it's funny how anti-AA people are always pro-racial discrimination, including your girl in your youtubez, until it doesn't benefit white people. then its all like "YOU guys are the real racists... let me find some other minority to prop up this theory, that liberals not us are the real racists.."
--"but keep stop and frisking those black guys because they might have drugs, and definitely racially profile those browns because they might be terrorists.."

I think the claim would be that the advantage shifted to the underrepresented group comes mainly from the less advantaged (poor whites) members of the overrepresented group (monolithic whites, in your terminology). But I still don't see how that increases the overall advantage of the elite whites. Note that I am not stanning for elite whites and agree with what you say about their lifelong advantage. Just trying to follow the logic clearly.

Probably depends on how you define deserving.

I would say they are cynically gaming the system for their own advantage. I think this is a feature of a lot of leftist, progressive policies and attitudes.

I'm actually not in favor of racial discrimination. Do you have an explanation as to why you support a policy that punishes asian people for being asian?

I don't think there are. In fact the Supreme Court ruled there can't be. Even more in fact I'd say that the status quo where race can be included in the mixture of factors including socio economic status is exactly what you'd want so that universities couldn't exclude on race, but can include on socio economic status.

The real problem is that elite universities value high socio economic status regardless of race, but feel compelled, at a minimum, to include usually high socio economic status racial minorities to avoid scrutiny. Removing affirmative action won't solve that issue, it'll simply allow universities to feel like that don't need to include minorities anymore.

I don't agree with this assessment (neither of them, actually). Society benefits from a more level playing field.

Seems like a non-sequitor.

If Asians are being discriminated against how is that creating a level playing field? You disagree that Asians are discriminated against?

By definition the playing field isn't level. If it were, asians wouldn't be punished for being asian

This is incredibly shallow thinking. Try to think it through. challenge yourself. Be honest. Try to formulate an actual argument. I could do better and I don't even support AA

feel free to post non youtubez! data showing that they are being discriminated against rather than simply no longer benefiting from a program that helped them reach adequate representation in higher education.

Juan, when did they "become a disaster?" Why do you have such a US centric view of higher education, despite living in Canada? You've been posting about this topic for 5+ years, but all you really post is hour long youtubes. Is your entire thought process against secondary education because of right wing youtube algorithms?

it will be interesting to see what this judge decides

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...-hands-n971776

those aren't facts but yeah thats the edward blum case.. he's pretty much a racist hack, make no mistake he has no intention of helping asian students.. he already has the next law suit set up to eliminate even the "racially neutral" policies he just needs the asian kids to push his agenda one step further.


in case you actually want to read about blum..
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-jus...-action-higher

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...n-reports.html

TLDR: Harvard has known for decades its process consistently gives lower “personal ratings” and Asian admit rates have actually dropped since Harvard did its internal studies.

An old thread on AA against Asian Americans https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/4...icans-1532999/

There is no way you can look at this and say Harvard isn’t discriminating against Asians.

Now the better question is if it’s a good policy to do so.

Harvard "discriminates" against poors much more so than Asians, Blacks or any other race. I put "discrimination" in quotes, because most of the barriers for poors are structural, as opposed to overt, so it is easier for rich (mostly white) elites to obfuscate this reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf.../#52bc250f610e

This Forbes article lays out it pretty well.

i hardly call that Harvard discriminating against poors

you can say poors have been discriminated against but that has nothing to do with harvard

Yeah. I didn't mean Harvard specifically, and no other colleges. It is systemic.

Although, the Forbes article notes, as colleges get more selective racial quotas stay about the same, but % of poors attending and graduating goes down dramatically.

i am working in an inner city school and we apparantly spend more per student than the suburb schools, which i find mindboggling

i am not denyoing systemic racism in the education system. it absolutely exists

that doesnt necesarily mean private colleges should take that into account if they are looking to add the best students that they can.

the whole idea of colleges accepting and denying people on random ideas is weird anyway

I don't think this is a very good description. I am arguing the system is cynical and self-serving, but either way it is far from random IMO.

