Scotus 2023

[doctalaughs]

That's my broader point. Constitutional interpretation is largely BS and SCOTUS (and to a lesser extent the judiciary) is just as political as the other two branches.

Edit: it's just that scotus isn't elected and they have lifetime appointments

I have no problem agreeing that justices are influenced by their political beliefs and the body has become more political - but it does cut both ways. The liberal justices who are fine usually “interpreting” the meaning of laws also only do that when it’s convenient in their political framework, same as the conservatives taking the letter of the law.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[doctalaughs]

Both Trump and Biden used the loophole to defer student loan payments for the past few years, which cost something like $200 billion, and there was no outrage with that. It even ended up benefiting wealthier households. Forgiving only $10k for lower income individuals would cost $400 billion and all of a sudden everyone is up in arms?

I don’t particularly care about the result of this dispute. I just find the standing issue to be suspect and the SCOTUS interpretation to be politically convenient. This in a clear example of judicial activism by our highest court.

The longer we got out from the Covid pandemic, the more unreasonable it was to defer payments on loans. When we thought the death rates were 3%, no vaccines, everything shut down so no possibility of income for 50% of Americans it was totally reasonable. Not so much 3-4 years out when things have been opened for 2-3 years.

Erasing that debt completely is on a whole other level though.

I hate trump for a lot of other reasons but his handling of the loan situation is not even in the same universe as Biden based on the timeframes and specifics.

 

[rowsdower88]

I have no problem agreeing that justices are influenced by their political beliefs and the body has become more political - but it does cut both ways. The liberal justices who are fine “interpreting” the meaning of laws also only do that when it’s convenient in their political framework, same as the conservatives

Yup. That's why court reform is necessary. No more of this unelected, lifetime appointment nonsense. If we agree it's a political position, it should be treated like all other political positions.

Edit: you can make any qualifying criteria you want, I don't care for the most part. Maybe they have had to sit on a federal bench for a while, or they still need to be confirmed by Congress. Term limits. Whatever.

 

[Guillemot]

Admittedly, I feel a bit ambivalent about the overturning of affirmative action. Although affirmative action is in isolation a bull**** policy, it functioned to counteract a multitude of other bull****.

Ideally, there will be other policies put in place to take into account those with aptitude, but with disadvantageous life circumstances. Probably going to be a significant lag on this matter, however.

 

[JiPo]

So, you can borrow as much money as you want like $300,000 then pay back 5% starting as a PGY-1. Let's say you do a fellowship so your total time at 5% repayment is 5 years. After Fellowship, you get a job with an academic institution which qualifies for PSFL. You keep making the 5% payments for 5 more years then all the remaining debt is wiped away. This is a much better deal than joining the military in med school on scholarship.

PSLF for physicians is ridiculous. PSLF was not designed for high income earners like physicians.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Let's actually review the recent SCOTUS decisions on a practical level:

1. Student Loans- Biden has figured a way around SCOTUS. The net result will be even more student debt relief costing even more taxpayer money.

2. Affirmative Action- I can't believe schools won't figure a way around this ruling by allowing "socio-economic status" as a criteria along with personal essay statements about one's "background/race" in overcoming adversity. Med Schools are already using such an essay for their admissions. These essays can be assigned a point value for admission.

3. LBGQT- This ruling is a nothing burger. Gay couples can easily find someone to bake them a cake or design them a website. 1/2 this nation identifies as "liberal" so that's a lot of web designers. Probably, a lot few bakers are progressive but even then they will likely bake them a cake.

4. Postal Worker- this ruling which allowed the post office worker religious accommodation was a specific case where he was hired with the understanding of not working on Sunday, but then the Postal Service added Amazon deliveries on Sunday. The company changed the rules after the game was underway.

Five Ways College Admissions Could Change

The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision could upend how students apply to college, and how they are judged. Here’s how.

www.nytimes.com

 

[rowsdower88]

On some level it reflects the long term change of social beliefs and political beliefs. Lifetime appointments make the court the slowest thing to change, but eventually every person on the court will be in the neighborhood of KBJ, but it may take 50 years or more.

Clarence Thomas would look like KBJ compared to the justices of 1920, for example.

The house changes fastest, the presidency next fastest, then the senate, then the Supreme Court. Progress in society seems to promote stability when it’s slow and steady, at least that’s what history shows us

On the contrary, Clarence Thomas would have fit right in with justices of the 1920's apart from not being the right color. By what metric are you assessing these Justices???

Clarence Thomas's arguments (and Alito for that matter) fit well with views of corporate and union power at the time.

