Mid Term Elections- Lessons Learned

[Splenda88]

Dems also don’t endorse insurrection or treason…or deny election results to such a degree, despite their own party members saying that there was no fraud.

In all fairness, It's probably 20-25% of republicans that support that kind of thing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nimbus]

Relevant to recent posts in this thread. Is a “parastronaut feasibility project” worthwhile?

John McFall

www.esa.int

 

[nimbus]

England fans dressed as Christian crusaders causes stir in Qatar

England fans dressed as Christian crusaders have been causing a stir in Qatar with one even blasting the conservative Muslim regime for their treatment of supporters on live TV.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No rainbows, no crusaders

 

[chocomorsel]

England fans dressed as Christian crusaders causes stir in Qatar

England fans dressed as Christian crusaders have been causing a stir in Qatar with one even blasting the conservative Muslim regime for their treatment of supporters on live TV.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No rainbows, no crusaders

This seems smart. Colonizers will be colonizers! Lol

 

[doctalaughs]

Right. Like I was a non trad with a lower income family who joined the military to train and help pay for colleges cuz parents couldn’t afford it and worked my way through college as a nurse and occasionally helped out my parents.
Lots of poor people (a disproportionate amount of them minorities) have to have jobs starting as teenagers and put themselves through school and pay bills and help their parents out. It’s the norm for us. Many do join the military for said reasons. These are people who’ve learned to hustle from an early age.
Some people are just clueless.

Say what you will. Not all Asians and whites are rich private prep school kids with trusts.

You know that.

What they do now is no different than the well known 1910-1940 “Jew quota” at American universities — only its skin color now, not religion. Jews are 2.5% of the us population but are about 25% of elite universities like Harvard. Imagine the outrage if you said “Jews are doing just fine, we should let other religions in more and keep their numbers down?” It’s no different than what they are doing for white males or Asians today.

Color, religion and sex should play no role.

 

[FutureInternist]

In all fairness, It's probably 20-25% of republicans that support that kind of thing.

But they are in key positions, making it harder for minorities to vote, and then finding ways of not counting their votes… you know, ACTUAL election interference.

 

[chocomorsel]

Say what you will. Not all Asians and whites are rich private prep school kids with trusts.

You know that.

What they do now is no different than the well known 1910-1940 “Jew quota” at American universities — only its skin color now, not religion. Jews are 2.5% of the us population but are about 25% of elite universities like Harvard. Imagine the outrage if you said “Jews are doing just fine, we should let other religions in more and keep their numbers down?” It’s no different than what they are doing for white males or Asians today.

Color, religion and sex should play no role.

Seriously. Read what you WANT TO READ. Where did I say all Asians are rich kids? And didn’t I just differentiate a couple of different Asian countries and their socioeconomic status?
The problem with people like you is you love to make assumptions, put things in other peoples mouths, refuse to read what is actually written and make up more assumptions while people like me see things from all different angles, because we have experienced lots of different socioeconomic classes and been immersed in different races in our lives. You should try it because you sound very closed minded.
Adios.

 

[doctalaughs]

Seriously. Read what you WANT TO READ. Where did I say all Asians are rich kids? And didn’t I just differentiate a couple of different Asian countries and their socioeconomic status?
The problem with people like you is you love to make assumptions, put things in other peoples mouths, refuse to read what is actually written and make up more assumptions while people like me see things from all different angles, because we have experienced lots of different socioeconomic classes and been immersed in different races in our lives. You should try it because you sound very closed minded.
Adios.

You said whites and Asians are doing just fine. No different than saying “Jews are doing just fine” as a way to discriminate against a whole group.

In one post you do differentiate between Asians from different origins — but the arguments made above in support of AA do NOT differentiate, and the policy itself does not either. There is no box to check on applications for these situations- and there won’t ever be. The best thing we can do is eliminate the boxes altogether.

 

[chocomorsel]

You said whites and Asians are doing just fine. No different than saying “Jews are doing just fine” as a way to discriminate against a whole group.

In one post you do differentiate between Asians from different origins — but the arguments made above in support of AA do NOT differentiate, and the policy itself does not either. There is no box to check on applications for these situations- and there won’t ever be. The best thing we can do is eliminate the boxes altogether.

So again where did I say all Asians and Whites are wealthy?
Still waiting.
Stop changing the game.
And yeah, Whites and Asians are doing just fine as far as school admissions. They are still getting admitted and getting overrepresented.
Last time I checked Jews were not on a checkbox. Don’t they mark themselves off as White and take advantage of historically all the White benefits? Changed their names, blend in all that good stuff. Because they saw what was happening to people who looked different.

Edit: Quite frankly, sure let’s get rid of a made up construct that has historically been invented and used to keep races down. Honestly the admissions committees will use other measures to make sure that the schools are diverse. And if they don’t… there will be more social justice wars going to court. So….. I am honestly changing my mind because lots of us come from disadvantaged backgrounds and will still get in even with poor MCAT scores. But maybe I am wrong. The decision will have to play out.

 

[vector2]

You said whites and Asians are doing just fine. No different than saying “Jews are doing just fine” as a way to discriminate against a whole group.

In one post you do differentiate between Asians from different origins — but the arguments made above in support of AA do NOT differentiate, and the policy itself does not either. There is no box to check on applications for these situations- and there won’t ever be. The best thing we can do is eliminate the boxes altogether.

No, the best thing you can do is integrate numerous factors, including race (+SES, educational background, zip code, extenuating circumstances, outstanding extracurricular achievements, etc) to come up with a fair and holistic process for admissions. Saying you're "color blind" doesn't make you blind to race. It makes you blind to racism.

Again, test scores are not the end-all-be-all of what makes a good applicant, but make no mistake, if we pretend they are then colleges and med schools will literally be 95% white and Asian males. And that kind of "objective" system may be fine for more culturally or ethnically homogenous countries, but it's not acceptable for places like the US or South Africa.

 

[pgg]

As I said, colleges and grad schools do take race into account, but it's within the context of a broad application wherein race is not the only factor that guarantees or denies one's admission. Conservatives want to remove race, period, from the admissions process (even though whites and Asians still make up the vast, vast majority of elite school matriculants), and liberals think this is terribly misguided given the systemic inequity that puts many URMs at an opportunistic disadvantage essentially from birth.

