How will MSU athletics be impacted by recent Supreme Court ruling....

[mstateglfr]

Likely they'd do a variation of Texas's Top 10 percent plan. And of course there's already an article about that.

With race-based admissions no longer an option, states may imitate Texas Top 10% Plan

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the practice unconstitutional, admissions experts say other states could look to Texas’ Top 10% Plan as a way to diversify their student bodies.

www.texastribune.org

Top 10% at many metro schools is infinitely more prepared for college than top 10% as some of the rural schools. At least thats the case around me.
The top 10% between schools is not standardized.

Oh well- any system created for a school that has to deny qualified applications will result in applicants and situations where people feel slighted and unjustly left out.

 

[mstateglfr]

In 2003, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:

It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

It's only 20 years later, not 25. So go USA for accomplishing this sooner than she expected!



...I kid, and I dont.
Honestly, doing away with race based admissions is totally fine. I dislike the idea at a base level when it comes to school admissions and employment.
I do hope the selective universities figure out a way to continue to have a diverse student body(race, gender, culture, etc) because those schools are selective and elite for a reason- they statistically spit out more people who impact the world for years to come.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Win Won Soon has always been our Asian booster. He's never carried his weight, but has been better the past 13 years I guess.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

1- as already stated, almost every institution of higher learning accepts federal funding. Federal loans = federal funding. Its basically like a dozen extremely small and extremely religious colleges that dont accept any government funding. The % of total colleges is so small it is statistically not even relevant.

2- 'the market will decide' is what forced the country into creating laws that ensured equal access to goods and services regardless of skin color. The market decided and it did last long. It kept certain groups from eating in restaurants, from moving to certain neighborhoods, from being able to afford certain insurance, from being able to buy homes in certain areas, etc etc. Only one of the things I mentioned could be seen as receiving government funding, and it would actually be private funding from a company that received government funding.



Libertarianism is like Communism- it looks good on paper and would be an utter failure in practice.

As to point 1, that shouldn’t be happening unless it’s based on merit. IE I get this research grant because im the best. Way past that of course and can’t stop that ball. Why? Because it leaves to entrenched players sucking on the government teat. Farming works the same way btw.

As to point 2, I disagree. Change should happen and ACTUALLY happens not because of what government forces or chooses for us. The laws ultimately were put into place because people voted as change happened naturally. The Civil Rights act wasn’t passed in 1869 or even 1900. It was a full 100 years after the Civil war. And, you probably don’t believe this, but it would’ve happened naturally in the South as well. Just as Mississippi and Jackson will improve dramatically as soon as the civil rights poltician generation dies. You know the white and black politicians who actually lived through the change and still hold grudges/ridiculous beliefs about the other races.

Wind “power” is one great example forced down our throats. It will be obsolete at some point.

All electric vehicles are another example. NO DOUBT they are the future but the government is creating huge economic problems by intentionally trying to create a market (in all aspects of policy) where they make sense for your average Joe. They don’t and won’t for many years.

 

[ChE1997]

Does this impact the Ayers case?

Ayers was more about funding and ending the "separate but equal" vestiages in Higher Ed in Mississippi. Unless it changed this year, Race has nothing to do with who is admitted to a Mississippi University. so I don't think this will have an impact on Ayers.

Full admission to Mississippi State will be granted to high school graduates who complete the CPC with one of the following:

• A minimum 3.20 grade-point average (GPA) on the CPC.
• A minimum 2.50 GPA on the CPC and a composite score of 16 or higher on the ACT or the equivalent SAT score.
• A minimum 2.0 GPA on the CPC and a composite score of 18 or higher on the ACT or the equivalent SAT score.
• Standing in the top 50 percent of the class and a composite score of 16 or higher on the ACT or the equivalent SAT score.

 

[ChE1997]

No idea how it would impact athletics at all.
I wouldn't imagine that would impact MSU overall in the very least. Places like Harvard and Yale, sure.
I am as liberal as it comes, but to me college admission should be based purely on achievement. The admission requirements should be clearly stated by each university, if you qualify you are in. If you don't, you are not in. Let the chips fall where they may.

Race, Religion, gender, and for that matter names should not even be used during the admission process. Just remove all that bias on the front end.

Best qualified potential students get in, nothing else matters.

Now if you want to give a certain number of spot to under-privilaged students, you need to do it across the board. Race shouldn't factor. Maybe socio/economic.

Agree. Wish they would apply that to the "legacy preferential" admissions to those schools as well

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

Maybe he’s a true liberal. Small government, stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of yours. Low taxes and freedom at every turn. The founding fathers agree. Today’s liberals may not. Let’s all be friends.

That would be a libertarian.

 

[ChE1997]

Assuming the law is actually complied with (which I'm skeptical; elite universities like discriminating against Asians even more than they used to like discriminating against jewish people), it will affect more than a handful of universities. Pretty much every university that is selective at all lowers admission standards in an attempt to get more students that can check either a african american, non-white hispanic, or american indian box. Even the schools that aren't particularly selective and/or don't have a strong affirmative action preference in admissions will still see the GPA and standardized test scores of admitted minorities go up b/c they won't be competing with more prestigious schools for which the applicants would not be qualififed outside of a race based boost on their admission.

