The Supremes

[Brisketexan 105,490]

Just now, Pancho said:

 

Once again, a shitty ass take. It’s not that men aren’t being admitted in the same as women. The research shows men AREN’T GOING TO COLLEGE THE SAME RATE AS WOMEN. Essentially, nearly every college/university (2 year or 4 year) in America has more women than men admitted because more women are going to college and see higher education as a value. The research shows and has been telling us for years that men just aren’t going to college as much. This has been a known to us for over a decade. It’s not new.

Ummmm....slow your roll.  I don't think the message of that graphic or the post was that men aren't being admitted at the same rate.  The graphic and the post observed the OUTCOME, which is because of exactly the things you just posted.

That's why some of us made follow up posts noting how we are failing our young men -- that failing starts well before the college application deadline.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,853]

pinche guero

[Pancho 45,213]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, you're also using the anecdotal to refute the statistical.  Yes, there are plenty of kids from wealthy households who are dumbasses/slackers destined for failure.  And yes, there are plenty of minority kids from poorer families who have good family support and involvement, and who will end up successful in large part thanks to that.

But as a matter of statistics, give me 100 kids who are zoned for Highland Park and 100 kids who are zoned for Dallas Carter, and I'm going to find a lot more kids capable of success at the university level from the first group.  I'm not saying that's a reflection on the kids, their innate ability, or anything like that.  I'm saying that kids from poorer households are less likely to have the mentoring, examples, support, and even basic life security (a safe home, good nutrition) than kids from richer households.  This isn't exactly a radical observation.

Which is why I mentioned that we need to re-think our entire education apparatus, and we need to realize that the path to success starts a helluva lot sooner than your freshman year at university.   Having an admissions process that tries to adjust and compensate for opportunity is but one element of the solution. 

You and I are saying the same thing. My first post was just experience based on which students were most disrespectful in a college class, not necessarily slackers. The original poster who I was responding to said poorer students tend to be more disrespectful in class and I was pointing out that no, that’s not true. My most disrespectful students are the ones from wealthy, college educated households which typically tend to be Whites and Asians mostly because they all think they deserve an A regardless because “I HAVE TO GET INTO [X] UNIVERSITY!” 

As for your 2nd point, I’ve made that comment on this website more than once. Students who go to Dallas Lincoln, FW Dunbar, or Houston Wheatley do not have the same access to supplemental educational tools (or educational quality) as those from The Woodlands, Austin Westlake, Highland Park, or Southlake Carroll. You and I agree there. Hell, I wrote a paper on it for one of my doctoral classes. Wasn’t AA accounting for that? I believe so for some colleges/universities—not all of them.

[Gengs1 2,583]

18 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I don’t know what your purpose on this thread is, but this is yet another shitty ass take that you’re wrong about again.

My worst students teaching in college were the students who came from wealthy, college educated households. Those students were more likely to be disrespectful especially because they always believed they deserved an A on every single assignment regardless of the quality. And then you’re stereotyping poor Americans by saying they just aren’t as involved and that isn’t true. As a Black American growing up in small town Texas, we definitely weren’t even middle class but my parents and grandparents were heavily involved in my education and me going to college. You people keep denigrating poor (who are more than likely to be Black and Latino) students is a shit take but right on par with your group. 

Aren’t you doing the same thing? 
aren’t you just making it about race?

Please look at the # for poor folks across the USA.

now extrapolate these #s with the total population distribution   

[HonkeyVape 107]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean, your points are valid, but the Asian Tax is real. And to my mind, no different than discrimination against Jewish students 100 years ago.  
 

That doesn’t mean this decision is correct, but to be clear: admissions offices are terrified that if they don’t trim Asian acceptance rates, they’ll dominate an incoming class after you reserve sits for legacies, athletes, donor kids, etc. 

The people celebrating today aren't racist whites. They are the South Asian and Asians who have been discriminated against for being excellent student candidates for the last generation and being held to subjectively higher standards. 

I saw it with UT from when I went to UT and what the student body looks like now. You see it with the UC schools. Now prepare for it at the ivies.

[HonkeyVape 107]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm....slow your roll.  I don't think the message of that graphic or the post was that men aren't being admitted at the same rate.  The graphic and the post observed the OUTCOME, which is because of exactly the things you just posted.

That's why some of us made follow up posts noting how we are failing our young men -- that failing starts well before the college application deadline.

