Disheartening that my post on this thread providing a mild argument against affirmative action (that it is both unfair and inefficient) was deleted. Pathetic.
It's unsettling the reaction here to harvard discrimination case
-
The cheerleading going on is a bit over the top, ejmr never cared about discrimination, but now that it might in-fact lead to reducing/killing AA (and hurting other minorities significantly) ejmr is quick to lead the charge.
Let's cut the crap. You are cheerleading this because you want to see an end to affirmative action. You do not care about discrimination against asians.
Stop being cowards, this forum is anonymous.We are cheering this because it exposes the incredible dumbness and the atrocious hypocrisy of the left. There's nothing to hide; it's very plain and simple and it is a good enough reason in itself.
The one issue, if Harvards AA policies were only discriminating against whites, no one in the mainstream media would even mention it or allow a discussion about it.
-
Well done on assuming the race of people on this site. You, Harvard, and its defenders are the only racists here.
The cheerleading going on is a bit over the top, ejmr never cared about discrimination, but now that it might in-fact lead to reducing/killing AA (and hurting other minorities significantly) ejmr is quick to lead the charge.
Let's cut the crap. You are cheerleading this because you want to see an end to affirmative action. You do not care about discrimination against asians.
Stop being cowards, this forum is anonymous. -
Almost all women in HRM Are like that.
They know they don’t belong there. Almost 90% of them.
It hurts deep inside their heart.
They blame the world for their condition. They are not wrong.
I met her years ago. She is not very nice. She was one of the most arrogant, unreasonable, opinionated, and sexist people I have ever met.
Susan Dynarski who is a prominent Michigan economist specializing in education policy has been a vocal opponent of EJMR and advocated Harvard's admission policies. She has also been openly rude on Twitter to anyone, including asian males, who disagreed with her position. I wonder if you are even an economist if you don't even get a basic reference on this case.
-
Why do mods systematically delete every post mentioning a certain demographic? It's impossible to have a debate on AA and representation if you remove all posts mentioning that particular demographic.
The more people shut down any debate about that particular demographic, the more people will resent them. We can discuss Asians or Muslims here AFAIK, so why are certain chosen people above any form of criticism or even mention?I think it would probably attract even more right wing trolls to the site if it was allowed.
Posters here also need to learn how to discuss Jewish representation in higher education without making an immediate jump to conspiracy theories. I'm not sure why so many posts inevitably lead to terms like a "Jewish lobby" or "Jewish stranglehold" on admissions, which suggest some shadowy coordinated effort. The much likelier and simpler explanation is that, consciously or not, people acting as individuals display some in-group bias in alumni interviews or other stages of the admissions process.
And all this ignores that schools like Harvard surely take field of interest into account and are trying to maintain a balance between the humanities and STEM. I'm certain this plays a huge role in admissions statistics, but it's rarely brought up in these debates.
-
a) I agree that in general, Asians tend to lack a certain "well-roundedness" that is important (whether in college admissions or hiring a colleague)
b) Despite (a), schools should evaluate all applicants on an individual basis and avoid quotas (consider the difference in ratings of Asians in alumni interviews vs. Harvard's own assessment without seeing them)
c) The hypocrisy of the Twitter-crowd regarding this point is the biggest reason I keep posting about this (if a right-winger said the same thing they are saying they'd flip), especially when it comes to men making the same argument about women in the labor market
d) It would be really funny to see the twitterati respond if schools started boosting male applicants with the argument that "men mature slower so their achievements should at 18 count for more" -
You have obviously not seen the extent to which the legitimate Jewish lobby exists. Two episodes of project veritas reveal the depth of infiltration of the Jewish lobby in higher education. It is not unreasonable to question Jewish representation in higher education and to label this questioning as ‘conspiracy theories’ is simply a deflection because you do not want it openly addressed in public forums.
Why do mods systematically delete every post mentioning a certain demographic? It's impossible to have a debate on AA and representation if you remove all posts mentioning that particular demographic.
