[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Those Harvard stats are the rockers twisted.

First of all - there should be a maximum limit as to how many foreigners are accepted - a nation's university should be mostly for the national citizens, though the plan is for this globalist multicult bullshit, so I guess a lot of Asians/Chinese and some Indians should not be accepted.

Second the number of local Asians should probably be higher since they are punished in the scores, also the number of blacks and Latinos are off the rockers high - 14% and 11%? This can only go with massive immense SAT point bonus and diversity hires. The real stats should be in the low single digits if meritocracy reigned. And this would not be so bad - those that would be accepted would be super-smart and disciplined.

So regardless what everyone thinks - for Ivy Leagues those affirmative action programs are highly destructive for every Asian and White local. The massive foreign Chinese influx is also bollocks as Asian Americans get sidelined because the daddy of a Chinese mainland student who bareely speaks English donates 1 mio. $ to the Harvard fund - and that Chinese student fulfills the diversity requirement while the US born Chinese-American does not.

-------------------------------


I think that if anything comes out of it then only white women will be affected and will get demoted in the oppression olympics scale. Something similar happened now recently in South Africa, so I expect this to happen now in the US college system.

As for colleges - if you did them like in the 1970s, you would make most basically free or extremely cheap, but the admission process would be tough. Most would not qualify.

But currently colleges have 3 main functions:


1) Education by propaganda that the student pays for himself or herself - mostly via loans. It's as if Stalin and Goebbels get money from the serfs to go and watch propaganda vids that they put out for them. Essentially most universities are re-education center gulags that everyone pays for - you get that bullshit even if you study something useful or get many Ivy League connections for your future life.

2) The 1.2 trillion college debt bubble of non-extinguishable life debt will make the serfs obedient serfs for life. That is also why under-qualified diverse or female students get approved 80k loans for a useless gender-studies degree.

3) Pushing all the people at the current system into the job market or trade schools won't work either. And the reason is that COLLEGES HAVE BECOME UNEMPLOYMENT SOFTENING MEASURES. In the past people with lower IQs were either employed by the military or public service. Now it seems that they pump many into colleges - at the very least they are very lackluster and average. If all of them rushed into the job market as they used to do in the 1940s to 70s, then you would see how high the unemployment would really be - 15% at the least. The globalists have shipped too many jobs offshore and changed the economic system - they obviously don't need that many qualified workers. At least many new jobs are being created in the Orwellian police system of SJW gender consultants and fake college rape committees or bloated administration staff - for example 1/3 of the student body being comprised of staff which is ridiculous by world standards. But I would call these also measures which reward the useful ideological idiots to brainwash further the population - they are similar to the Red Book waving communist commissars of old who were rewarded with moderately well-paying jobs and some power.

[mpr]

(08-02-2017 12:50 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Is it supposed to be a bad thing that (white) women get shafted if affirmative action is removed?

1. Women now dominate college 60% to 40%
2. Women like to date at or preferably above their own 'level'
3. Women heavily go into social sciences, where they get indoctrinated with SJW bullshit and come out hardcore feminists with notch counts in the double digits

Fewer women in college? Sounds like a win to me

That said, it seems they're specifically targeting racial affirmative action, not gender or legacy based.

I like more women in college. Having a disproportionate amount of 18-23 year old females in the same place is a giant perk. Also having more college educated women raises the barriers to entry on the dating market for non-college educated men. Meaning more women for me. I agree with you about the SJW indoctrination. But most women lose that when they get reintegrated into society post college. The one's that don't are bitter losers who would have become indoctrinated with feminist propaganda though Tumbr, Jezebel, and Buzzfeed anyway.

[Leonard D Neubache]

As Samseau mentioned in another thread, white candidates are not only getting fucked from the affirmative action end but from the favours-for-(((friends))) system at the other end where (((2%))) of the population favour the applications of (((certain applicants))) and count it towards the quota for whites, despite those (((certain applicants))) having hostile tribal goals to said whites.

As I alluded to in my first post on this thread. If (((2%))) of the population, which if they were honest are as racially segregated as any other minority, got 2% of all college enrolments then the kvetching would go into extremis.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, echoed that view on Wednesday.

“The idea of discriminating against Asians in order to make room for other minorities doesn’t seem right as a matter of principle,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

Mr. Dershowitz said that investigating discrimination against whites, however, raised a different set of questions.