Edit: In other news, your under title kind of makes sense again, as he will probably come in and challenge some of the ideas your are putting forth at some point when he is feeling better. I had a different SN at the time (quick_ben, I think), but I was in the hydra WW game where he just bailed on you.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works in development at an upper tier but not truly elite liberal arts school. He said the dirty secret for schools in that category is that they are desperate to get a relatively high percentage of students who are paying full freight. He said that’s really the point of early admissions.

I suspect that schools like Harvard that are truly awash in money feel less of this sort of pressure.

In a parallel development, colleges are fighting more for transfer students.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/e...versities.html

What they get is students paying full sticker without dragging down GPA/SAT averages (relevant for rankings).

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...lege-rankings/

NEU is a poster child in college admissions literature for "gaming" the system. I have slightly mixed feelings about the condemnations flying around though.

https://www.niche.com/colleges/north...after-college/

There is some evidence NEU does pretty well with placing their students into legit (if non-elite) jobs.

US News would argue that "gaming" the US News system can be reframed as tailoring your education to maximize factors that maximize student outcomes (aka, factors in the rankings). I am not entirely sure that argument has no merit at all.

Thread would have been way better titled "Higher" Education and talking about legalization of marijuana.

There is a lot of talk about a student loan bubble and I could see it happening. 14% of the countries population at upwards of 1.5 $trillion. Total mortgage debt is 10.3 trillion for comparison. Countless people came and went from our program, some fizzled out after a couple years in. Or the stereotype of the $100,000 liberal arts degree. I have a friend who dropped out with $15,000 dollars in loans, but was able to pay them off though sheer luck. The "public" university I went to cost as much as our two Big U's. Throw in wage stagnation and its not a good look.

On a personal level, I saw a Muslim student leverage his race/religion against a tenured professor who was in his last year. The professor had ran out of ****s to give, and was telling mildly sexist jokes and calling kids idiots for fun. Lots of kids wouldn't come to class but would show up for tests, so the professor put classroom specific topics on the next test. Many failed the test, but this one kid caused a scene in the classroom and made it about how he couldn't come to class because of his religion. The next class period, the professor had "changed his mind" about the test, and a new book-centric test was issued.

Something like 10% of our student population was international and the cheating was rampant among the Asian and African kids. They all had assignments from previous classes from their friends or colleagues. The professors all knew but nothing was ever done about it. They pay at least full tuition, possibly more, and a lot of the Asians were getting jobs at the big 4 which made the program look really good.

There is also a real issue with professor inconsistency. I had an early level accounting class with an adjunct professor who was supposed to be a CPA, but he couldn't seem to do basic accounting. Or this brilliant professor who had only come on to help the business college gain top level accreditation and his reward was carte blanche to work on a standard modeling of intercompany transfers, or some **** like that. Unfortunately, he couldn't convey information in ways mere mortals could discern. There were a lot of really good professors too, but how specifically bad those two professors were really stood out to me.

The US higher eduation "system" is peculiar and special in many ways, so much so that the idea of "in the west" makes no sense at all if it includes the US.

Also it is a mistake to conflate "higher education" with "universities". The business of research is at least as important to these institutions as is the business of education.

In most other countries with successful university systems tuition is much smaller compared to local median income than it is in the US. Also it is much more uniform across institutions. (E.g. in Germany going to the university is quite close to free.) Student debt is mostly peculiar to the US.

With respect to education itself, the liberal arts model prevalent in the US is mostly peculiar to the US (to some extent it is present in the UK as well). In most countries degree programs are structured very differently than in the US. A chemistry student might take no classes at all outside chemistry. In such a context "culture and society" are less relevant, or at least operate very differently.

Sorry, but I disagree with the initial statement. Professors in the west have become an absolute disaster!

Unfortunately it's not that easy to correct, because you may end up with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_Decrees

I'm a professor at a western university. I don't really get this statement. Don't get me wrong I have various critiques of higher education, and of course humans are humans so we have great and terrible professors, but my general experience at three universities is that the faculty are among the best parts of the education system. That is, you have a set of people who, for the most part, genuinely care about simultaneously advancing human knowledge and creating a meaningful student experience. I'm surrounded daily by incredibly passionate people who are doing their best.

I've read many conservative critiques of sort of "faculty culture" and almost none of it really rings true to my lived experience.

Its admins more than faculty?