The more people shut down any debate about that particular demographic, the more people will resent them. We can discuss Asians or Muslims here AFAIK, so why are certain chosen people above any form of criticism or even mention?I think it would probably attract even more right wing trolls to the site if it was allowed.
Posters here also need to learn how to discuss Jewish representation in higher education without making an immediate jump to conspiracy theories. I'm not sure why so many posts inevitably lead to terms like a "Jewish lobby" or "Jewish stranglehold" on admissions, which suggest some shadowy coordinated effort. The much likelier and simpler explanation is that, consciously or not, people acting as individuals display some in-group bias in alumni interviews or other stages of the admissions process.
And all this ignores that schools like Harvard surely take field of interest into account and are trying to maintain a balance between the humanities and STEM. I'm certain this plays a huge role in admissions statistics, but it's rarely brought up in these debates. -
Ahh yes, the very reliable Project Veritas who attempted and failed to plant a false story with the Washington Post.
You have obviously not seen the extent to which the legitimate Jewish lobby exists. Two episodes of project veritas reveal the depth of infiltration of the Jewish lobby in higher education. It is not unreasonable to question Jewish representation in higher education and to label this questioning as ‘conspiracy theories’ is simply a deflection because you do not want it openly addressed in public forums.
Why do mods systematically delete every post mentioning a certain demographic? It's impossible to have a debate on AA and representation if you remove all posts mentioning that particular demographic.
The more people shut down any debate about that particular demographic, the more people will resent them. We can discuss Asians or Muslims here AFAIK, so why are certain chosen people above any form of criticism or even mention?I think it would probably attract even more right wing trolls to the site if it was allowed.
Posters here also need to learn how to discuss Jewish representation in higher education without making an immediate jump to conspiracy theories. I'm not sure why so many posts inevitably lead to terms like a "Jewish lobby" or "Jewish stranglehold" on admissions, which suggest some shadowy coordinated effort. The much likelier and simpler explanation is that, consciously or not, people acting as individuals display some in-group bias in alumni interviews or other stages of the admissions process.
And all this ignores that schools like Harvard surely take field of interest into account and are trying to maintain a balance between the humanities and STEM. I'm certain this plays a huge role in admissions statistics, but it's rarely brought up in these debates.
-
Literally the entire of society has been like this for the last 30 years, why are you so surprised its the case here too?Why do mods systematically delete every post mentioning a certain demographic? It's impossible to have a debate on AA and representation if you remove all posts mentioning that particular demographic.
The more people shut down any debate about that particular demographic, the more people will resent them. We can discuss Asians or Muslims here AFAIK, so why are certain chosen people above any form of criticism or even mention?You arent mention to notice or mention this stuff, and its taboo in almost all circles.
-
As someone on this board pointed out earlier, imagine if the situation was a 75% to 25% male-to-female ratio, justified by women receiving lower personality scores...
Most undergraduate student bodies are 60-70% women (even higher at liberal arts colleges) and noone cares.
-
Ah yes, when you can’t argue with the facts, simply try and discredit the source. Even though the source has video recording and proof of their claims. I guess your just hoping saying lies somehow persuades people?
Ahh yes, the very reliable Project Veritas who attempted and failed to plant a false story with the Washington Post.
-
A big part of the problem is that the SAT is too easy and cannot effectively discriminate between candidates at the top end. So extra curriculars and "personality scores" are used to select between the top test scorers, which leads to racial discrimination, intentionally or not. A much better and fairer approach would be to dramatically toughen up the exam and admit purely on the basis of that.
-
A big part of the problem is that the SAT is too easy and cannot effectively discriminate between candidates at the top end. So extra curriculars and "personality scores" are used to select between the top test scorers, which leads to racial discrimination, intentionally or not. A much better and fairer approach would be to dramatically toughen up the exam and admit purely on the basis of that.
This. It isn't g-loaded.