Merit matters

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Is 12% the right number or wrong number? Too high, too low?

If 12% is accurate that means 26% of male students in the class of 2026 were white. That does not include any international students who do not get bucketed as white in the official Stanford stats.

As for athletes they make up about 12% of the students with about 5% of students on athletic scholarship.

White men are 30% of the population according to https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/555503-new-study-finds-white-male-minority-rule/

Therefore, at these schools, white males should be 30% of the school population.   But apparently they were 12% at Stanford.  So by their own rules they need to get more white males in there to reflect the general population.   Isn't that their criteria?   They weren't even abiding by their own criteria.  That is interesting. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

White men are 30% of the population according to https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/555503-new-study-finds-white-male-minority-rule/

Therefore, at these schools, white males should be 30% of the school population.   But apparently they were 12% at Stanford.  So by their own rules they need to get more white males in there to reflect the general population.   Isn't that their criteria?   They weren't even abiding by their own criteria.  That is interesting. 

mspart

Why do they have to be 30% white male?

36% of Standford students are from CA. CA is not 36% of the US or the world.

What rule or criteria of theirs are you referring to?

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Why do they have to be 30% white male?

36% of Standford students are from CA. CA is not 36% of the US or the world.

What rule or criteria of theirs are you referring to?

Californian isn’t a race or sex, it’s just a defect. 

[Husker_Du]

3 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Athletes are next.   Wonder what the Stanford FB would like w/o preferential admission?  I know Christian McCaffery didn't have the grades to get in.   Oh well, he was a 6X admissions dipper - athlete, both parents athletes, both parents Stanford alumni, wealthy parents.  He might have pushed out a Nobel prize winner.  Go Cardinal!

this is tongue-in-cheek, right.

please tell me it is. just checking. 

[uncle bernard]

18 hours ago, Paul158 said:

So reverse discrimination. In order to achieve the numbers they want.

Yes, but people misunderstand who the real beneficiaries of that are. It's legacy students, who are overwhelmingly white. Sure, there might be some black students who are less qualified than some of the asian applicants rejected, but that is a small number compared to the amount of white legacy students who get in over better qualified applicants.

I'm fine with a totally blind admissions process, but that has to include legacy admissions. If it doesn't, you're singling out a small number of minority students (who are still clearly brilliant btw) while ignoring the rich white kids *who are actually stealing the spots.*

Plus, the idea that admissions is a purely objective process is stupid to begin with. Who's to say that a student from an impoverished background at lower quality schools (regardless of race) isn't a more impressive applicant than a student with higher grades/scores, but has had every resource and opportunity handed to them?

 

[Le duke]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

Yes, but people misunderstand who the real beneficiaries of that are. It's legacy students, who are overwhelmingly white. Sure, there might be some black students who are less qualified than some of the asian applicants rejected, but that is a small number compared to the amount of white legacy students who get in over better qualified applicants.

I'm fine with a totally blind admissions process, but that has to include legacy admissions. If it doesn't, you're singling out a small number of minority students (who are still clearly brilliant btw) while ignoring the rich white kids *who are actually stealing the spots.*

Plus, the idea that admissions is a purely objective process is stupid to begin with. Who's to say that a student from an impoverished background at lower quality schools (regardless of race) isn't a more impressive applicant than a student with higher grades/scores, but has had every resource and opportunity handed to them?

 

This is the way that admissions are moving for a lot of higher end schools.

If you're #1 in your class of 50, with a 32 ACT, from a less-than-great school on a New Mexico reservation, you're a more impressive candidate than a kid who is #50 in his class of 500, with a 34, from a wealthy Chicago suburb (everything else being similar).

[mspart]

18 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Why do they have to be 30% white male?

36% of Standford students are from CA. CA is not 36% of the US or the world.

What rule or criteria of theirs are you referring to?

Hi WKN,

My understanding of the situation is that these colleges and universities want their student population to reflect the general population.   So much White, so much Asian, so much Black, so much Indian, so much .....    So my comments were based on that. 