The second the inner city slum kid who lives 20 minutes from me has the same pre-K/ school/after-school opportunities as my half-white/half-south Asian 2.5 yr old who's gonna go to private schools for the next 15 years, then maybe we can talk about removing AA.

I guess I'm not really understanding your argument.

We agree that unequal opportunities and unequal hardships are the primary problem in comparing applicants from different backgrounds, and you give the example of the inner city slum kid. We both agree that this person deserves to have his academic record viewed in the context of the obstacles he has overcome, and perhaps we even agree that a 21 MCAT from him would be more impressive than a 25 from your kid.

But there you shift straight from reasonable comments about taking the individual's life into account, and go back to a simpler system of race-based preferences - at least, until some (impossible) milestone of universal equality of childhood circumstances is attained.

Why do we need race based preferences in admissions, when we agree that there are better criteria to identify those who were disadvantaged?

How are race based preferences defensible when it's so easy to see differences between the wealthy 3rd gen Korean-American "Asian" applicant and an "Asian" refugee from the fourth Thai military coup this year? Or pick another "same race but wildly different story" example.

 

[pgg]

And yeah, Whites and Asians are doing just fine as far as school admissions. They are still getting admitted and getting overrepresented.

Let me ask you this simple hypothetical.

Do you think adcoms should give the same (or similar) extra points on the application to each of these applicants:

- a black male from a poverty level family in a large city, raised by his mother because his father is in prison

- a white male from a poverty level family in rural Appalachia, raised by his mother because dad OD'd on fentanyl

- an Asian male from a poverty level family in suburban California, raised by his uncle because his parents died in a factory fire in Laos

 

[vector2]

I guess I'm not really understanding your argument.

We agree that unequal opportunities and unequal hardships are the primary problem in comparing applicants from different backgrounds, and you give the example of the inner city slum kid. We both agree that this person deserves to have his academic record viewed in the context of the obstacles he has overcome, and perhaps we even agree that a 21 MCAT from him would be more impressive than a 25 from your kid.

But there you shift straight from reasonable comments about taking the individual's life into account, and go back to a simpler system of race-based preferences - at least, until some (impossible) milestone of universal equality of childhood circumstances is attained.

Why do we need race based preferences in admissions, when we agree that there are better criteria to identify those who were disadvantaged?

How are race based preferences defensible when it's so easy to see differences between the wealthy 3rd gen Korean-American "Asian" applicant and an "Asian" refugee from the fourth Thai military coup this year? Or pick another "same race but wildly different story" example.

I don't think I'm understanding your misunderstanding. I feel like I've been pretty clear that *current* admissions processes at the vast majority of institutions don't only take race into account when making admissions decisions. They are, in fact, more holistic than what the stereotypes have most conservatives believing (like I alluded to earlier, applications are lengthy and include non-academic information, there are essays and personal statements, assessments of income and socioeconomic status etc). They don't just see "Black" checked and shout "You're in!!!"

Additionally, I don't think pure SES based criteria necessarily capture systemic disadvantages. For instance, just because Jamal had middle-class parents and went to a middle of the road school, he probably still gets 50% fewer resume callbacks.

 

[Southpaw]

How are race based preferences defensible when it's so easy to see differences between the wealthy 3rd gen Korean-American "Asian" applicant and an "Asian" refugee from the fourth Thai military coup this year? Or pick another "same race but wildly different story" example.

Is it that easy? It's easy for the refugee to tell their story. I'm not sure it's so easy to pick apart how many advantages your average applicant may or may not have had over the years. You may be able to key into some things that would be typical of the wealthy, but beyond that how is an ad com to know wealthy from upper middle from middle to lower middle to dirt poor, and all of the socioeconomic hurdles that typically come, or don't come, with that socioeconomic plight.

 

[pgg]

Is it that easy? It's easy for the refugee to tell their story. I'm not sure it's so easy to pick apart how many advantages your average applicant may or may not have had over the years. You may be able to key into some things that would be typical of the wealthy, but beyond that how is an ad com to know wealthy from upper middle from middle to lower middle to dirt poor, and all of the socioeconomic hurdles that typically come, or don't come, with that socioeconomic plight.

Seems pretty easy to me.

Applicants provide financial info when applying, in order to get financial aid.

Personal statements, essays, etc - granted these are subjective and facts may not be verifiable.

But a FAFSA is about as hard a data point as can be.

 

[pgg]

I don't think I'm understanding your misunderstanding. I feel like I've been pretty clear that *current* admissions processes at the vast majority of institutions don't only take race into account when making admissions decisions. They are, in fact, more holistic than what the stereotypes have most conservatives believing (like I alluded to earlier, applications are lengthy and include non-academic information, there are essays and personal statements, assessments of income and socioeconomic status etc). They don't just see "Black" checked and shout "You're in!!!"

Agreed

So again, if that's what adcoms are already doing, and "race based admissions" are mostly myth, legend, and Fox News soundbites, why are we anxious about SCOTUS saying race mustn't be a factor in admissions?

Additionally, I don't think pure SES based criteria necessarily capture systemic disadvantages. For instance, just because Jamal had middle-class parents and went to a middle of the road school, he probably still gets 50% fewer resume callbacks.

That's a fair point -

I'm not convinced that job market discrimination amongst college graduates (whether overt or unconscious bias) needs to be addressed in college admissions though. It seems like we have a simple, non-race-based method for giving kids who hail from poor or oppressed backgrounds a leg up in admissions, recognizing their achievements and work overcoming hardships.

It sounds like what you're arguing for by bringing up the resume callback problem is race-based affirmative action in the job market.

 

[Southpaw]

Seems pretty easy to me.

Applicants provide financial info when applying, in order to get financial aid.

Personal statements, essays, etc - granted these are subjective and facts may not be verifiable.

But a FAFSA is about as hard a data point as can be.

I don't think ad coms look at the FAFSA routinely when making admission decisions. Am I wrong here? You're not required to fill it out before applying. I didn't fill it out until getting acceptance. If you're saying that they should, then of course you'll have all the kids of wealthy parents crying foul because they'll feel they were passed over by the poor kids.

Also statements and essays are extremely subjective and everyone has a sob story. No kid is going to admit to have a silver spoon given to them their entire life in an essay or statement, though many of them do.

