[Rancid]

I'm curious to understand why character is a poor way to judge college admissions, when we as a society basically do that in virtually every other aspect of life where one must pick between people for something?

Including... graduate school admissions.

[Godstud]

Systemic racism doesn't exist. Do some businesses or agencies have racist policies? Yes, but they are generally getting removed when they discover them. That does not mean that it's the norm throughout all society. That's what people assume when they discuss systemic racism, however. It's just a blanket term for society, and it's a false premise.

It's like saying that all men are rapists, all women are gold-diggers, or that all police kill people.

I'm curious to understand why character is a poor way to judge college admissions, when we as a society basically do that in virtually every other aspect of life where one must pick between people for something?

It's not. People discriminate based on this for everything. We are all the products of our history, and how we dealt with it indicates how we'll handle things in the future.

[Pants-of-dog]

The evidence for systemic racism in society is stronger than the evidence for racism in Harvard admissions.

In fact, the evidence for systemic racism includes the evidence used against Harvard and a lot more.

It is logically impossible to believe that Harvard was being racist while denying systemic racism.

[Godstud]

False. One place, or even a few, having discrimination is not indicative of a systemic problem, particularly when you can find actual reasons for why things happen that are unrelated to racism.

[Pants-of-dog]

False. One place, or even a few, having discrimination is not indicative of a systemic problem, particularly when you can find actual reasons for why things happen that are unrelated to racism.

So you disagree with the SCOTUS decision.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog Why is it Affirmative Action only in relations to Black peoples and not Asian peoples? What you want is people who get positions based on merit, and not on gender, race or skin colour, but that's not the world we live in.

note: Women are advantaged in universities and colleges with more grants than men. Where is the Affirmative Action?

[wat0n]

I'm curious to understand why character is a poor way to judge college admissions, when we as a society basically do that in virtually every other aspect of life where one must pick between people for something?

Including... graduate school admissions.

First of all, what do you mean by "character" here?

[Godstud]

What do YOU mean by character, here?




Affirmative Action is a racist policy, made to combat racism. That's "systemic racism" for ya!

[wat0n]

It's vague, isn't it?

Some people even consider political opinions to be a show of character...

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog Why is it Affirmative Action only in relations to Black peoples and not Asian peoples?

1. It is not just Black people.

2. AA should be for some Asians groups, since Asians are too diverse to be usefully grouped as a single people.

3. Asians and Black people have had profoundly different histories in North America, especially in the last century.

What you want is people who get positions based on merit, and not on gender, race or skin colour, but that's not the world we live in.

Exactly. Right now it is far easier for a white woman to get into an elite university than a Black man, regardless of merit.

note: Women are advantaged in universities and colleges with more grants than men. Where is the Affirmative Action?

While women have been the main beneficiaries of AA.

——————

As for the discussion of character, I think @Rancid has been very clear that he thinks a person with good character is someone who can be trusted to do open ended work on time and work well with the rest of the team.

He may correct me if I have misunderstood.

[wat0n]

One would think GPA and class rank would generally attest to an ability to do open ended work on time and quite possibly work well on teams.

At least when I read about what schools expect to see in extracurriculars, what I have in mind is doing activities oriented towards your community or something along those lines. Sounds nice but in reality it doesn't actually have to be.

[Godstud]

1. It is not just Black people.

Right, but it's also not White people, is it? You think White people aren't discriminated against? Are you one of those fuckwits who think there can't be racism against White people? The problem is that AA is no longer necessary or even needed.

That's one reason by CA got rid of it(and then voted against it in 2020), and they are one of the most progressive places you can find in the USA.

AA should be for some Asians groups, since Asians are too diverse to be usefully grouped as a single people.

That's an excuse. It's not an argument. If AA was truly fair it would seek to level the playing field for ALL peoples and no simply some groups whom some people believe are discriminated against.

Asians and Black people have had profoundly different histories in North America, especially in the last century.

That's not relevant to how we deal with equality NOW. We can't turn back the clock, and if we give advantages to ANYONE, it's a form of discrimination.

