SCOTUS Decisions

[5hout]

Affirmative Action thing shot down.

Technically, it was just more racism.

sky is not falling. racial diversity can be achieved by using demographic qualifiers. Give more weight in admissions to people that are poor, single parent households, live in high crime areas, and so forth. Yes, some of these people will be white. A disproportionate amount will be minorities (Latin and black).

This ruling hurts white women the most.

Strong agreement. The schools will still try and filter as much as they can, but they'll have to do it via admitting poor kids. A huge part of how they get their #s currently is admitting rich black kids (often extremely rich international students) and then including them in the stats. Even when they exclude international students in their stats they will not (and did not in this case) prove a breakdown of race by SES.

Also, one of the concurrences says b/c white people can get a racial plus as well it's not discrimination. I'd LOVE to see how many white people got racially plus'd per year. 5? 4? 0? 1? I'll bet it's less than 10.

[mikeylikey]

they'll have to do it via admitting poor kids

[5hout]

they'll have to do it via admitting poor kids

[MEME] Surely you can't be serious[MEME]

Honestly, and depressingly, I'm sure this will help less poor kids than it could. If you're a poor kid with a 1550+ SAT, 36 ACT and a bunch of AP 5s, your generalized top tier admissions chance just shot up a chunk. If you're a poor black kid, it just went down a bit.

But, if you're a poor kid with a bunch of AP 5s, and no ACT/SAT b/c you were lied to about "you don't need the test", you're just as turbofucked as you were before. I'm going to guess that this is a very depressingly high # of kids. People who could take the test, they might have to scrimp/save/beg/borrow/apply for a school grant, who's counselors are telling them "you don't need the scores, you'll get into [Insert really good state school] and go for free without the SAT/ACT. Some of these kids coulda gone to Ivies, they won't without the scores.

The counselors, lest it seem like I am ragging on them, are responding to the pressures they are under the time they don't have to spend arranging special shit. We need to let those kids who can use tests to climb out of a pit, do so. And anyone who lies to children like this can eat a bag of mushy dicks with sores.

Let me stop preaching to the choir here and go do leg day.

[mouse]

Don't tell all those poor kids that they won't be getting that sweet sweet loan forgiveness...

This Supreme Court is fun, can't wait to see what they do next... CNN is panic-baiting saying they're about to hand out guns to convicted domestic abusers?

Woo doggy let's go...

[5hout]

Don't tell all those poor kids that they won't be getting that sweet sweet loan forgiveness...

This Supreme Court is fun, can't wait to see what they do next... CNN is panic-baiting saying they're about to hand out guns to convicted domestic abusers?

Woo doggy let's go...

That case is (IMO) extremely like to get dismissed as improvidently granted in favor of any of the 10s of cases that are better vehicles for smacking down states doing an end run around Bruen (or, in the alternative, get a super narrow ruling).

[BostonRugger]

You do not have to bake the cake. I hope this ruling somehow leads to Jack Philips bringing lawsuit related terror to his enemies.

[aurelius]

Affirmative Action thing shot down.

Technically, it was just more racism.

sky is not falling. racial diversity can be achieved by using demographic qualifiers. Give more weight in admissions to people that are poor, single parent households, live in high crime areas, and so forth. Yes, some of these people will be white. A disproportionate amount will be minorities (Latin and black).

This ruling hurts white women the most.

Do white women with similar socio-economic backgrounds as other people do worse in college admissions? It seems like moving to the qualifiers you mentioned is a big feature, not a bug.

what I read: women are considered a minority group and have benefited from affirmative action programs. Schools not really interested in racial diversity have padded their diversity stats by admitting white women. I think we can all agree that white women should not be a high priority when trying to help disadvantaged groups…

I think affirmative action is a failed (reparations) program that needed repurposing 3 decades ago. The issues we face are mostly class related. Race simply obscures that. This will allow (force) the higher education system to dig deep and really justify admission decisions. Definitely a feature!

[dw]

I don't think that's accurate about white women, that they are an AA category. They're actually a larger slice of college students now than males iirc.

Maybe it was true when Title IX passed in 1972 (per google).

[aurelius]

I don't think that's accurate about white women, that they are an AA category. They're actually a larger slice of college students now than males iirc.

I think this is the point. Women are considered a minority group (maybe the language is disadvantaged group?). Do white women really need 'assistance' to gain access to higher education? The data point you mention says no.

My issue with the ruling is not the outcome. From a policy standpoint, Affirmative Action was not effective and only caused more division. Race is a distraction. Class is the issue. This will clear the way for far more effective policies to create that oh so precious diversity (which is not the point) and result in more social mobility (the actual fucking point). My issue is this was not a legal ruling. This was SCOTUS enacting policy from the bench. Affirmative Action has 50+ years of court rulings and the plain text of the laws that this court simply ignored to enforce their policy preference. This court is a problem.

