Aaaahahahaha! Nice projection....and another failing grade in English. Want to compare transcripts? I know we can only go to 8th grade before yours ends....too bad, I was still getting all "A"s with maybe one "B" in PE then. I would suggest we compare SAT scores, but you indicated you didn't get that far.

I did not catch your cranial rectosis, thanks for the concern, out of character though it may be.

We all know that if you could back up your nonsense with anything that resembles a fact or citation, you would. You never can, and when you try you invariably either turn out to have totally misread what you cite, you cite propaganda sites rated at 5 Pinocchios, or you link to spoof sites based in Columbia that try to install viruses.

We all also know you only make these public insults to try to feel like a big boy, in private you were usually far more reasonable, civil, sometimes even flattering, and privately you could admit you were wrong, not in public though, there you're an uncivil moron spouting insane conspiracy theories and utter nonsense then hiding when challenged, or at best replying with factless, pointless, preschool level snark, and since you said you support lying in any circumstance if it helps your argument or cause, including under oath in the highest court in the land by the top government official, I won't speak to you in private. This made you a constant and consistent unapologetic liar that can never back up their nonsense because there is no corroboration or verification possible for blatant lies, so instead you answer with dumb insults.

At least I offer a fact based (often with citations) argument when I insult your lack of intelligence, education, knowledge, logic, honesty, and civility. You cannot say the same, because you never have a fact based argument to offer, and consequently you are totally incapable of insulting me. D'oh!

So sorry I use fact and citations to disprove your insane infantile nonsense constantly, and don't slink away into the shadows when challenged because my positions are reasoned and considered, and can be logically and factually corroborated, not just insulting preschool nonsense based on wishful thinking like you spout.

No, but you must be.
Baby murder gets the death penalty in Texas. This law calls for civil penalties, not even a parking ticket. It's an infraction of a regulation other citizens can profit from enforcing, not murder in any way shape or form, by Texas law.

You gave me the definition!!! ROTFLMFAHS!!!!
" Definition
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one HUMAN BEING by another"
But you intentionally ignore the fact that the unborn aren't yet people. You can't murder non people. I've pointed this out repeatedly. It seems you must have the illiteracy problem along with your reality problem.

It's true, I WOULD and HAVE defended infanticide, especially historically, but I absolutely have not mentioned it before now in this thread. Supporting abortion is not defending murder by any accepted definition of those words, you have to skew the definitions of human beings and the definition of murder before your position makes sense. Duh. I expect your verbal SAT score was awful, you have a tenuous grasp of English.

According to the bible, yep, not people. Sorry. Try reading it and interpreting what's actually there instead of having someone do it for you.

So, you are advocating Baptist Sharia law.

America has legalized abortions in every state by law because the majority wants it. Don't like it, fuck right off. As easy as that, but your ilk didn't fuck off, you prefer end runs around the constitution and the destruction of codified rights and using legal trickery and convolutions to enact laws that are knowingly unconstitutional but will effectively end abortions before the legal process can invalidate them by bankrupting providers. Anything BUT fucking right off. Take your own advice first, maybe.

Again, the majority in Texas don't want this, didn't vote for it, and absolutely don't want the consequences....which is an exodus of multi national corporations who won't support this nonsense with their wallets.

The majority of Americans are Christians, and a large majority want abortion to be legal and easy to access. Your logic is fatally flawed, being Christian doesn't mean you're anti abortion any more than it means you're anti murder, in fact it means you're more likely to support and defend murder, the bible prescribes it for almost any infraction from actual murder to mowing your lawn on Sunday. The bible says nearly nothing about abortion, what little it does say indicates it's not a crime. Holy fuck, learn your own religion before trying to impose it on others!

Texas was already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, no doubt the backlash for this move will push them hard over the edge. I already cancelled my trip there, and won't be buying any Texas made products. I'm not alone.
Enjoy!

1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

No Bob.
I understand, after years of lying to yourself that Trump is intelligent you no longer know what intelligence is. Her IQ is so much higher than Trump's it's nearly exponential. She can put forth a rational, salient argument using English and complete sentences, Trump is incapable of any part of that.

Edit: OMG! Reported 920 Trump SAT score?! Subtract the 400 points given for showing up to take it, he got well under 50%! No wonder he's tried so hard to hide his grades, threatening his schools with lawsuits or worse if they release them. He's a bona fide, quantified moron, and doesn't want it proven.
Mueller, who has the certified score in hand, hinted that they did reflect well on Trump in one respect. “From these SATs, it’s evident that he did not cheat off anyone else’s paper,”

You elected a terrible joke to the highest office on the planet, we need far less of what your ilk calls comedy, it's not funny or based in reality, it's reminiscent of 11 year old girls making up nasty lies about a classmate and laughing then saying "we're just joking" when caught.

So you get where I'm coming from, I went to 3 "good" prep schools k-12 for a total of 7 years. In that time there were a total of 3 black kids at the same schools, one of which dropped out because of harassment. I also went to 5 years of public schools with up to 70% black kids, those schools taught me absolutely nothing. That's a large part of why I'm convinced just using SAT scores (or similar) only rate ones opportunities, not abilities. That was thousands upon thousands of white kids well prepared for years to take that test and two black kids....hardly equal opportunities. It's hard to ignore that personal experience.

You mentioned SAT scores, no? They clearly DO benefit one group, rich whites.
You said "If one has a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates, how do we most fairly use that score to choose candidates." I pointed out that we don't have any such method, offered some of the reasons why the SAT is biased, and made suggestions of some things that must be taken into account to create one.

Edit: any method that ignores the exceptional efforts required in overcoming the pitfalls of being non white in America in order to be color blind, by definition, cannot be used fairly.

Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job, then claim it's possible to rate other jobs the same way. If the job can be boiled down to something as simple as how many times you can score a basket in one hour and NOTHING else matters, that works. There are very few professions like that, and educational opportunities should be nothing like that, especially when there's no unbiased test to determine intelligence, educational ability, and work ethic.

Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin....

Race is considered, period. The argument is that being non white should be considered as a positive, an obstacle being overcome, rather than a negative, a biased excuse to deny opportunity.

Try reading again. You have it totally backwards.

When was I insulting or dismissive? Because it was unforseen that educated people would elect a bombastic insulting sexist popularist con man who was obviously lying to them simply because he wore a red hat and tie? Those are facts, not opinion. Many of them are saying how much they regret it now.

I offered solutions you appeared to agree with, like funding lower education so everyone has a decent, if not equal, opportunity to get an education.
Using race as ONE criteria amongst many for admission is not ideal, as I said, but until a better system for identifying and addressing financial and societal issues that stymie opportunities for people often based on their pigmentation is created, it's the best we've got.

What we don't have is what you imply is the problem.....rich white men with 1570 SAT scores (old school SAT, I don't know how it's scored now) and 3.9 gpas are not being turned away from Yale to make room for indigent African American women with 990 SATs and 2.7 gpas...but the Latina woman with 1550 and 3.6 gpa earned while raising 2 siblings and holding a full time job, yeah, she gets the slot, and that's proper. One skewed test that benefits one privileged group is hardly a decent measure of their work ethic or intelligence....often it's only an indication they hired the right student to take the SAT for them. There were at least 3 hired test takers out of 30 students taking the PSAT when I took it, we talked afterwards.

It is the right (and people making the arguments you are) who are far more insulting and dismissive of non white people's frustrations at being racially discriminated against....to a level and consistency exponentially higher than the trifling discriminations whites suffer. That doesn't mean some whites don't suffer some deleterious effects, it means they come out way ahead in the discrimination game.

You wish to ignore all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating....but only the kind that harms white guys, forget the myriad of insurmountable racist mountains non whites climb daily, both institutional and societal, this speed bump for whites is unconscionable and must be removed immediately!

Come back and whine about institutional anti white bias when anti white racism permeates every facet of your life but not when your race doesn't give you a free leg up that one time. Maybe talk to your right wing friends about why funding education for others is good for you as step one towards eliminating programs like this that address inequities in opportunities, and giving the less fortunate extra opportunity to overcome their situation is good for all. After reasonable basic educational opportunities are available for all, schools will still take the student's home life, finances, and extra curricular activities into account....with luck that will be on an individual basis eventually, but that's not likely until education reforms occur that give everyone an opportunity to display their skills on a more level field..

From the outside looking in though, requiring diversity of genders and races by law is the issue.

If we simplify student quality down to only their SAT scores, what is the fair and equitable method of picking the 100 students that get admitted for the upcoming year?

Here's what I think a color-blind non-racist equal opportunity minded admission process looks like. Sort the students by SAT score and admit the top 100.

Looking at the comments from the left, by example the Daily Show video jabs above, the process I described is considered a rollback of hard fought civil rights.

???

A 1770 SAT Score? That's pretty amazing since last I checked it only went to 1600, 800 math, 800 language.

>> ^bmacs27:

My boss has been teaching the same class the same way at the college undergrad level for 25 years. The failure rate has gone from 5% to 25%. They're getting dumber.


SAT scores had to be re-normed to a lower level in the 90s because a larger portion of society was going to college.

The smart fraction is just as smart as they've always been, but they're a much smaller proportion of society now for various reasons.

Being all into numbers, I put the numbers in the video into my own spreadsheet and discovered that the graph for the number of words/SAT score is of course not linear. They appear very much correlated, but not linear like the graphic showed. That's the fault of the video editor, not the MIT professor, because he never says anything about linear correlation.

As long as at least one of the factors doesn't correlate linearly (and I think we know that neither do), it's possible there is still a correlation between income and length of essay, but not necessarily a causative relationship. It's more likely that buried in the income statistic is the level of the student's English -- the poorer you are, the more likely it is your first language isn't English, so the more likely you are to write a shorter essay, and drag your economic demographic down.

On second viewing, I have to take issue with some of the statistics because it is claimed that there is a perfect linear correlation both between household income and SAT score, and between length of essay and SAT score.

First, any claims of linear correlation between any two items is highly suspect. Almost nothing is ever linear. An 'S' curve is far more probable. This would imply that billionaire students outperform millionaire students by the same factor millionaire students outperform completely broke students.

Second, since these two "linear" correlations both correlate to the same factor, SAT score, this means that there must also be a linear correlation between them as well. That's to say, there's a perfect linear correlation between household income and how long your essay is. So, the richer you are, the longer you like to write your essays. That's highly unlikely.

@GeeSussFreeK
"The claim of "blue states smarter than red states" is more a racist claim if it is based on SAT results as red states also contain a higher % of minorities."

If that claim were based on SAT scores, then it would be an invalid claim because SAT scores reflect your household income, not your intelligence. It wouldn't be racist.

But it's based on IQ scores: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/andrewallison/us-elections.jpg. IQ scores themselves aren't reflective of much except how academically inclined you are, as they were designed by academics to test how much like them everybody else is.

@longde

Your disagreement is with statistics, not with the videosift community:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

Your previous claims that 'even if college administrators are rejecting Asian Americans because of their race in favor of white applicants with weaker applications, that's not discrimination' is too stupid to respond to. Just find statistics that contradict the above statistics or don't expect people to reply to your oblivious racism.

Whatever self-serving nonsense you're going to respond with isn't a substitute for statistics.