That effect won't make it all the way to MSU or Ole Miss undergrad, but UM Law and UMMC should see an impact.

They left moon sized loophole that will change little in the big targets of this.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.”

 

[Boom Boom]

ending affirmative action?

Looking for reasonable discussion. You can be biased based on your political leanings.... just try not to be an A$$4ole about it. Could end up helping state schools like ours from what I'm reading in terms of quality minority athletes and students.

So I think about this by Bayesian analysis (ok, i didnt really get tot hat before posting. But its how i started):

What would color blind admissions lead to? Evidence suggests lower admissions for minorities (lower % than population). So why?

1.) Minorities are inferior. I reject this explanation.

2.) Bias in admissions.

3.) Societal factors. Includes poverty and disparate opportunity (such as crappy inner city schools).

4.) Self selection bias. Less qualified applicants. Does not appear to fit any evidence.

So, we basically come to bias in admissions and society acts to reduce minority admission. Why would we address this by ignoring it?

Who is being harmed? The white student who "could have" gotten in but didn't? Evidence suggests that spot is actually going to legacy admissions, not racial quotas.

My take: give preference/quotas to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Use essays, family income etc to establish, as race-neutral as possible. Use procedures and training of staff to minimize admission bias. If you are a minority from a rich family and a great school....you already got your leg up dude.

 

[ChE1997]

As to point 1, that shouldn’t be happening unless it’s based on merit. IE I get this research grant because im the best. Way past that of course and can’t stop that ball. Why? Because it leaves to entrenched players sucking on the government teat. Farming works the same way btw.

As to point 2, I disagree. Change should happen and ACTUALLY happens not because of what government forces or chooses for us. The laws ultimately were put into place because people voted as change happened naturally. The Civil Rights act wasn’t passed in 1869 or even 1900. It was a full 100 years after the Civil war. And, you probably don’t believe this, but it would’ve happened naturally in the South as well. Just as Mississippi and Jackson will improve dramatically as soon as the civil rights poltician generation dies. You know the white and black politicians who actually lived through the change and still hold grudges/ridiculous beliefs about the other races.

Wind “power” is one great example forced down our throats. It will be obsolete at some point.

All electric vehicles are another example. NO DOUBT they are the future but the government is creating huge economic problems by intentionally trying to create a market (in all aspects of policy) where they make sense for your average Joe. They don’t and won’t for many years.

Several things.
The Civil Rights Acts were first passed by the US congress and signed into Law in 1866 and 1875. They were overturned as the court said that blacks had no right to be treated as equal to white men. You should read Harlan Marshall's dissent to that case. It's very applicable to what many current debates argue.

Wind power has been a primary means of power since Pre History with evidence it was used in Egypt 7,000 years ago. It will never "go away". FYI, WITHOUT Subsidies, wind is cheaper in the US than coal, oil, and natural gas for making electricity. Not the coal, oil, or natural gas powerplant. The fuel. It's cheaper to build a wind turbine than to buy the fuel for the power plant. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

Electric cars are another. If they don't make sense to you, don't buy one. A Lambo Farm tractor makes no sense to me in my suburban commute. so I don't want one. It might make sense to a chicken farmer.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

Top 10% at many metro schools is infinitely more prepared for college than top 10% as some of the rural schools.

Those outside the top 10% at metro schools in Texas is where Ole Miss has feasted the last few years, and State has had some success as well

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Lazy ********: Everyone hates hard work.
Trophy Era Kids: It's not fair. I wanted in.
Standardized Testing (Government): This is the way. Everyone is equal and thinks alike.

Oversimplified version.

 

[thatsbaseball]

In the midst of all this all this high minded thinking about racial equality how in the world is it OK for the POTUS to select his VP and SCOTUS nominee based on (as he stated he would up front) gender and race when no one else (supposedly) in the country can do that legally ?

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

So I think about this by Bayesian analysis (ok, i didnt really get tot hat before posting. But its how i started):

What would color blind admissions lead to? Evidence suggests lower admissions for minorities (lower % than population). So why?

1.) Minorities are inferior. I reject this explanation.

2.) Bias in admissions.

3.) Societal factors. Includes poverty and disparate opportunity (such as crappy inner city schools).

4.) Self selection bias. Less qualified applicants. Does not appear to fit any evidence.

So, we basically come to bias in admissions and society acts to reduce minority admission. Why would we address this by ignoring it?

Who is being harmed? The white student who "could have" gotten in but didn't? Evidence suggests that spot is actually going to legacy admissions, not racial quotas.

My take: give preference/quotas to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Use essays, family income etc to establish, as race-neutral as possible. Use procedures and training of staff to minimize admission bias. If you are a minority from a rich family and a great school....you already got your leg up dude.

Who is being harmed? The white student who "could have" gotten in but didn't? Evidence suggests that spot is actually going to legacy admissions, not racial quotas.

They do indeed need to get rid of legacy admissions. It is stupid and discriminatory.

There is a lot of hysteria on both sides this morning.

If I were a part of these universities - I would want the absolute best student candidate as a first consideration, no matter race, color, sex, etc.

I don't see why we should use their economic status as a factor, although rich/poor is our biggest issue as a nation. Everyone that makes the education requirements should get equal consideration.

