ardent_uno

You're conspicuously ignoring the initial point I made in my post, that being a URM is valued more highly than being an "exceptional talent" at a number of elite Universities. And at those where it's not the most important factor, it's very likely one of the most important factors.

Test scores are just used as a proxy for overall application quality. If you are a URM, it's much easier to get into elite colleges.

Of course they do. Consider this research:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new-research-...

Among elite Universities that initially do a holistic review of applicants to narrow down the applicant pool, URM status is viewed as the most important factor for an applicant by 42% of the universities, equal to the number of schools that view "exceptional talent" as the most important factor. Being a URM is basically equivalent to being an "exceptionally talented" non-URM in the eyes of many elite colleges' admissions boards.

Look up average SAT scores of different ethnic groups admitted to elite colleges as well. The disparity is glaring.

Now, we can argue that giving URM's a leg up in admissions is justified. I'm willing to have that discussion. But let's be realistic about the facts here.

There are many ways to judge someone aside from "race", whatever race really means anyway. Race should have nothing to do with it. It shouldn't be part of the equation.

That's the point. We don't have to restrict ourselves to test scores and GPA.

Just don't be racist.

Except being a URM (under represented minority) individual is one of the most beneficial factors for admission at elite colleges.

The statistics clearly show this.

>"[Harvard] lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard in an effort to orchestrate a challenge to race-conscious admissions that would go to the Supreme Court."

I feel that in 100 years we will look back on quotes like this and shake our heads at institutions like Harvard actually defending "race conscious admissions".

Reward people that do well and hold them up as examples for other people to follow.

Racial discrimination must end.

This is similar to what I've noticed in my own experience of emotional highs and lows.

Sometimes I feel myself enter into a period of excitement and activity that lasts for a few days. During this time I feel very positive and capable. I get inspired easily and can think quickly. If I let myself get carried away with these moods the feeling increases until I suddently and inevitably reverse and enter a "down" state where I feel the opposite of how I felt in the "up" state.

But if I focus on controlling myself and maintaining an even emotional keel, I find that I can avoid entering the "down" state. The unfortunate part is that "controlling" myself really means not taking advantage of the "up" state and the powers it gives me. It's almost impossible to not get carried away without actively resisting, which is detrimental to my abilities.

Except given the data they provide, boys in middle class families also seem to be doing better than girls.

Boys in general like math more than girls. Math is a competitive exercise and women are in general less competitive than men. It's you vs the formula, at least at the level of grade school math. There's less room for error than a subject like Literature which is more open to interpretation, where assignments often can't be "wrong", at least in an obvious way.

I believe that striving for equality in math outcomes, especially at high levels, ignores the way many women think.

Many Asians came here with nothing, like many American immigrants before them, and through hard work and a culture centered around education and achievement have become one of the most successful groups of Americans.

They have worked hard for their success and should not be discriminated against because of they are doing things the right way. We should celebrate their success and hold it up as an example for everyone.

The delusion of identity politics is a poison to a free, democratic society and must be rejected. We cannot place American citizens in categorical boxes, racial or otherwise.

>"Adams took sudden and unexpected action, rejecting the anti-French hawks in his own party and offering peace to France."

Adams considered the peace he established with France as the greatest accomplishment of his Presidency, to the point of wanting his actions in averting an all out war commemorated on his gravestone.

I wish him luck.

While I believe border security is very important, a physical wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico seems unnecessary given the advanced surveillance we have at our disposal and could deploy.

There was a time when there were no people of Italian descent in positions of success in America. How is it that largely impoverished Italian migrants where able to achieve parity in American society on a level with other groups?

What about people of Asian descent? How have they been able to succeed when at one point in American history they were scorned and shunned?

It's all about culture.

So propaganda to counter propaganda?

>"The spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said the policy had “led to people caught entering the country irregularly being subjected to criminal prosecution and having their children – including extremely young children – taken away from them as a result”."

"Irregularly"...

The contortions which some go through in order to avoid using the word "illegal" are amusing.

By not describing the migrants as illegal, we minimize the damage done to rule of law by tolerating them. I recognize they are in plight, but they are fleeing nations where rule of law has broken down. We should do everything we can to avoid that path.

As the "public square" becomes increasingly dominated by internet platforms, we will have to rethink what the preservation of free speech requires.

People who support internet censorship stand on the legal ground that internet companies are private companies and as such can do what they want.

But, at least in America, the sanctity of free speech in the abstract "public square" of life takes precedence over the agency of business to do what it wants.

A business cannot (barring libel and similar edge cases) obstruct people from sharing their views in the public square, and similarly they should not be allowed to restrict the speech - or - content shared by individuals - or - creators online, provided that speech or content is legal, because the internet behemoths - are - the public square.

It's almost certainly not due to healthcare coverage, but rather obesity and the recent spike in overdose deaths.

So Mexico has better healthcare for the average person than the US? Hardly.

As mentioned elsewhere, overdoses are significantly impacting average lifespan figures.

Or if you're able to pull your head out of the dirt, blame an elite class which cares little for the common person and pushes a tone-deaf agenda to the detriment of the masses.

The internet just allows people to communicate and air their grievances. It is a medium, not a source.

Those points describe a large number of public intellectuals from across the political spectrum, most of whom I would not consider dangerous.

I feel like everyone's attacking a straw man version of Jordan Peterson in a case of mass virtue signaling.

I agree that his proposed crowd sourced-news credibility system is a terrible idea, but I think he's getting flack because he's daring to stand up to the media establishment. Of course they are circling the wagons, but I stand by my original statement that they are not beyond reproach.

Journalists have an incredible amount of power in society, more than they ever have had before. Like all other entities in a free society, their power must be checked by another force. They are not beyond reproach.

If Elon wants to stand up to journalism he feels is biased or inaccurate, let him do so. I applaud him for it. Let the people decide who is right and who is wrong.

Liars who hold the attention of millions are few and far between. Skew and bias is ubiquitous and allows small groups with an agenda to direct people away from the raw truth and towards their sanitized or corrupted version of it.

It's interesting, while different media has different bias, the internet has made this bias more apparent than it ever has been in history. We can see everything, so the bias reveals itself in whichever direction it leans.

People are frustrated by this, and Trump, Musk et. al. are speaking for many people when they voice their frustrations.

The media is an essential part of democracy and effective capitalism, but the media must look inwards and focus on ridding itself of bias, otherwise people will continue to protest.

Of course that's a massive challenge. Bias stems from foundational beliefs we hold about the world. How do we/media purge ourselves of bias if it means purging ourselves of foundational beliefs that make us who we are as much as anything else?