“Generically, whites have not been the subject of historic discrimination,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “When you start getting into subgroups of whites, then the question becomes a more subtle one.”

The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority. In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed a quota to lower the number of Jewish students.

That history, Mr. Dershowitz said, made affirmative action opponents wary of admissions policies that resulted in a college population reflecting a group’s share of the general population.

Everyone else gets classified according to their race... cept Jews. Jews are a religion, unless you fly to Israel then you basically need a DNA test to prove you are Jewish. They don't use any fancy equipment yet, they rely on proof of your family history - which is exactly what the word "race" means. See: http://etymonline.com/index.html?term=rac...in_frame=0

Affirmative action, in order to be fair, would either need to include Jews into racial quotas, or not place quotas on anyone. The whole "disadvantaged minority" means nothing because everyone comes from a disadvantaged background if you go far back in time enough. Why does someone who was disadvantaged 200 years ago any more special than someone disadvantaged 400, 500, or 3000 years ago? Where is the line drawn?

It's all a scam designed to play Whites at the end of the day.

[Suits]

According to some statistics I dug up, the current undergraduate enrolment, nationwide, in the USA is 17 million. A typically total undergraduate enrolment at all Ivy League schools is 58,000. Which means that Ivy League undergraduates account for 0.3% of all US undergraduates.

This is more symbolic than anything else. Even if you eliminated all Ivy League schools, I think the rich & powerful would still find a way to introduce their kids to each other.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-03-2017 07:35 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

As Samseau mentioned in another thread, white candidates are not only getting fucked from the affirmative action end but from the favours-for-(((friends))) system at the other end where (((2%))) of the population favour the applications of (((certain applicants))) and count it towards the quota for whites, despite those (((certain applicants))) having hostile tribal goals to said whites.

As I alluded to in my first post on this thread. If (((2%))) of the population, which if they were honest are as racially segregated as any other minority, got 2% of all college enrolments then the kvetching would go into extremis.

North Asian and even Indian Americans will be over-represented vs White "Christians" for lack of a better word in academia. The same will be true of the Hebrew tribe. This is not rocket science - you simply take a look at IQs in the US and whether they extol the virtues of education and intellectual pursuit. I think it was Gad Saad who said that Jewish parents consider an MBA or BA as the equivalent of a high-school dropout. Only a PhD counts among them as having a minimum level of education.

By that same measure I could say that Nigerian Christian immigrants will outperform both blacks and even partly Whites. Many of their immigrants are higher-IQ and most importantly they have a strong work-ethic - also having a 2 parent household helps tremendously of course.

Though to be fair - as Suits noted - the rich will obviously find a way for their kids to go to the Ivy Leagues - in addition there are plenty of other networking activities aside from universities.

[Suits]

I have a proposal.

There's no question that an argument can be made that certain racial groups are more likely to be born into a situation where they struggle to succeed in high school at their full potential. Whether this argument is a legitimate justification for letting members of certain groups get into certain schools with lower test scores than they would otherwise be permitted is a debate I don't care to venture into, but I do have a solution to certain groups using their personal connections to get into Ivy League schools at a shocking level of likelihood.

They should introduce blind application processes. Personal interviews would be pass/fail and would not produce a score that would contribute to the eventual acceptance/rejection decision. Anyone who passed the personal interview would submit an application with a number only. The application could only contain information that would not allow for the personal identification of each individual.

The application would be scored by a third party individual who would be chosen at random. They wouldn't know the applicants number, only a secondary number. They would sit alone in a room and score each application and then return the score to a person who would not be permitted to view the score whose only job would be to place the final score into an envelope assigned to the correct applicant.

A panel of people from different ethnic groups would open the application envelopes as a group and assemble an ordered acceptance list based purely on the scores received by the independent scorers.

At this stage, a minimal number of points could be added or removed based on race and results adjusted as such, if the school wished to or was required to under federal requirements.

Result: no one can use the family-friends-system to get their kid accepted.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-04-2017 01:34 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I have a proposal.

There's no question that an argument can be made that certain racial groups are more likely to be born into a situation where they struggle to succeed in high school at their full potential. Whether this argument is a legitimate justification for letting members of certain groups get into certain schools with lower test scores than they would otherwise be permitted is a debate I don't care to venture into, but I do have a solution to certain groups using their personal connections to get into Ivy League schools at a shocking level of likelihood.