 

[johnson86-1]

So I think about this by Bayesian analysis (ok, i didnt really get tot hat before posting. But its how i started):

What would color blind admissions lead to? Evidence suggests lower admissions for minorities (lower % than population). So why?

1.) Minorities are inferior. I reject this explanation.

Admissions aren't based on inferiority or superiority. In color blind admissions, they would be based on some combination of aptitude for school and achievement (which is very different from superiority/inferiority). Obviously there is a pretty significant different across different groups in aptitude as we measure it and achievement. Hard to say how much is due to actual genetic differences versus environment/nurture type causes because to even contemplate that as a legitimate question gets you labeled a racist. So the numbers just sit there with nobody really trying to make any type of good faith objective determination as to what is attributable to what. Of course you don't need to make that determination if you don't want to engage in racial discrimination.

2.) Bias in admissions.

Obviously that's not driving it now. It surely used to. Now I don't think there is any hard core racism like there used to be against black and jewish people in admissions. Even the bias against Asians isn't really I don't think driven by an animosity towards Asians. Schools just think that if they are "too Asian", they will not be attractive to a lot of students. As awful as that is, I do think there is a subtle difference between that and the type of animosity there was towards black and jewish students in the past.

3.) Societal factors. Includes poverty and disparate opportunity (such as crappy inner city schools).

Seems to obviously be a pretty big impact. Not really fixable by colleges, but if you don't believe the mismatch theory, then the Texas type solution is very appealing. Not sure it helps Harvard, Yale, or Princeton b/c they can't even accept the top 1% of each school. But they probably go a long way by saying if you have the top GPA at your school, the top SAT or LSAT, and come from a family with X% of the median income in the area or Y% of the national income (maybe 50% for each? Maybe as high as 75%), then you get big preferences. That would be race neutral and presumably still help a ton of minorities.

4.) Self selection bias. Less qualified applicants. Does not appear to fit any evidence.

I think there is some self selection bias for selective schools. Virtually no white or Asian person is going to apply to a really selective college when there GPA and test scores aren't competitive. Outside of legacies that can buy their way in or athletes or students with some other hook, they know roughly what they need to be competitive. Minorities that want to go to selective schools know that they can have lower test scores, so the average test scores of non-asian minority applicants likely are lower than those of whites and asians.

So, we basically come to bias in admissions and society acts to reduce minority admission. Why would we address this by ignoring it?

Again, coming to bias in admissions is ridiculous. The whole lawsuit exists because of bias in favor of non-asian minorities and against asians and to a lesser extent white people. "Society acts" covers a whole lot of ground, but why would you address it by discriminating against Asians in selective colleges as opposed to actually identifying and addressing the acts in question? Much more efficient to actuall address the unwanted behavior than use it as an excuse to engage in racial discrimination.

Who is being harmed? The white student who "could have" gotten in but didn't? Evidence suggests that spot is actually going to legacy admissions, not racial quotas.

My take: give preference/quotas to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Use essays, family income etc to establish, as race-neutral as possible. Use procedures and training of staff to minimize admission bias. If you are a minority from a rich family and a great school....you already got your leg up dude.

I suspect very few people would disagree with this from the right. At the very least, I think they'd agree that preferences for students from disadvantaged backgrounds should be legal even if they disagree that they're good policy (I tend to think they should be utilized at most public universities and I'm indifferent on whether they are used at the most elite colleges), but they shouldn't be used for professional schools. If we haven't caught somebody up by the time they are being considered for admission to medical school for example, I don't think that's a good mechanism to address it.

 

[Boom Boom]

Obviously there is a pretty significant different across different groups in aptitude as we measure it and achievement. Hard to say how much is due to actual genetic differences versus environment/nurture type causes because to even contemplate that as a legitimate question gets you labeled a racist. So the numbers just sit there with nobody really trying to make any type of good faith objective determination as to what is attributable to what. Of course you don't need to make that determination if you don't want to engage in racial discrimination.

The data does not show significant differences in aptitude as we measure it.

Obviously that's not driving it now. It surely used to. Now I don't think there is any hard core racism like there used to be against black and jewish people in admissions. Even the bias against Asians isn't really I don't think driven by an animosity towards Asians. Schools just think that if they are "too Asian", they will not be attractive to a lot of students. As awful as that is, I do think there is a subtle difference between that and the type of animosity there was towards black and jewish students in the past.

It is not a fact that there is bias against Asians.

Seems to obviously be a pretty big impact. Not really fixable by colleges, but if you don't believe the mismatch theory, then the Texas type solution is very appealing. Not sure it helps Harvard, Yale, or Princeton b/c they can't even accept the top 1% of each school. But they probably go a long way by saying if you have the top GPA at your school, the top SAT or LSAT, and come from a family with X% of the median income in the area or Y% of the national income (maybe 50% for each? Maybe as high as 75%), then you get big preferences. That would be race neutral and presumably still help a ton of minorities.

Unintended consequence here is peeps school shopping, looking for the place where they can be the top applicant.

