SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC
-
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
-
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
@Horace said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
-
So what did the Asian kids that brought the case get? Are they awarded damages from the offending universities?
-
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
-
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
The way they do it now, race but not wealth, allows them to pick the high end of the academic ability of any given race. They'll admit the smart, upper middle class black child of two doctors, and score one for 'equity'. Going by wealth, they won't be able to fill their racial categories with those sorts of people. The results for certain minority categories even now are bad, when they have access to those children of doctors. The statistics will get worse, if they move to a wealth system.
The colleges are going to face further struggles to dumb down their curricula to hand out degrees to the masses.
-
They (or enough of them) believe it’s the right moral thing to do and representational racial class composition is in vogue with many of their customers.
@xenon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
They (or enough of them) believe it’s the right moral thing to do and representational racial class composition is in vogue with many of their customers.
Nobody expects the racial admission numbers to change in favor of whites or asians because of this. What will change, is the quality of black and latino admits. I suspect that's what the universities understand, and are afraid of.
-
-
Donors.
-
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
Being exposed to different people, different cultures, different backgrounds, different experiences, different ideas is a good thing.
As I say previously, the idea of having diversity in colleges is good, but just admitting people into the school is not the right way of doing it. Does not solve the root problem.
