Topic: SATs might return
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #135,632
I didn’t even know they were removed in the first place. If the only argument is because is wealthier students were gaining advantage over lower income then I understand why the democrats lost.
https://www.allsides.com/story/education-years-after-dropping-sats-uc-faces-calls-bring-them-back?utm_source=ios_app&utm_medium=2.2.1
https://www.allsides.com/story/education-years-after-dropping-sats-uc-faces-calls-bring-them-back?utm_source=ios_app&utm_medium=2.2.1
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #1,441,200
Tests are usually pretty sucky because it usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point, I feel like maybe a coursework or portfolio type approach is better?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,201
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> Tests are usually pretty sucky because it usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point, I feel like maybe a coursework or portfolio type approach is better?
I like the portfolio approach idea.
> Tests are usually pretty sucky because it usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point, I feel like maybe a coursework or portfolio type approach is better?
I like the portfolio approach idea.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,203
Like I can tell you low income shouldn’t have anything to do with what’s going on in K-12 grade school. Unfortunately the harsher reality between the students who are genuinely just not interested and the teachers who are under funded along with the curriculum itself being garbage. Yeah it’s no wonder theres too much folks coming out of high school with zero math skills.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,205
@1,441,201 (C)
It's a known fact that when kids come into higher education, they always have to be taught how to learn properly because they've only known test drills until then. I don't know what these universities did but maybe they went retard and let in anyone regardless of test score but without any kind of filtering either so they had a bunch of uninterested dimwits instead of clever people.
It's a known fact that when kids come into higher education, they always have to be taught how to learn properly because they've only known test drills until then. I don't know what these universities did but maybe they went retard and let in anyone regardless of test score but without any kind of filtering either so they had a bunch of uninterested dimwits instead of clever people.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,216
@OP
> I didn’t even know they were removed in the first place.
It was removed because they were trying to make their students more diverse, and the people they wanted to bring in can barely read.
Democrats (90% of academia) do not believe in standardized tests or in any objective metrics because their entire epistemological framework is relativist.
They don't believe in truth, they believe everything is an opinion (until politics come into play, of course).
> I didn’t even know they were removed in the first place.
It was removed because they were trying to make their students more diverse, and the people they wanted to bring in can barely read.
Democrats (90% of academia) do not believe in standardized tests or in any objective metrics because their entire epistemological framework is relativist.
They don't believe in truth, they believe everything is an opinion (until politics come into play, of course).
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,217
@1,441,200 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
If you are testing them on knowledge they should have, that's important.
> usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point,
Invalidates what point? Don't be vague.
If the point is to check whether they have the knowledge, it does exactly what its supposed to do.
If you are testing them on knowledge they should have, that's important.
> usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point,
Invalidates what point? Don't be vague.
If the point is to check whether they have the knowledge, it does exactly what its supposed to do.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,219
@1,441,201 (C)
The portfolio approach is a way to hide the fact that you have idiots getting into the schools.
You get an illiterate kid, take some fucked up art and sob story essays and use that instead. You can't even say "that art is shit" because they will use the old "it's in the eye of the beholder".
The agenda here is to make it so that it's impossible to acknowledge that some people are dumb. This is done by eliminating any form of objective criteria.
The portfolio approach is a way to hide the fact that you have idiots getting into the schools.
You get an illiterate kid, take some fucked up art and sob story essays and use that instead. You can't even say "that art is shit" because they will use the old "it's in the eye of the beholder".
The agenda here is to make it so that it's impossible to acknowledge that some people are dumb. This is done by eliminating any form of objective criteria.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,220
hey I can't find jack shit about what the fuck you fucks are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,222
@1,441,205 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
If they weren't learning, they'd fail those tests.
If the tests are just asking for trivia like dates and random irrelevant facts then the problem is with that test, not testing itself.
A test can cover every central concept, and ensure that people actually know the definitions for the concepts and when they are applied.
Leftist authorities in academia are not trying to replace trivia with conceptual information, they are trying to eliminate concrete metrics so that they can admit anyone and give a diploma to even the most cognitively imparied students.
