As an American born Asian myself, the "unofficial" quota system process colleges use is painful to me - I was an extremely academic high performing student before college, netting national level recognition in some areas with a lot of extracurriculars & came from a very poor background, yet my ethnicity worked against me.

At the same time, I recognize that this is also some of the challenge that underrepresented minorities face in general in American society where there are others who have more closed doors than I (I went to a high school with over 70% minorities, mostly African-Americans + hispanics). I don't pretend to know what the solution to the problem is, but given that high prestige colleges have created a high risk high reward situation with how they handle admissions, I feel like a lot of the problem is how academia has created this artificial situation - maybe this is by design, I don't know, but if we truly value diversity & equity in higher educational opportunities, there needs to be a significant change.

> No, it was an intentional move to restrict the number of Asians admitted

This always seemed short-sighted to me. I think standardized tests provide one of the clearest opportunities for less advantaged students to make inroads. And while certain groups do better now, I don't think there is a better way than this clear metric for other groups to improve their standing.

Also, I think we simply overvalue going to Harvard. So instead you go to UVa or Puget Sound University. You "can" learn a great deal at these other places as well -- and maybe learn more given your existing level of achievement.

If we think long game on this, we will see that this is one of the best things to lift all boats.

> My hope is that the Supreme Court, now that it's a 6/3 conservative majority, finally strikes down race based "affirmative action".

Agreed, and also favouritism for "legacies", children of faculty and athletics (they can get in on their own merit if they have it). This is a rot that seems to be unique to the US. In the pretty much every other country there would be an outrage if someone got admitted because their parents donated a lot of money.

There are plenty of institutions where "someone got admitted because their parents donated a lot of money" is a fact of life, as natural as rivers flowing south or getting sick from standing in the cold. It's not something you normally brag about in/to the West, and certainly it's very reasonable to object to the practice, but it's not remotely unique to the US. If anything, it's telling that this version is presented disguised, even if it's a well-known disguise at this point.

Sure, I think that’s in many ways covered by what I mean about middle class mobility. Given that Asians are less likely to be legacies and dont benefit from Affirmative Action, pretty much all their “slots” come out of the high-achieving-middle-class bucket

And this benefit the rich kids who can spend thousands of dollars per year to hire someone to plan a good resume for them

If wealth didn't incur some advantages, no one would bother to seek it.

I don't know how to fix that fundamental aspect of reality, or indeed if it should be fixed. Any ideas?

Different kinds of advantage. Yes wealth can bring you all sorts of luxury. But it is a bad idea to close the doors to the poor, especially essentials like education.

If Judge Jackson gets confirmed, it will be 6-2 since she has promised to recuse herself from this case.