Super interesting points you are making Brisket. And education/higher ed is such a frankesteins monster of a mechanism that unwinding one or two things isn't going to work as a lot of the issues are interrelated (cost/tuition, student debt, % of races, preparedness for higher ed, home-life, preparing our young men, etc. et al.).

I really think you have to almost blow it up and start over. I think maybe AI/tech will help with that in 20 years when only about even half of the people today from the "good side of town and schools" prepared for higher ed are even needed to be valuable to corporations. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by HonkeyVape

[DDD Dad 14,365]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, you're also using the anecdotal to refute the statistical.  Yes, there are plenty of kids from wealthy households who are dumbasses/slackers destined for failure.  And yes, there are plenty of minority kids from poorer families who have good family support and involvement, and who will end up successful in large part thanks to that.

But as a matter of statistics, give me 100 kids who are zoned for Highland Park and 100 kids who are zoned for Dallas Carter, and I'm going to find a lot more kids capable of success at the university level from the first group.  I'm not saying that's a reflection on the kids, their innate ability, or anything like that.  I'm saying that kids from poorer households are less likely to have the mentoring, examples, support, and even basic life security (a safe home, good nutrition) than kids from richer households.  This isn't exactly a radical observation.

Which is why I mentioned that we need to re-think our entire education apparatus, and we need to realize that the path to success starts a helluva lot sooner than your freshman year at university.   Having an admissions process that tries to adjust and compensate for opportunity is but one element of the solution. 

This.

By way of further anecdote, all three of my kids went to UT.  Eldest is learning different and went to the Shelton School here in Dallas from age 4 through 12th grade.  He missed getting admission on class rank by one student but was offered the CAP program through UTSA.  The other two went through local public schools and qualified for admission via their class ranks.

The eldest thrived at UTSA and later UT despite having learning issues, while the other two did fine but far from top of class at UT.  Shelton prepared him so much more for college than the public schools that it's simply incomparable.  I wish we could provide that sort of preparation to all.

[Pancho 45,213]

18 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Aren’t you doing the same thing? 
aren’t you just making it about race?

Please look at the # for poor folks across the USA.

now extrapolate these #s with the total population distribution   

No.

No one is disputing poverty by race. It is unclear what you’re trying to do. 

[HonkeyVape 107]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

This.

By way of further anecdote, all three of my kids went to UT.  Eldest is learning different and went to the Shelton School here in Dallas from age 4 through 12th grade.  He missed getting admission on class rank by one student but was offered the CAP program through UTSA.  The other two went through local public schools and qualified for admission via their class ranks.

The eldest thrived at UTSA and later UT despite having learning issues, while the other two did fine but far from top of class at UT.  Shelton prepared him so much more for college than the public schools that it's simply incomparable.  I wish we could provide that sort of preparation to all.

How often did you eat at that Deli News by the school? I remember the first time I got the biggest Reuben I've ever seen, served by a bodybuilder with the biggest arms I've ever seen.

[Satchel 6,949]

Should Biden be re-elected, along with House and Senate majorities,  the Dems should move quickly to add SC justices that reflect the number of circuits. That would bring the number of justices to 13. It’s pretty clear Republicans will never operate in good faith:

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Satchel

[HonkeyVape 107]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Should Biden be re-elected, along with House and Senate majorities,  the Dems should move quickly to add SC justices that reflect the number of circuits. That would bring the number of justices to 13.

I've seen this idea bandied about on messageboards (along with annexation of D.C. and P.R. ((shout out to Little Giants)), but is it a realistic thing politicians would do?

[YGIFS 19,453]

Despite this tombuttfuckery, I'm still not a fan of stacking courts by any one party.  However, that proposal to balance it out with the number of circuits is an idea I have not heard in decades and sounds quite reasonable to me.  

[Brisketexan 105,490]

16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Shelton prepared him so much more for college than the public schools that it's simply incomparable.  I wish we could provide that sort of preparation to all.

Yep.  As I've mentioned on here before, I went to Jesuit in Houston.  Yes, I was a smart kid, but when I got to UT, I met plenty of other smart kids who had gone to their local public high school.  There were plenty on par with me, intelligence-wise....but many of them struggled with the demands of their first year of university.  But not me.  There wasn't a thing at UT freshman year that I hadn't already done/mastered while at Jesuit (writing lengthy papers, doing detailed research, etc.).  The advantage I got by going to a genuine preparatory school, instead of a regular high school, was significant.