The Supreme Court Just Revived a Doctrine That Could Crush American Democracy

The court’s conservatives are set to inaugurate a new Lochner era.

slate.com

Thomas MIGHT rule that Loving v Virginia is good Con Law. He MIGHT. Lol.

Edit: I don't think you realize just how conservative Clarence Thomas actually is. He's almost not even a real person, closer to a caricature of someone's idea of a conservative.

 

[doctalaughs]

PSLF for physicians is ridiculous. PSLF was not designed for high income earners like physicians.

Yep. Not to mention most “academic” healthcare institutions today are shams with a lot of their ventures being just as corporate/private/ profit-seeking as the most shameful robber barons of the capitalist companies.

Plenty of physicians making 500k, 700k etc at these institutions in satellites not doing any research, community charity work or teaching whatsoever.

 

[rowsdower88]

1. Student Loans- Biden has figured a way around SCOTUS. The net result will be even more student debt relief costing even more taxpayer money.

This is highly speculative. As such, I will speculate that SCOTUS will continue abandoning well established precedent to stop this as well.

2. Affirmative Action- I can't believe schools won't figure a way around this ruling by allowing "socio-economic status" as a criteria along with personal essay statements about one's "background/race" in overcoming adversity. Med Schools are already using such an essay for their admissions. These essays can be assigned a point value for admission.

Probably true.

LBGQT- This ruling is a nothing burger. Gay couples can easily find someone to bake them a cake or design them a website. 1/2 this nation identifies as "liberal" so that's a lot of web designers. Probably, a lot few bakers are progressive but even then they will likely bake them a cake

This is not a nothing burger. This is a strong signal that SCOTUS is interested in revisiting various aspects of Obergefell and chipping away at LGBT as a protected class.

Postal Worker- this ruling which allowed the post office worker religious accommodation was a specific case where he was hired with the understanding of not working on Sunday, but then the Postal Service added Amazon deliveries on Sunday. The company changed the rules after the game was underway.

This is more of a nothing burger than the last one. But it falls in line with the Court's continued deference to religion over the common good ala Kennedy v Bremerton School District.

 

[chessknt]

Yup. That's why court reform is necessary. No more of this unelected, lifetime appointment nonsense. If we agree it's a political position, it should be treated like all other political positions.

Edit: you can make any qualifying criteria you want, I don't care for the most part. Maybe they have had to sit on a federal bench for a while, or they still need to be confirmed by Congress. Term limits. Whatever.

Amen to that. These positions need to be on long rotating terms (say 8 years) and subject to nationwide elections the same way the POTUS is. These are politicians we are electing rather than legal scholars so let's hold them accountable. The current system based on dumb luck and senate bull****ting isn't working.

 

[rowsdower88]

Would you say he’s more like a certain fraction of a person? Because it sure sounds like you would.

Lololol good one

 

[Dr. Rude]

Today's NY Times

With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores

To build a diverse class of students, the medical school at U.C. Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced. Can it work nationally?

www.nytimes.com

"...The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99, taking into account their life circumstances, such as family income and parental education. Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays and interview."

How about other disadvantages:

LGBTQ, (extra points for trans)
Obese
Short
unattractive
etc.

 

[rowsdower88]

Again, your bonafides in constitutional law are pretty unimpressive.

1. Slate is essentially a communist/anarchist rag, except more histrionic. Any citation of their drivel is immediately less than credible.
2. Right to work is hardly limiting to unions in the way that article makes it out to be
3. Something tells me Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be in favor of forced sterilization for people with intellectual disabilities, or separate but equal, or limiting congressional bans on child labor (don’t even start with whatever crybaby fest leftists had about that thing in South Carolina, we’re talking real Oliver Twist style child labor), literal concentration camps for Japanese citizens, and any number of widely accepted social conventions that were not Supreme Court decisions.

Examples of the 1920s social norms include:
1. Women basically don’t need to vote
2. Sterilizing people isn’t just ok, it’s good for society (hey we came full circle on that one, imagine that)
3. Marital rape is non existent
4. Actual Nazi style fascism with real genocide? Let’s give it a fair shake (Henry ford)
5. Phrenology

To be frank, characterizing Clarence Thomas as “almost not even a real person” is the same sort of BS racist trope he’d have been dealing with in the 1920s.

Would you say he’s more like a certain fraction of a person? Because it sure sounds like you would.

So you really have no metric, which is fine, because no good metric for such a question really exists.

The slate article does a reasonable job at linking Thomas (and Alito and Gorsuch) with opinions from the Lochner Era of Surpreme Court jurisprudence. That's where I wanted to draw similarities to because a defining goal of conservatism is the interests of businesses, which is what Lochner was all about.