It's not actually about being nice because affirming people constantly doesn't actually help them, it just makes them feel good in the moment. These students waste years of their lives, take on a loan half the size of a mortgage, and enter a job market without any real skills.
If they weren't learning, they'd fail those tests.
If the tests are just asking for trivia like dates and random irrelevant facts then the problem is with that test, not testing itself.
A test can cover every central concept, and ensure that people actually know the definitions for the concepts and when they are applied.
Leftist authorities in academia are not trying to replace trivia with conceptual information, they are trying to eliminate concrete metrics so that they can admit anyone and give a diploma to even the most cognitively imparied students.
It's not actually about being nice because affirming people constantly doesn't actually help them, it just makes them feel good in the moment. These students waste years of their lives, take on a loan half the size of a mortgage, and enter a job market without any real skills.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 1 month ago, 37 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,233
@1,441,217 (D)
Invalidates the point of tests, obviously. Kids aren't taught how to learn properly, they're taught specifically how to pass the test. It means kids leave school and enter academia and haven't a clue how to operate because they're conditioned that learning = surviving the meat grinder.
Invalidates the point of tests, obviously. Kids aren't taught how to learn properly, they're taught specifically how to pass the test. It means kids leave school and enter academia and haven't a clue how to operate because they're conditioned that learning = surviving the meat grinder.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,237
I still can't dig up any reference to SAT being discontinued
the best I can find is something called "subject tests", which I had never heard of in the first place, and the COVID-related suspension of essay writing test
the best I can find is something called "subject tests", which I had never heard of in the first place, and the COVID-related suspension of essay writing test
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,238
@1,441,233 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> Invalidates the point of tests, obviously.
Tests invalidate the point of tests?
That's a nonsense statement
> Kids aren't taught how to learn properly, they're taught specifically how to pass the test.
The point of a test is to see if you know the material being tested for.
If you are learning to pass the test, you are learning the material it is testing for.
> it means kids leave school and enter academia and haven't a clue how to operate because they're conditioned that learning = surviving the meat grinder.
Another nonsense metaphor.
If you go to college and can't show that you understand what was covered in the lecture, that's going to be a problem there too.
> Invalidates the point of tests, obviously.
Tests invalidate the point of tests?
That's a nonsense statement
> Kids aren't taught how to learn properly, they're taught specifically how to pass the test.
The point of a test is to see if you know the material being tested for.
If you are learning to pass the test, you are learning the material it is testing for.
> it means kids leave school and enter academia and haven't a clue how to operate because they're conditioned that learning = surviving the meat grinder.
Another nonsense metaphor.
If you go to college and can't show that you understand what was covered in the lecture, that's going to be a problem there too.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 31 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,239
Apparently article talked about mainly California. Not sure if other states adopted this.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 1 month ago, 11 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,240
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,241
@1,441,237 (boof)
Depends on the school.
The ones that got rid of it didn't do it all at once, but there was a period of time where a lot of them dropped it close to each other.
Find a university near you and search Google in the news tab with the name + SAT requirement and it will probably pop up if they were on of the schools that did it.
Depends on the school.
The ones that got rid of it didn't do it all at once, but there was a period of time where a lot of them dropped it close to each other.
Find a university near you and search Google in the news tab with the name + SAT requirement and it will probably pop up if they were on of the schools that did it.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,243
@1,441,240 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> I think you're being retarded on purpose.
You just said tests invalidate the point of tests.
If you were talking to someone and they said that about literally anything else would it make sense?
You still haven't explained why it's a problem for students to learn for the test when the test is measuring their knowledge of the subject matter.
> I think you're being retarded on purpose.
You just said tests invalidate the point of tests.
If you were talking to someone and they said that about literally anything else would it make sense?
You still haven't explained why it's a problem for students to learn for the test when the test is measuring their knowledge of the subject matter.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 4 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,244
other geographical political entities around the world have educational board tests that are part of the school system, not a third party company that makes money of it
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 55 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,245
@previous (boof)
Right, but America tends to operate this way no matter what aspect of society you look at.
Healthcare works this way, the military works this way.
