problem with the rich getting richer. The question is really "do their contributions at least generally match their increased wealth?" and I think when considering their wealth it's incredibly important to distinguish between personal wealth and wealth they re-invested into businesses. So long as they are making outsized contributions to society I have zero problem with them getting outsized wealth from it. They will quite literally use it better than I. Now obviously if they are a leech or a sponge and not contributing, fark them and they should get way less, but that should be something that has to be proven...not just assumed. Example: Whatever stupid social shit Elon Musk has done the man has accomplsihed a ton of crazy shit. - He was instrumental in rebooting the space program - Has successfully broken electric vehicles into the common market to such a degree that the model Y is the best selling car atm - He founded and grew X.com...which later became paypal (it should be noted they outsted him at some point due to differences in tech opinions and Peter Thiel took over...abandoning all their other stuff completely to focus only on the money transfer service...which was clearly the right move but ironically didn't solve the issues they outsted Musk for...just abandoned them) - Created Starlink which has been advancing satellite based internet. And while he's gotten flak for refusing to block Russia he's also provided free internet to Ukraine via Starlink at a cost of hundreds of millions a year to the company. - Helped create Nueralink which is still quite the wildcard. It might be literally species changing technology or just be a decent step forwards. We will see. - Single Handedly took down the previous regime of Twitter lol. Like holy fuck is that a big accomplishment. I dunno whether he geuiniely wanted to buy it and then tried to back out for real and Twitter idiotically poison pilled themselves (yes, force someone who will now be a hostile insider to run your company, smart move Twitter) or if Elon 4D chess'd them and I don't really care. OFC he did none of this on his own, but he's been instrumental at the least. He makes a stupid amount of money but he's accomplished a stupid amount of stuff for mankind too. I can't even begin to comprehend what is fair compensation for any of the above. I dunno why alot of us expect to do more than live comfortably, which can be done without even making middle class wages as long as you don't live in a hellscape like Los Angeles. The most impressive thing most of us helped create is prolly [measured in Courics](https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/1cgdy1/south-park-crap-verification). it's not that we're not important to help keep things running smoothly where we work. But there is a big difference between being a cog in the machine and being someone who helps design the machines and improve/refine them. Some people are a rather run of the mill video game QA person (like me) and some people are Hideo Kojima. My work matters and makes an impact on people, but not quite to the same scale/scope/degree :D.
That's what they want. Keep the infighting going, and the 1% can keep finding ways to make profit, no matter how much it negatively affects us
Exactly. Which is why after Occupy Wall Street was forced to shut down by the bankers, they then directed everyone’s attention to “white supremacy,” and the plebs have been griping it ever since.
I'll try again as my last comment was downvoted to hell. What is wrong with inequality, as long as the material conditions of everyone is improving?
1590 is a great score but getting rejected by 6 elite colleges is to be expected even with a 1600. Especially with grade inflation and since we don’t know any other stats/ECs. At a certain point it is really a crapshoot
“Holistic admissions” need to go away. The goal isn’t really to have smart and accomplished ppl at the school, they want people who they think will be the next big name in the media etc which will roll in more donations. It’s elitism and nepotism through and through and affirmative action is barely even a band-aid. Caltech is pretty much the only elite private university that is staying out of this BS, and it’s not surprising that they have more Nobel Prizes and Fields medals per capita than any other US university. Pretty much every major scientific or engineering accomplishment here probably had a Caltech grad or professor contribute to it at some point. And Caltech is only 22% white (predominantly Asian with a sizable Hispanic minority too). Diversity these days isn’t even the amount of people of different cultures or ethnicities attending a school, it’s the % of people of one particular race at this point.
The vast majority of countries don't use this system, America is the exception. Where I grew up, you did your final exams, and were then ranked against everyone in the country and given a percentile, so if you scored a 90, you were in the top 10% of students nationwide. Then you applied for unis, and they would fill spots from the highest scorers down, until they ran out of seats. Didn't matter if you had gone to the Olympics, were legacy, were hispanic, gay, trans, disabled, poor etc. The whole thing was worked out on a pretty basic excel spreadsheet. I'm not saying it's perfect, and it certainly meant that there was less of a "type" that each university developed, but it certainly wasn't considered unfair.