Harvard was not admitting Asians because their school population would be not in proportion to society in general.   Asians would be over represented on campus.   That was Harvard's argument to SCOTUS.   So I was just pointing out that Stanford was not abiding by this, assuming this was their cause as well, and they need to bring in more white males on campus to get it to look like the rest of society.   Obviously that means some other ethnic group was over represented.  

Title IX was also interpreted this way in some cases, that sports had to reflect the % of females and males on campus.   This was one of 3 ways to comply.  

But what is not being said here is the fact that those in power do not think that Blacks, Hispanics, Indians can compete, that they can't measure up, so they need help.  That is as much an indictment of our school system as it is of their racism. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Hi WKN,

My understanding of the situation is that these colleges and universities want their student population to reflect the general population.   So much White, so much Asian, so much Black, so much Indian, so much .....    So my comments were based on that. 

Harvard was not admitting Asians because their school population would be not in proportion to society in general.   Asians would be over represented on campus.   That was Harvard's argument to SCOTUS.   So I was just pointing out that Stanford was not abiding by this, assuming this was their cause as well, and they need to bring in more white males on campus to get it to look like the rest of society.   Obviously that means some other ethnic group was over represented.  

Title IX was also interpreted this way in some cases, that sports had to reflect the % of females and males on campus.   This was one of 3 ways to comply.  

But what is not being said here is the fact that those in power do not think that Blacks, Hispanics, Indians can compete, that they can't measure up, so they need help.  That is as much an indictment of our school system as it is of their racism. 

mspart

I was looking at the Supreme Court decision and I could not find anywhere that they say Harvard argued they wanted to be in proportion to society. SCOTUS described Harvards goal as:

"Harvard likewise “guard[s] against inadvertent drop-offs in representation” of certain minority groups from year to year"

And their reasons for these goals was not that minorities cannot keep up. Rather it was:

"Harvard identifies the following educational benefits that it is pursuing: (1) “training future leaders in the public and private sectors”; (2) preparing graduates to “adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society”; (3) “better educating its students through diversity”; and (4) “producing new knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks.” "

Edited June 30, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[mspart]

59 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

"Harvard likewise “guard[s] against inadvertent drop-offs in representation” of certain minority groups from year to year"   This is the representation goal put another way and why they didn't want increasing Asian representation.

And their reasons for these goals was not that minorities cannot keep up.  You think they would come out and say some races are just smarter than others?  Too many smart Asians wanted in and qualified and were denied on the basis of their race, thus keeping a minority representation down.    

 

My comments in Red. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

My comments in Red. 

mspart

But that is just you reading between the lines and offering an interpretation based on what you think they are saying. That is not what they actually are attributed with saying. And the Supreme Court does not allege anywhere that they were being disingenous. So I have to go with the arguments made rather than the shadow arguments assumed.

[VakAttack]

So random web designer who doesn't actually have a business yet is allowed to discriminate if/when she ever opens up her business. Currently open Colleges, even private ones, are not allowed to "reverse discriminate."

[BobDole]

I thought that college was where they taught people to be liberal. Now they want more white people in college! That's going to backfire!

[mspart]

SCOTUS said they cannot use race as a determination criteria.   Based on that, more Asians will get into Harvard if they continue to apply in the numbers they have in the past.

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

SCOTUS said they cannot use race as a determination criteria.   Based on that, more Asians will get into Harvard if they continue to apply in the numbers they have in the past.

mspart

... or maybe not if you (wisely) choose to not use the past as a guarantee for the future. 

Your take here is small in scope. Think decades further ahead.

[DJT]

4.5% of Harvard and 7.2% of MIT students are from China (from China and will return to China, not Chinese-American). Why are we educating our “enemy” at our most prestigious universities? Seems stupid.

[Plasmodium]

15 hours ago, DJT said:

4.5% of Harvard and 7.2% of MIT students are from China (from China and will return to China, not Chinese-American). Why are we educating our “enemy” at our most prestigious universities? Seems stupid.

Why do you say they return to China?