Right, but America tends to operate this way no matter what aspect of society you look at.
Healthcare works this way, the military works this way.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,246
@1,441,243 (D)
> You just said tests invalidate the point of tests
No, you made that up in your head and then commented that it doesn't make sense without seeming to notice that maybe that fact indicates that you've read it wrong
> You just said tests invalidate the point of tests
No, you made that up in your head and then commented that it doesn't make sense without seeming to notice that maybe that fact indicates that you've read it wrong
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,247
👨🏫 -"I want to see if my students know how to solve this math problem. This will help me decide what to review in my next class, and let me accurately grade their profficiency."
🥴 -"That will just measure their ability to pass the test. Students will just learn to answer the questions correctly."
👨🏫 -"You only pass if you know the material you are supposed to know so that's fine. Studying for the answers is the same thing as studying the material, those two things are the same thing"
🥴 -"You're retarded"
👨🏫 -"..."
🥴 -"That will just measure their ability to pass the test. Students will just learn to answer the questions correctly."
👨🏫 -"You only pass if you know the material you are supposed to know so that's fine. Studying for the answers is the same thing as studying the material, those two things are the same thing"
🥴 -"You're retarded"
👨🏫 -"..."
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,248
@1,441,246 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
If students are learning to pass the test, and the test is about the material, then the students are doing exactly what they should be doing.
What's the actual problem here?
"Oh no! The students learned how to solve this equation, but they did it to pass the test! That doesn't count as learning for some reason!"
If students are learning to pass the test, and the test is about the material, then the students are doing exactly what they should be doing.
What's the actual problem here?
"Oh no! The students learned how to solve this equation, but they did it to pass the test! That doesn't count as learning for some reason!"
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D triple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,249
@1,441,200 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> Tests are usually pretty sucky because it usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point.
@1,441,217 (D)
> Invalidates what point? Don't be vague.
@1,441,233 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> Invalidates the point of tests, obviously.
@1,441,246 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Here's the direct quote of you saying it, in context since you are claiming I made it up in my head .
> Tests are usually pretty sucky because it usually means kids are taught only to pass the tests which invalidates the point.
@1,441,217 (D)
> Invalidates what point? Don't be vague.
@1,441,233 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> Invalidates the point of tests, obviously.
@1,441,246 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Here's the direct quote of you saying it, in context since you are claiming I made it up in my head .
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,252
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,255
as far as the idea that something is wrong with the tests for sectors in society, the only compelling argument that I can find is that families with more money can pay for training classes for taking the tests, while poor folks not
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,262
@previous (boof)
We live in a world with inequality, and not every student has the same opportunity to succeed, I agree.
But that's true even if you replace tests with a portfolio. In fact, it's more true.
A poor student can find some quiet place to study, and put the time in.
Who can buy art supplies? Who can get transportation to an extracurricular, and pay the fees? Who has the chance to get a mentor or instructor for an expensive instrument?
Tests are egalitarian compared to the alternative. Portfolios and extracurriculars are for those who have the money generally
We live in a world with inequality, and not every student has the same opportunity to succeed, I agree.
But that's true even if you replace tests with a portfolio. In fact, it's more true.
A poor student can find some quiet place to study, and put the time in.
Who can buy art supplies? Who can get transportation to an extracurricular, and pay the fees? Who has the chance to get a mentor or instructor for an expensive instrument?
Tests are egalitarian compared to the alternative. Portfolios and extracurriculars are for those who have the money generally
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,263
portfolio sounds like a bother
what, I keep a giant folder of my shit? fuck
what, I keep a giant folder of my shit? fuck
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,264
@previous (boof)
Plus English classes have become a lot more about sharing personal information, and less about following grammatical or rhetorical principles.
The teacher wants you to share an experience where you cried and shit your pants, double spaced. Some students jump on it because they've done that and want to talk about themselves.
Raise your hand and say "I don't really have something like that" and they dismiss it and say "If you try you will think of something".
Then all those essays get posted in the hallway for everyone to read.
Plus English classes have become a lot more about sharing personal information, and less about following grammatical or rhetorical principles.