I think there is some self selection bias for selective schools. Virtually no white or Asian person is going to apply to a really selective college when there GPA and test scores aren't competitive. Outside of legacies that can buy their way in or athletes or students with some other hook, they know roughly what they need to be competitive. Minorities that want to go to selective schools know that they can have lower test scores, so the average test scores of non-asian minority applicants likely are lower than those of whites and asians.

That Asian self selection bias probably explains the disparities in test scores.

Again, coming to bias in admissions is ridiculous. The whole lawsuit exists because of bias in favor of non-asian minorities and against asians and to a lesser extent white people.

Again, this is nowhere near a fact.

"Society acts" covers a whole lot of ground, but why would you address it by discriminating against Asians in selective colleges as opposed to actually identifying and addressing the acts in question? Much more efficient to actuall address the unwanted behavior than use it as an excuse to engage in racial discrimination.

Again, this is nowhere near a fact. To answer your question, why would you not? If you know that society acts against minorities, and you are trying to admit the best, why wouldn't you want to try to identify the best by adjusting for the error of societal acts against minorities?

I suspect very few people would disagree with this from the right. At the very least, I think they'd agree that preferences for students from disadvantaged backgrounds should be legal even if they disagree that they're good policy (I tend to think they should be utilized at most public universities and I'm indifferent on whether they are used at the most elite colleges), but they shouldn't be used for professional schools. If we haven't caught somebody up by the time they are being considered for admission to medical school for example, I don't think that's a good mechanism to address it.

 

[WrightGuy821]

State's acceptance rate is very high to begin with. So it's not going to affect us.

To me, it's silly to base college acceptance on anything other than merit. I see a bunch of liberals snapping back about legacy admissions, and I'm fine with doing away with that, too. What these folks on the left don't want to talk about is that affirmative action admissions disproportionately impact other POC's, particularly Asians. It was a horrible piece of legislation. No black person should be told that they aren't capable of accomplishing something on their own without the help of some rich white liberal elites in the government, and no other person should have to be denied because a university is required to take a less qualified student based on the color of their skin. It's so racist. It's the worst kind of racist.

Well... It's not the worst kind of racist but it is a little bit racist. The problem is lots of those "elite schools" would get cancelled if they didn't have a significant percentage of nonwhite scholars. Race should not be a factor in getting into these schools, However, underqualified legacy students shouldn't be getting in because their daddy donated a building. Like most things these schools are very corrupt in that sense

 

[StumpNewGround]

Does this impact the Ayers case?

Great question. Sorry. I didn’t read through the novel length posts to find an answer. Anyone have the cliff notes?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Who is being harmed? The white student who "could have" gotten in but didn't? Evidence suggests that spot is actually going to legacy admissions, not racial quotas.

They do indeed need to get rid of legacy admissions. It is stupid and discriminatory.

There is a lot of hysteria on both sides this morning.

If I were a part of these universities - I would want the absolute best student candidate as a first consideration, no matter race, color, sex, etc.

I don't see why we should use their economic status as a factor, although rich/poor is our biggest issue as a nation. Everyone that makes the education requirements should get equal consideration.

You are hitting on the problem that we've been trying to solve the wrong way. The problem is how to get the best students, regardless of economic status. We've been trying to solve that with race/gender/etc. input. You can't do that. I personally don't know if it's even possible to solve this. You see this all the way from academic pursuits to athletics, MOST of the time, the students/athletes/parents that put in the most time and money, get the best results. I even see this in youth sports at the 9U-12U level. Parents pay for lessons, kids put in the work, they get better at specific things than more athletic kids. Baseball is a prime example, pitching and hitting lessons galore.

So how do you go out and find the best academic students for your university? You can't just look at score, because scores can be affected by the students who have paid money to take classes that help you pass the test. And obviously schools are different across any town/city/economic spectrum. It's impossible to do. Maybe measure IQ? But work ethic should be a part of it too, right? Maybe even the most important part.

The only advice I can give anyone is to be well above the cut-off line, because when you get those selective last few spots for anything, things get shady. And I don't think you can ever change this. And chances are, MOST students are near the cut-off line, so unless it's a passion to do whatever it is you're doing, I suggest going another direction, in something you're better or more passionate about. Or at least, finding a cheaper way to accomplish it.

 

[11thEagleFan]

Affirmative action was always unconstitutional, even if its ambitions were noble. I agree with other posters in that I’d be okay with a certain number of spots being reserved for economically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race. I also think we should do away with legacy preferences, even though my own kids would benefit from it at 3 different state universities. If they can’t get in on their own merit, they shouldn’t be admitted.

 

[Theconnormead]

View attachment 359792

I 100% totally and unequivocally agree with this, as any sane and rational person should. I'd add that I apply that same logic when it comes to certification of commercial airline pilots too. Give me the most qualified person - I don't care what race, creed, religion, "gender" they are. Just land the plane safely, please and thank you.

100% agree, there are a couple of fields where standards should not be adjusted or compromised....medicine and airline pilots. I'm with you, I want the most qualified for those two areas period. Outside of a few fields I don't care as much, as there is a natural weeding process once you start working. But, I don't want the weeding process to take place in the air or in the operating room.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

Several things.
The Civil Rights Acts were first passed by the US congress and signed into Law in 1866 and 1875. They were overturned as the court said that blacks had no right to be treated as equal to white men. You should read Harlan Marshall's dissent to that case. It's very applicable to what many current debates argue.