Do you know Thomas wouldn't be in favor of most of those things? I don't. You're speculating that Clarence Thomas today would be a staunch progressive in the 1920's. I know his attitude towards unenumerated rights and substantive due process (incredibly dismissive) and if he holds THAT view consistent, then many of the gains from the 60's onward like Griswold and Lawrence v Texas (the latter of which Thomas dissented in lol) evaporate.

Thomas today would probably find some way to argue against phrenology. But reading his opinions does not give one the impression that he is a markedly different thinker from earlier generations of SCOTUS justices. Alito is a bit different. Gorsuch seems to be ok with gay people and native Americans. Haven't read anything super inflammatory by ACB and Kavanaugh that come to mind.

 

[rowsdower88]

The house changes fastest, the presidency next fastest, then the senate, then the Supreme Court. Progress in society seems to promote stability when it’s slow and steady, at least that’s what history shows us

The broader point you made was that you think it's generally a good thing for SCOTUS to be "slow and steady" in terms of societal change.

There's something here I agree with in that I too think it's probably a good thing for the judicial system to be stable. For it to be reliable and have predictable rulings over time.

But there is a difference between judicial stability and governance. Do you think there's a difference between those two and do you think the Court does too much governing at all? (I clearly do.)

 

[rowsdower88]

I think it's one of the "branches of government." Governance is expected in some fashion imo.

The supreme court has acted as a brake on social change in this country, but sometimes the brake lets up. It's not a perfect system, but over the last 250 years it's led to what is now one of the most progressive societies in the world without a total governmental collapse at any point.

Sure, if we could tear it down and start over, like every other country in the world except maybe England has done in the last 100 years, some things would be better. But we haven't needed to, which is overall a good result.

I'm sure these exact conversations about overreach and injustice were had 120 years ago in the coffee parlors/pubs of the day in NYC or Washington DC. All part of the system.

The kinds of reforms I'm talking about (court expansion, term limits, potentially elections with caveats) are a far cry from "tear it down and start over". These seem like modest changes.

Let's not go crazy and suggest that ALL the success of America is due to the presence of 9 lifetime appointed judges.

If governance is expected, representation should be expected as well. And I think most people want more representation than what is currently being offered.

Two-thirds of Americans support Supreme Court term limits, poll finds

The Supreme Court issued a number of high-profile rulings last month, including overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.axios.com

 

[pgg]

I am glad SCOTUS ruled against Biden on student loan. People borrowed money to attend schools, fully knowing they have to pay it back.

You borrowed it, you pay it back.

So I assume, since you wrote this, that you think that ALL debt should be treated like student loans? No option for overwhelmed people to declare bankruptcy, accept the consequences (long period of poor credit, limited future borrowing opportunities, potential tax hit).

You borrowed it, you pay it back, right?

Right?


Or maybe you could admit that there's something foul-smelling about student loans in particular, and that the real problem here is how that debt is treated differently than essentially all other debt in the United States?


Edit - I later saw you posted that you favor lowering the interest rates to the federal rate, and making the debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. I was just surprised that you were so unsympathetic to student borrowers.

 

[FutureInternist]

Raise taxes.

No need to…
Just have the corporations & millionaires actually pay what they should

But that’s too much for boot-licking, I may be a millionaire (even though I am closer to being homeless) one day Republicans 🤦‍♂️

 

[pgg]

2. Affirmative Action- I can't believe schools won't figure a way around this ruling by allowing "socio-economic status" as a criteria along with personal essay statements about one's "background/race" in overcoming adversity. Med Schools are already using such an essay for their admissions. These essays can be assigned a point value for admission.

I used to think this was the complete no-brainer outcome of getting rid of AA, but now I'm not quite as convinced.

California got rid of AA almost three decades ago, and they've definitely tried to replace it with socioeconomic measures (see the NPR article I linked earlier in this thread). It hasn't really had the same effect as AA did when it comes to racial diversity in the University of California system.

I'm not convinced that's a bad outcome. It appears that in California, ending AA resulted in the piece of pie that went to racial minorities with lesser academic achievements, shifted somewhat to a larger cohort of disadvantaged people. Poor whites and Asian immigrants benefited from their post-AA recruiting, resulting in less racial diversity, but arguably more socioeconomic diversity.

The DEI advocates in the UC system explicitly see this as a problem (they lament their inability to admit a student body "that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity"), but I'm having trouble getting worked up about it, mainly because I'm skeptical of the claimed educational benefits.

 

[GravelRider]

I’ve been outraged with the student loan moratorium since the vaccines came out. At that point there was no longer any reason to have it. The economy had basically recovered and pay was skyrocketing in every industry and the savings rate was at record highs. People had plenty of money to pay their student loans in January 2021.