The teacher wants you to share an experience where you cried and shit your pants, double spaced. Some students jump on it because they've done that and want to talk about themselves.
Raise your hand and say "I don't really have something like that" and they dismiss it and say "If you try you will think of something".
Then all those essays get posted in the hallway for everyone to read.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,266
"That Time the Floor Sweeper Cornholed me By the Boiler"
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Mr. Bloody Sunday joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 12 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,407
@1,441,203 (A)
> Like I can tell you low income shouldn’t have anything to do with what’s going on in K-12 grade school.
You have absolutely no idea. Some of the public schools in America are BAD. There are some schools here my parents would never have sent me to. Some schools have problems with gangs and fighting. If you’re unlucky enough to be born into a family that can only send you to as school like that, you’re not going to college, you’re just not, not with these acceptance rates.
> Like I can tell you low income shouldn’t have anything to do with what’s going on in K-12 grade school.
You have absolutely no idea. Some of the public schools in America are BAD. There are some schools here my parents would never have sent me to. Some schools have problems with gangs and fighting. If you’re unlucky enough to be born into a family that can only send you to as school like that, you’re not going to college, you’re just not, not with these acceptance rates.
Mr. Bloody Sunday double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,408
Also I don’t think this was ever a democrats vs republicans thing. I didn’t have to take it myself, it was because of the pandemic. That’s the entire reason why the universities did it and then they were reluctant to change it back because they realized that it’s sort of a crapshoot anyway so they were never judging solely based off the test in the first place since you also have to write essays, so why not just ignore the test completely and go based off of years of grades rather than a test you took once or twice?
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,411
@previous (Mr. Bloody Sunday)
Universities make money by admitting students.
Turning away retards is leaving $100,000 on the table each time.
Abandoning academic principles and pretending everyone is intelligent in their own way allows you to rake in the cash.
Universities make money by admitting students.
Turning away retards is leaving $100,000 on the table each time.
Abandoning academic principles and pretending everyone is intelligent in their own way allows you to rake in the cash.
Mr. Bloody Sunday joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,413
Mr. Bloody Sunday double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,414
Mr. Bloody Sunday triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,415
Acceptance rates at universities have been declining over time, the acceptance rates at the top public schools are similar to what the acceptance rates were at Ivy League schools decades ago.
Mr. Bloody Sunday quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,416
I’m just saying, boomers like complaining about college having too many ethnic minorities because they think they’re entitled to success for being white, but if you tell a graduating high school student that it’s too easy to get into college the day after they get their decisions back, most likely, they’re going to think you’re crazy.Mr. Bloody Sunday quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,417
Even if you don’t like that this is the case, it’s just the case, America is a really big country. If tens of thousands of students go to the same university, chances are, you’re not unique. There’s somebody else who looks exactly like you, there isn’t space for everybody, everybody can’t get in. How do they decide between people? They use a holistic approach and make sure your grades are good enough, then they’ll look at your essays and determine whether you sound like you’re passionate about what you want to study and know what you’re doing with your life. Not satisfying? Oh well, that’s how it works. It’s a crapshoot.
Mr. Bloody Sunday sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,418
Now whether you have the test or whether you don’t have the test, the universities already have a holistic approach and they’re entitled to that right, so even if the government started requiring the test, it’s not like anything will actually change because the universities can always come up with a host of other reasons to reject you apart from your test scores. They literally train lawyers, do you really think they won’t find a loophole?
Mr. Bloody Sunday septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,419
Now the alternative is we could have admissions based on nothing but the test and be like China, but there’s a reason why so many Chinese students would rather come here.
Mr. Bloody Sunday octuple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,420
Now, the real thing you should look at, isn’t what percentage of a college is black or Asian or white or whatever, but what percentage of the students come from families who are top 10% earners and top 1% earners. Compare state schools to Ivy League colleges in that respect, it’s so much worse than the race thing. It’s so much worse.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,422
@1,441,414 (Mr. Bloody Sunday)1. That's because of more applicants.