 

[Mad Jack]

Both parties have failed the country. I wonder who would win if we have a Biden vs. Trump again.

I mean I didn't even want Biden in the first place. He was kind of handed a recession and many years of quantitative easing, a pandemic, the first large scale land war in Europe since WWII, and the like. Most of the negative consequences we are seeing no president could control (and many were brought about by the Fed playing fast and loose with cash for far too long). I would bet Trump would lose again, but thankfully for the fate of the nation we won't have a husk vs husk match again, Biden is going to tap out. I'm hoping we get someone much younger that can easily stomp Trump, but both sides have a candidate problem these days

 

[doctalaughs]

I don't think I'm understanding your misunderstanding. I feel like I've been pretty clear that *current* admissions processes at the vast majority of institutions don't only take race into account when making admissions decisions. They are, in fact, more holistic than what the stereotypes have most conservatives believing (like I alluded to earlier, applications are lengthy and include non-academic information, there are essays and personal statements, assessments of income and socioeconomic status etc). They don't just see "Black" checked and shout "You're in!!!"

This is the argument the lawyers for Harvard are making, but sounds like scotus is not buying it.

Of course they don’t just see “black” checked and say “you’re in!” However they are using it as a major, major factor giving more “points” for it than is any way reasonable. Otherwise why would there be such a large gap in test scores and why would they be rating Asian “personality,” on average so much lower? Harvard and other institutions would like you to think race is a plus 5% factor, when it actually is a plus 50% factor. They want superficial (visual) diversity and they are willing to change the bar of admissions a LOT to get it.

I don’t believe in using only test scores. I do believe the elite public university system of California (banned from using race) has a fair system and still is able to promote diversity. Without totally sacrificing standards and discrimination against other groups.

 

[Southpaw]

I would bet Trump would lose again, but thankfully for the fate of the nation we won't have a husk vs husk match again, Biden is going to tap out. I'm hoping we get someone much younger that can easily stomp Trump, but both sides have a candidate problem these days

The Republicans have a major, major candidate problem. They have Desantis, Haley, and Tim Scott, but none of them appeal to the poor whites the way Trump does. I could see Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and maybe even Mark Kelly (though I don't know if he's expressed interest) coming out with the Democratic nomination.

 

[pgg]

I don't think ad coms look at the FAFSA routinely when making admission decisions. Am I wrong here? You're not required to fill it out before applying. I didn't fill it out until getting acceptance. If you're saying that they should, then of course you'll have all the kids of wealthy parents crying foul because they'll feel they were passed over by the poor kids.

Also statements and essays are extremely subjective and everyone has a sob story. No kid is going to admit to have a silver spoon given to them their entire life in an essay or statement, though many of them do.

I don't think ad coms look at the FAFSA routinely when making admission decisions. Am I wrong here? You're not required to fill it out before applying. I didn't fill it out until getting acceptance. If you're saying that they should, then of course you'll have all the kids of wealthy parents crying foul because they'll feel they were passed over by the poor kids.

Good question. My kids all filled it out when applying. Don't know if adcoms see it directly. There were definitely income questions on the admission applications though, same as when I applied in the 90s.

Also statements and essays are extremely subjective and everyone has a sob story. No kid is going to admit to have a silver spoon given to them their entire life in an essay or statement, though many of them do.

Agreed, though as someone who's read a few personal statements for residency applications, it's generally not hard to suss out sincerity.

 

[vector2]

Agreed

So again, if that's what adcoms are already doing, and "race based admissions" are mostly myth, legend, and Fox News soundbites, why are we anxious about SCOTUS saying race mustn't be a factor in admissions?

Ok, let me try one more time...

Most admissions offices already use a complex multifactorial process that may include race as one of numerous factors that are integrated into a decision.

Liberals, including myself, feel this is a fair use of affirmative action, and that race should be allowed to be used as one of numerous factors.

Conservatives, when discussing AA, propagate the idea that race is the only factor being used when some "undeserving" URM is admitted over a "more qualified" white or Asian person, and thus want to remove race, period, as one of the deciding factors.

Liberals, including myself, think these lawsuits are spurious, and schools should be allowed to continue what they're doing, which is having an admissions process that can use race as one of numerous factors.

Can't say it any more clearly than that.

That's a fair point -

I'm not convinced that job market discrimination amongst college graduates (whether overt or unconscious bias) needs to be addressed in college admissions though. It seems like we have a simple, non-race-based method for giving kids who hail from poor or oppressed backgrounds a leg up in admissions, recognizing their achievements and work overcoming hardships.

It sounds like what you're arguing for by bringing up the resume callback problem is race-based affirmative action in the job market.

There probably does need to be some degree of AA in certain job markets, but my larger point is that the Jamal and Lakisha callback issue isn't isolated to just the job market. It's in fact kind of ludicrous to think that that kind of conscious and/or unconscious biases is empirically demonstrable in labor, but yet wouldn't exist in housing, the criminal justice system, or....education.

 

[Southpaw]

Good question. My kids all filled it out when applying. Don't know if adcoms see it directly. There were definitely income questions on the admission applications though, same as when I applied in the 90s.


Agreed, though as someone who's read a few personal statements for residency applications, it's generally not hard to suss out sincerity.

The residency program in my town accepts 14 applicants a year. I'm told by friends that they have 1800 applications this year. Many of the elite undergrad schools accept 4-10% of applications. If they wanted I imagine they could fill their classes completely with minority applicants. I have no issue whatsoever with the current process as I don't feel race is in any way the factor that @BLADEMDA or @doctalaughs say it is. I think questions trying to tease apart SES, especially if they aren't looking at the FAFSA, are fine and appropriate as SES should be another factor taken into account.

 

[FutureInternist]

I mean I didn't even want Biden in the first place. He was kind of handed a recession and many years of quantitative easing, a pandemic, the first large scale land war in Europe since WWII, and the like. Most of the negative consequences we are seeing no president could control (and many were brought about by the Fed playing fast and loose with cash for far too long). I would bet Trump would lose again, but thankfully for the fate of the nation we won't have a husk vs husk match again, Biden is going to tap out. I'm hoping we get someone much younger that can easily stomp Trump, but both sides have a candidate problem these days

Don’t think Dems can afford a change cos there really is no one in the wings to take over.
Reps have DeSantis, and having used Trump to get what they wanted (3 SC picks), they are now pushing him out cos he is not worth the hassle anymore.

