You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.

You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.

But race combined with other factors can be a predictor of leadership skills, which is the only thing that really matters. Talk of qualifications and merit are muddying the issue. The question is about probability that this person will obtain significant power in the future, and thus increase the brand of the university they came from. Race is a legitimate factor in such a discussion. It's up to those who don't like it to prove that its inherently wrong to consider race in their calculation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill.

Even if that's a goal, it doesn't seem to be the main one. Frankly, I've never heard a college admissions official say they look at race to determine leadership skills, even if they really do do that.

If they do that, then it's fine for them to do so, but that just doesn't seem to be the issue here. And to the best of my knowledge, it didn't seem to be the issue in the Bakke case either, which nevertheless got the Supreme Court's nod toward promoting "diversity".

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill.

It can certainly be read this way, but it's not obvious that this is so. Diversity creates an atmosphere that will most likely mirror the world in which these future leaders will be required to navigate. That in itself is enough of a justification for diversity, assuming their goal is to educate future leaders. Also, there is the fact that leaders of ethnic groups tend to be of that ethnic group, so maximizing some proportion of diversity is increasing that schools chance of educating a future leader.

> educate future leaders

Er, you changed the subject from determining which future leaders are accepted into college to educating future leaders after they've been accepted.

That's a whole another discussion which I wasn't intending to get into. All I will say is that the status quo seems to point toward the use of race as a way to fulfill affirmative action requirements, not as a means for determining aptitude.

"Educating future leaders" and "determining who are future leaders so that we can be the ones to educate them" are expressing the same exact sentiment. To be fair, I understand how it can be read in the way you implied.