2. Harvard only suspended SATs for 2 years, many schools just got rid of it altogether.
3. You're cherypicking a school that is notoriously unique. Most students don't try for Harvard.
4. Harvard doesn't make it's money off tuition, they give students free tuition unless they are from a family that has like $200K+ income.
> boomers like complaining about college having too many ethnic minorities because they think they’re entitled to success for being white
The actual complaint is that they pick minorities that underperform at the expense of students with better scores.
A "holistic approach" wouldn't have a pattern of specific minorities getting lower SAT/GMAT/MCAT scores but subpoenas have proven that Harvard does give preferential treatment to underperforming minorities, and continued to do so after the courts ordered them to stop.
If Harvard wants to take public money, they should follow the civil rights act and base decisions on merit not race.
For the top decile, Whites had a 15% acceptance rate and African-Americans had a 56% acceptance rate. Pic related.
A 39 point difference in acceptance rate for whites and blacks at the same academic performance is proof that Harvard is giving preference to blacks.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,423
@previous (D)
Black students underperform because schools in black neighborhoods are underfunded. The universities wouldn’t need to do this if all schools were funded at the state level instead of at the local level.
Black students underperform because schools in black neighborhoods are underfunded. The universities wouldn’t need to do this if all schools were funded at the state level instead of at the local level.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,424
To be honest, when I was still in grade school, a lot of white teachers had a bias against me because I was black. I still performed well, but the fact that black students underperform and blacks in the US earn lower wages than whites is actually due to anti blackness in American culture.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,425
Harvard is also a private university. So I’m not sure what that part is about. Harvard is actually older than the United States, they’ve never been dependent on the government for their existence and given their endowment they probably never will be.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,426
@1,441,422 (D)
> 4. Harvard doesn't make its money off tuition, they give students free tuition unless they are from a family that has like $200K+ income.
Don’t underestimate how many students at Ivy League universities come from families that make more than $200k/year.
> 4. Harvard doesn't make its money off tuition, they give students free tuition unless they are from a family that has like $200K+ income.
Don’t underestimate how many students at Ivy League universities come from families that make more than $200k/year.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,427
This is all the way from 2012:
"approximately 45.6 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from families with incomes above $200,000"
"According to the census, about 96 percent of American households make less than $200,000 a year"
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/diversity-lack-figures-evidence-harvard/
The race thing really isn’t the problem you think it is.
"approximately 45.6 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from families with incomes above $200,000"
"According to the census, about 96 percent of American households make less than $200,000 a year"
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/diversity-lack-figures-evidence-harvard/
The race thing really isn’t the problem you think it is.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,428
I’m just gonna say straight up: if black people were literally banned from Harvard, that wouldn’t give you specifically as a white person a higher chance of getting accepted unless you’re richer than 96% of Americans.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 48 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,429
@1,441,423 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
@1,441,424 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
There's a big difference between "boomers" complaining about underperforming whites not getting in, which is how you framed it, and the reality which is that people see Harvard admissions as racist because they actually do use race as such a big factor that it leads to a 39-point difference in admissions.
The idea that they need that handicap to make up for bad schools is an entirely seperate claim.
And you might notice Asians are discriminated against the most, but the "empathetic" liberals are completely fine with that form of racism.
It's been conservatives who talk about that and advocate race-blind admissions.
Also, a class-based affirmative action would account for poverty-related disadvantages, and the Trump admin has said they wouldn't fight that when these cases come up. The resistance always comes from racist democrats who call it "class reductionist". Democrats are fine with discriminating against whites from the trailer parks, and giving preference to the blacks who come from wealthier backgrounds.
Nothing about the liberal stance here is actually about merit or equality. It'a all about racial resentment.
@1,441,424 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
There's a big difference between "boomers" complaining about underperforming whites not getting in, which is how you framed it, and the reality which is that people see Harvard admissions as racist because they actually do use race as such a big factor that it leads to a 39-point difference in admissions.
The idea that they need that handicap to make up for bad schools is an entirely seperate claim.
And you might notice Asians are discriminated against the most, but the "empathetic" liberals are completely fine with that form of racism.
