443

Might want to do a little research.

444

I haven’t brought any official data to the discussion. I’m waiting for with you or @e7alr to bring it to back up the claim of

“Targeted Allocations” and how an external application would know a university ran out of allocation for White students.

445

Because all of the other merit requirements are still factors. The faux BIOPC applicant only has to have better merit scores that the actual BIOPIC applicants. As a white they are competing with everyone, Think it as a 100m foot race with 100 runners. The top 30 win a prize. The whites have to run the whole 100m, the BIOPICs gets to start 20m closer to the finish line. Some of those running the whole 100m will be such superior runners that they will still finish in the top 30. But there are going to be some who only made it into the top 30 because of the shorter distance. And some who had to run the whole 100m who were faster than them, but not fast enough to make up for the shorter distance. Obviously getting to start 20m closer is a non-merit advantage.

1 Like
446

Fine, I’ll start your work for you.

Let’s take University of Vermont and Georgia Tech University

University of Vermont is 80% white and 1.67% black.
Georgia Tech University is 38% white and 5% black.

Are you telling me that a white person has a better chance getting into Vermont University OR GaTech by selecting black?

447

But not equally weighted depending on race

448

What was the acceptance rate of whites who didn’t lie? That’s how to answer that question.

449

Outside of this being a gold standard example of the impact of systemic racism against black people… you claimed earlier that there was a target quota.

What you described since is a bonus point system that gives additional points based on race, sex, disability, income etc. That’s different than a quota.

I still don’t see data showing that there is an “advantage” for selecting minority when it comes to college admissions. I picked two universities in an earlier post. Let’s start there and see this in action.

450

Well at the university of Vermont… they have an acceptance rate of 71% for all applicants. 80% of their students are white. 1.6% are black.

451

Meaningless.

452

Why? You got better numbers?

453

Because it does not provide the information required to answer the current question.

454

It’s the best information we have. We can look at the current demographics and acceptance rate to infer and answer to your question. Unless you have better?

Do any universities breakdown their rejection percentage by race?

455

Ah, the default appeal to bigotry. They chose a false ethnicity to have the very real advantages associated with that selection. The officially policy making race/ethnicity/gender a preferential factor in admissions is the actual gold standard of systemic racism. And I didn’t mention one group also in that race. They were BIOPIC and allowed to start 20m closer, but their running ability was top 10, and they could have started back at 120m and still been top 30.

456

Your side is the one setting the target allocation goal. Your side bases it on the flawed premise of disparate impact. The whole basis of race/ethnicity/gender preferences is based on the faulty argument that their percentage of a group total should be reflected in their dispersion across all things in society. The dogma of this belief teaches that any disparate outcome (which could be a positive or negative total vs actual representation in the population) with an adverse association must be the systemic racism of others. (Classic focus on coincidence rather than cause) Hence the problem with Asians. They are a micro percentage of the total population, yet enjoy huge positive disparate outcomes to their percentage of the population.

1 Like
457

Can you show that they were not accepting people because they were black? If a school has only a 1.6% black acceptance and then announces they want 13% they will start accepting all black candidates until they reach that.

You are trying to equate 1.6% accepted. For all you know that is 100% applied

1 Like
458

the united states is not europe.

Allan

459

Not even the point here. The one focused on the word quota is him. The real focus is assigning preference based on race, ethnicity and gender, and the left’s disparate impact argument as justification. Then young human beings posing as the one’s qualifying for the preference, seeking the advantage the preference provides to achieve their objective of acceptance to that university.

460

Excellent. Ukrainians would better integrate with Russians….

461

You completely missed my point to him. I was referring to the quota number and his numbers he posed. He was misinterpreting them and trying to claim math incorrectly.

462

I did get your meaning. What I’m saying is the whole point of him trying to steer it into a “do stated quotas exist” is a deflection. His use of percentages shows the goal is outcome based identity group percentage in society and that giving non-merit based preferences is the tool they are trying to justify.