As a nation we are running on laws enacted 50+ years ago which identified issues of those times. Which 1) probably incorrectly identified and addressed those issues and 2) are no longer issues. Congress needs to get off its ass and pass new laws to address the myriad of issues we face. But Democrats seem to be stuck with a playbook from the Civil Rights movement from the 1960's and Republicans are too chicken shit to actually pass any legislation other than tax cuts for the wealthy. We are fucked.

[mbasic]

this belongs here

[Hardartery]

My issue with the ruling is not the outcome. From a policy standpoint, Affirmative Action was not effective and only caused more division. Race is a distraction. Class is the issue. This will clear the way for far more effective policies to create that oh so precious diversity (which is not the point) and result in more social mobility (the actual fucking point).

I could not agree more with this part. And it isn't just the US, most of the world has this issue but only the West has people with enough free time to make a scene about it. Everywhere else the disadvantaged are too busy not starving.

[BostonRugger]

I don't think that's accurate about white women, that they are an AA category. They're actually a larger slice of college students now than males iirc.

I think this is the point. Women are considered a minority group (maybe the language is disadvantaged group?). Do white women really need 'assistance' to gain access to higher education? The data point you mention says no.

My issue with the ruling is not the outcome. From a policy standpoint, Affirmative Action was not effective and only caused more division. Race is a distraction. Class is the issue. This will clear the way for far more effective policies to create that oh so precious diversity (which is not the point) and result in more social mobility (the actual fucking point). My issue is this was not a legal ruling. This was SCOTUS enacting policy from the bench. Affirmative Action has 50+ years of court rulings and the plain text of the laws that this court simply ignored to enforce their policy preference. This court is a problem.

As a nation we are running on laws enacted 50+ years ago which identified issues of those times. Which 1) probably incorrectly identified and addressed those issues and 2) are no longer issues. Congress needs to get off its ass and pass new laws to address the myriad of issues we face. But Democrats seem to be stuck with a playbook from the Civil Rights movement from the 1960's and Republicans are too chicken shit to actually pass any legislation other than tax cuts for the wealthy. We are fucked.

Perhaps the institutions could pursue their noble social mobility/diversity goals within the English, Humanities, Psychology departments. Ruthless meritocracy for anyone who might be involved with critical infrastructure, medicine, etc.

[aurelius]

Perhaps the institutions could pursue their noble social mobility/diversity goals within the English, Humanities, Psychology departments. Ruthless meritocracy for anyone who might be involved with critical infrastructure, medicine, etc.

I never understood the stated goal of diversity. Why is diversity in education 'better'? I never got a clear answer on that. Maybe there is one.

For me and thinking about my college experience: Does it matter at a school of 40,000 that there are minority greek houses? That somehow a handful of minority students 'brought a different viewpoint' that made any difference in the white college students experience? Or what life experience a bunch of middle class or better minority students brought to the table that was significantly different than white middle class or better life experience?

I get using access to higher educations as tool for social mobility. And do believe that is a worthy policy to pursue. I also see it as a better utilization of society's human resources. Let's identify those capable of contributing more and give them opportunities. We all benefit.

Take two students:
--Student A: middle class or better, two parent household, low crime area, strong social institutions.
--Student B: lower class, one parent household, high crime area, weak social institutions

Student A should outperform Student B. They have significantly more resources and opportunities available to them. What if Student B managed to have above average grades/test scores, stay out of trouble, and so forth. What could they do if given opportunity and had more resources made available to them?

I have been in a hiring position for several years. In the context I hire people with engineering degrees: Give me Student B over Student A. My hires that came from Student B backgrounds outperform the Student A backgrounds 70% of the time. It is almost to the point that a Student A background has to kill it in an interview for me to hire them. Mostly its I don't need one more entitled white kid who won't work more than 40 hours but expects to be fast tracked to the CEO position day 1. No thanks. I would LOVE the opportunity to hire more Student B's.

[BostonRugger]

I have been in a hiring position for several years. In the context I hire people with engineering degrees: Give me Student B over Student A. My hires that came from Student B backgrounds outperform the Student A backgrounds 70% of the time. It is almost to the point that a Student A background has to kill it in an interview for me to hire them. Mostly its I don't need one more entitled white kid who won't work more than 40 hours but expects to be fast tracked to the CEO position day 1. No thanks. I would LOVE the opportunity to hire more Student B's.

What do you look for in resume or interview to determine A background vs B background (can imagine ex: Ivy League vs Opalacka State, but what else)? Can we define Aurelius' Normalized Struggle Metric (ANSM)?

[quikky]

I have been in a hiring position for several years. In the context I hire people with engineering degrees: Give me Student B over Student A. My hires that came from Student B backgrounds outperform the Student A backgrounds 70% of the time. It is almost to the point that a Student A background has to kill it in an interview for me to hire them. Mostly its I don't need one more entitled white kid who won't work more than 40 hours but expects to be fast tracked to the CEO position day 1. No thanks. I would LOVE the opportunity to hire more Student B's.

