“ Boomers allowed affirmative action and diversity politics to take over society. But note that there was never a mass firing of 20-30% of Boomers to make room for diverse hires or whatever. They just grandfathered themselves in then betrayed the next generation with it, as usual.”
That’s not true, universities love white women, they are their bread and butter for useless degrees and diversity quotas. It was 40% of the population (now ~30%) who boomer admissions and college faculty actively discriminated against while lowering standards left and right to accommodate everyone else.
I can’t speak to all universities, but I know the top ones here are systematically increasing foreign enrollment to the amounts mentioned in this video. It’s a money thing. Those kids are charged more and often their families pay more to the university on top of that. They’ve even made more categories for foreign enrollment to get around the limits set in places like public universities.
I don't think they advantage white women by much if at all in college admissions, with the exception of the military academies. Third party scholarships, maybe.
White women have a built in bias because they tend to have grades that outperform their later work productivity, so there isn't much of a reason to bias it in their favor more. The become part of the DEI gang later, when selected for certain careers, especially military commissions.
It is true that more White women in cumulative numbers benefitted. In the 1980s and 1990s, the USA was 80 - 90% American (White), So there obviously would be way more White women admitted cumulatively benefitting. But this is a deliberately deceptive Leftist argument that tries to pretend like we should compare the "class" of Whites to the "class" of Africans, Asians, Brownoids. It's a shitty analysis whose only purpose is to attack White people (as usual).
This is hilariously obtuse thinking. They rammed in white women because they were the key to making every college a hyper liberal shithole. It’s really that simple, second wave feminism was the Trojan horse, nothing else would have occurred without it.
This was basically the baseline propaganda. Unmarried, overly trusting white girls were told they were evil oppressor Karens if they didn't whore around and racemix.
Even if that’s correct (which I doubt), it was still forty years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything about how colleges are making admissions decisions now.
First off, I simply don't believe that. "Overwhelming majority" would be something higher than sixty-five percent. I am willing to believe that white women are the largest single block. A plurality, if you'll allow the borrowing of an election term. I am not willing to believe they are the "overwhelming majority." I would ask that you cite your source, if you insist on saying they are the overwhelming majority.
Secondly, a plurality—or even a majority—does not necessarily mean affirmative action is to blame, nor, if it is, that they are "the largest beneficiary." That is two separate points, so to elaborate on the first, it might suggest other biases in the education system which are more likely to push women towards college in general that have nothing to do with affirmative action or race (demonization of male behavior such as the over-diagnosing of "ADHD" or destruction of male clubs and spaces), or it might suggest that men are more likely to leave the education system to pursue non-college careers (trades, starting a business). I favor both of those as an explanation over affirmative action.
That said, I am willing to assume that women do get some bonus admission points that men don't, so we'll move on to the second part, which is that their plurality status doesn't necessarily make them the "largest beneficiary" even if they do receive some benefit. If the "typical" white female is closer to getting in on her own merit than the "typical" black male or female (and I believe average racial academic scores will support this assumption), then the black male or female may receive a much larger admissions boost and yet report fewer accepted, both because there are fewer in absolute numbers and because each one needs far more help to qualify for acceptance. In other words, even if we say that perhaps only fifty, or twenty, or any other percentage, of accepted white females would qualify for college without the benefits of their sex, it is likely that an even lower percentage of blacks (both male and female) would qualify without the benefit they receive. And so, the question of who is the "largest beneficiary" becomes very muddled. If you say that it's only by absolute numbers and without any regards to population percentage or degree of "bonus points" needed, then sure, maybe you can make a case for white women. But, if you try to add any sort of controls for population percentages and things like who needs the most flagrant help to qualify, I think that position likely becomes much harder to defend.
First off, I simply don't believe that. "Overwhelming majority" would be something higher than sixty-five percent. I am willing to believe that white women are the largest single block. A plurality, if you'll allow the borrowing of an election term. I am not willing to believe they are the "overwhelming majority." I would ask that you cite your source, if you insist on saying they are the overwhelming majority.
They are the single largest demographic block and over represented by population size.
Secondly, a plurality—or even a majority—does not necessarily mean affirmative action is to blame, nor, if it is, that they are "the largest beneficiary." That is two separate points, so to elaborate on the first, it might suggest other biases in the education system which are more likely to push women towards college in general that have nothing to do with affirmative action or race (demonization of male behavior such as the over-diagnosing of "ADHD" or destruction of male clubs and spaces), or it might suggest that men are more likely to leave the education system to pursue non-college careers (trades, starting a business). I favor both of those as an explanation over affirmative action.
It’s been repeatedly proven to be affirmative action and preferential admissions, colleges tacitly admitted to it for decades, it’s also the reason they started grading on a curve after the 70s. You’re making extremely small claims that can’t account for a gap that made non Jewish white men go from the majority to the smallest minority in 3 generations.
That said, I am willing to assume that women do get some bonus admission points that men don't, so we'll move on to the second part, which is that their plurality status doesn't necessarily make them the "largest beneficiary" even if they do receive some benefit. If the "typical" white female is closer to getting in on her own merit than the "typical" black male or female (and I believe average racial academic scores will support this assumption)
The average iq of a bachelors graduate dropped a full standard deviation from 1960 to 2000. There’s no major demographic shift that occurred in that timeframe aside from white women becoming the majority of college students. You can argue that TODAY is worse, but this is because of the standard that WAS set for white women to get degrees and not have to compete.