Exactly. Right now it is far easier for a white woman to get into an elite university than a Black man, regardless of merit.

Women also have an advantage over white men, so I that means it's sexist and not racist.

While women have been the main beneficiaries of AA.

Women have been the beneficiaries of advantages that go beyond simple equality because of Feminist advocacy. Women have been equal(and more) in Universities and colleges since the early 1980s.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right, but it's also not White people, is it? You think White people aren't discriminated against? Are you one of those fuckwits who think there can't be racism against White people?

If you are arguing that white people deal with the same obstacles to élite university admission that Black people do, and the obstacles faced by white people are also caused by racism, you are wrong.

The problem is that AA is no longer necessary or even needed.

If you are arguing that systemic racism is ended, you are wrong.

That's one reason by CA got rid of it(and then voted against it in 2020), and they are one of the most progressive places you can find in the USA.

If you are arguing that systemic racism ended in California, and that the perception of California as progressive is evidence, you are wrong.

That's an excuse. It's not an argument. If AA was truly fair it would seek to level the playing field for ALL peoples and no simply some groups whom some people believe are discriminated against.

So we deliberately ignore history and modern examples of systemic racism and pretend white people deal with the same racism? If that is the argument, you are wrong.

That's not relevant to how we deal with equality NOW. We can't turn back the clock, and if we give advantages to ANYONE, it's a form of discrimination.

So if white people get advantages because of how society is built, that is fine and normal, but if historically marginalized groups get any advantage, that is discrimination. But racism is over.

If that is your argument, you are wrong.

Women also have an advantage over white men, so I that means it's sexist and not racist.

Women have been the beneficiaries of advantages that go beyond simple equality because of Feminist advocacy. Women have been equal(and more) in Universities and colleges since the early 1980s.

You are not disagreeing with my claim. Your hatred of feminism is irrelevant. The important thing is that you concede that AA has made measurable gains against systemic sexism.

[Godstud]

I am wrong?

Prove it. Please provide sources demonstrating this, but none that I don't like(I'll play by your rules), because then I'll simply dismiss them as being unscientific and "wrong".

I do not hate Feminism, @Pants-of-dog. You are trained well by your ideology. I recognize Feminism for what it is, now. Women do not need an advocacy group when they share all the rights and privileges that men do, often without corresponding responsibilities.

In fact, you could argue that women have more rights, as they are favoured in the justice system, and will suffer less jail time and charges because of their gender. Women are excluded from the draft, and often have lowered expectations for job requirements.

AA hasn't done squat for Feminism... at least not since the 1970s, when it might have made a small difference. Feminism achieved equality in the 1980s(in the USA, which we are discussing), and men advocating for them were an important part of that.

Individual instances of sexism do not mean it doesn't exist, now, however. You could argue that it's gone too far as misandry is the norm, today. Any criticism of women is labeled misogynist. Whether is it or not is irrelevant. Masculinity is under attack, everywhere. That might work well for men like you, but most men AND women enjoy masculinity as being the balance to femininity.

What's amusing is seeing all the misogyny from the Trans community, and activists like you nodding and cheering, while Trans people take away rights from women.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, if people want to pretend that white people deal with the same racism as Black people, they can believe whatever foolish things they want.

I will not treat it as a serious argument.

[Rich]

The Liberals Asian problem has not just come out of the blue. The Liberal or Cultural Marxist if you prefer, loves to divide the world into binary categories. This of course goes right back to Marx who prophesied that the world, that humanity would separate into two binary classes, a class of rich exploiters while the the overwhelming majority would exist on the edge of starvation. Cultural Marxism was one of the responses to the crisis of Marxism that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, as Marx's prophesies failed to arrive.

Anyway Colour was one of the binaries used by Cultural Marxists. On the one hand you have good, noble, honorable, kind, social, creative people of Colour. On the other hand you have the colourless, sociopathic, uncreative, scrooges. Dickens it should be noted was a MIABuN (a Marxist in all but name). Scrooge is M-C-M, for anyone who has actually bothered to read Das Kapital.