What do you look for in resume or interview to determine A background vs B background (can imagine ex: Ivy League vs Opalacka State, but what else)? Can we define Aurelius' Normalized Struggle Metric (ANSM)?

Don't know for sure but seems the employer might not appreciate the ANSM, as it might be illegal and asking for a discrimination lawsuit.

[BostonRugger]

I have been in a hiring position for several years. In the context I hire people with engineering degrees: Give me Student B over Student A. My hires that came from Student B backgrounds outperform the Student A backgrounds 70% of the time. It is almost to the point that a Student A background has to kill it in an interview for me to hire them. Mostly its I don't need one more entitled white kid who won't work more than 40 hours but expects to be fast tracked to the CEO position day 1. No thanks. I would LOVE the opportunity to hire more Student B's.

What do you look for in resume or interview to determine A background vs B background (can imagine ex: Ivy League vs Opalacka State, but what else)? Can we define Aurelius' Normalized Struggle Metric (ANSM)?

Don't know for sure but seems the employer might not appreciate the ANSM, as it might be illegal and asking for a discrimination lawsuit.

Maybe. I don't know that people with upper middle to upper class backgrounds (and SAT tutors or whatever) qualify as a discrete and insular minority, protected as a class from employment discrimination.

[aurelius]

What do you look for in resume or interview to determine A background vs B background (can imagine ex: Ivy League vs Opalacka State, but what else)? Can we define Aurelius' Normalized Struggle Metric (ANSM)?

Resumes tell you jack shit about a candidate. Especially a hire out of college. The interview is really the differentiator. Most people will volunteer information with little prodding. Prodding questions:
Where did you grow up?
Did you work in school?
What are your hobbies/interests?
Tell me a situation where you struggled?
How have you displayed leadership? Can you give me an example?
What is a situation where you overcame an obstacle?
And so forth.

I look for specific answers. An interviewee that gives general answers to these questions is a red flag.

If I have two 'equal' candidates on paper , I'll give the candidate that had a job while going to school or struggled balancing priorities over someone that life's greatest demands on them was going to class. I really like 'older' candidates that had other jobs/careers then went back to engineering school while working (often married with families). I know they will know how to balance priorities and work hard. Someone can 100% present well, be a Student A, and get the offer. It is far more subjective than people want to admit. Meritocracy I don't know of a test score that will directly correlate to drive, work ethic, and ability to learn on one's own*. Which are the greatest predictors of success for developing engineers.

That being said I do have some great workers that are Student A types. Most of those are women...my biggest issue is Student A white males. A higher percentage of them are utterly mediocre but feel entitled to be fast tracked to riches. Don't know what to say other than that is my experience. Take it for what it is worth.

*I am finding that college is no longer teaching the underlined. These kids sit through 4 years of powerpoint presentations with everything bullet pointed for them and notes already prepared. They lack the ability to research and come up with answers on their own. It is big problem we don't know how to address.

[CaptainAwesome]

Maybe disadvantaged young people (of any racial demographic) would be better served by a society that isn't just a sharp divide between overachievers with no work/life balance and people just struggling to get by...who also get to have work/life balance issues. It'd work better than just pushing them into colleges they really aren't ready to function in. Not everyone is a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire. Not everyone can be a successful entrepreneur or high-demand skilled worker. That doesn't mean they deserve to live with no dignity or happiness.

I admit, I kinda just hate the entire university system, I have ever since the teachers in high school were constantly trying to hype us up about it.

[Philbert]

I don't think that's accurate about white women, that they are an AA category. They're actually a larger slice of college students now than males iirc.

I think this is the point. Women are considered a minority group (maybe the language is disadvantaged group?). Do white women really need 'assistance' to gain access to higher education? The data point you mention says no.

My issue with the ruling is not the outcome. From a policy standpoint, Affirmative Action was not effective and only caused more division. Race is a distraction. Class is the issue. This will clear the way for far more effective policies to create that oh so precious diversity (which is not the point) and result in more social mobility (the actual fucking point). My issue is this was not a legal ruling. This was SCOTUS enacting policy from the bench. Affirmative Action has 50+ years of court rulings and the plain text of the laws that this court simply ignored to enforce their policy preference. This court is a problem.

As a nation we are running on laws enacted 50+ years ago which identified issues of those times. Which 1) probably incorrectly identified and addressed those issues and 2) are no longer issues. Congress needs to get off its ass and pass new laws to address the myriad of issues we face. But Democrats seem to be stuck with a playbook from the Civil Rights movement from the 1960's and Republicans are too chicken shit to actually pass any legislation other than tax cuts for the wealthy. We are fucked.

Question about the bolded part, do you categorically disagree with the idea of the Supreme court invalidating unconstitutional legislation? And if not, how was AA ever actually constitutional, aside from some penumbra emanating from the intent of the equal protection clause, or other such sophistry?

[BostonRugger]

my biggest issue is Student A white males. [/i]

So bold. So controversial.