President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
What do you know about DEI man? Have you ever worked at a company with a couple hundred thousand employees and a robust DEI process?
No? Interesting
how does it work differently in colleges than affirmative action in practice?
it absolutely entails taking a "holistic approach" by which the color of their skin is considered as a pro or a con in admissions
i graciously accept your accurate description of me 😀
it absolutely entails taking a "holistic approach" by which the color of their skin is considered as a pro or a con in admissions
Evidence for this claim?
how does it work differently in colleges than affirmative action in practice?
it absolutely entails taking a "holistic approach" by which the color of their skin is considered as a pro or a con in admissions
Skin color isn't a consideration in DEI
It's hilarious because literally the entire point of DEI is that those things NOT be a consideration.
But conservatives were told DEI is just repackaged AA and BY GAWD they're going to believe it.
google is your friend if you ever choose to stop intentionally being a pie in the sky ignoramus
dartmouth even decided to bring back test scores because they found it harder to give minorities advantages in admissions when they refused to submit scores
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
tl:dr they are unsure if the less qualified applicant can hack it when they don't submit scores
But students' optimal submission policy
should vary greatly with those characteristics precisely because SAT scores are used within
context. For example, a 1400 is a much more positive signal for an applicant from a small rural
high school where the 75th percentile of SAT scores is 1200 than it would be for the modal
applicant. But applicants are unlikely to have the information needed to calculate their optimal
score submitting strategy; Admissions Offices do not broadcast the precise mechanics of using
test scores in context. Empirically, under a test score optional policy, high achieving less
advantaged applicants submit their scores at too low a rate and significantly reduce their
probability of admission. More advantaged, high achieving students are likely easier to evaluate
with or without test scores since they frequently attend high schools already known to
3 We show the same result in a larger sample of IvyPlus schools in Friedman et at (2025).
Admissions Offices, making the high school's grading policies and level of academic rigor better
understood
but if they did submit their "not dartmouth standard but still kinda good" scores then dartmouth felt comfortable lowering the admissions criteria to let them in
we see that for SAT scores above 1350, less advantaged students have a significantly
higher probability of admissions conditional on test score. This is because Admissions Offices
use SAT scores within context. At an SAT score of 1400-1440, less advantaged students have an
admissions rate of 8.0 percent versus 3.8 percent for more advantaged students. The contrast is
similar for first-generation college applicants. At an SAT of 1400-1440, first-generation
applicants have 2.2 times the admissions rate of non-first-generation candidates
we literally have colleges publishing papers on the optimal way to lower admissions standards for dei and you still try to pretend like i'm either uninformed or making it up
shame on you
I asked for evidence for DEI policies considering skin color as a positive or negative. The paper you linked to never even mentioned DEI. I also see nothing about skin color in the excerpts you provided. Do you think that supported your claim? Really?
Would you like to try again?
I asked for evidence for DEI policies considering skin color as a positive or negative. The paper you linked to never even mentioned DEI.
Would you like to try again?
i'm sorry but i can't even tell if you're just that braindead stupid or trolling at this point
i'm sorry but i can't even tell if you're just that braindead stupid or trolling at this point
so humble and relenting
i'm sorry but i can't even tell if you're just that braindead stupid or trolling at this point
Is this your version of conceding that you have no evidence for your claim or??
I know, I know! Evidence for his claim.
i mean, if he weren't happening to be an ideological ally of yours in this you'd be hard pressed to disagree with my assessment
i mean, if he weren't happening to be an ideological ally of yours in this you'd be hard pressed to disagree with my assessment
"Nobody in this thread would disagree with me!"
But anyway, did you have evidence or not?
but honestly - you guys are not posting in good faith
you're making outlandish claims of "nuh uh no it isn't" without providing receipts
receipts are shown
if you google it you'll get dozens of results
i even bother to show an academic paper authored by a college that expressly discusses doing it and you still go "not good enough"
if we applied these conditions i'd also be unable to prove that santa claus wasn't real either
dartmouth even decided to bring back test scores because they found it harder to give high-achieving minorities advantages in admissions when they refused to submit scores
Fixed.
If SATs are low for minority students who are otherwise doing well academically by other metrics, it's entirely valid to reconsider how heavily to weight SAT score.
Let's do the math. If a drug previously cost $100, and Trump through his "special talent" causes the price to be reduced by 1000%, what does the drug cost now?
One hundred and forty dollars
Brother, I have intimate knowledge of how DEI works at scale because I am a high level manager at one of the largest companies in the world
Our biggest DEI policy is allowing people to talk openly about the racism they have experienced
There is no DEI policy that says we need representation
"Nobody in this thread would disagree with me!"
But anyway, did you have evidence or not?
you are as dumb as a bag of rocks and i clearly can't hold your hand and walk you through anything
this is back to your "Kamala will win in a landslide and anyone who disagrees is rtarded" nonsense you posted for months
but honestly - you guys are not posting in good faithyou're making outlandish claims of "nuh uh no it isn't" without providing receipts receipts are shownif you google it you'll get dozens of resultsi even bother to show an academic paper authored by a college that expressly discusses doing it and you still go "not good enough"if we applied these conditions i'd also be unable t
We have done far more than "googled it" which is why we understand it and you don't.
This academic paper you mentioned didn't mention skin color in any excerpt you provided and didn't mention DEI or even the word diversity in the entire thing. How exactly do you think it supports your contention that DEI makes skin color a positive or negative consideration?
Brother, I have intimate knowledge of how DEI works at scale because I am a high level manager at one of the largest companies in the world
Our biggest DEI policy is allowing people to talk openly about the racism they have experienced
There is no DEI policy that says we need representation
i'm not against dei - nowhere did i say that
i'm sure your company is implementing it well and responsibly
i'm simply stating that in search of DEI, colleges are lowering admissions standards for minorities in the same way as they did for affirmative action and this is indisputable and the colleges readily admit to doing so - it may be done a lot better and more nuanced than the simple "what race are they" that was back in the clinton days but it does happen and you can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't
whatever and however your company implements it has literally nothing to do with the college admissions process
Also lol, from the paper Rick is big mad about:
For example, a 1400 is a much more positive signal for an applicant from a small rural high school where the 75th percentile of SAT scores is 1200 than it would be for the modal applicant.
Not only is this a completely valid point, it's literally DEI for white students in dipshit rural towns!
you are as dumb as a bag of rocks and i clearly can't hold your hand and walk you through anything
this is back to your "Kamala will win in a landslide and anyone who disagrees is rtarded" nonsense you posted for months
I mean you could do this ^^ or you could post the evidence that supports your claim. I know why you chose this and not the other. Do you?
i'm not against dei - nowhere did i say thati'm sure your company is implementing it well and responsiblyi'm simply stating that in search of DEI, colleges are lowering admissions standards for minorities in the same way as they did for affirmative action and this is indisputable and the colleges readily admit to doing so - it may be done a lot better and more nuanced than the
Where does what you posted mention anything about race? I took rural as kids in bum **** Oklahoma. I have no clue why you are assuming they mean black kids
Maybe its because if you don't bad faith assume they are talking about black kids your entire argument falls apart