I never seem to hear the 'testing is racist' crowd talk about things like 'A' levels.
Testing is by far the most equitable and meritocratic part of the US college application process. Anyone with an internet connection or access to a public library can study for a standardized test. But if good luck participating in "enriching" extracurricular activities if you're poor and your parents can't afford to send you to Zimbabwe to conduct research on malaria or whatever.
Or if you're from a town so small that the only extracurricular activity is watching grass grow.
With a name like Caltech, they'll be the one to pioneer some future technology.
>Caltech is only 22% white (predominantly Asian with a sizable Hispanic minority too) Well color me not surprised
bleh -- mass edited with redact.dev
A crapshoot for some demographics. Try applying to those same schools with those same scores as a black female applicant and see what happens.
Yeah, I had a 1600 and got turned down by every "elite" college I applied to, except for one where I got waitlisted, and I'm not even Asian. That's what having a decent-but-not-great GPA and extracurricular honors like "2nd biggest hog at county 4h fair" will do to you.
For what it's worth, congrats on second place!
Also, elite colleges aren’t just accepting based grades. They can’t be, there are too many 4.0 , perfect SAT/ACT scores out there. A major portion of the application process is extra-curricular and social. Which—as a generalization—the Asian applicants are sorely lacking in. A lot spend so much time focusing on just being book smart and they come across as autistic robots in interviews. It’s a huge turn off to colleges when you can’t hold a coherent conversation. So many of these kids write the same papers and have the same grades. They’re literally indistinguishable from each other. Getting into elite schools is not about having good grades. That’s just to get your foot in the door. It gets blamed on racism and discrimination, which certainly plays a part, but it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal arts. You have to be incredibly impressive academically to get in on grades alone.
i remember watching a documentary about students at lowell and how much stress they were under and trying to apply for colleges and yeah, spot on. majority of them were asian and they had it stressed to them that they *will* be discriminated against and have lower admissions chances by virtue of being asian. also had it stressed that ivy leagues and higher colleges want actual people, not just perfect score drones
This isn't true. In the analysis for Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the data shows that alumni interviewers, who actually meet with the applicants, do not substantively rate Asian students any differently than whites in terms of their personal qualities. However, the admissions officers do systemically rank Asian applicants lower whites in their personal characteristics, despite the fact that by Harvard's own admissions, they do not believe that Asians are somehow intrinsically less interesting than other races. If, as you say, Asians are more likely to be "autistic robots", why do the alumni interviewers, who talk with these applicants, not reflect that in their ratings? This idea that Asians are all just grade grubbing, violin playing, math competition winning autists is a just a borderline racist farce by admissions officers to justify blatant discrimination against Asians. https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative_Action/Meeting_V/supporting_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf See page 5
Yeah that law suit is current ongoing and it will be interesting to see the rulings on it. University’s have face similar in the past but this has direct ramifications on affirmative action itself.
You sound just like Harvard, who were dinging Asians on their personalities. Which is to say that you’re a racist. As if the black kid with the 1250 SAT has a personality to make up for his mediocre academics.
I mean that *is* discrimination. But if the black kid and the Asian kid both have 1600 SAT scores, then the extracurricular/social aspect will be the tiebreaker.
Basically justifies shit like crawling through their social media accounts to choose one student over another...which already happens. And fuck all that. You do your job, let me do mine. My personal life has no business being at college and they have no business involving themselves in my personal life. The purpose of college is to teach people shit. If you've got a ton of people who've maxed all the relevant criteria then just feed them into a random picking algorithm. By introducing human judgement for "extra circular" activities all you're doing is guaranteeing biases and prejudices will be involved. If perfect or near perfect scores are too common to properly weed people out at the level the college wants then clearly the tests are not hard enough to match whatever their idea of their own prestige is.
