Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "BREAKING: SCOTUS GUTS Affirmative Action In Colleges | Rising Reacts" video.

Well, I have doubts about the application of the principle, but I agree with the principle that a child born in a refugee camp who shows immense mathematical talent and graduates as valedictorian from their inner city high school has achieved more than the child of lawyers who does the same. See the life story of Grothendieck.
7
Everything she said was true.
7
@StinkFingerr The PROBLEM is that legacy admissions is half the class at private universities. That is how a lot of not that brilliant white kids get in, and African Americans are automatically excluded. It has changed lately, true.
5
 @alrightmeow6916 EXACTLY. I am so glad you have hiring authority. If only all bosses were like you!
4
That's not a tremendous grade point average. I commend your aggressive attitude. You must have made money.
4
Do you think most private university admissions are merit based? Half the class is legacy, or "special development," i.e., the parents are huge donors. Why should anyone turn down any opportunity?
4
What makes you think this decision will affect you? I agree with the decision. But I have no illusions about it. It will do nothing to improve my life one iota in any way whatsoever.
2
@utah_koidragon7117 No standardized test reveals great mathematical ability. (You didn't look up Grothendieck. Okay, try Galois.) That is not what those tests are for. Hey, I'm fine with Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and in particular the BRICS uncovering the profoundly gifted. We can stick to entertainment and derivatives trading.
1
@StinkFingerr Do people not know why affirmative action in college admissions was legal until yesterday? The legacy and donor pools are disproportionately whiter. Actually, what Kennedy hinted at in his tweet about affirmative action is legally accurate: affirmative action can be legal ONLY to correct past discrimination by the very actor who is now implementing affirmative action to make up for the harm they themselves did. (Not society, blah blah, but they themselves.) The universities never argued that. (They argued the Bakke standard and so forth.) They never admitted that the affirmative action was to make up for discrimination. That's because they don't want to admit where the discrimination comes from: it comes from the legacy pool and donor pool, which they will NEVER give up. Not yesterday, not now, and not tomorrow. Instead of giving an opportunity to a deserving minority kid, they deployed the policy against Asians, and limited Asian enrollment. I think the real problem is that the leaders of the country are drawn so disproportionately from these schools. After the college admissions scandal (and Jeffrey Epstein, the icing on the cake), you would think there would be some way to reduce their influence. It's not as though Michigan, Texas, Berkeley, Cal Tech, and U of Chicago cannot educate people. Quite the contrary.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 So would a lot of people.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Spotting real talent happens organically, which is far from fool-proof. Adults around the child notice something different: a prodigious ability, or at least an unusual one, and a passion, where you can't seem to get the kid to let go of a problem (or an activity, like a sport or an instrument). Coming to the attention of the right adults is the key, and having them not be envious. This is why "gifted programs" often don't work. Anything that can be gamed, will be gamed. Good intentions will be asserted, lol.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 You haven't read the cases. This opinion and concurrence explain strict scrutiny. I am not saying that past (or present) discrimination was ever admitted. I am explaining why otherwise conservative justices were going along with affirmative action all this time, until yesterday. That pablum about having Harvard "reflect the nation" was always a ruse. They aren't being honest, lol shocker.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Lots of people who apply to Ivies get a perfect score on their SAT Math. It's not rare. The tests are easier than when you took them?
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Well, this is just an anecdote, but it is true: when I went to a country where standardized testing cannot be used for school selection (it isn't legal), and that had super hard achievement testing for everything -- advancing in school, teaching, civil service, you name it -- I took the GRE under the worst conditions I have ever seen and made the top 99.9%, the best I ever did. Anyone who works hard can get a perfect score in math, or close to it. The work it may take, and the time, is why people don't do it. Granted, it would take a couple of months for some, and a couple of years for someone else, I get it. But these are not tests to determine genius. The Asian kids get the scores by working for them.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 I've said I don't think this is a wrong decision. I think it will likely worsen the problem of invidious discrimination, however, but that is inherent in how Harvard runs its shop. Courts can only do so much. It's not their role to manage Harvard. The blame in no way lies with blacks, or with any (paltry) benefit they ever received. These are systemic issues.
1
@kyle-ri5mz There is no law against preferring children of alumni or donors. Too bad the late, great, state universities get so little funding now, except for football stadiums.
1
@JeikuAnimeReview What is it with you people that you think because I denounced legacy admissions, I supported the race-based "corrective?" Where did I say that? If these "elite" universities admitted veterans who distinguished themselves in the military, especially those who stood up against misconduct at risk to themselves, and who oppose endless war now, they would automatically have a much more diverse student body and create better leaders. Funny how they never think of that . . .
1
@JeikuAnimeReview Funny how my post above won't appear on your thread. Wonder why? Shadowed?
1
@JeikuAnimeReview What is it with you people that you think because I denounced legacy admissions, I supported the race-based "corrective?" Where did I say that? If these "elite" universities admitted veterans who distinguished themselves in the military, especially those who stood up against misconduct at risk to themselves, and who oppose endless wars now, they would automatically have a much more diverse student body and create better leaders.
1
@JeikuAnimeReview It isn't unconstitutional at all. The OP said that if Brie was so much against privilege, she would have turned down admission to Harvard. But why? Her parents were not alumni, or rich, and her father died in a car crash when she was a kid. She acknowledged her advantages in living abroad, when her very smart parents taught in elite US embassy schools. My point is that favoring legacies is fine. (EDIT: not fine with me, fine with the Court. Nothing illegal about it.) Do you know why all the previous cases allowed race-based admissions? In order to make up for the fact that the legacy system favored whites over all other groups, or at least it once did. That's what's behind the "in 25 years" rhetoric. All in all, I agree with this outcome, BUT there was no good way for the case to turn out. This did nothing for you or for me. Count on it. BTW, did you read it? :)
1
@JeikuAnimeReview I responded, again nothing lit up. Can you see it? These YT platforms are curious. Lol.
1