And it was an advantage I got because my parents did JUST well enough to send me to a private preparatory school (although some real sacrifice was involved -- cutting those checks was a stretch).  But they'd also been sacrificing for me since the moment I was born.

I hit the lottery when it came to my parents.  Sure, we did financially well enough to keep a roof over my head, provide good nutrition, etc.  But the real win was my mother reading to me every day, my dad challenging me with engineering problems for fun when I was 8, etc.  Not every kid gets that.  So, our system needs to be better geared at helping kids without those advantages.

Oh, and we also need to think about how our education system from elementary through high school favors female students over males (sit still, with your bright and shiny faces, vs. get punished because you're a wiggle worm).  The educational model is tailor made to fail a lot of males, and that sucks.  None of this should take away from the accomplishments of women since higher ed and the working world have truly opened up for them, it just means we should be careful not to leave too many men behind....because men with limited prospects, and the anger and frustration that come with it, aren't great for society.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Murfdogg21 4,448]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Exactly, those white kids have the opportunity to do better on the tests.  They take the courses, hire tutors, etc.  $$$$$$$ gives them the leg up. 

Just reducing it down as "dumb black kid gets in over smart white kids for DiVerSitY" is some Uncle Ruckus bullshit. 

Sure, those white kids, not all white kids. There are also wealthy, upper class, and upper middle class minority kids who have resources and can get coached up. It’s inaccurate to say all or most fringe-acceptance white kids accessed grandfather’s trust fund to get private SAT tutoring. 
 

This Columbia concept of considering applicants’ economic status is intriguing because that is more relevant. Excludes the Carlton Bankses and gives consideration to rural, farm, and/or trailer trash kids who have the talent and want to level up. 

[Gengs1 2,583]

13 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No.

No one is disputing poverty by race. It is unclear what you’re trying to do. 

My original point is that Harvard own admission seems to mirror the general population of the USA (with more asians being admitted) so what exactly is the issue with their own admissions? 

My take is  need to focus on changing it to socioeconomic admittance vs race.  

[Satchel 6,949]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has existed with its full complement of nine justices for close to 150 years, no matter who occupied the White House. Now some Republican lawmakers suggest they would be fine with just eight for four years more rather than have Hillary Clinton fill the vacancy.

The court has operated with eight justices for the past eight months as Republicans controlling the Senate have blocked confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his GOP colleagues have insisted that American voters should have a say, choosing the next president in Tuesday’s election. The 45th president — either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump — would fill the current vacancy created when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February.

But several Republicans have said if the voters elect Clinton, they’ll block her nominees, effectively abandoning their advice and consent role for her entire term.

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.

McConnell says simply the next president will make the nomination to fill the current vacancy.

The size of the court is set by federal law and has changed over the years, but has been nine justices since 1869.

When vacancies arise, they usually are filled within months, if not weeks. But there have twice been stretches of more than two years where the court was one justice short. Another six vacancies lasted more than a year. The most recent was in 1969 and 1970, when Justice Abe Fortas resigned and the Senate rejected two of President Richard Nixon’s nominees before confirming Justice Harry Blackmun

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

[David Dennison 18,995]

13 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Should Biden be re-elected, along with House and Senate majorities,  the Dems should move quickly to add SC justices that reflect the number of circuits. That would bring the number of justices to 13. It’s pretty clear Republicans will never operate in good faith:

Would Democrats be willing to get rid of the filibuster to pack the court?

[Pancho 45,213]

16 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Should Biden be re-elected, along with House and Senate majorities,  the Dems should move quickly to add SC justices that reflect the number of circuits. That would bring the number of justices to 13. It’s pretty clear Republicans will never operate in good faith:

 

he just said on MSNBC (interview with Nicolle Wallace) that this isn’t’ something he’d look at doing. 

[Js1 85,659]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Would Democrats be willing to get rid of the filibuster to pack the court?

Gotta send Sinema packing in favor for Gallego. And let’s be real, Manchin is probably toast anyhow 

[YGIFS 19,453]

5 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

I've seen this idea bandied about on messageboards (along with annexation of D.C. and P.R. ((shout out to Little Giants)), but is it a realistic thing politicians would do?