Tells you all you need to know about them though…any means to push their increasingly fascist agenda

 

[Southpaw]

having used Trump to get what they wanted (3 SC picks), they are now pushing him out cos he is not worth the hassle anymore.

Eh, The upper crust of the Republican Party want Trump out because they don't think he's electable and they believe he poisoned the mid terms. They'll still vote for him though if he's their candidate. Trump doesn't appeal to moderates and the unaffiliated because more than anything, that class of voter just wants someone sane and believable. But.....the poor whites love Trump so he's not going anywhere.

 

[Mad Jack]

The Republicans have a major, major candidate problem. They have Desantis, Haley, and Tim Scott, but none of them appeal to the poor whites the way Trump does. I could see Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and maybe even Mark Kelly (though I don't know if he's expressed interest) coming out with the Democratic nomination.

I think Newsom is going to go for it and that he'll be very polarizing. Newsom vs Desantis or Trump is my most likely bet

 

[vector2]

This is the argument the lawyers for Harvard are making, but sounds like scotus is not buying it.

Of course they don’t just see “black” checked and say “you’re in!” However they are using it as a major, major factor giving more “points” for it than is any way reasonable. Otherwise why would there be such a large gap in test scores and why would they be rating Asian “personality,” on average so much lower? Harvard and other institutions would like you to think race is a plus 5% factor, when it actually is a plus 50% factor. They want superficial (visual) diversity and they are willing to change the bar of admissions a LOT to get it.

I don’t believe in using only test scores. I do believe the elite public university system of California (banned from using race) has a fair system and still is able to promote diversity. Without totally sacrificing standards and discrimination against other groups.

I think we can argue about how much weighting race is given in the process, but the we're not going to agree about just removing it entirely. Fact remains, both Harvard's and Berkeley's latest admissions data shows a pretty similar % of URM, so hard to argue that Harvard is doing something vastly more unfair when the percentage of white/Asian matriculants is the same as an elite school of the California system.

 

[Southpaw]

I think Newsom is going to go for it and that he'll be very polarizing. Newsom vs Desantis or Trump is my most likely bet

Yeah he will be polarizing. He doesn't appeal to me, especially over the previous names I mentioned.

Edit - I also don't think Newsom stands a chance in MI, WI, or PA. Democrats need a candidate with appeal in these states.

 

[coffeebythelake]

In all fairness, It's probably 20-25% of republicans that support that kind of thing.

That would represent multimillions of people.

 

[pgg]

Ok, let me try one more time...

Most admissions offices already use a complex multifactorial process that may include race as one of numerous factors that are integrated into a decision.

Yes - and I've given reasons why race shouldn't be a factor.

We agree that's what adcoms are doing. You think it's OK; I think it's not.

Liberals, including myself, feel this is a fair use of affirmative action, and that race should be allowed to be used as one of numerous factors.

Yes, and lots of us disagree.

Conservatives, when discussing AA, propagate the idea that race is the only factor being used when some "undeserving" URM is admitted over a "more qualified" white or Asian person, and thus want to remove race, period, as one of the deciding factors.

Some conservatives say that.

I freely agree with you that race is one of many factors currently used by adcoms; I simply disagree that it should be a factor at all. We have the ability to measure and account for the actual socioeconomic and other social factors that lead to lower test scores and grades among disadvantaged applicants. We do it already. Very little needs to change.

There probably does need to be some degree of AA in certain job markets, but my larger point is that the Jamal and Lakisha callback issue isn't isolated to just the job market. It's in fact kind of ludicrous to think that that kind of conscious and/or unconscious biases is empirically demonstrable in labor, but yet wouldn't exist in housing, the criminal justice system, or....education.

So wouldn't a better solution to unconscious bias be to, for example, blind adcoms or mortgage lenders etc to race, instead of specifically asking about race on those applications, and giving extra points based on race?

The crux of your argument is that a little bit of racism is OK as long as it's well intentioned and a good faith (we hope) effort to compensate for other effects of racism.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yeah he will be polarizing. He doesn't appeal to me, especially over the previous names I mentioned.

Edit - I also don't think Newsom stands a chance in MI, WI, or PA. Democrats need a candidate with appeal in these states.

It will be typical Dems shooting themselves in the foot, I would expect nothing less. If the GOP ran a literal piece of dog sh** for president, the Dems would run one in a paper bag that was on fire. They can't get out of their own way

 

[FutureInternist]

Eh, The upper crust of the Republican Party want Trump out because they don't think he's electable and they believe he poisoned the mid terms. They'll still vote for him though if he's their candidate. Trump doesn't appeal to moderates and the unaffiliated because more than anything, that class of voter just wants someone sane and believable. But.....the poor whites love Trump so he's not going anywhere.

They cry about “Socialism” yet are first in line whenever a hurricane, or poor Texas Grid planning hits…

 

[vector2]

Yes - and I've given reasons why race shouldn't be a factor.

We agree that's what adcoms are doing. You think it's OK; I think it's not.


Yes, and lots of us disagree.


Some conservatives say that.

Just wanted to make sure we were understanding each other. I wasn't clear for awhile whether you were saying that "race is being used as the only factor" was primary point of contention.

I freely agree with you that race is one of many factors currently used by adcoms; I simply disagree that it should be a factor at all. We have the ability to measure and account for the actual socioeconomic and other social factors that lead to lower test scores and grades among disadvantaged applicants. We do it already. Very little needs to change.

And "Harvard further indicated that it had studied more than a dozen race-neutral admissions alternatives and found none 'promote Harvard’s diversity-related educational objectives as well as Harvard’s … admissions program while also maintaining the standards of excellence that Harvard seeks in its student body.'"

So wouldn't a better solution to unconscious bias be to, for example, blind adcoms or mortgage lenders etc to race, instead of specifically asking about race on those applications, and giving extra points based on race?

The crux of your argument is that a little bit of racism is OK as long as it's well intentioned and a good faith (we hope) effort to compensate for other effects of racism.