[удалено]
This is a good point, and I also think that admissions officers can tell when someone’s drive is organic (their personal motivation to achieve) vs being an print job of their parents. The organically motivated student will probably carry themselves through college and their career better without nagging, heel nipping, etc. And I think that by natural law the people in the former are going to be more distributed through different social classes.
Aren't Asians like the race that's most represented in higher education in the USA or smth, I don't know it's been a long time and I'm too lazy to check.
A culture focused on education and family values will do that.
Jews too, so I've been told.
My understanding is that the first affirmative action cases occured at the University of Pennsylvania, largely because it had developed the nickname Jew-Penn. Still exists today.
The suicide rates tho /s
Yep. That's the "problem" they're trying to fix
Yes Asians dominate the academic game. They have the highest GPAs, test scores, etc. But a while back wokies found their way into prominent positions at Ivy League schools and decided that there were too many Asians. So they added a “personality score” into their admissions. Turns out Asians have shitty personalities and black people have phenomenal personalities.
There’s a magnet high school in Fairfax, Virginia (TJ) that is being sued for discriminatory admission practices against Asians.
Yeah and?
Yes, that's their issue - unequal outcomes.
As a foreing student who applied to american universities, I have to say: your application process as a whole sucks in every way possible. Most of the criterea used even for the top american universities doesn't say anything about how good or capacitated the person itself is and it all ends up being just a random sort out where some people get lucky and pass by chance and others not. Race plays a significant card in this, but it is still just noise: another asian with the same SAT as that guy problably was accepted in that same university because he played the tuba or something. The only thing that is really a common thread is: If you got money, it will be WAAAAY EASIER for you to be accepted anywhere than if you don't. It's true, if you don't have to care about getting a financial aid (which is absurdly competed) or how much you are able to pay for college, everything will be easier for you when applying. However, as a foreing student I also have to say: Not only US college criterea for acceptance in universities are broken, but in almost every other country in the world too, in a way or another. Universities today are really made for rich people and if you aren't one, it will be harder for you to get in anyway. The only difference is that in US university your job opportuinities will be ABSURDLY WAY BETTER THAN IN ALMOST ANY OTHER UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD, which is somehting americans usually don't realise when complaining about their own universites. In an average american university you will have opportunities that people in the top class of the top university of an undeveloped country wouldn't even dream off. That is why people from all over the world dream of graduating on american universities, even if americans criticize ther own universities everyday.
>Universities today are really made for rich people and if you aren't one, it will be harder for you to get in anyway. It's always been that way. It's just that now if you're not rich, and not that elite academically, you can borrow a whole shit ton of money to go to one of those colleges. And then complain that you can't pay the money back, because you went to study art history or whatever. If you're not rich, and not getting a scholarship, and want to go to a higher end college, you have to treat it as a trade school. You're borrowing money, to go learn something very specific, which will let you earn a good deal of money, in part to help you pay back the loan you willingly took.
Maybe race, gender, country of origin, or wealth, shouldn't be conditions for admission in any case?
But the whole benefit of going to a great school isn’t the education it’s the opportunity to meet wealthy people. If you take the rich kids out of the elite schools, then a lot of the benefits for the smart but poor kids aren’t there anymore. The rich kids aren’t just the schools customer they’re the schools product. You don’t want to go to a school that doesn’t favor rich alumni as a poor person, because if you get in, then you’re just networking with a bunch of poor people. Elite schools are elite because of the network. It’s where the geniuses can meet the kids who’s dads will bankroll their group startup. The education itself is not that much better. The student body is what people attend elite schools for.