[Husker_Du]

18 hours ago, DJT said:

4.5% of Harvard and 7.2% of MIT students are from China (from China and will return to China, not Chinese-American). Why are we educating our “enemy” at our most prestigious universities? Seems stupid.

Same reason Nikola Jokic plays in the NBA.

they are private institutions. 

a more fitting question would be why we are hellbent on allowing a mass influx of illegal immigrants which certainly affects tax payers. 

[DJT]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

Same reason Nikola Jokic plays in the NBA.

they are private institutions. 

a more fitting question would be why we are hellbent on allowing a mass influx of illegal immigrants which certainly affects tax payers. 

Barring some sort of Space Jam scenario, I don’t see the fate of our country coming down to NBA players… However, there are similar (and greater) percentages of Chinese International students at our top public schools.

To answer the second question, it’s the democrats’ new slave trade.

6 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Why do you say they return to China?

Because they are here on F-1 student visas and can’t stay.

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, DJT said:

 

To answer the second question, it’s the democrats’ new slave trade

People use some wild ass language when they're being ridiculous, lol.

[DJT]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

People use some wild ass language when they're being ridiculous, lol.

“Fact: There are more individuals in slavery today than at the height of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade”(1), and it is the Democrats who refuse to enact any meaningful reforms to stop illegal immigration. So, you can say it’s “wild ass language” or I’m being “ridiculous”, but that’s only because the truth lies closer to what I said than makes you comfortable.

(1) The Polaris Project (2013)

[Plasmodium]

17 minutes ago, DJT said:

Barring some sort of Space Jam scenario, I don’t see the fate of our country coming down to NBA players… However, there are similar (and greater) percentages of Chinese International students at our top public schools.

To answer the second question, it’s the democrats’ new slave trade.

Because they are here on F-1 student visas and can’t stay.

If you have a PhD from MIT, you get an H1B

[Husker_Du]

36 minutes ago, DJT said:

Barring some sort of Space Jam scenario, I don’t see the fate of our country coming down to NBA players… However, there are similar (and greater) percentages of Chinese International students at our top public schools.

wtf does that have to do with anything? 

the fate of the country? lol.

the fate of the country is in peril b/c harvard, a private institution, has a 4% asian enrollment. 

i'm with you on your politics (i think) - but that one is out there. 

[DJT]

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

If you have a PhD from MIT, you get an H1B

H-1B is a non-immigrant classification that isn’t a path to permanent residency. Depending on the job, you only need a bachelor’s… or be a model.. to get an H-1B. Most students are F-1 and have no intention to stay.

[DJT]

2 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

wtf does that have to do with anything? 

the fate of the country? lol.

the fate of the country is in peril b/c harvard, a private institution, has a 4% asian enrollment. 

i'm with you on your politics (i think) - but that one is out there. 

If Harvard was 100% Asian-American students, I wouldn’t think anything of it… they’ve earned it. The thing I see as questionable is the influx of international Chinese students at all US institutions over the past two decades… It’s sort of like if you did a training camp with your opponent before a fight. Maybe it would be fine, but don’t be surprised if people scratch their heads at it… and if things go sideways, it’ll probably be one of those, “yeah, that was stupid,” types of things.

And, honestly, I’m not against having international students at US schools, but wouldn’t it make more sense to prioritize those slots for students from ally countries, not the one country trying to replace us as the sole superpower?

[VakAttack]

37 minutes ago, DJT said:

“Fact: There are more individuals in slavery today than at the height of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade”(1), and it is the Democrats who refuse to enact any meaningful reforms to stop illegal immigration. So, you can say it’s “wild ass language” or I’m being “ridiculous”, but that’s only because the truth lies closer to what I said than makes you comfortable.

(1) The Polaris Project (2013)

A classic example of you insisting something is true, thus making it true. A tautology of ridiculousness that you are just hurling around with a link to a 57 page document that you provide no context as to where in the document you're citing to or how what the sources of the data are coming from, all from a questionable source that libertarian website reason.com describes as 'one of the biggest purveyors of bad statistics dressed up as "human trafficking awareness"'.

https://reason.com/2020/01/10/super-bowl-sex-trafficking-myths-return/