How do you annex something that's already a part of our country?  Do you mean 'Grant Statehood.'  There's a very historical and proven method for how that works, unfortunately most opponents of it don't understand it.  Puerto Rico's referendums usually fall short by a decent margin..  The D.C. one I'm torn on, they have no House Rep or Senators, so that must stink.  I'm sure their EC votes are of cold comfort.  But it's been historically clear, there weren't supposed to be nearly a million people living there when they carved it out of Maryland.  And half the households there have a household in another state as well.  Makes from some confusing residency/voting issues.  I've never really read a compelling argument one way or the other on D.C. as state.  

sidenote-have you ever noticed when you see the silouhette of Maryland like in a game or kids flash cards or info-graphic or whatever, DC is never carved out of it?  The continuity of Potomac runs uninterrupted on either side of DC.  Only with print on the maps, do they bother to put the dotted lines around it.  It's just as easy to produce the image correctly with DC taken out, why don't they?  And yes, this is the plot of the next "National Treasure" starring Nick Cage & Frank Stallone. 

[wildcat09 29,447]

Lol, of course the chatbot thinks AI will fix higher education.

[pacman 7,380]

 

[David Dennison 18,995]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Gotta send Sinema packing in favor for Gallego. And let’s be real, Manchin is probably toast anyhow 

If Manchin loses, which state flips to replace him?

[Js1 85,659]

Just now, David Dennison said:

If Manchin loses, which state flips to replace him?

None. Gotta keep MT and OH to a least keep it 50/50. Odds aren’t great

[David Dennison 18,995]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

None. Gotta keep MT and OH to a least keep it 50/50. Odds aren’t great

Whoops. Forgot the Republicans only had 49.

[Satchel 6,949]

Had the principled ideologues been able to hold their noses and vote for the most objectively qualified candidate in 2016, there’s a good chance we would be looking at SC Court with a 7-2 or 6-3 liberal majority. This a word for those who think political pragmatism is overrated.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,909]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Had the principled ideologues been able to hold their noses and vote for the most objectively qualified candidate in 2016, there’s a good chance we would be looking at SC Court with a 7-2 or 6-3 liberal majority. This a word for those who think political pragmatism is overrated.

ain't that the fucking truth

[Pancho 45,213]

27 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

My original point is that Harvard own admission seems to mirror the general population of the USA (with more asians being admitted) so what exactly is the issue with their own admissions? 
.  

You should asked the Asians who brought forth the lawsuit. 

[Js1 85,659]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Had the principled ideologues been able to hold their noses and vote for the most objectively qualified candidate in 2016, there’s a good chance we would be looking at SC Court with a 7-2 or 6-3 liberal majority. This a word for those who think political pragmatism is overrated.

BUT HER EMAILS AND PAID SPEECHES

[WhatTheBuck 28,824]

27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

he just said on MSNBC (interview with Nicolle Wallace) that this isn’t’ something he’d look at doing. 

That was a great interview. 

[tx 3 putt 77,676]

Uncle Ruckus is literally ‘the worst’ ….

[tx 3 putt 77,676]

14 minutes ago, Pancho said:

You should asked the Asians who brought forth the lawsuit. 

anything less than 100% Asian, is a crime to them 

[APMP 688]

SIAP, but this was absolutely brilliant from The Onion.

https://www.theonion.com/i-decided-to-become-a-slave-so-one-day-my-descendants-c-1850592638

[JBJ 3,676]

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

And make no mistake, those new measures to which you refer will cause the cost of college to go up. They’ll essentially create new de facto “departments” that bridge diversity with admissions and they’ll employ people to work on exactly what you’re referring to. 

Colleges and universities are the social capitals of DEI. They’re not going just turn their backs on that because the SCOTUS rendered a ridiculous decision today. All they’re going to do is, as you say, find a workaround. What happens when institutions get more clandestine with their practices? It gets more expensive for them to execute their goals, and that expense is passed onto the consumer. Great. College was so affordable until today…

This is basically what happened at UCLA when the UC system went race-neutral.   They just used other information to get back to similar racial demographics. Which is probably more in line with the goals of AA admissions anyway.

Also, this case doesn't require race-blind or eliminate AA admissions anyway.  Texas's admission process is still legal after this case.