The success of Asian ethnicities has been a huge embarrassment to Cultural Marxists and Back identatarians, They demonstrate the great opportunities that America provides, that groups can arrive with virtually no capital, very limited education and poor English language skills and can become successful in a couple of generations. Black African failure (viewed as a group, as an average), must always be blamed on racism, not on their cultural tendencies. And Asian success must be increasingly explained away by characterising them as colourless, characterless scrooges,

Getting all so called White people into a state a state of White guilt, and keeping them there decade, after decade after decade was quite a task for the Cultural Marxists. Unfortunetly for them, getting Asians into a state of White guilt is even harder.

[Rancid]

First of all, what do you mean by "character" here?

I've already done over this. Things that show characteristics like perseverance through adversity. Organizations. Conflict management.

Examples of things that help this. Part time jobs to help the family pay bills. Volunteer work. Even sports (I've already talk about how contrary to popular believe, students that play sports actually have higher academic success). Student competitions, participation in student organizations. All of this, versus the kid that just knows how to pass tests and eat pizza bites after school.

Then you have kids whose parents will do things like pay for test prep, and easy writing classes, etc.etc. Things not all kids have access to. Yet, the kid that doesn't have access to those things is mentally stronger.

Again, because success in college, is often more about how you manage your responsibilities, and not just getting good grades.

[JohnRawls]

You must have some very old friends to prove me wrong. I'm saying those quotas didn't exist before the second world war. After the revolution Zinoviev a jew was put in charge of the Petrograd government. Jews played leading roles in the party before and after the second world. As far as I'm aware discrimination against Jews started with the campaign against rootless intellectuals and the Doctors Plot.

Far from discriminating against Jews in its early years, there was a plan, or plans to turn Crimea into a Jewish homeland. Read what I said, I didn't deny that Jews suffered discrimination in the SU after WW2, I just said it was mild to what they would have suffered if Estonian nationalist and the other eastern European nationalists had been able to gain power. Even in 56 in Hungary, the rebels had anti Jewish slogans.

Its my parents friends who studied in Tartu and Tallinn universities and their children, brother. A large chunk of them now live in Israel or US also just so you know that went there according to repatriation laws that Israel has after the end of the Cold war.

What you are saying is utter bullshit. There was serious discrimination against the jews in the Soviet Union. It might not be pogroms level of the Tsarist Russia but Jews were severely restricted by the Soviet Union caste system of sorts. It also was better in some places and way worse in others. For example in Moscow and St Petersburg it was really bad at times as I said.

[wat0n]

I've already done over this. Things that show characteristics like perseverance through adversity. Organizations. Conflict management.

Examples of things that help this. Part time jobs to help the family pay bills. Volunteer work. Even sports (I've already talk about how contrary to popular believe, students that play sports actually have higher academic success). Student competitions, participation in student organizations. All of this, versus the kid that just knows how to pass tests and eat pizza bites after school.

Then you have kids whose parents will do things like pay for test prep, and easy writing classes, etc.etc. Things not all kids have access to. Yet, the kid that doesn't have access to those things is mentally stronger.

Again, because success in college, is often more about how you manage your responsibilities, and not just getting good grades.

That's why I'm saying that getting perfect grades does show the applicant can manage responsibilities. Finishing high school with perfect grades definitely requires time management skills most teenagers don't have.

I also don't think the extracurriculars you mention prove this by themselves. Students from middle and upper class households may as well just do them to fill the requirement, just being yes men while volunteering or participating in some team since those are boxes that need to be ticked and that's pretty much it.

[Rancid]

Finishing high school with perfect grades definitely requires time management skills most teenagers don't have.

You didn't go to high school in America, did you?

Regardless, so you have two kids with so called perfect scores. One also has a 20hr job, or some other obligation like volunteering work, etc. The other, just went to class and went home. The kid that managed everything else is still equivalent to the other that did nothing?

Students from middle and upper class households may as well just do them to fill the requirement

Many don't bother, if they are not requirements. They should precisely not be requirements. Character becomes apparent when no one is looking, or when no one requires it. But it should be looked for.