Wind power has been a primary means of power since Pre History with evidence it was used in Egypt 7,000 years ago. It will never "go away". FYI, WITHOUT Subsidies, wind is cheaper in the US than coal, oil, and natural gas for making electricity. Not the coal, oil, or natural gas powerplant. The fuel. It's cheaper to build a wind turbine than to buy the fuel for the power plant. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

Electric cars are another. If they don't make sense to you, don't buy one. A Lambo Farm tractor makes no sense to me in my suburban commute. so I don't want one. It might make sense to a chicken farmer.

Hahahahahah, that’s not at all what the Civil Rights cases of 1883 said. The court said that Congress didn’t have the power to regulate private individuals and businesses. Congress thought they did. Court said no. It was an 8-1 decision. It was overwhelmingly the correct decision based on the Constitution and historical precedent. The justices did their constitutionally appointed jobs. It wasn’t even a controversial decision, it was 8-1! Most importantly, The commerce clause had not been unconstitutionally expanded by the Court as it was later in a time of crisis. That’s the ONLY reasons why the the Civil Rights act of 1964 was upheld by the Court. Once the commerce clause was expanded (the worst Court decision in American history), justices became politicians, no longer jurists. That’s the problem. The Feds were never intended to be kings as to local or state policy.

Haha wind power is garbage and you know it. It can’t do what we need as a society and harms wildlife. Of course, it worked for the Egyptians, it was literally the first form of power.

 

[MaroonOldCrow]

Bracky: We're going to have to start signing Asian kids for athletics now aren't we?

This is why we have golf teams.

Disclaimer: I'm a half-Asian guy that can't play golf for 17-all.

 

[mstateglfr]

As to point 1, that shouldn’t be happening unless it’s based on merit. IE I get this research grant because im the best. Way past that of course and can’t stop that ball. Why? Because it leaves to entrenched players sucking on the government teat. Farming works the same way btw.

As to point 2, I disagree. Change should happen and ACTUALLY happens not because of what government forces or chooses for us. The laws ultimately were put into place because people voted as change happened naturally. The Civil Rights act wasn’t passed in 1869 or even 1900. It was a full 100 years after the Civil war. And, you probably don’t believe this, but it would’ve happened naturally in the South as well. Just as Mississippi and Jackson will improve dramatically as soon as the civil rights poltician generation dies. You know the white and black politicians who actually lived through the change and still hold grudges/ridiculous beliefs about the other races.

Wind “power” is one great example forced down our throats. It will be obsolete at some point.

All electric vehicles are another example. NO DOUBT they are the future but the government is creating huge economic problems by intentionally trying to create a market (in all aspects of policy) where they make sense for your average Joe. They don’t and won’t for many years.

1-
- federally backed student loans count as federal money being accepted by a university. So any university that accepts federal loans is what we are discussing here. That is how wide a net this casts.

2-
- it sucks that you disagree with the reality of history.
- it sucks that you defended your claim that racism wont last long in business practices by pointing to decades upon decades of accepted racism. That, to me, is a long time and shows your earlier comment is incorrect.
- you are incorrect that change happens naturally and change doesnt happen because of what the government 'forces or chooses for us'. the government forced schools to integrate and there were violent incidents for years after. change happened because the government moved forward regardless of what some wanted. you claim laws were put into place because people voted as change happened naturally, but even that is incorrect based on many examples. the change was refused for years. the change happened because in some instances courts forced laws to change. none of this is evidence of your wonky version of reality where change happened naturally.

3-
- I am not getting into wind power or EVs. this thread isnt about either and neither has dick to do with what you or I have posted up to now.

 

[ckDOG]

You are hitting on the problem that we've been trying to solve the wrong way. The problem is how to get the best students, regardless of economic status. We've been trying to solve that with race/gender/etc. input. You can't do that. I personally don't know if it's even possible to solve this. You see this all the way from academic pursuits to athletics, MOST of the time, the students/athletes/parents that put in the most time and money, get the best results. I even see this in youth sports at the 9U-12U level. Parents pay for lessons, kids put in the work, they get better at specific things than more athletic kids. Baseball is a prime example, pitching and hitting lessons galore.

So how do you go out and find the best academic students for your university? You can't just look at score, because scores can be affected by the students who have paid money to take classes that help you pass the test. And obviously schools are different across any town/city/economic spectrum. It's impossible to do. Maybe measure IQ? But work ethic should be a part of it too, right? Maybe even the most important part.

The only advice I can give anyone is to be well above the cut-off line, because when you get those selective last few spots for anything, things get shady. And I don't think you can ever change this. And chances are, MOST students are near the cut-off line, so unless it's a passion to do whatever it is you're doing, I suggest going another direction, in something you're better or more passionate about. Or at least, finding a cheaper way to accomplish it.

Philosophical point. Getting the best students is fine for a private education. They can do what they want. Public higher education has a societal component to it and doesn't always align with enrolling the "best" students possible. There are social mobility components and goals for contributing to a regions economic development.

Take a gander at the intro of our own mission statement: Mississippi State University is a public, land-grant university whose mission is to provide access and opportunity to students from all sectors of the state’s diverse population, as well as from other states and countries, and to offer excellent programs of teaching, research, and service.