No. To crib my post from earlier, "Saying you're "color blind" doesn't make you blind to race. It makes you blind to racism." It's just not a realistic premise in a country like the US with hundreds of years of history of racial inequity and significant ongoing racial disparities. Furthermore, it simply ignores and marginalizes the implicit and explicit biases that POC (of all socioeconomic statuses) face in their lives.

I understand the seductiveness of the argument that affirmative action is a "little bit" racist to those who are already doing quite well. But I see it as one of those things that's mostly true in a semantically trivial sense. As in if I have one thousand dollars and you have one dollar, and someone takes a dollar from me and gives it to you then you've made me "poorer." And that I should be outraged by the unfairness that I'm now "poorer." Asians (including South Asians such as myself), while comprising 6% of the population, make up 28% of Harvard matriculants - a percentage which has gone up over the years. . Yes, what an outrage.

To be clear, I do hope that one day race will no longer have to be a part of any admissions criteria (as did the justices who decided Grutter), but I realize that that day is not here yet. We are not even 50 yrs removed from a time when serious academicians were making claims that the difference in black and white academic performance was genetic, and that affirmative action would lead to an erosion of Harvard's internal standards. Not to mention, K-12 segregation remains a persistent, difficult problem to tackle to this day. It's not too much to ask that URM continue to get [multifactorial] consideration.

 

[Southpaw]

Republicans may very well not like what happens if race is eliminated as a factor by ad comms. When I interviewed residency applicants we had minimum standards, but beyond that ranking was very subjective. Recognize what Republicans are asking for - 1) race being eliminated as a factor and 2) objective measures continuing to be the most important factor that leads to admission. What happens when #2 matters less and less, which is probably what'll happen as we are not continuing to add objective measures of assessment. If anything we are taking them away. Some schools don't measure grades. Also, there is not good evidence that objective measures, by themselves, lead to the desired end result. Especially with regard to medical school admissions.

What will Republicans say if ad comms don't see race and, given a passing minimum standard, become interested only in the story being told by the applicant? Are white stories, or 3rd generation Korean American stories, more interesting than those of Dreamers, refugees from 3rd world war torn countries, kids who have escaped drug ridden homes with parents in prison and/or drug addicted, and kids who are actually making a difference in their communities? Will Republicans accept classes that are completely loaded with Hispanic and black kids with a minority of whites and asians? Of course they won't. They'll cry foul because white kids and Asian kids aren't getting in.

Recognize what has occurred historically. We created the game - grades and SAT/LSAT/MCAT. And then those in power played the system (preK programs, private schools, private tutoring, soft extracurriculars to get an edge, who do we know that can get us in?, etc.). When the game is changed and there is less of a system to play, the powerful may be unhappy with the results.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Yeah he will be polarizing. He doesn't appeal to me, especially over the previous names I mentioned.

Edit - I also don't think Newsom stands a chance in MI, WI, or PA. Democrats need a candidate with appeal in these states.

With respect to your edit, don't be so sure. Tribalism runs deep in both parties. PA just elected a dead guy to the state house, he died about a couple months before the election and a special election is scheduled for the seat. Secondly, they just elected a Senator with serious cognitive deficits. Doesn't make much sense to me. Of course, maybe it's because it's rare to see a senator actually using their brain.

 

[doctalaughs]

Republicans may very well not like what happens if race is eliminated as a factor by ad comms. When I interviewed residency applicants we had minimum standards, but beyond that ranking was very subjective. Recognize what Republicans are asking for - 1) race being eliminated as a factor and 2) objective measures continuing to be the most important factor that leads to admission. What happens when #2 matters less and less, which is probably what'll happen as we are not continuing to add objective measures of assessment. If anything we are taking them away. Some schools don't measure grades. Also, there is not good evidence that objective measures, by themselves, lead to the desired end result. Especially with regard to medical school admissions.

What will Republicans say if ad comms don't see race and, given a passing minimum standard, become interested only in the story being told by the applicant? Are white stories, or 3rd generation Korean American stories, more interesting than those of Dreamers, refugees from 3rd world war torn countries, kids who have escaped drug ridden homes with parents in prison and/or drug addicted, and kids who are actually making a difference in their communities? Will Republicans accept classes that are completely loaded with Hispanic and black kids with a minority of whites and asians? Of course they won't. They'll cry foul because white kids and Asian kids aren't getting in.

Recognize what has occurred historically. We created the game - grades and SAT/LSAT/MCAT. And then those in power played the system (preK programs, private schools, private tutoring, soft extracurriculars to get an edge, who do we know that can get us in?, etc.). When the game is changed and there is less of a system to play, the powerful may be unhappy with the results.

While that is a good narrative - I don’t think our society will abandon objective metrics in the long run; in fact I think the pendulum will swing back (MIT was the first elite university to admit removing test scores during the pandemic was a mistake, as it was a very important data point to figure out who could actually do the rigorous coursework).

The denial of mastery/ expertise trend is part of this — don’t trust the experts or science, CRNA = anesthesiologist, provider = doctor. Similarly test scores don’t matter, objective data isn’t real- anyone can do medical school. I doubt it will continue forever as there will be consequences to these decisions, as we’ve seen in medicine.

Sure test-prep (which some would call “working hard”) and wealth makes a difference but tests do show differences in ability as well. Don’t forget that poorer communities doing less well on tests is only a correlation (because you can’t just assume the whole population has the exactly the same innate intelligence at baseline- same point as kids of Harvard grads more likely to be intelligent).

 

[doctalaughs]

I’d still like a supporter of AA to comment why it’s ok to use race as a factor in admissions/employment but not religion.

After all, anti-semitism is rooted in Jews being “over-represented” in education, professional jobs, and wealthy businesses across the centuries.

If schools and employers can target racial %s for “the sake of diversity” why not target how many Christian’s, Jews, followers of Islam get in etc.

 

[vector2]

I’d still like a supporter of AA to comment why it’s ok to use race as a factor in admissions/employment but not religion.

After all, anti-semitism is rooted in Jews being “over-represented” in education, professional jobs, and wealthy businesses across the centuries.

If schools and employers can target racial %s for “the sake of diversity” why not target how many Christian’s, Jews, followers of Islam get in etc.