Everything student loan related after January 2021 has been pure government waste and scamming of taxpayers to favor the rich

All the money the government handed out during Covid was government scamming taxpayers to favor the rich. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 80% of the PPP money ended up in the bank accounts of the richest Americans. There were an awful lot of Ferraris, Rolexes, NFTs, boats, and second homes being bought during the pandemic. Throwing a $10k bone to people up to their ears in student debt and making $60k a year did not produce the kind of outrage in me as the PPP scam did. I don’t care that Congress approved it. The whole thing was a farce.

 

[Kryptocoin]

I used to think this was the complete no-brainer outcome of getting rid of AA, but now I'm not quite as convinced.

California got rid of AA almost three decades ago, and they've definitely tried to replace it with socioeconomic measures (see the NPR article I linked earlier in this thread). It hasn't really had the same effect as AA did when it comes to racial diversity in the University of California system.

I'm not convinced that's a bad outcome. It appears that in California, ending AA resulted in the piece of pie that went to racial minorities with lesser academic achievements, shifted somewhat to a larger cohort of disadvantaged people. Poor whites and Asian immigrants benefited from their post-AA recruiting, resulting in less racial diversity, but arguably more socioeconomic diversity.

That point was argued to the SCOTUS by California and Michigan but Robert didn't care. He skipped over those in his opinion.

 

[doctalaughs]

All the money the government handed out during Covid was government scamming taxpayers to favor the rich. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 80% of the PPP money ended up in the bank accounts of the richest Americans. There were an awful lot of Ferraris, Rolexes, NFTs, boats, and second homes being bought during the pandemic. Throwing a $10k bone to people up to their ears in student debt and making $60k a year did not produce the kind of outrage in me as the PPP scam did. I don’t care that Congress approved it. The whole thing was a farce.

The way PPP happened was a disaster and an absolute disgrace. The way the program was administered was a farce. And the IRS should aggressively pursue the fraud there (estimated to be up to 15% of the loans).

That doesn’t change the fact that this loan forgiveness plan is also a terrible idea. Making a second terrible mistake isn’t exactly going to reverse the first one. And 500 billion isn’t a “bone” for taxpayers. Especially given it will encourage further irresponsible borrowing.

 

[Kryptocoin]

America First Legal Sends Letters to 200 Law Schools Demanding the End of All Racial Preferences in Law School Admissions, Faculty Hiring, and Law Reviews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, America First Legal (AFL) sent a demand letter to the deans of every law school in the United States, demanding that they cease discriminating based...

aflegal.org

Interesting, but not surprising, that they focused on race. What about gender?

White women benefit most from affirmative action. So why do they oppose it?

People associate affirmative action with ending discrimination against people of color. But women are the greatest beneficiaries, scholars say.

www.usatoday.com

 

[pgg]

That point was argued to the SCOTUS by California and Michigan but Robert didn't care. He skipped over those in his opinion.

I guess he and the rest of the majority didn't find it any more a compelling point than I did.

 

[jwk]

Amen to that. These positions need to be on long rotating terms (say 8 years) and subject to nationwide elections the same way the POTUS is. These are politicians we are electing rather than legal scholars so let's hold them accountable. The current system based on dumb luck and senate bull****ting isn't working.

Be honest - you wouldn’t have this opinion if it was a liberal court.

 

[rowsdower88]

Be honest - you wouldn’t have this opinion if it was a liberal court.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been an advocate for court reform since I read Castle Rock v Gonzales. Brutal opinion that is still accepted case law as far as I'm aware.

The Organization of American States and other human rights groups denounced the opinion and the United States as a whole (not that they are taken seriously by most in the US government).

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Report No. 80/11 - Organization of American States https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2011/USPU12626EN.DOC

 

[Dr. Rude]

Be honest - you wouldn’t have this opinion if it was a liberal court.

I don’t favor lifeterms either. It is not based on politics but what Rehnquist, RBG, Thurgood Marshall looked like their last years on the bench. Maybe a 20 year term with the system that we have now.

 

[doctalaughs]

Interesting, but not surprising, that they focused on race. What about gender?

White women benefit most from affirmative action. So why do they oppose it?

People associate affirmative action with ending discrimination against people of color. But women are the greatest beneficiaries, scholars say.

www.usatoday.com

People keep saying this but I’m not convinced it’s AA that benefited white women rather than changing societal norms.

Women tend to be better at school in pre-college years. They score higher and are more focused/ studious. Their rates of higher education was bound to happen as 2-incomes were needed and societal expectations changed, regardless of efforts in “affirmative action.” Today there is zero “handicap” needed in their scores / grades, unlike certain minorities (actually slightly the opposite since they score higher than men). It’s not a good comparison to attribute their success to AA.