Again a just a principle based observation. As a practical matter end up attracting the best if you are doing your job well. I get that. There's less prestigious institutions for the less capable or proven. I want MSU to fill be in the former bucket just like you. But we have to acknowledge there's more to it than simply catering to only the best in a public education system.

 

[mstateglfr]

Haha wind power is garbage and you know it. It can’t do what we need as a society and harms wildlife. Of course, it worked for the Egyptians, it was literally the first form of power.

Damnit, I just let myself get sucked into your wind power tangent.

Wind power is not a solution for everywhere, just like hydro-electric isnt a solution for everywhere. Just because wind power isnt a solution for everywhere doesnt mean it is not a solution for anywhere.
Over 60% of power generated in my state is wind generated. It is not garbage and more than hydro-electric power is garbage or coal is garbage or natural gas is garbage.


Anyways, the real reason why I decided to post was because of your point that wind energy harms wildlife. Stop it. Bringing that up is an absurd hurdle to expect energy production to clear.
Go look up what coal energy production does to wildlife, both directly and indirectly. Go look up was oil energy production does to wildlife, both directly and indirectly. Add nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, and wood to the list of energy production that harms wildlife both directly and indirectly.
My gosh. Yes, wind energy can kill birds and bats. That is a real and well documented result of wind energy.
All energy production harms wildlife and there are many which are significantly worse than wind energy.

 

[mstateglfr]

You are hitting on the problem that we've been trying to solve the wrong way. The problem is how to get the best students, regardless of economic status. We've been trying to solve that with race/gender/etc. input. You can't do that. I personally don't know if it's even possible to solve this. You see this all the way from academic pursuits to athletics, MOST of the time, the students/athletes/parents that put in the most time and money, get the best results. I even see this in youth sports at the 9U-12U level. Parents pay for lessons, kids put in the work, they get better at specific things than more athletic kids. Baseball is a prime example, pitching and hitting lessons galore.

So how do you go out and find the best academic students for your university? You can't just look at score, because scores can be affected by the students who have paid money to take classes that help you pass the test. And obviously schools are different across any town/city/economic spectrum. It's impossible to do. Maybe measure IQ? But work ethic should be a part of it too, right? Maybe even the most important part.

The only advice I can give anyone is to be well above the cut-off line, because when you get those selective last few spots for anything, things get shady. And I don't think you can ever change this. And chances are, MOST students are near the cut-off line, so unless it's a passion to do whatever it is you're doing, I suggest going another direction, in something you're better or more passionate about. Or at least, finding a cheaper way to accomplish it.

When you saw 'we' have been trying to solve this, do you mean MSU, all college admissions, or government? Or is it all/none of the above?

I dont think MSU is trying to get the best students. That isnt MSU's mission/goal. And the same applies to countless public and private colleges/universities across the country.
A small % of higher education is trying to get the best students.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

When you saw 'we' have been trying to solve this, do you mean MSU, all college admissions, or government? Or is it all/none of the above?

I dont think MSU is trying to get the best students. That isnt MSU's mission/goal. And the same applies to countless public and private colleges/universities across the country.
A small % of higher education is trying to get the best students.

The country, in a very general sense. Not really talking about MSU at all. So @ckDOG I agree.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

No idea how it would impact athletics at all.
I wouldn't imagine that would impact MSU overall in the very least. Places like Harvard and Yale, sure.
I am as liberal as it comes, but to me college admission should be based purely on achievement. The admission requirements should be clearly stated by each university, if you qualify you are in. If you don't, you are not in. Let the chips fall where they may.

Race, Religion, gender, and for that matter names should not even be used during the admission process. Just remove all that bias on the front end.

Best qualified potential students get in, nothing else matters.

Now if you want to give a certain number of spot to under-privilaged students, you need to do it across the board. Race shouldn't factor. Maybe socio/economic.

I wasn't expecting this from you. Good Post.

 

[johnson86-1]

Wind power has been a primary means of power since Pre History with evidence it was used in Egypt 7,000 years ago. It will never "go away". FYI, WITHOUT Subsidies, wind is cheaper in the US than coal, oil, and natural gas for making electricity. Not the coal, oil, or natural gas powerplant. The fuel. It's cheaper to build a wind turbine than to buy the fuel for the power plant. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

You can't compare the cost of energy without accounting for the cost of capacity. So yes, you may be able to get energy from wind that is cheaper than just the cost of natural gas to fire a generator, but the natural gas generator is dispatchable capacity. For the wind, you also have to have separate capacity (usually a natural gas plant) or have load that can be interrupted.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Our Nation's Greatness was built on meritocracy. Institutionalized mandates dictating equal outcomes promotes societal decline.

 

[johnson86-1]

The data does not show significant differences in aptitude as we measure it.

Are you playing some word game regarding intelligence/aptitude? I'm perfectly open to the possibility that we do a poor job measuring aptitude/intelligence and the only reason general iq tests are so well correlated with income and other measures is that the same biases that show up in the test show up in the workforce. Which is why I had the qualifier "as we measure it".

Or are you really trying to claim there are not differences at the group level. The tails matching up doesn't change the fact that there is a difference in the distribution.