Firstly, strict racial quotas targeting an exact number or percentage have been unconstitutional since 1978. E.g. the percentage of matriculants at Harvard who are Asian has increased over the years; it's not capped like it was for Jews in the '20s.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has found repeatedly (in Regents, Grutter, Gratz, and Fisher) that race-conscious admissions process survive strict scrutiny wrt the Equal Protection Clause. In short, SCOTUS has established that promoting racial diversity in higher education in the post-Civil Rights era to be a compelling state interest.

Thirdly, I think framing the entire narrative that the Asians bringing the suit against Harvard today are victims the same way Jews were in the '20s is counterproductive and does a disservice to the type of antisemitism faced back then. Jews were discriminated against at that time to make sure WASPs - who were already in power -maintained their supermajority in elite academia. On the other hand, an Asian not getting into an Ivy today might be at the expense of an URM who's barely had any representation in elite academia. Yes, yes I know, it's still terribly unfair to you, but the motive matters since in the former case it was done to close the tent, whereas in the latter the goal is further inclusivity.

 

[doctalaughs]

Firstly, strict racial quotas targeting an exact number or percentage have been unconstitutional since 1978. E.g. the percentage of matriculants at Harvard who are Asian has increased over the years; it's not capped like it was for Jews in the '20s.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has found repeatedly (in Regents, Grutter, Gratz, and Fisher) that race-conscious admissions process survive strict scrutiny wrt the Equal Protection Clause. In short, SCOTUS has established that promoting racial diversity in higher education in the post-Civil Rights era to be a compelling state interest.

Thirdly, I think framing the entire narrative that the Asians bringing the suit against Harvard today are victims the same way Jews were in the '20s is counterproductive and does a disservice to the type of antisemitism faced back then. Jews were discriminated against at that time to make sure WASPs - who were already in power -maintained their supermajority in elite academia. On the other hand, an Asian not getting into an Ivy today might be at the expense of an URM who's barely had any representation in elite academia. Yes, yes I know, it's still terribly unfair to you, but the motive matters since in the former case it was done to close the tent, whereas in the latter the goal is further inclusivity.

Hmm— when there are a fixed number of spots for any school/job etc isn’t shifting a spot from one group to another always “closing the tent” from one group’s perspective and “furthering inclusivity” from another’s? Hard quota caps (against the Jews) vs saying one group is “too successful” (Asians) and therefore we’ll have a soft, unstated cap is just semantics, imo.

By the way, the % of black admissions to UC Berkeley is about 3% and Harvard 15% - so we aren’t talking a few people here and there with a shift of policy. It’s well-documented that when California banned racial considerations for public universities, the number of Asian admissions to the elite system didn’t go anywhere ridiculous like 70%— but it did rise from 20 to about 30% about 10%.

In terms of SCOTUS we’ll see what they say. I think politics completely aside- there is a good legal argument to say that current law violates the 14th amendment and to reverse it.

 

[vector2]

Hmm— when there are a fixed number of spots for any school/job etc isn’t shifting a spot from one group to another always “closing the tent” from one group’s perspective and “furthering inclusivity” from another’s? Hard quota caps (against the Jews) vs saying one group is “too successful” (Asians) and therefore we’ll have a soft, unstated cap is just semantics, imo.

No. Again, Asians are 6% of the population and yet are 28% of Harvard's student body, a figure which has increased over the years. The idea that 4-5x population representation is insufficient or is exclusionary because some black or Hispanic people (who historically are very, very underrepresented at elite schools) are admitted at their expense is frankly dumb and absurd.

By the way, the % of black admissions to UC Berkeley is about 3% and Harvard 15% - so we aren’t talking a few people here and there with a shift of policy. It’s well-documented that when California banned racial considerations for public universities, the number of Asian admissions to the elite system didn’t go anywhere ridiculous like 70%— but it did rise from 20 to about 30% about 10%.

That's not an apples to apples comparison given the higher Asian and Hispanic population percentage of California.

Berkeley is ~23-25% URM and Harvard is ~27-29% URM. It's not monumental when considering the totality.

In terms of SCOTUS we’ll see what they say. I think politics completely aside- there is a good legal argument to say that current law violates the 14th amendment and to reverse it.

It's going to get reversed, but it won't be on the merits. We're in the midst of a 6 to 3 trump court with no respect for stare decisis that is willing to turn over Roe. Honestly, I don't even need to know the legal nuances of the case (which was found in favor of Harvard in federal court and the court of appeals). Just tell me which side the right wing culture warriors favor and I'll guarantee you that's the side the court will land on.

 

[pgg]

And "Harvard further indicated that it had studied more than a dozen race-neutral admissions alternatives and found none 'promote Harvard’s diversity-related educational objectives as well as Harvard’s … admissions program while also maintaining the standards of excellence that Harvard seeks in its student body.'"

I'm not sure that Harvard's opinion/claim as a perpetrator of the scheme being challenged should really be taken at face value.

Harvard wants to use race as a factor in admissions. Of course they're going to say that race-neutral admissions don't meet their goal.

I wanted to have turkey for Thanksgiving. I studied more than a dozen non-turkey-based alternatives and found none promoted my turkey-eating objectives as much as turkey.

It's honestly ridiculous. Harvard in particular has its pick of the best applicants in the nation. I just can't suspend my disbelief long enough to believe their lawyers when they say that they couldn't possibly admit a class with a diverse background ... unless they know disadvantaged Cinderella-story applicant A is black but disadvantaged Cinderella-story applicant B is white.

No. To crib my post from earlier, "Saying you're "color blind" doesn't make you blind to race. It makes you blind to racism." It's just not a realistic premise in a country like the US with hundreds of years of history of racial inequity and significant ongoing racial disparities. Furthermore, it simply ignores and marginalizes the implicit and explicit biases that POC (of all socioeconomic statuses) face in their lives.

Again though, aren't the effects of all those years of history and racial inequity and ongoing racial disparities actually, you know, apparent, in the lives of the actual applicants we're talking about? (If not, there's no injustice to fight and no wrong to right.) Of course it is. And equally of course, admissions committees can look at applicants and determine whether any given applicant has has faced that kind of adversity.

They're already doing it, if we're to believe that race is presently just one of many factors they consider.