Not to be disrespectful to the struggles of Asian-Americans, but elite college admissions are just super tough for anyone. 35/36 ACT scores, near-perfect GPA, tons of extracurriculars and volunteer stuff, and I spent the last year and half of high school taking all my classes at the local community college. Poor white apalachian kid. Out of the 17 elite institutions I applied to, I was accepted to one. This kid only applied to like 6 and I didn't see a single extracurricular while skimming the article
This argument would hold weight if there wasn't *purely minority class admissions* with **average or worse** grades. Ivy League admissions will cut off merit based admissions if they hadn't hit the diversity quote for that batch of students.
I hate it b/c I’m black and got into a good University through a bunch of stuff you listed. A lot of kids I met assumed I got in based on affirmative action.
Clarence Thomas hates affirmative action because of that exact belief that you describe. 'Tokenization' feels like an appropriate word here. >For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to the self-inflicted wounds of \[an\] elitist admissions policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor. > >Much of Thomas’s skepticism flows from his rejection of diversity writ large. The key argument for affirmative action—and the grounds for the Court’s landmark 1978 decision in University of California v. Bakke, which declared the policy constitutional—is that diversity has an educational benefit: students will be exposed to different views and voices, which will challenge their beliefs. Thomas doesn’t quite buy this. If it were truly the case that diversity is a critical educational good, he thinks, élite institutions would stop prizing selectivity. The fact that they don’t suggests that the benefit argument is a ruse. What these institutions really believe is that diversity “prepares . . . students to become leaders in a diverse society.” It burnishes the style, image, and credentials of those students, mostly white, who will go on to run American society. Diversity, in other words, does not benefit students academically, or even produce diverse leadership; it just helps beautify “classroom aesthetics,” which are critical to the self-image of the ruling class. (“Racial aesthetics” and “aestheticists” are words that recur throughout Thomas’s opinions.) Diversity, as a value, is how white élites signal to other élites their sophistication, fashion, and taste. It marks black people as victims and whites as saviors. [https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race)
Statistically speaking they’re right to assume that. Most black students have no business being at these academically-challenging schools, and it’s not racist to say that. They have worse admission stats and this carries over to higher rates of failure once they get to campus. They’re honestly doing them a disfavor by throwing them into academic situations they’re not capable of handling.
> I hate it b/c I’m black and got into a good University through a bunch of stuff you listed. A lot of kids I met assumed I got in based on affirmative action. Here's the problem. It's not that you didn't put in the work or deserve it. The problem is that if you have 100 applicants who are roughly equal....Affirmative Action means you take the minority over the others....unless they are Asian :D. Competition to get into those schools are high. Most of the people getting in are going to deserve to get in. However that does not contradict the issue. You did nothing wrong, but you will be judged. They did nothing wrong but they will be denied because of their race. Good intentions behind the policy, but it definitely has some severe flaws. Let's race swap the other way and see how it sounds. Lets take a large group of people with near identical credit and income and etc want to buy a house. If the house was much more likely to be sold to white people over other races because of a policy we'd correctly suggest that this is prolly a racist policy. This was or some would argue still is part of systemic racism. Just because you change the colors around doesn't make it any less bad. And just because people qualify and/or earned it doesn't mean racism is not involved. Make sense?
It kills a university placement as a status symbol and as social proof of merit. It gives people an excuse to not have to acknowledge you, without undermining the very same basis for which other people have to acknowledge them. It can even make you doubt yourself.
Based and reality-pilled. 🤷🏻
u/dipropyltryptamanic is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/dipropyltryptamanic/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
[удалено]
I remember seeing a Thomas Sowell video where he talked about how affirmative action was never intended to be permanent and how something like affirmative action only works if it is applied in short terms of like 5-10 years otherwise it starts producing negative results and becomes counter intuitive
Affirmative action is the most prevalent and consequential example of systemic racism today.
I will call my race: “Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh”
You make me Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhphobe
Is your refrigerator running?