In terms of representation in leadership of corporate America, of course they will have lower rates when 70% take time off to raise children. This also would change if that societal norms shifted (which I’m not sure most women want given biological drives).

 

[GassYous]

Another example of winning the battle but losing the war; Biden's new student loan relief program will end up costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars. Biden is creating another huge entitlement program at a time where we can't cover the cost of existing entitlement programs.

I think spending money on the young people of the country is a good investment.

 

[pgg]

I think spending money on the young people of the country is a good investment.

Do you think it'd be a good idea to give $20K to every high school grad who doesn't go to college?

Again. This problem is solvable without giving anyone any money.

 

[rowsdower88]

Do you think it'd be a good idea to give $20K to every high school grad who doesn't go to college?

Again. This problem is solvable without giving anyone any money.

I think there are good arguments out there for baby bonds. Which is similar to what you're asking. We could make it race neutral in implementation and entirely dependent on family wealth and it would still reduce the racial wealth gap.

Baby bonds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[vector2]

People keep saying this but I’m not convinced it’s AA that benefited white women rather than changing societal norms.

Women tend to be better at school in pre-college years. They score higher and are more focused/ studious. Their rates of higher education was bound to happen as 2-incomes were needed and societal expectations changed, regardless of efforts in “affirmative action.” Today there is zero “handicap” needed in their scores / grades, unlike certain minorities (actually slightly the opposite since they score higher than men). It’s not a good comparison to attribute their success to AA.

In terms of representation in leadership of corporate America, of course they will have lower rates when 70% take time off to raise children. This also would change if that societal norms shifted (which I’m not sure most women want given biological drives).

Women have historically benefited and continue to benefit from AA.

And anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at a "How to get more women in STEM fields?" initiative will realize that the language is exactly the same as typical AA campaigns.

 

[rowsdower88]

Women have historically benefited and continue to benefit from AA.

View attachment 373834

View attachment 373835

Can you walk me through this? Does MIT take into account other SAT components besides the math section? (I would hope so.) It just doesn't seem like the bottom half of your citation leads one to assume AA is resulting in 48% of MIT undergrads being women.

 

[nimbus]

The way PPP happened was a disaster and an absolute disgrace. The way the program was administered was a farce. And the IRS should aggressively pursue the fraud there (estimated to be up to 15% of the loans).

That doesn’t change the fact that this loan forgiveness plan is also a terrible idea. Making a second terrible mistake isn’t exactly going to reverse the first one. And 500 billion isn’t a “bone” for taxpayers. Especially given it will encourage further irresponsible borrowing.

PPP stands for Paycheck Protection Program. Most doctors I know got PPP loans. As long as the funds were used for payroll including paychecks to ourselves, the loans were legitimately forgiven. There was no need for fraud because those were the rules. It was a giveaway to rich people.

 

[epidural man]

Fantastic thread.

I agree with both @rowsdower88

and @BLADEMDA (how is that even possible?)

I like the courts decisions, but I also am a believer in the rule of law.

These are complicated problems. One human right always seems to abut against another human right.

 

[vector2]

Can you walk me through this? Does MIT take into account other SAT components besides the math section? (I would hope so.) It just doesn't seem like the bottom half of your citation leads one to assume AA is resulting in 48% of MIT undergrads being women.

I'm sure they do. And I'm all for them creating opportunities for women, who are and were historically underrepresented in STEM, to be half the student body.

But let's be clear here. We're talking about a school where 90% of the undergraduates are science/math/engineering majors. The math portion of the SAT should be heavily weighted (just like a music audition should be heavily weighted if one is applying to Juilliard). All the people here who rail against AA typically do so because people are getting into schools not based on what they deem to be "objective merit." I think it's pretty clear that the pre-eminent science/math/engineering school in the country having a 50/50 male:female ratio even though men have higher math scores by a 2:1 ratio means that women are not getting in solely on what the AA opponents would call "objective merit"

 

[vector2]

According to an in-depth analysis by Art Sawyer—one of the most knowledgeable leaders in test preparation—the proportion of female students in top-scoring ranges has declined in comparison to the older SAT. Average SAT score differences between all males and females on the new SAT fell to 20 points, which is better than the 24 points of the previous SAT, but this gender gap increases to 40 points when comparing male and female students with the highest scores. According to Sawyer, 45 percent more men than women are in the top score range of 1400-1600. On the old test, the gender gap at the highest score range was 31 percent. Because the College Board stopped reporting detailed information for the test sections by gender and race in 2015, it is difficult to say how this new gender gap has been created.​

