Merit based school admission versus discrimination against Asians and Whites

Don't know if you realize this, but they are indeed being automated as well speak.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicole...disease-and-design-new-drugs/?sh=1fa216fe44db

 

What you dont realize is im talking bed side manner. Bathing patients. Etc

 

Exactly
The other portion of the debate is the school itself.
Those kids trying to get into top schools and their parents don’t see lower rank schools as an option therefore they maybe have scholarships or much cheaper tuition but they don’t want to go there

you have rich parents bribing schools like USC to get their kids in
You don’t have rich parents bribing Sam Houston state

 

Learn..

the other guy was saying there's alot of jobs not requiring any intellect

 

Current CT scan technology can validate/refute medical diagnosis . Can you imagine a future where you just get scanned and get a full diagnosis?
How robots performing surgery?

There are no limits on AI technology.

 

I agree AI is the future
for

everything

 

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the Harvard admissions case, and Students for Fair Admissions released this video today

 

Its going to great when the school is 90% Indian if its actually merit based.

 

[Didn't realize I had posted in this thread

 

Will the Supreme Court Ask Harvard How it Justifies Treating "Asian Americans" as a Homogenous Category?

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/2...ing-asian-americans-as-a-homogenous-category/

excerpt:

Affirmative action in higher education raises all sorts of interesting legal, political, and ethical issues. In the specific context of litigation alleging that Harvard discriminates against Asian students, now pending before the Supreme Court, I wonder if any of the Justice will ask Harvard University's counsel how it justifies classifying "Asian Americans" as a homogenous category.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that preferences for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are justified, legally and otherwise. Let's also assume--though it's far from unproblematic--that it makes sense to classify everyone with European, North African, and West Asian ancestry as generically "White."

The problem remains that in keeping track of the race/ethnicity of its students for "diversity" purposes, Harvard classifies students with ancestry in the rest of Asia as "Asian American." This includes everyone from Pakistani to Chinese to Indonesian to Filipino to Vietnamese Americans. These various groups differ dramatically in appearance, cuisine, culture, and religion. South Asians, East Asians, and Micronesians, all encompassed within the "Asian American" category, even have different genetic and anthropological origins.

Let's say Harvard already has admitted 20% "Asian Americans." They are now considering admitting their first Hmong applicant. Does it make any sense to consider this individual, for "diversity" purposes, as the 20%-plus "Asian," rather than as the first Hmong?

Indeed, while "Asians" have a reputation for being "overrepresented" and economically successful, that is primarily true of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and, to a lesser extent, Korean Americans. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Cambodian, Hmong, and other Asian subgroups are not "overrepresented" in elite educational institutions. Some of these groups have quite poor average socioeconomic indicators. Filipino Americans have a achieved a good measure of economic success, on average, but as late as 1970 they were one of the poorest ethnic groups in the United States.

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islands used to be in the "Asian American or Pacific Islander" category. But they successfully lobbied for their own category after discovering that they faced discrimination in admissions in mainland universities because they belonged to an "overrepresented" category, even though their particular groups were "underrepresented."

Harvard, of course, is simply following the classifications used by the Department of Education, and the government as a whole. But to pass the "strict scrutiny" the Court applies to racial classifications, one would imagine that Harvard would have to come up with something better than, "we use these categories for diversity purposes because we use them in our reports to the Department of Education," especially given, as I've noted in previous posts, that the categories were not invented with affirmative action in mind, much less with "educational diversity" in mind.
​

more at the link

​

 

I find it interesting that so many on the Right are arguing that private institutions can't have affirmative action as that is discrimination on race yet were fine with private institutions such as Hobby Lobby and Catholic Charities can discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

if only the author would provide links to the research conducted. my guess is that the author did not do such reseach.

i know that UCLA had done some studies indicating that Chinese, Indians, Korean have done very well in academic and work settings. not so much for the Japanese Americans

one of the observations of this disconnect is that, for the most part, Japanese Americans are much more Americanized. overwhelming majority of them are 4th or 5th generation Americans, w no immigrant experience. the other sub Asian groups are mostly 1st or 2nd generation American; invariably, they have had immigrant experience (either members of immediate family are immigrants, or have friends / relatives / spouse who are immigrants)

no, they're not, far from it.

Fliippinos have been in the US since before WW2. in the 1970s, they were much better off than the recent arrivals, such as the Vietnameses or Cambodians, Hmongs, etc. .​

 

Why aren’t they trying to get into U of H ?
The other Harvard?



lol hahahahahahaha

 

Art history dropouts need supplies at hobby lobby breh