I understand the seductiveness of the argument that affirmative action is a "little bit" racist to those who are already doing quite well. But I see it as one of those things that's mostly true in a semantically trivial sense. As in if I have one thousand dollars and you have one dollar, and someone takes a dollar from me and gives it to you then you've made me "poorer." And that I should be outraged by the unfairness that I'm now "poorer." Asians (including South Asians such as myself), while comprising 6% of the population, make up 28% of Harvard matriculants - a percentage which has gone up over the years. . Yes, what an outrage.

To be clear, I do hope that one day race will no longer have to be a part of any admissions criteria (as did the justices who decided Grutter), but I realize that that day is not here yet. We are not even 50 yrs removed from a time when serious academicians were making claims that the difference in black and white academic performance was genetic, and that affirmative action would lead to an erosion of Harvard's internal standards. Not to mention, K-12 segregation remains a persistent, difficult problem to tackle to this day. It's not too much to ask that URM continue to get [multifactorial] consideration.

Comparing affirmative action to taxes is a little strained. Progressive tax schemes with refundable credits redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but the rich still have lots of money. Redistributing university admissions from one race to another (let's not sugarcoat it - this is exactly what factoring race into admissions does) doesn't take 3% of an admission away from one applicant, and leave him 97% of an admission. Every admission for which race as "one of many factors" tips the applicant over the cut line means that someone who'd otherwise be above the cut just went from 1 admission to 0 admissions.

I expect rich people and high earners (like us) to grudgingly accept paying a 37% tax rate on income over $539,901 ... even as poverty-level workers get refundable tax credits that exceed what they'd owe in their 12% marginal bracket. It's affordable and the price of civilization. And the wealthy people still have lots of money. I don't expect high school kids to tolerate losing 100% of their spot at a university so another kid can have it instead ... because of race.

It's all good to have philosophical arguments that a 3% reduction in white or Asian admissions to bump black admissions by 3% is no big deal, unless you're one of the 3% on the bubble whose effort goes unrewarded. It's a zero sum game.

 

[doctalaughs]

It's going to get reversed, but it won't be on the merits. We're in the midst of a 6 to 3 trump court with no respect for stare decisis that is willing to turn over Roe. Honestly, I don't even need to know the legal nuances of the case (which was found in favor of Harvard in federal court and the court of appeals). Just tell me which side the right wing culture warriors favor and I'll guarantee you that's the side the court will land on.

That’s your opinion. SCOTUS has shown no deference to trump in terms of blocking his tax return evasions and election denialism. I think the conservative justices know how to interpret the merits of the law just as well as the liberal ones. You just happen to like the decisions of the latter.

 

[pgg]

It's going to get reversed, but it won't be on the merits. We're in the midst of a 6 to 3 trump court with no respect for stare decisis that is willing to turn over Roe. Honestly, I don't even need to know the legal nuances of the case (which was found in favor of Harvard in federal court and the court of appeals). Just tell me which side the right wing culture warriors favor and I'll guarantee you that's the side the court will land on.

I don't like the results of Roe getting overturned, but it was the correct decision.

Ending race-based preference in university admissions will also be the correct decision.

I didn't like the result of Citizens United, but it was the correct decision.

Seems like we've argued this line before. I will again put forth the claim that (in general) conservative Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they are, while the liberal Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they wish they were ... drawing from their own conscience and experience to rule on what is morally or ethically right.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0
RBG was confirmed 96-3

As the late Justice Scalia said, concerning the politicization of judge nominations and confirmations:

Today, barely 20 years later, it is difficult to get someone confirmed to the Court of Appeals. What has happened? The American people have figured out what is going on. If we are selecting lawyers, if we are selecting people to read a text and give it the fair meaning it had when it was adopted, yes, the most important thing to do is to get a good lawyer. If on the other hand, we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a new constitution with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right and the other right. We want to pick people that would write the new constitution that we would want.

And that is why you hear in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, we want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text.

We probably won't agree on this today, either.

 

[doctalaughs]

No. Again, Asians are 6% of the population and yet are 28% of Harvard's student body, a figure which has increased over the years. The idea that 4-5x population representation is insufficient or is exclusionary because some black or Hispanic people (who historically are very, very underrepresented at elite schools) are admitted at their expense is frankly dumb and absurd.

It’s silly to go around and around but again as an analogy — “Jews are 2.5% of the population and 25% of Harvard. The idea that TEN times the population representation is insufficient or exclusionary because some followers of islam, **or insert whatever underrepresented religion you prefer*** need to be boosted … is frankly… whatever….”

Which is why it’s silly (and discriminatory) to even compare which groups are over/underrepresented based on skin color, religion etc— when we are talking about individuals. Do your best to give poor/marginalized communities opportunity and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[vector2]

It's honestly ridiculous. Harvard in particular has its pick of the best applicants in the nation. I just can't suspend my disbelief long enough to believe their lawyers when they say that they couldn't possibly admit a class with a diverse background ... unless they know disadvantaged Cinderella-story applicant A is black but disadvantaged Cinderella-story applicant B is white.

You don't have to take Harvard's lawyers at face value. As I said to docta, SCOTUS has upheld AA with strict scrutiny vis a vis the Equal Protection Clause in at least 4 cases stretching back to 1978. Before the Harvard case made it to SCOTUS, Harvard's methodology was upheld in federal court and the court of the appeals.

And you can take a look at the 33 amicus briefs filed in favor of SFA and the 60 amicus briefs filed in favor of Harvard if you want an idea of who's coming down where. Amherst and 33 other elite schools supported a multifactorial race-conscious process. Plenty of Asian American organization sided with Harvard. And 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action.

Again though, aren't the effects of all those years of history and racial inequity and ongoing racial disparities actually, you know, apparent, in the lives of the actual applicants we're talking about? (If not, there's no injustice to fight and no wrong to right.) Of course it is. And equally of course, admissions committees can look at applicants and determine whether any given applicant has has faced that kind of adversity.

They're already doing it, if we're to believe that race is presently just one of many factors they consider.

No, I don't think the multitude of biases faced by URM are always so apparent that race should just be blanket-removed from the admissions process.

Comparing affirmative action to taxes is a little strained. Progressive tax schemes with refundable credits redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but the rich still have lots of money. Redistributing university admissions from one race to another (let's not sugarcoat it - this is exactly what factoring race into admissions does) doesn't take 3% of an admission away from one applicant, and leave him 97% of an admission. Every admission for which race as "one of many factors" tips the applicant over the cut line means that someone who'd otherwise be above the cut just went from 1 admission to 0 admissions.