​

The Highest-Performing Women Are Scoring Lower Than Men on the SAT

53 percent of SAT test takers are women, but the gate-keeping college entrance exam is underestimating their ability to succeed.

msmagazine.com

​

But yet, let's consider:

For the academic year 2021-2022, total 159,243 students have enrolled in Ivy League schools including both undergraduate and graduate schools - 68,968 undergraduate and 90,275 graduate students. By gender, there are 84,109 female students (52.82%) and 75,134 male students (47.18%) at Ivy League schools.​

​

Ivy League Members Enrollment Comparison

View and Compare the 8 Ivy League Members with Student Population by Gender and Enrollment Types.

www.collegeevaluator.com

​

 

[nimbus]

This seems like a decent explanation of why MIT reinstated the SAT requirement.

“Most students who attend MIT have very high SAT math scores. Over 75 percent of entering first-year students have SAT math scores of between 780 and 800, the top score. Moreover, fewer than 10 percent of applicants with SAT math scores of 750 or above are accepted. Therefore, the test is not used to distinguish among applicants with similarly high scores. The test, however, can be used to identify candidates with lower scores who almost certainly lack the necessary mathematical preparation, and that is its primary use at MIT. There are, however, better predictive tests that provide MIT with much more relevant information, such as the College Board’s own Advanced Placement Calculus tests and similar tests as part of the International Baccalaureate program. But many students do not have access to these Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Teacher preparation is expensive, as is the scoring of the tests by a team of high school AP teachers and college faculty who teach the college-level equivalent of these courses. (At this moment, the Educational Testing Service is still advertising for faculty to evaluate AP tests during this summer’s grading sessions.) While AP and IB courses and tests are abundant in wealthy public school districts and private schools, access is either severely limited or nonexistent in poorer school districts.

These facts explain MIT’s motivation in reinstituting the SAT. Rather than being an instrument to distinguish among highly qualified students who have access to advanced coursework, it is primarily used to identify students who do not have access to more advanced programs and who would nevertheless succeed in MIT’s curriculum. What would happen to students who have strong academic records but no advanced coursework, but who did not take the SAT either because it was either optional or completely abolished? Absent the better predictors of success, the AP Calculus and the IB math tests, the SAT math score is the best available tool to distinguish between those students who would succeed at MIT and those who would not.”

Why MIT was right to reinstate the SAT (opinion)

MIT was right to require the test, but few colleges should go along with it, writes Les Perelman.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[Kryptocoin]

People keep saying this but I’m not convinced it’s AA that benefited white women rather than changing societal norms.

How did you think that happened?

White women got to where they are today due heavy societal re-engineering and recruitment efforts from governmental and private institutions. That is the entire meaning of Affirmative Action. AA may no longer be needed for some white women to get into higher education, but gender AA is still alive and well in all major higher education institutions and general work force.

 

[rowsdower88]

According to an in-depth analysis by Art Sawyer—one of the most knowledgeable leaders in test preparation—the proportion of female students in top-scoring ranges has declined in comparison to the older SAT. Average SAT score differences between all males and females on the new SAT fell to 20 points, which is better than the 24 points of the previous SAT, but this gender gap increases to 40 points when comparing male and female students with the highest scores. According to Sawyer, 45 percent more men than women are in the top score range of 1400-1600. On the old test, the gender gap at the highest score range was 31 percent. Because the College Board stopped reporting detailed information for the test sections by gender and race in 2015, it is difficult to say how this new gender gap has been created.​

​

The Highest-Performing Women Are Scoring Lower Than Men on the SAT

53 percent of SAT test takers are women, but the gate-keeping college entrance exam is underestimating their ability to succeed.

msmagazine.com

​

But yet, let's consider:

For the academic year 2021-2022, total 159,243 students have enrolled in Ivy League schools including both undergraduate and graduate schools - 68,968 undergraduate and 90,275 graduate students. By gender, there are 84,109 female students (52.82%) and 75,134 male students (47.18%) at Ivy League schools.​

​

Ivy League Members Enrollment Comparison

View and Compare the 8 Ivy League Members with Student Population by Gender and Enrollment Types.

www.collegeevaluator.com

​

I'm in the process of reading Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men" and it seems to be the case that men are falling behind generally as a result of societal and economic factors that are largely independent of affirmative action programs. He isn't focused on specifically the high end programs like MIT. Would you say this type of affirmative action is a problem really only at the most prestigious institutions? The bigger issue for Reeves is that fewer men are applying/graduating college nowadays in general.

Edit: Just read your edit: "anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at a "How to get more women in STEM fields?" initiative will realize that the language is exactly the same as typical AA campaigns."

