Adios AA

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Rocket, what you are talking about has very little to do with anything in this case. AA at elite universities is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones. Anyone selected after the first go around is massively qualified, and would easily be enrolled at 95% of schools across the country and will very likely be successful no matter where they end up.

AA at these schools is about ensuring a diverse student body, with people of diverse backgrounds of all sorts, because that's what the world is these days.  And that's what employers want too - employees with that type of experience.

Getting there by assigning specific points to ethnic minorities is probably not the best way to go about that.  And that's fine. Believe me, these schools will still find ways to be diverse because that is what their marketplace wants.

[WhiteTrash]

Rocket, what you are talking about has very little to do with anything in this case. AA at elite universities is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones. Anyone selected after the first go around is massively qualified, and would easily be enrolled at 95% of schools across the country and will very likely be successful no matter where they end up.

AA at these schools is about ensuring a diverse student body, with people of diverse backgrounds of all sorts, because that's what the world is these days.  And that's what employers want too - employees with that type of experience.

Getting there by assigning specific points to ethnic minorities is probably not the best way to go about that.  And that's fine. Believe me, these schools will still find ways to be diverse because that is what their marketplace wants.

You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites? 

No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.

Let me give an example.  If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class,  and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.

I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless.  I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.

Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.

I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray.  GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools?  What about their interview performance?

[MU82]

You make great points and overall your post is IMO spot on, but the notion that AA ''is NOT about picking less qualified applicants over more qualified ones." i'd say is wrong and I'd go so far as to say that that is EXACTLY what AA is about. Have/had minorities been suing schools successfully because less qualified whites or Asians have been admitted over them? Have the challenges to AA centered around minorities with better credentials being admitted over Asians and whites?

The problem might be in defining "less qualified" or "more qualified."

The courts in these cases have done so because they've had to, but I'm curious if you think it is only (and should be only) about grades and SAT/ACT scores and internships?

Should factors such as life experiences/circumstances, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity and leadership skills count? If somebody is far "more qualified" based on those attributes but a little "less qualified" based on grades and test scores, do the grades and test scores automatically win out? How does athletic ability factor in? How about brilliance in dance or music or some other pursuit?

Lots of people want to make this a cut-and-dried issue, but there seems to be nuance IMHO.

[WhiteTrash]

No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.

Let me give an example.  If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class,  and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.

I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless.  I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.

Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.

I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray.  GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools?  What about their interview performance?

I understand your well laid out point. At this point I have to tap out due to lack of knowledge of the specifics of the case(s). I was under the impression out of the qualified pool, they chose less qualified over more qualified and even some schools had specific quotas.

If this AA policy was simply a way to choose applicants instead of flipping a coin, I think the number of affected whites and Asians is insignificant and the SCOTUS ruling is of minor importance .

[4everwarriors]

No I would say the challenges to AA were because race was used as a factor in the admissions process. By the time race became a significant factor, they were choosing between candidates who were equally qualified - many were already conditionally admitted.

Let me give an example.  If I was running a school that needed 300 people in the freshman class,  and got 1,000 applicants (marketing sucks obviously), my initial screeners put them in one of five pools, 1-200, 201-400, etc. At no point do I rank the candidates 1 though 1,000 because that's nearly impossible.

I then make up the class by taking the top 200 from the first pool regardless.  I then take the next 100 from the second pool of 200 - this is where race can play a larger factor to make the class more diverse.

Now if I took a minority from the THIRD pool at the expense of someone in the SECOND pool, then yes, someone who was white was denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is a minority. But as long as I don't do that, then I don't see how anyone can claim that they were denied an opportunity at the expense of someone who is less qualified.

I think the basic problem is that people think that there are black and white reasons showing one candidate is better than the other. But at these types of schools, it's a lot of shades of gray.  GPA and standardized test scores are obviously objective. But what about extracurricular and community involvement? What about the relative strength of their schedules or their high schools?  What about their interview performance?

Pretty sure admittance to grad and professional schools is a horse of a different color, aina?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I understand your well laid out point. At this point I have to tap out due to lack of knowledge of the specifics of the case(s). I was under the impression out of the qualified pool, they chose less qualified over more qualified and even some schools had specific quotas.

If this AA policy was simply a way to choose applicants instead of flipping a coin, I think the number of affected whites and Asians is insignificant and the SCOTUS ruling is of minor importance .

I actually agree with your last sentence.  Also, since the vast, vast majority of schools are basically open enrollment these days, there are plenty of opportunities for everyone.  I doubt anyone loses their opportunity to achieve higher education due to this ruling.

[Hards Alumni]

   you will never get a poll showing the absolute accurate results unless you poll 100% of the people which we all know is not feasible.  the ways so many ways polls are worded, where and who they poll and then of course, the integrity of the pollster all go in to figuring the margins of error.  with all that said, who really knows, but it's the best barometer we have. 

    with all of the polarization and media slants, power struggles, most people don't even know half of what's going on today.  so many have opinions without even understanding the ramifications except their own "knee jerk" thoughts. 

AA at it's core is not healthy.  we all want only the best of everything we do and participate in.  i know the examples can go on and on, but does anyone want the "c" candidate to fly them, to operate on them, to manage their finances and taxes, etc etc

Imagine not understanding statistics at all and then commenting about statistics.

Lmao