They should introduce blind application processes. Personal interviews would be pass/fail and would not produce a score that would contribute to the eventual acceptance/rejection decision. Anyone who passed the personal interview would submit an application with a number only. The application could only contain information that would not allow for the personal identification of each individual.

The application would be scored by a third party individual who would be chosen at random. They wouldn't know the applicants number, only a secondary number. They would sit alone in a room and score each application and then return the score to a person who would not be permitted to view the score whose only job would be to place the final score into an envelope assigned to the correct applicant.

A panel of people from different ethnic groups would open the application envelopes as a group and assemble an ordered acceptance list based purely on the scores received by the independent scorers.

At this stage, a minimal number of points could be added or removed based on race and results adjusted as such, if the school wished to or was required to under federal requirements.

Result: no one can use the family-friends-system to get their kid accepted.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bi...dy/8664888

Very funny - that will never work - Ivy Leagues are mostly about former students, patrons and the rich easily getting their progeny a nice place. Those buggers gave tens of billions to the colleges and are not going to get sidelined for that.

But even assuming that you discount the paid-for-selection because one might argue that there is some merit to the fact that you are entitled to a place due to your parents being alumni and having given 10 mio + -

A blind application process would have such massive results that I can virtually guarantee you that in the best schools you might have a 65%+ male bias and it will be massively shifted towards Asians, Jews and stnadard Whites. We could have even numbers closer to 70% male if SAT tests are taken into account and SAT tests in foreign lands being retaken due to the known fact that they cheat on that.

Blind application processes would be like a nuclear bomb in universities.

[Suits]

(08-04-2017 02:20 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Blind application processes would be like a nuclear bomb in universities.

Perfect.

[Sonoma]

I like the benefit of alumni privilege for private universities, because it enables their massive endowments, and therefore financial aid if I was to have ever been accepted.

I have no issue with legacy admissions in the private sphere

[n0000]

(08-04-2017 02:20 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 01:34 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I have a proposal.

There's no question that an argument can be made that certain racial groups are more likely to be born into a situation where they struggle to succeed in high school at their full potential. Whether this argument is a legitimate justification for letting members of certain groups get into certain schools with lower test scores than they would otherwise be permitted is a debate I don't care to venture into, but I do have a solution to certain groups using their personal connections to get into Ivy League schools at a shocking level of likelihood.

They should introduce blind application processes. Personal interviews would be pass/fail and would not produce a score that would contribute to the eventual acceptance/rejection decision. Anyone who passed the personal interview would submit an application with a number only. The application could only contain information that would not allow for the personal identification of each individual.

The application would be scored by a third party individual who would be chosen at random. They wouldn't know the applicants number, only a secondary number. They would sit alone in a room and score each application and then return the score to a person who would not be permitted to view the score whose only job would be to place the final score into an envelope assigned to the correct applicant.

A panel of people from different ethnic groups would open the application envelopes as a group and assemble an ordered acceptance list based purely on the scores received by the independent scorers.

At this stage, a minimal number of points could be added or removed based on race and results adjusted as such, if the school wished to or was required to under federal requirements.

Result: no one can use the family-friends-system to get their kid accepted.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bi...dy/8664888

Very funny - that will never work - Ivy Leagues are mostly about former students, patrons and the rich easily getting their progeny a nice place. Those buggers gave tens of billions to the colleges and are not going to get sidelined for that.

But even assuming that you discount the paid-for-selection because one might argue that there is some merit to the fact that you are entitled to a place due to your parents being alumni and having given 10 mio + -

A blind application process would have such massive results that I can virtually guarantee you that in the best schools you might have a 65%+ male bias and it will be massively shifted towards Asians, Jews and stnadard Whites. We could have even numbers closer to 70% male if SAT tests are taken into account and SAT tests in foreign lands being retaken due to the known fact that they cheat on that.

Blind application processes would be like a nuclear bomb in universities.

Asians would most likely dominate all top university slots due to a high IQ, an extreme cultural influence on doing well in school(and not all that much else) and maybe cheating/collusion. The western academic tradition is more balanced and well rounded than that however. The Greek philosophers were athletes, in fact "Plato" means "broad chested" a moniker given to him by his wrestling coach. I will let you decide which has produced the superior culture.