- Maybe we have a disagreement on what counts as affirmative action. I don't consider simple encouragement or initiatives like what you describe here to be affirmative action necessarily. If a college hosts a "women in STEM" event for high schoolers, would you say that is an affirmative action event?

 

[nimbus]

I'm in the process of reading Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men" and it seems to be the case that men are falling behind generally as a result of societal and economic factors that are largely independent of affirmative action programs. He isn't focused on specifically the high end programs like MIT. Would you say this type of affirmative action is a problem really only at the most prestigious institutions? The bigger issue for Reeves is that fewer men are applying/graduating college nowadays in general.

Edit: Just read your edit: "anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at a "How to get more women in STEM fields?" initiative will realize that the language is exactly the same as typical AA campaigns."

- Maybe we have a disagreement on what counts as affirmative action. I don't consider simple encouragement or initiatives like what you describe here to be affirmative action necessarily. If a college hosts a "women in STEM" event for high schoolers, would you say that is an affirmative action event?

The line is very fuzzy between “outreach”, targeted recruiting, and affirmative action. What happens when a boy or a man walks into a “women in STEM” event?

 

[BLADEMDA]

PPP stands for Paycheck Protection Program. Most doctors I know got PPP loans. As long as the funds were used for payroll including paychecks to ourselves, the loans were legitimately forgiven. There was no need for fraud because those were the rules. It was a giveaway to rich people.

Congress routinely gives money to "rich people" in the form of tax breaks or PPP loans. But, only Congress can give away $450 billion of taxpayer money for student loan forgiveness. That's our system because we have a President not a King or Dictator. The new SAVE loan program being proposed by Biden is likely to pass muster, at least most of it anyway, so the taxpayer money is flowing once again.

 

[emergentmd]

1. You should not be forced to make anyone do anything against their will unless it is clearly race based. This seems cut and dry to me. You can't make a muslim baker do a cake burning the Quran right? Or does the left think this is ok?

2. AA has always been and always be a joke. If I were black/Hispanic, I would be embarrassed if my scores were substandard but made it in. I like to have pride in my work and not the color of my skin. Give me a chance to outwork people and AA would make me feel like I won a 100m dash starting at the 30m line.

3. Loan forgiveness also is a joke. I don't care if you signed it at 18yr and 1 day. You are classified as an adult. You can vote. I can kick you out of my house and have no threat of "child" endangerment. You can drive. You can travel anywhere in the world. You signed it, you owe it. I don't care if we bail out the other 100 businesses/loans. The difference is it is clearly written that student loans CAN NOT be discharged in bankruptcy. Now if you don't read the fine print or understand it, then DO NOT SIGN IT.

Now, I am not against loan forgiveness if there was some benefits for all of society. Forgiving loans just gives a green light to future students and colleges to take out more loans/jack up prices b/c precedence has been set. Today 10k, next few yrs 50k, next lib presidency 100K or complete discharge. I would be fine and actually supportive is discharging all student loans IF we change the system. Give everyone (I paid off mine) a one time/lucky you discharge across the board regardless of how much you make. Then codify that the gov will never be involved in any future student loans, never subsidize any loans and any student going forward will have to go to the free market to get a loan just like getting a house loan. This would make colleges lower their prices b/c the pool of free money goes away. This would make students think hard about how much to take our b/c a family member either paid for college or collateralize you loan with personal property/guarantee. This would make a student think hard about picking a major that has a decent return. I know this is a pipe dream b/c the left would just say that this is a racist policy b/c only rich white people can go to college and would keep poor black/Hispanic kids from ever going to college.

 

[rowsdower88]

The line is very fuzzy between “outreach”, targeted recruiting, and affirmative action. What happens when a boy or a man walks into a “women in STEM” event?

I guess I had a non-exclusionary event in mind. But your point is noted.

We need more "Men in HEAL" events! (Health, Education, Administration, and Literacy)

 

[BLADEMDA]

When the SAVE plan is fully implemented in July 2024 several other changes will take effect – including a reduction in payments on undergraduate loans from 10% to 5% of incomes above 225% of the federal poverty line.

Borrowers with undergraduate and graduate loans will be allowed to pay a weighted balance of between 5% and 10% of their income based on the original balances of their loans. As an example, the Dept. of Education explained that a borrower with $20,000 in undergraduate loans and $60,000 in graduate loans would pay 8.75% of their income, as one-quarter of the balance would be at the 5% undergraduate threshold and the remaining three-quarters at the 10% graduate level.


Borrowers who originally had smaller balances – defined by the agency as $12,000 or less – will be eligible for forgiveness of their remaining balances after 120 payments, or the equivalent of 10 years in repayment. An additional 12 payments will be added to that figure for each additional $1,000 borrowed above that level up to a maximum of 20 years for undergraduate loans and 25 years for graduate loans.