It is not a fact that there is bias against Asians.

Again, are you playing word games? Or are you denying that Asians on average need higher standardized test scores to be be admitted?

Unintended consequence here is peeps school shopping, looking for the place where they can be the top applicant.

I don't think that's a bad unintended consequence in general in that it helps spread out good students/parents, which are probably the most important resource for good schools. Only downside is it probably is good for the most capable students to be around each other and challenge each other.

That Asian self selection bias probably explains the disparities in test scores.

That can't be right. It's not like no asians are applying and getting rejected. If asians didn't apply unless they had higher scores, that woudl just result in a higher acceptance rate for Asians if they weren't being discriminated against, not fewer asians admitted but just with higher scores.

Again, this is nowhere near a fact.

Except that it pretty much is? All else equal, you have to have higher test scores to be admitted if you are asian than if you are white, and you have to have higher scores if you are white than if you are a non-asian minority. Even with whites presumably getting the higher share of legacy favors and purchases, they still have higher test scores.

Again, this is nowhere near a fact. To answer your question, why would you not? If you know that society acts against minorities, and you are trying to admit the best, why wouldn't you want to try to identify the best by adjusting for the error of societal acts against minorities?

Again, I'm not sure discriminating against asians is a good way to "address" whatever society acts you are considering. But also, it seems crazy to think that "society acts" related to race is a dominant factor that should be considered. I think there should be some burden of proof to show that racism makes it worse to be a minority from an affluent household than a white or asian person from a poor household in a way that you can just assume that the minority's test scores are suppressed but the applicants from poor households aren't.

 

[ChE1997]

Hahahahahah, that’s not at all what the Civil Rights cases of 1883 said. The court said that Congress didn’t have the power to regulate private individuals and businesses. Congress thought they did. Court said no. It was an 8-1 decision. It was overwhelmingly the correct decision based on the Constitution and historical precedent. The justices did their constitutionally appointed jobs. It wasn’t even a controversial decision, it was 8-1! Most importantly, The commerce clause had not been unconstitutionally expanded by the Court as it was later in a time of crisis. That’s the ONLY reasons why the the Civil Rights act of 1964 was upheld by the Court. Once the commerce clause was expanded (the worst Court decision in American history), justices became politicians, no longer jurists. That’s the problem. The Feds were never intended to be kings as to local or state policy.

Haha wind power is garbage and you know it. It can’t do what we need as a society and harms wildlife. Of course, it worked for the Egyptians, it was literally the first form of power.

That one ruling set back the course of US History 100 years.

It was by no means the "right decision" as it was directly opposite several other cases that said the government DID have a responsibility to ensure private businesses serving the public could not discriminate . The court in 1886 said the Equal Protection Clause didn't apply in a very narrow application.


As for precedent: Rex v. Ivens 1835 said

'An indictment lies against an innkeeper who refuses to receive a guest, he having at the time room in his house; and either the price of the guest's entertainment being tendered to him, or such circumstances occurring as will dispense with that tender. This law is founded in good sense. The innkeeper is not to select his guests. He has no right to say to one, you shall come to my inn, and to another you shall not, as every one coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received; and for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants, they having in return a kind of privilege of entertaining travelers and supplying them with that they want.

These authorities are sufficient to show a keeper of an inn is in the exercise of a quasi public employment. The law gives him special privileges, and he is charged with certain duties and responsibilities to the public. The public nature of his employment forbids him from discriminating against any person asking admission as a guest on account of the race or color of that person.

Munn vs Illinois (1876) ( and Pleik vs Chicago)

'Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.'

The court has been "polictical" since Marbury vs Madison.

It seems you wish to bring back the old south.

If your argument is "Wind Power affects wildlife and society" more than Hydrocarbon based power, we cannot have a rational discussion. You are either to ignorant or stupid to continue a discussion.

 

[ChE1997]

You can't compare the cost of energy without accounting for the cost of capacity. So yes, you may be able to get energy from wind that is cheaper than just the cost of natural gas to fire a generator, but the natural gas generator is dispatchable capacity. For the wind, you also have to have separate capacity (usually a natural gas plant) or have load that can be interrupted.

Sure you can. It's literally a factor in the calculation. Levelized cost of power....
Edit: I put the formula below and bolded the Capacity Factor the is what "accounts for the cost of capacity"

And there are places where the wind blows all the time. Mississippi isn't one of them.

And wind's levelized cost of power is less than everything (but solar).

sLCOE = {(overnight capital cost * capital recovery factor + fixed O&M cost )/(8760 * capacity factor)} + (fuel cost * heat rate) + variable O&M cost.

 

[Boom Boom]

Are you playing some word game regarding intelligence/aptitude? I'm perfectly open to the possibility that we do a poor job measuring aptitude/intelligence and the only reason general iq tests are so well correlated with income and other measures is that the same biases that show up in the test show up in the workforce. Which is why I had the qualifier "as we measure it".

No significant difference.

Or are you really trying to claim there are not differences at the group level. The tails matching up doesn't change the fact that there is a difference in the distribution.




Again, are you playing word games? Or are you denying that Asians on average need higher standardized test scores to be be admitted?

I do deny that Asians need higher test scores to be admitted.