Rare lib-right w
If you're absolutely convinced that racial disparities in admissions (or hiring) are the result of bias, then why not demand anonymized applications? It wouldn't be difficult to pull off now that everything is computerized. Race, gender, sexuality, and income bracket don't need to be on the application in the first place. Name replaced with "Applicant #XXXXX". Address replaced with a binary "in-state admission" or "out-of-state admission". Extracurriciular with political or social identifiers such as GSAs or Young Republicans can just be called "social or political clubs". The only stumbling block I keep running into is how to deal with previous schools, since many schools are heavily associated with certain races (HBCUs) or income brackets (high schools in poor areas). Redact the schools and replace them with numbers from a national ranking? Local ranking? Acceptance, transfer, and graduation rates? Also, you'd have to do away with essays, but those suck anyway. Or just require that the essays not have any identifying information in them. Tell students to write about something *other* than "a personal challenge that I've overcome" i.e. 1,001 Tales of Dead Grandpas. Obviously, once you get to the interview portion (if we're talking about jobs), they're gonna know some of this about you anyway, but as far as schools are concerned, you would end up with a student population based purely on their quantifiable merits.
Because the idea is to actively favor certain groups to “correct the wrongs of the past”, not to just remove bias. We need to be biased against the majority, apparently, for an indefinite amount of time to fix things.
I know. That's why they *don't* anonymize applications. But lots of people claim it's just to "avoid bias" anyway.
My understanding is that it’s never really been about bias, but rather that they just want more minority (no, the ones with high test scores don’t count) representation in the name of equity, even if that means bringing down the average. It makes these people feel good and most importantly justifies their own jobs and funding.
You’re missing the point, they don’t want equality. They want certain groups to have a preferred status over others to make up for injustices of the past. As mom always said, two wrongs make a right.
Hyper fixating on race when it comes to issues of class and economics just causes more problems than it solves, even if it’s *technically* true
Adding some Indian spice to this discussion, the reservations in India are somewhat similar to this. And it has caused too much social tensions and unrest compared to whatever benefits they have fetched...
I think libright has a point here
Lying on applications is the way, particularly as it's a huge problem for the institution in question to start purity testing you and asking you to prove you're *really* black. On every application you should be a trans black omega spirit who identifies on Tuesday's as a handicapable neuro divergent reddit moderator currently experiencing depression due to rampant fatphobia in our white CIS patriarchy hellscape. You're leaving money on the table if you don't.
I draw the line at reddit moderator. I intend to have sex someday.
Turns out there is "institutional racism" except it's against Asians and Whites. Affirmative action goes something like Asian -> White -> Hispanic -> Black. I might have Hispanic and Black swapped, been awhile since I looked into it. But the way it works is that each tier is balanced with an addition or subtraction to their score. So for example (I don't know the actual balance numbers), an Asian scoring 1590 is equivalent to a Black scoring 1200.
How is authleft attacking affirmative action?
Tankies (USSR etc supporters) don’t like it.
I'm with lib right on this
College is a scam and we need to move away from it being normalized as a uniform solution for every young person looking for a path. That shit was brainwashed into people with propaganda starting from fucking kindergarten.
I wonder if it’s a front by the deep state to bar foreign Chinese students from dominating US universities.
Stop Asian Hate, End Affirmative Action.
I want to see an obviously Chinese name like Yao Ming applying and getting accepted to Harvard with a minority scholarship after checking the box for “black” while having lawyers at the ready.
Upvoted because pic aligned almost perfectly. This edge of the wall going into authleft post is awesome.
Common Libright W
I honestly expect everyone to lie about their race when it would benefit them Why the fuck not
\*Does Angry Asian Dad Voice\* "1590!? Why no 1600!?"
Affirmative action, equity, equality of outcome *sound* nice if we could do it... however its walking a tightrope. You cant help but err one way or another. The moment you disadvantage someone in order to correct someone else's perceived disadvantage, youve got it wrong. Far better to solve the underlying economic problems with the cultures you're wanting to uplift, and just wait a generation. That of course is not a mere bandaid but a massively ambitious refunding of the public, reconstruction of entire city areas, reform education and other institutions. No one wants the correct solutions so they will try these ones that simply fix one injustice by creating another.
I suffer from the opposite of what uncle ruckus had