Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

I But, man, I'll love listening those douchebags who were so concerned about "Asian Hate" argue so strongly that we ought to overtly discriminate against Asians.

Can't wait!

They will not make that argument. They will argue that Asians deserve the same preferential treatment as other minorities. The goal of affirmative action is not to punish Asians. It is to punish whites.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Exhibit number 50,000 in how effective anti-white propaganda has been in the United States. Lots of whites -- probably a majority of them -- can't even bring themselves to conclude that white people deserve Constitutional Rights. People like CGVT are not outliers, unfortunately.

CGVT -- when your granchildren can't get into the college if their choice or get hired for a job because of their skin color, make sure to tell them that they deserve it because they have to atone for all of their forefathers' sins. I'm sure that will comfort them.

Undertalented white folks have a different affirmative action system that they have taken advantage of for generations. They're called legacy admissions and at least at places like Harvard they vastly outnumber race-based admissions.

[iam416]

Legacy admissions should be eliminated (IMO), but legacy admitted students are also vastly more qualified than AA-admitted students. Like not even close.

Harvard's affirmative action policy isn't "close call, go w/ the AA kid" -- it's "shit, man, we need a perfect class balance, so, yeah, let that kid in!"

Finally, if the legacy admissions do favor white kids, as would seem obvious, that means they're taking away spots from other WHITE kids. Harvard doesn't over-admit white kids. FULL. STOP. So, the legacy admissions that benefit white kids do so to the detriment of white kids.

In reality, Harvard's class should look like Berkeley's class -- huge Asian chunk, representative white chunk (probably a little less), way less Latinos and AAs. If you were going on a straight race-neutral policy.

[CGVT]

CGVT -- when your granchildren can't get into the college of their choice or get hired for a job because of their skin color, make sure to tell them that they deserve it because they have to atone for all of their forefathers' sins. I'm sure that will comfort them.

I'm sure the irony of this is lost on you.

Ha!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Legacy admissions should be eliminated (IMO), but legacy admitted students are also vastly more qualified than AA-admitted students. Like not even close.

Harvard's affirmative action policy isn't "close call, go w/ the AA kid" -- it's "shit, man, we need a perfect class balance, so, yeah, let that kid in!"

Finally, if the legacy admissions do favor white kids, as would seem obvious, that means they're taking away spots from other WHITE kids. Harvard doesn't over-admit white kids. FULL. STOP. So, the legacy admissions that benefit white kids do so to the detriment of white kids.

In reality, Harvard's class should look like Berkeley's class -- huge Asian chunk, representative white chunk (probably a little less), way less Latinos and AAs. If you were going on a straight race-neutral policy.

I don't really disagree with much of that but if we're installing a totally merit-based system then legacies need to go as well.

I was acquainted with a member of the Coors family at Cornell. Total buffoon. Every frat wanted him though.

[iam416]

This is the reality for these schools -- they want money. They want legacy kids because they want money. The want upper class kids because they want money. They have zero interest in promoting socioeconomic rising because them poor kids have parents that ain't going to send them a fucking dime -- white or black. That's the reality. And, of course, they want to engage in the worst of Far Left policiies, but whatever.

[Hannibal]

Undertalented white folks have a different affirmative action system that they have taken advantage of for generations. They're called legacy admissions and at least at places like Harvard they vastly outnumber race-based admissions.

This argument has been made before and it has been debunked. Legacy considerations are nowhere near as significant as racial considerations. There is a massive difference between the two.

Example: when Michigan got sued in the 1990s, their system was exposed as giving far greater credit to a minority applicant than they were giving to legacy applicants. They had a 150 point system in which they awarded 20 points to minorities and 4 points to kids with "alumni relationship". They also awarded 20 points for "socioeconmic status". They only awarded three points for an outstanding essay and a mere five points for extracurriculars ("service and leadership"). I have little doubt that Harvard's policy is similar, if not worse.

The Michigan case was interesting, because it exposed just how egregious the discrimination was and just how much Liberals had been lying about the nature of affirmative action for so many years. I remember in my freshman orientation we had some Communist butch lady tell us that it was completely false that the University gave special preference to minorities -- they only took minority status into account in case of a "tie". That is what everyone was told. Anyone who claimed otherwise was "racist". As you can see, nothing has changed in the "calling you a racist if you speak the truth" department.

And I'm sure that they are a tiny amount of ultra-rich kids whose parents buy their way in. I'm not a huge fan of that, but at least in that case, you can argue that the University has a vested interest in allowing this to happen.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This argument has been made and completely debunked multiple times. Legacy privileges are nowhere near as significant as racial privileges. There is a massive difference between the two.

Example: when Michigan got sued in the 1990s, their system was exposed as giving far greater credit to a minority applicant than they were giving to legacy applicants. They had a 150 point system in which they awarded 20 points to minorities and 4 points to kids with "alumni relationship".

It's different at different schools. Legacies make up a much more significant number at Harvard and other "elite" schools than at public schools. Between 2014 and 2019 Harvard's overall acceptance rate was 6% but for Legacies it was 33%

Legacies at private schools are overwhelmingly white and come from rich families. Talent is right that they are pretty much taking spots that otherwise would've gone to a white kid (or Asian).

[Hannibal]

It's different at different schools. Legacies make up a much more significant number at Harvard and other "elite" schools than at public schools. Between 2014 and 2019 Harvard's overall acceptance rate was 6% but for Legacies it was 33%

Show me the average test scores and GPAs for legacy kids versus affirmative action acceptances. Or,, show me what that acceptance rate would have been for those legacy kids without the legacy consideration. Then we’ll talk. As talent pointed out, it makes some sense that the kids of Harvard graduates are also predisposed to being able to get into Harvard. Every school might be different in the details, but the trend is always the same.

And I genuinely don't know anyone who would be disappointed if legacy considerations were also tossed out. But that's a distraction.

[iam416]

Listening to the UNC attorney, heh, it may not be much of a stretch to see that policy getting rightfully dumped, too. They can't defend it in terms of the 14th A. Can't do it.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The Pelosi attack is being blamed on extremist political hate...I couldn't agree more...

[THE_WIZARD_]

...

[THE_WIZARD_]

..

[THE_WIZARD_]

....

[THE_WIZARD_]

.....