 

[nimbus]

Stewart (of “Stewart and Ken” fame) is not gay. He was married to a woman at the time of the filing and they are still married. They have a child. SCOTUS, all of them, have proven themselves to be 🤡s. They ruled on made up hypothetical BS.

“Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

newrepublic.com

The Supreme Court Doesn’t Care That the Gay Wedding Website Case Is Based on Fiction

It still feels unnerving to some, even those caught in the crossfire, to see injuries invented wholesale and lies accepted by the highest court in the land.

newrepublic.com

 

[vector2]

I'm in the process of reading Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men" and it seems to be the case that men are falling behind generally as a result of societal and economic factors that are largely independent of affirmative action programs. He isn't focused on specifically the high end programs like MIT. Would you say this type of affirmative action is a problem really only at the most prestigious institutions? The bigger issue for Reeves is that fewer men are applying/graduating college nowadays in general.

Edit: Just read your edit: "anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes looking at a "How to get more women in STEM fields?" initiative will realize that the language is exactly the same as typical AA campaigns."

- Maybe we have a disagreement on what counts as affirmative action. I don't consider simple encouragement or initiatives like what you describe here to be affirmative action necessarily. If a college hosts a "women in STEM" event for high schoolers, would you say that is an affirmative action event?

Yes, I consider any initiatives aimed at getting X underrepresented group into Y field/job/school to be some form of affirmative action. Some are simply more implicit and some are just more explicit, but they're using the same techniques.

For instance :

The STEM Gap: Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

Giving women equal opportunities to pursue — and thrive in — STEM careers helps narrow the gender pay gap, enhances women’s economic security and ensures a diverse and talented STEM workforce and prevents biases in these fields and the products and services they produce.

www.aauw.org

...sounds almost precisely analogous to the AA initiatives used with URMs.

There are a couple paragraphs before the one I posted about how to get women more interested in match and science earlier in life, but I think the implication is clear that the goal is more women in STEM in college, the workplace, leadership etc regardless of whether they've met the same "objective merit" measures as men.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Stewart (of “Stewart and Ken” fame) is not gay. He was married to a woman at the time of the filing and they are still married. They have a child. SCOTUS, all of them, have proven themselves to be 🤡s. They ruled on made up hypothetical BS.

“Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

newrepublic.com

The Supreme Court Doesn’t Care That the Gay Wedding Website Case Is Based on Fiction

It still feels unnerving to some, even those caught in the crossfire, to see injuries invented wholesale and lies accepted by the highest court in the land.

newrepublic.com

This fascinates me. Can anyone explain this to me? Apparently it appears Stewart was a Ghost Plaintiff or a victim of identity theft. I am no legal scholar, but I don't understand how a plaintiff can bring suit, move through the courts all the way to the Supreme court, and NEVER appear in person. I mean, has no one seen the plaintiff? This doesn't make sense, but then neither does our legal system at times. There has to be more info.

 

[nimbus]

This fascinates me. Apparently it appears Stewart was a Ghost Plaintiff or a victim of Identity theft?

It is either disinformation or one of the weirdest things I have seen. I'm not any kind of legal expert, but how can a plaintiff bring suit, go all the way to the Supreme Court and never actually APPEAR in court along the way. Insight, anyone???

He wasn’t the plaintiff. The web designer was the plaintiff. She made up a story.

 

[vector2]

The bigger issue for Reeves is that fewer men are applying/graduating college nowadays in general.

With regard to Reeves and the majority of applicants being female, there are a couple interesting tables to be found when talking about the Ivies in particular.

Brown has largest acceptance rate gap between men, women in Ivy League - The Brown Daily Herald

In the 2021-22 application cycle, 6.73% of male applicants were accepted to Brown, while only 4.06% of women were.

www.browndailyherald.com

The absolute admission differences / advantages at Brown are not crazy high (e.g. the admission rate for men is 6ish% and 4ish% for women) given the fact that there are 13,000 more women applicants than men.

OTOH, Cornell is almost 50/50 M:F applicants, however the class of 2026 is 55% female and 45% male. I can conjecture that given the fact that men are significantly overrepresented compared to women in the highest SAT scores group, Cornell is selecting their student body based on somewhat preferential treatment to women, and not admitting solely on "the merits"

 

[Angus Avagadro]

He wasn’t he plaintiff. The web designer was the plaintiff. She made up a story.

Well, that explains some of it.TY. So The Supremes ruled on a hypothetical case and the couple didn't know they were part of the suit? How bizarre. It will be fascinating to see more information come out. It almost appears they are attempting to secure a mistrial at the Supreme Court and re litigate the whole thing.