SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:27 last edited by
Haven't read the ruling yet, but I suspect I will agree with it.
I would also rather the universities/colleges give admission preferences by socioeconomic factors rather than by racial factors.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:31 last edited by
That seems to be what they were trying to do but used the amount of melanin in your skin as the measure instead of the amount of income on your parent's tax return.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:52 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:54 last edited by
Senile.
-
Haven't read the ruling yet, but I suspect I will agree with it.
I would also rather the universities/colleges give admission preferences by socioeconomic factors rather than by racial factors.
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:54 last edited by@Axtremus said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Haven't read the ruling yet, but I suspect I will agree with it.
I would also rather the universities/colleges give admission preferences by socioeconomic factors rather than by racial factors.
Yep. I haven’t posted here yet because we all knew this was coming and talked about it at length after orals.
I’m excited to see and hear about the opinions in the coming days.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 17:56 last edited by
I'm not excited about the three dissenting Justices.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:08 last edited by
@Jolly said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
I'm not excited about the three dissenting Justices.
Jon’s not either, but he’s not eager to say it out loud.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:47 last edited by Jon
Cool, let’s make this about me.
I’m interested in Sotomayor’s dissent, but largely to see how legally illiterate it is. If Kagan wrote also I’d read it, she’s the best writer on the court. Not so interested in Jackson.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:49 last edited by
I’m curious how much if any of the memorable exchange between Roberts and Sotomayor last time this issue arose shows up in the opinions.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:51 last edited by
Have you seen Thomas's smackdown?
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:53 last edited by
I’d like links for both plz!
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 18:54 last edited by
I’ve not looked at any of this or read/heard any analysis. The ones I care about (e.g. scotusblog, advisory opinions! etc) can’t be written an hour after the ruling.
-
Cool, let’s make this about me.
I’m interested in Sotomayor’s dissent, but largely to see how legally illiterate it is. If Kagan wrote also I’d read it, she’s the best writer on the court. Not so interested in Jackson.
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 19:17 last edited by@Jon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Cool, let’s make this about me.
Please don't pretend to be above it, it's gross when you do that.
I’m interested in Sotomayor’s dissent, but largely to see how legally illiterate it is. If Kagan wrote also I’d read it, she’s the best writer on the court. Not so interested in Jackson.
They all get an equal vote. You should be interested not least in the justice your guy nominated, if only to calibrate your expectations for future nominations.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 20:55 last edited by
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race:
-
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race:
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 20:59 last edited by@xenon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race.
Law school
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1674427966842093573.html
1/ Over the more than 50 years affirmative action's morally squalid and racist practices were in place, how many white and Asian applicants were denied admission in favor of less qualified black and Hispanic applicants? I was likely one of them, and maybe you were, too.
2/ Years ago, I applied to a top law school, and was rejected.
My GPA: 0.3 points higher than average GPA of blacks admitted
My LSAT: Higher than the average at this school
Average LSAT of blacks admitted: MUCH lower than my score and the white average
3/ My undergrad degree: In a program ranked #1 in nation.
Also: I had received academic awards, had a book published by an academic imprint as an undergrad, had glowing recommendations from well-known scholars.
4/ A few years after I was rejected, the admission records of the law school leaked, and the data appeared in the media. There was a stat I've never forgotten: About 1 out of every 7 blacks admitted dropped out. The white drop-out rate was essentially zero.
5/ So dozens of qualified white and Asian applicants who would have graduated had they been admitted were denied admission in favor of black admits who dropped out because they had no business being admitted in the first place.
6/ The way that liberals in the media processed the information in this leak is what drove me from the left and toward the center. There's something deeply disordered about the American left's moral compass and sense of fairness.
6/ Overwhelmingly, it wasn't disadvantaged BIPOCs benefiting from affirmative action, but rather middle-class ones who attended good K-12 schools. And yet liberals pretended not only that affirmative action was social justice but also that whites and Asians were not harmed.
7/ Of course it's entirely possible I wouldn't have gotten into that law school even if there hadn't been affirmative action. But over 90% of the black applicants who got in under AA wouldn't have either.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 21:08 last edited by
Harvard’s data:
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 21:12 last edited by Horace
If it's the middle class black kids benefiting most, then it's the middle class black kids who still have the below average MCATs and GPAs.
If we move to poor preference instead of skin color preference, I wonder how the MCAT and GPA statistics per racial group, will change. If they're admitting the middle class minorities with normal wealth/culture advantages now, what would you get if you got more poor minorities instead?
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 22:29 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 22:41 last edited by
Impossible to tell the difference between a parody account and a real one, when it comes to libtards.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 23:20 last edited by
Justice Jackson writes:
Wait, what???
So right away that’s not a doubling of anything.
But the ceteris isn’t paribus. The white docs aren’t seeing the same infants as the black docs. They’re more likely to get the NICU cases where all infants are less likely to survive, and study doesn’t control for that.
So the study is confusing correlation with causation: if you have a black doctor, your baby is more likely to survive, but that’s because that means you’re less likely to be in the NICU, where there are fewer black doctors. It has nothing to do with the race of the doctor.
Anyway, anyone want to place a bet whether the game of telephone works and takes a bad legal writeup of a bad study and the entirely fictional (but striking!) claim in the brief ends up in a SCOTUS opinion?
I read the wrong chart, in part because the study’s meaningful data is in an appendix. The difference is 99.96% vs 99.91%. And the difference isn’t even statistically significant.
Haven’t listened to this @VPrasadMDMPH podcast yet. Public policy community refuted it contemporaneously when the study came out. Knew the study would be pushed to SCOTUS (I’m sure it’s mentioned in other briefs); just didn’t think the dishonesty of the study would be multiplied.