[Anastasis 23,473]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Had the principled ideologues been able to hold their noses and vote for the most objectively qualified candidate in 2016, there’s a good chance we would be looking at SC Court with a 7-2 or 6-3 liberal majority. This a word for those who think political pragmatism is overrated.

HRC was a terrible candidate and got beat by a terrible human being. Look within. Or just blame Russia. Whatever is lower effort I suppose.  

[Js1 85,659]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

HRC was a terrible candidate and got beat by a terrible human being. Look within. Or just blame Russia. Whatever is lower effort I suppose.  

Nothing is lower effort than your troll posts 

[jimmyjazz 46,375]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

[jimmyjazz 46,375]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Nothing is lower effort than your troll posts 

I don't know, I look forward to another multi-week slugfest about Why Hillary Lost, with various footnotes, detours, and soapbox oratory about FISA!!! Carter Page!!!  etc.

It will feel totally fresh.

[Brisketexan 105,490]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know, I look forward to another multi-week slugfest about Why Hillary Lost, with various footnotes, detours, and soapbox oratory about FISA!!! Carter Page!!!  etc.

It will feel totally fresh.

Don't forget the brain worms.

You always forget the brain worms.

I think it's because you have brain worms.

Brain worms.

[Satchel 6,949]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

HRC was a terrible candidate and got beat by a terrible human being. Look within. Or just blame Russia. Whatever is lower effort I suppose.  

I disagree that she was terrible, unless of course one considers being a policy wonk beyond the pale. Some people just don’t care much for women when they’re not procreating. 

[elfenix 34,366]

el rushbo spent 3 decades telling us how terrible she was and we didn't listen!

[jimmyjazz 46,375]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't forget the brain worms.

You always forget the brain worms.

I think it's because you have brain worms.

Brain worms.

Probably.

Isn't there a smooth brain angle, too?

[Brisketexan 105,490]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Probably.

Isn't there a smooth brain angle, too?

Sure.  Easier crawling territory for the brain worms.

[Anastasis 23,473]

6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I disagree that she was terrible, unless of course one considers being a policy wonk beyond the pale. Some people just don’t care much for women when they’re not procreating. 

I know that it is really hard for some of you to come to grips with to this day. I know that we had to go through a lot of things as some of you grappled with the truth, some of that grappling involving getting totally disconnected from reality. But HRC was an absolutely terrible candidate. We don’t have to really re litigate 2016 campaign unless you guys want to. Biden would have wiped the floor with trump in 2016.  But the democrats have really embraced anything other than some self reflection as far as 2016 goes. 

[C-Man 27,293]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I know that it is really hard for some of you to come to grips with to this day. I know that we had to go through a lot of things as some of you grappled with the truth, some of that grappling involving getting totally disconnected from reality. But HRC was an absolutely terrible candidate. We don’t have to really re litigate 2016 campaign unless you guys want to. Biden would have wiped the floor with trump in 2016.  But the democrats have really embraced anything other than some self reflection as far as 2016 goes. 

Unfortunately, there was somebody worse. Much, much, much worse. Like several orders of magnitude worse.

[Satchel 6,949]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I know that it is really hard for some of you to come to grips with to this day. I know that we had to go through a lot of things as some of you grappled with the truth, some of that grappling involving getting totally disconnected from reality. But HRC was an absolutely terrible candidate. We don’t have to really re litigate 2016 campaign unless you guys want to. Biden would have wiped the floor with trump in 2016.  But the democrats have really embraced anything other than some self reflection as far as 2016 goes. 

In what way was she terrible? The Hillary haters have the hardest time with this. 

[jimmyjazz 46,375]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But the democrats have really embraced anything other than some self reflection as far as 2016 goes. 

I wonder if there is any other party that should embrace some self reflection?

Nah.

[Js1 85,659]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wonder if there is any other party that should embrace some self reflection?

Nah.

Remind me which party wrote an entire postmortem and the ripped it to shreds by being even fucking shittier to minority voters, women, independents and anyone with a functioning brain 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,853]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Sooner or later, does ut ausitn have a plan on growing ?

I hope the fuck not.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,853]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

n what way was she terrible? The Hillary haters have the hardest time with this. 

She was terrible in that a huge number of voters had a visceral hatred of her.  And the US is fucking sexist as hell.  And people in the US blame the wife when the husband is a  philanderer.

Just because I don't hate HRC doesn't mean I don't recognize that the US is full of hateful cunts who hate her.