[Samseau]

I'm not convinced that Chinese IQ's are higher, only Korean and Japanese. The reason we see so many Asians in the USA is that the smart ones all jump ship in Asia because (as usual) their countries suck.

[Dalaran1991]

This move is great, but I assume it wont do anything to the fact that elite colleges enrollment are getting steamrolled with rich Asian / Arab kids?

Does it count as affirmative action when the action involves paying full / extra tuition fees to the school system?

[Suits]

(08-04-2017 09:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not convinced that Chinese IQ's are higher, only Korean and Japanese. The reason we see so many Asians in the USA is that the smart ones all jump ship in Asia because (as usual) their countries suck.

No reason to base application scoring purely on standardized IQ based tests.

You can also have them sit in a room and produce an essay (Why do you want to go to Harvard?) and grade those. Naturally, all you'd need to do is make the essay questions each round such a complete surprise that no one could memorize their responses in advance.

That should cut down on the Asian supremacy and boost the number of applicants capable of creative thinking.

[Liberty Sea]

(08-04-2017 11:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

No reason to base application scoring purely on standardized IQ based tests.

You can also have them sit in a room and produce an essay (Why do you want to go to Harvard?) and grade those. Naturally, all you'd need to do is make the essay questions each round such a complete surprise that no one could memorize their responses in advance.

I can see how that would work for liberal arts. But what about STEM fields? Medicine? The large chunk of Asians apply for highly technical fields.
I wouldn't want my engineer to be better at writing creative essays on why he wants to go Harvard than at Math.

[Suits]

(08-05-2017 08:02 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

No reason to base application scoring purely on standardized IQ based tests.

You can also have them sit in a room and produce an essay (Why do you want to go to Harvard?) and grade those. Naturally, all you'd need to do is make the essay questions each round such a complete surprise that no one could memorize their responses in advance.

I can see how that would work for liberal arts. But what about STEM fields? Medicine? The large chunk of Asians apply for highly technical fields.
I wouldn't want my engineer to be better at writing creative essays on why he wants to go Harvard than at Math.

Why can't people be scored differently for different programs?

[Genghis Khan]

1. Some schools (e.g. Princeton I believe) don't let you even pick a major when applying. You decide at the end of your first year, or latest middle of your sophomore year.

2. I get the impression SJW admission committees could game an essay system. Essays will always be a subjective matter in terms of grading. Take the question "Why do you want to go to Harvard?"

All you need is some 17 year girl talk about her struggles with the patriarchy, her constant victimhood as a woman and how Harvard will provide her the opportunity to foster change as it's a stepping stone to Harvard Law. Or some bullshit like that.

I'd bet money that an admission officer, especially one in favor of supporting women and underrepresented minorities, would grade that essay more positively. The opposite might apply to an essay that even gives a whiff that the author is a white/Asian male.

I don't think there is a simple solution: anything subjective will inevitably discriminate against one group or another. And anything objective will inevitably discriminate in favor of groups which have higher IQs (the kids of Asian/Indian immigrants).

[stugatz]

I am currently out of college and, considering the psychotic SJW environment I'll be walking into to finish the final year of my bachelor's...I'm fine procrastinating or just never even finishing. (My last class in-country was in 2015, and even since then stuff has changed.)

If this continues...wonderful. I'd given up on academia as a career long ago, but maybe I could go back in a couple of decades and teach as adjunct faculty sometime.

I think women's colleges and men's colleges weren't such a bad idea...

[Gorgiass]

(08-02-2017 12:21 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

Some people are under the illusion that non-white people are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. But the actual facts tell a different story....

White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirma...an-anyone/

So if actually implemented, this will result in less white women in colleage, and more of everyone else.

The article quoted deals entirely with affirmative action as it relates to employment, it doesn't even mention affirmative action for college admissions. School to school varies based on applicant demographics, but on a national basis a slightly higher percentage of men are actually admitted than women, due to higher numbers of women applying overall.

Of course, without comparing the merits of every individual applicant it's impossible to say whether this is affirmative action to the benefit of men either, as men who choose to apply to college as a whole may in fact be more qualified than their female counterparts.

So no, this will not "result in less white women in college, and more of everyone else", even if that was an item to take issue with.

(08-02-2017 12:21 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

Also - Legacy admittance into universities is affirmative action and is rarely labelled accordingly. If letting more people into universities because of their (black/brown/whatever) ancestry is affirmative action, then letting anybody into universties because of their ancestry is also affirmative action.