I expect rich people and high earners (like us) to grudgingly accept paying a 37% tax rate on income over $539,901 ... even as poverty-level workers get refundable tax credits that exceed what they'd owe in their 12% marginal bracket. It's affordable and the price of civilization. And the wealthy people still have lots of money. I don't expect high school kids to tolerate losing 100% of their spot at a university so another kid can have it instead ... because of race.

It's all good to have philosophical arguments that a 3% reduction in white or Asian admissions to bump black admissions by 3% is no big deal, unless you're one of the 3% on the bubble whose effort goes unrewarded. It's a zero sum game.

It wasnt my intention to make an explicit comparison to taxes, per se. I was just specifically using the word "poorer" to illustrate that something can be trivially true (in the logical sense) without necessarily carrying a tremendous, substantive impact.

Of course it's a zero sum game (unless more spots are added). Of course individuals are affected. But that's not how countries or governments or large institutions make laws or policies. Laws and policies areade with entire populations in mind. Lines are drawn and someone ends up unhappy or gets the short end. That's life. And the best we can do is hope to achieve some kind of utilitarian equilibrium where we think we've done the most good. Ultimately much of this argument comes down to subjective perceptions of fairness, and I think it's a fair tradeoff that a group that's 6% of the population with nearly 30% of the spots shares a couple percent with a group who used to be purposefully kept from the spots.

 

[vector2]

I don't like the results of Roe getting overturned, but it was the correct decision.

Ending race-based preference in university admissions will also be the correct decision.

I didn't like the result of Citizens United, but it was the correct decision.

Seems like we've argued this line before. I will again put forth the claim that (in general) conservative Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they are, while the liberal Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they wish they were ... drawing from their own conscience and experience to rule on what is morally or ethically right.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0
RBG was confirmed 96-3

As the late Justice Scalia said, concerning the politicization of judge nominations and confirmations:


We probably won't agree on this today, either.

You're right. We're not going to agree.

One, I don't think the conservative court actually is all that originalist or textualist except when it suits them, but the broader point is that you're kinda making an [implicit] assumption that originalism or textualism is something inherently good or is inherently the way something as complex as Constitutional law ought to be interpreted.

And the thing is, that's a value judgement, not a factual statement. I'm not sure why many conservative leaning court watchers don't grasp that point.

 

[vector2]

That’s your opinion. SCOTUS has shown no deference to trump in terms of blocking his tax return evasions and election denialism. I think the conservative justices know how to interpret the merits of the law just as well as the liberal ones. You just happen to like the decisions of the latter.

I don't like their decisions, but that fact doesn't invalidate my point. Courts like the current one that turn over long, longstanding precedents on partisan lines deserve special scrutiny, and I will gladly say the same thing if in the future some liberals court starts spitting on stare decisis the way this one has.

It’s silly to go around and around but again as an analogy — “Jews are 2.5% of the population and 25% of Harvard. The idea that TEN times the population representation is insufficient or exclusionary because some followers of islam, **or insert whatever underrepresented religion you prefer*** need to be boosted … is frankly… whatever….”

Other than the fact that none of the case law of the last 50 years concerns religious AA in higher education, I think it's a perfectly good analogy if say, for instance, Muslims had been systematically oppressed and discriminated against for hundreds of years and only started going to college in any substantive numbers in the 70s, 80s, and 90s....

Which is why it’s silly (and discriminatory) to even compare which groups are over/underrepresented based on skin color, religion etc— when we are talking about individuals. Do your best to give poor/marginalized communities opportunity and then let the chips fall where they may.

Funny you now want to go back to the individual-based discussion....

Wasn't this just you?

That’s the thing people don’t get. Just because my MCAT as an Asian was double that, doesn’t mean I am definitely, individually a better doctor than choco. There are always outliers that might overcome their test scores etc.

However, when you looks at GROUP statistics and realize these massive gaps in color standards are being applied across groups, it does a disservice to the profession, patients and pretty much everyone (not to mention the issue of fairness).​

I'm just looking at the GROUP statistics here from my perspective.

 

[doctalaughs]

I don't like their decisions, but that fact doesn't invalidate my point. Courts like the current one that turn over long, longstanding precedents on partisan lines deserve special scrutiny, and I will gladly say the same thing if in the future some liberals court starts spitting on stare decisis the way this one has.



Other than the fact that none of the case law of the last 50 years concerns religious AA in higher education, I think it's a perfectly good analogy if say, for instance, Muslims had been systematically oppressed and discriminated against for hundreds of years and only started going to college in any substantive numbers in the 70s, 80s, and 90s....



Funny you now want to go back to the individual-based discussion....

Wasn't this just you?

​

That’s the thing people don’t get. Just because my MCAT as an Asian was double that, doesn’t mean I am definitely, individually a better doctor than choco. There are always outliers that might overcome their test scores etc.​

​

However, when you looks at GROUP statistics and realize these massive gaps in color standards are being applied across groups, it does a disservice to the profession, patients and pretty much everyone (not to mention the issue of fairness).​

I'm just looking at the GROUP statistics here from my perspective.

I don’t think you understood my different arguments in different posts. You look at groups if you want to gather statistics and differences. That said, whether/how you act on those statistics is a totally different matter.

I believe when you decide on policies it should should take into account fairness to the individual, and individual rights.

Regarding the case law - even O’Connor who cast the deciding vote on the original AA decision explicitly said in her opinion it should not be permanent and suggested a sunset of 25 years. I suspect this (along with the close 5-4 passage of the original decision) was because the judges were very hesitant to allow legal racial preferences— which seem antithetical to our constitution— even if just enough of them thought it was worth it (at least temporarily) for the “greater good” of our society.

 

[Southpaw]

Ah we’ve reached the point of the argument where the constitution has been brought forth, and where Scalia thought he was right and liberals wrong. If Scalia thought it then God Almighty must’ve wrote it down, for his word was gospel.

Yes, let’s gather thoughts on what the white male slave owners thought about the education, or lack thereof, of URMs. That’ll really get us where we need to be with the debate.

 

[BLADEMDA]