It's been conservatives who talk about that and advocate race-blind admissions.
Also, a class-based affirmative action would account for poverty-related disadvantages, and the Trump admin has said they wouldn't fight that when these cases come up. The resistance always comes from racist democrats who call it "class reductionist". Democrats are fine with discriminating against whites from the trailer parks, and giving preference to the blacks who come from wealthier backgrounds.
Nothing about the liberal stance here is actually about merit or equality. It'a all about racial resentment.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 11 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,430
But here’s a quick IQ test: do you think life is fair?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,431
@1,441,429 (D)
Dude, I get that you’re jealous of blacks who are more successful than you who get accepted to Harvard at a much higher rate than your race does. But it doesn’t matter if Harvard literally banned black people, you’re not going to Harvard. That’s just the truth of the matter.
Dude, I get that you’re jealous of blacks who are more successful than you who get accepted to Harvard at a much higher rate than your race does. But it doesn’t matter if Harvard literally banned black people, you’re not going to Harvard. That’s just the truth of the matter.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,432
@1,441,428 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> I’m just gonna say straight up: if black people were literally banned from Harvard, that wouldn’t give you specifically as a white person a higher chance of getting accepted unless you’re richer than 96% of Americans.
You know my position is a race-blind admissions test.
Pretending that I, or "boomers", want preference for whites is disingenous. It's a strawman because you don't actually have any good criticisma of a race-blind (and possibly class-based AA) so you will just keep up with this nonsense.
I'm not playing the same game again today, bye.
> I’m just gonna say straight up: if black people were literally banned from Harvard, that wouldn’t give you specifically as a white person a higher chance of getting accepted unless you’re richer than 96% of Americans.
You know my position is a race-blind admissions test.
Pretending that I, or "boomers", want preference for whites is disingenous. It's a strawman because you don't actually have any good criticisma of a race-blind (and possibly class-based AA) so you will just keep up with this nonsense.
I'm not playing the same game again today, bye.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 7 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,433
You know what Harvard’s acceptance rate is? 4.2%. The odds of something happening at least once are 1-(1-p)^n. P is 0.042. Given those odds of getting accepted do you know how many times you would need to apply to Harvard to have a 50% chance of getting in at least once. You would have to apply 16 times.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 50 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,434
This literally does not affect you in any way. It’s hardly less fair to you as a white person than it would be if 100% of black people were literally banned from going to Harvard. I’m sorry, this just doesn’t actually affect you even if you have an ego about it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,435
Hey fun fact: there are 8 ivys. What does that mean? If you apply to all of them, you still probably won’t get in. Sorry, life isn’t fair. There is no way to make this meritocratic no matter how much you believe in the concept. At least they’re trying with the race thing. You should at least be thankful these rich white people at least care about black people for some reason that you’ve never really seemed to address. You know, the fact that these Ivy League universities were run by rich white peoples for literally centuries and they want black people because they’re racist against white people? That doesn’t make any sense.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,436
COCK
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,437
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,438
@1,441,433 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
To be clear, I’m not saying you’d have to apply to Harvard 16 times to get in, I’m saying if 100 people applied to Harvard 16 times each, 50 of them would still be rejected. If you’re concerned over fairness for the average white guy, 96% of them are never going to get in no matter what you do. It’s not going to help the average white guy on any level. It’s really the wrong thing to focus on. We should focus on fixing the public school system and then Harvard wouldn’t need to admit blacks at a higher rate.
To be clear, I’m not saying you’d have to apply to Harvard 16 times to get in, I’m saying if 100 people applied to Harvard 16 times each, 50 of them would still be rejected. If you’re concerned over fairness for the average white guy, 96% of them are never going to get in no matter what you do. It’s not going to help the average white guy on any level. It’s really the wrong thing to focus on. We should focus on fixing the public school system and then Harvard wouldn’t need to admit blacks at a higher rate.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,439
They don’t even do it to give blacks an unfair advantage, they do it so the percentage of blacks at Harvard matches the percentage of the US population that is black to undo the unfairness from American society. It’s not even racist.