Something tells me this won't be addressed.

Common sense maybe? Affirmative action is a heavy-handed government mandate which penalizes private institutions for failing to comply with laws issued by those with little first-hand knowledge of the subject they're ruling on, and who are nearly always more interested in the optics and next-day headlines than they are about doing something in the best interest of the parties involved.

Legacy admissions are of the institution's own design (an institution comprised almost entirely of left-wing intellectuals, by the way) and the donations solicited through programs like these boost endowments and enable the less fortunate to attend schools they might never be able to otherwise afford. Is it more moral for Bernie to take this money from the alumni through threat of imprisonment and redistribute as "his" financial aid after filtering it though a bloated bureaucracy?

(08-02-2017 12:21 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

It's pretty funny. Lot of republican legislature gets pushed through because their supporters think it'll hurt groups who arent them the most - when in facts its going to fuck themselves over the hardest.

The word you were looking for was "legislation", but your attribution of a desire to "hurt groups who aren't them" says more about you than it does about the Republicans you're attempting to malign. Let me explain why I tend to oppose affirmative action. As a white man from a lower-middle class background I've been denied work, and therefore had to deny my employees work, because of my gender and color of my skin. The jobs instead went to firms "owned" (at least on paper) by women and minorities who were unable to work as efficiently as we do. They were charging more money for inferior work but got the job anyway, because they looked the right way.

There was one job I had to hire a minority locally to avoid being fined for not having the right demographic makeup of employees (because none had applied - qualified or otherwise) and he spent the first half of every week until his check ran out getting high on either coke or amphetamines in an hourly bathroom break, when he bothered to show up at all. Is that fair to everyone else who applied, who would've shown up for work regularly and might've used the money in ways that would better society at large more than putting it up their nose?

(08-05-2017 12:51 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

2. I get the impression SJW admission committees could game an essay system. Essays will always be a subjective matter in terms of grading. Take the question "Why do you want to go to Harvard?"

All you need is some 17 year girl talk about her struggles with the patriarchy, her constant victimhood as a woman and how Harvard will provide her the opportunity to foster change as it's a stepping stone to Harvard Law. Or some bullshit like that.

I'd bet money that an admission officer, especially one in favor of supporting women and underrepresented minorities, would grade that essay more positively. The opposite might apply to an essay that even gives a whiff that the author is a white/Asian male.

NJ.com Wrote:

A Princeton teen who's already made a name for himself as a local activist and inventor is gaining national attention for the way he wrote his application essay to Stanford University.

Princeton Day School student Ziad Ahmed, 18, who's Muslim, wrote "#BlackLivesMatter" - 100 times.

And he was accepted.

[stugatz]

Gorgiass, nice Bad Taste avatar. That's one of my favorite unnecessarily-violent movies.

[Agastya]

Liberals fucking hate Asian people.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^They proof positive that polite, intelligent, respectful nuclear families are not a grotesque aberration of the natural progressive order singular to the terrible white race.

[therealpoder]

(08-07-2017 01:44 AM)Agastya Wrote:  

Liberals fucking hate Asian people.

At this point, I'm convinced that liberals love losers and hate winners. If liberals consider a certain group to be losers or outside the mainstream in some way, they like and defend them. The more successful liberals perceive a group to be, the more likely they are to ignore any problems that group may have and in many cases, they hate and resent that group. It is just a act to show that they are more noble and caring than everyone else.

[Atlanta Man]

Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.....

White people pushed for an end to affirmative action on the state level in California and got it, they based all their admissions on test scores and grades- suddenly Asians dominated admissions to all the California colleges, it even affected community college admissions. After a few years of their children not getting into choice schools white people in California felt that perhaps other factors aside from grades and test scores (and donations) should be included in the admissions process.

[C-Note]

(08-07-2017 02:12 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.....

White people pushed for an end to affirmative action on the state level in California and got it, they based all their admissions on test scores and grades- suddenly Asians dominated admissions to all the California colleges, it even affected community college admissions. After a few years of their children not getting into choice schools white people in California felt that perhaps other factors aside from grades and test scores (and donations) should be included in the admissions process.

I personally don't have a problem with Asian-American students dominating admissions to the top universities. If they're studying their asses off and otherwise applying themselves, then they deserve it.