That can't be right. It's not like no asians are applying and getting rejected. If asians didn't apply unless they had higher scores, that woudl just result in a higher acceptance rate for Asians if they weren't being discriminated against, not fewer asians admitted but just with higher scores.

That could be right. Asians disproportionately apply with lower scores. Plus, Asians aren't typically legacy admits. So you have to account for the lower scores of white legacies throwing off the averages.

Except that it pretty much is? All else equal, you have to have higher test scores to be admitted if you are asian than if you are white,

That's not true.

and you have to have higher scores if you are white than if you are a non-asian minority. solsalna

also not true, though possibly true for the subset of non-legacy admits.

Even with whites presumably getting the higher share of legacy favors and purchases, they still have higher test scores.

do they?

Again, I'm not sure discriminating against asians is a good way to "address" whatever society acts you are considering.

theyre not discriminated against. Man, sure is hard to break thru that propaganda sometimes.

But also, it seems crazy to think that "society acts" related to race is a dominant factor that should be considered. I think there should be some burden of proof to show that racism makes it worse to be a minority from an affluent household than a white or asian person from a poor household in a way that you can just assume that the minority's test scores are suppressed but the applicants from poor households aren't.

Not crazy to think it's a highly correlating factor.

if you don't assume the scores are suppressed......then the only conclusion left is they are inferior. Could be true, but I want society to assume the former.

Agreed on the poor though.

 

[johnson86-1]

Sure you can. It's literally a factor in the calculation. Levelized cost of power....
Edit: I put the formula below and bolded the Capacity Factor the is what "accounts for the cost of capacity"

And there are places where the wind blows all the time. Mississippi isn't one of them.

And wind's levelized cost of power is less than everything (but solar).

sLCOE = {(overnight capital cost * capital recovery factor + fixed O&M cost )/(8760 * capacity factor)} + (fuel cost * heat rate) + variable O&M cost.

That is not what capacity factor means in that equation. That formula is for the levelized cost of energy. The capacity factor is basically a utilization rate. A nuclear unit would have a capacity factor of over 90% unless it has significant maintenance issues. Wind might have a capacity factor between 30 and 50% depending on weather patterns. That 8760 is the number of hours in 365 days.

Nothing in that formula accounts for the cost of capacity. So unless you have wind tied to a load that doesn't have to be served, you have to account for the cost of backup capacity in determining whether it's really cheaper.

 

[Boom Boom]

That is not what capacity factor means in that equation. That formula is for the levelized cost of energy. The capacity factor is basically a utilization rate. A nuclear unit would have a capacity factor of over 90% unless it has significant maintenance issues. Wind might have a capacity factor between 30 and 50% depending on weather patterns. That 8760 is the number of hours in 365 days.

Nothing in that formula accounts for the cost of capacity. So unless you have wind tied to a load that doesn't have to be served, you have to account for the cost of backup capacity in determining whether it's really cheaper.

That depends on what cost you are looking for. If it's "how much to power XX by wind power alone", then yes. If it's "how much to add XX capacity in wind power", then no. You are suggesting costing a switch to XX% of energy obtained via windpower by including backup capacity for every joule. That's not how costing works.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

I'm telling you right now, there ain't no way I'm trusting my grill to Wind Power!

First propane, then eggs, and pellets ...now we need to harness the breath of the wild to cook a steak.***

 

[ChE1997]

That is not what capacity factor means in that equation. That formula is for the levelized cost of energy. The capacity factor is basically a utilization rate. A nuclear unit would have a capacity factor of over 90% unless it has significant maintenance issues. Wind might have a capacity factor between 30 and 50% depending on weather patterns. That 8760 is the number of hours in 365 days.

Nothing in that formula accounts for the cost of capacity. So unless you have wind tied to a load that doesn't have to be served, you have to account for the cost of backup capacity in determining whether it's really cheaper.

Thanks for mansplaining the 8760**** totally never used that number every day for 26 years in the energy industry. Where were you in 1996? ****

Yeah...

That's not the way it's done.

The people that make money making and selling power ( and those investing in what power to build) use a more advanced version of LCOE.

FYI onshore wind has a capacity factor of 20-75%,

Offshore wind at 40-80%, CCGT 55%

Transmission is the issue to fix with wind, not the cost of electricity. Which is why the UK can have a more stable grid than Texas with 30-75% of the power by wind.

Also Solar and Wind are getting cheaper. so if you have to install 4x as many solar panels or 2x the the number of wind turbines, and it's cheaper... and you get to export that gas, oil, or coal to other countries.... Which might be a reason 2/3 of the money being invested in energy is flowing to renewables...

 

[ChE1997]

I'm telling you right now, there ain't no way I'm trusting my grill to Wind Power!

First propane, then eggs, and pellets ...now we need to harness the breath of the wild to cook a steak.***

Hey i'm not taking your gas stove, green egg, or grill.

But you have to admit, the invisible induction cooktops are really cool.
a link if you haven't seen one.

Invisacook | Invisible Cooking

What is Invisacook? An induction cooking countertop you can cook directly on. Something of science fiction that actually exists! Find a dealer near you today or query for more information on this amazing invisible modern cooktop.

invisacook.com