In other words, even if we say that perhaps only fifty, or twenty, or any other percentage, of accepted white females would qualify for college without the benefits of their sex, it is likely that an even lower percentage of blacks (both male and female) would qualify without the benefit they receive. And so, the question of who is the "largest beneficiary" becomes very muddled. If you say that it's only by absolute numbers and without any regards to population percentage or degree of "bonus points" needed, then sure, maybe you can make a case for white women. But, if you try to add any sort of controls for population percentages and things like who needs the most flagrant help to qualify, I think that position likely becomes much harder to defend.
If we’re doing a per capita assumption of today’s graduates I could agree with that stance, historically however it’s not even a comparison, we’re talking about over 30 years where white women where vastly over represented in colleges while minority groups were about even.
When I enrolled the school I went to for my graduate program was the eighth rated school in the US overall. There were a ton of women that started with me.
By the final class, it was a fraction of the number of women. They just flit around and go on a whim but once it gets tough they drop out. Meanwhile kids that really bust their ass go to some CC so Buffy can find dick with high earning potential.
The high-preforming, ultra-competent, voluntary migrants were just used as a rhetorical weapon to justify mass migration.
The only good news with the destruction of universities is that it will reverse the brain drain of other areas of the country. If competent white men are being actively prevented from being placed into major corporations, then they will still make very good achievements as individual businessmen in their local environments. Similar trends were noticed with cities near gulags in the Soviet Union (where highly intelligent people survived the gulag and just started working in local neighborhoods, creating highly productive cities generations later); as well as in Southern Black segregated neighborhoods (which built cottage industries because high-preforming blacks weren't being hired to compete with the managerial class). Effectively, white communities will have the same result.
The high-preforming, ultra-competent, voluntary migrants were just used as a rhetorical weapon to justify mass migration.
Sergei Brinn (whose parents were both professors?) is a world of difference from the Afghan and Somali migrants whose famous achievements are raping kids and reproducing with their close relatives.
This is why the MSM made such a big deal about that rich white celebrity woman doing whatever she could to get her white kid into college. I didn't agree with her actions but I definitely understood them.
If she wasn't White colleges would have been lining up to take her child in.
Glad to see more of this showing up. Noticing things that would have had you shut down a decade ago.
“ Boomers allowed affirmative action and diversity politics to take over society. But note that there was never a mass firing of 20-30% of Boomers to make room for diverse hires or whatever. They just grandfathered themselves in then betrayed the next generation with it, as usual.”
https://x.com/mmjukic/status/1944483033241039189?s=46
That’s not true, universities love white women, they are their bread and butter for useless degrees and diversity quotas. It was 40% of the population (now ~30%) who boomer admissions and college faculty actively discriminated against while lowering standards left and right to accommodate everyone else.
I can’t speak to all universities, but I know the top ones here are systematically increasing foreign enrollment to the amounts mentioned in this video. It’s a money thing. Those kids are charged more and often their families pay more to the university on top of that. They’ve even made more categories for foreign enrollment to get around the limits set in places like public universities.
I don't think they advantage white women by much if at all in college admissions, with the exception of the military academies. Third party scholarships, maybe.
White women have a built in bias because they tend to have grades that outperform their later work productivity, so there isn't much of a reason to bias it in their favor more. The become part of the DEI gang later, when selected for certain careers, especially military commissions.
White women were the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action quotas and overtook men in college admissions in the 80s because of it.
This is a common assertion by Leftists, but it's really just another angle to present White people as the bad guys.
Lets strip away the Newspeak and see how absurd this sounds in clear, direct language:
Yeah, it sounds absurd when we parse it that way, because it is.
Africans, Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, Asians all receive significantly more benefit from anti-White policies than White women.
Lets break it down with some ballpark numbers for a college admissions process.
It is true that more White women in cumulative numbers benefitted. In the 1980s and 1990s, the USA was 80 - 90% American (White), So there obviously would be way more White women admitted cumulatively benefitting. But this is a deliberately deceptive Leftist argument that tries to pretend like we should compare the "class" of Whites to the "class" of Africans, Asians, Brownoids. It's a shitty analysis whose only purpose is to attack White people (as usual).
This is hilariously obtuse thinking. They rammed in white women because they were the key to making every college a hyper liberal shithole. It’s really that simple, second wave feminism was the Trojan horse, nothing else would have occurred without it.
This was basically the baseline propaganda. Unmarried, overly trusting white girls were told they were evil oppressor Karens if they didn't whore around and racemix.
Even if that’s correct (which I doubt), it was still forty years ago. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything about how colleges are making admissions decisions now.
White women are still the overwhelming majority on overall college admissions
First off, I simply don't believe that. "Overwhelming majority" would be something higher than sixty-five percent. I am willing to believe that white women are the largest single block. A plurality, if you'll allow the borrowing of an election term. I am not willing to believe they are the "overwhelming majority." I would ask that you cite your source, if you insist on saying they are the overwhelming majority.
Secondly, a plurality—or even a majority—does not necessarily mean affirmative action is to blame, nor, if it is, that they are "the largest beneficiary." That is two separate points, so to elaborate on the first, it might suggest other biases in the education system which are more likely to push women towards college in general that have nothing to do with affirmative action or race (demonization of male behavior such as the over-diagnosing of "ADHD" or destruction of male clubs and spaces), or it might suggest that men are more likely to leave the education system to pursue non-college careers (trades, starting a business). I favor both of those as an explanation over affirmative action.
That said, I am willing to assume that women do get some bonus admission points that men don't, so we'll move on to the second part, which is that their plurality status doesn't necessarily make them the "largest beneficiary" even if they do receive some benefit. If the "typical" white female is closer to getting in on her own merit than the "typical" black male or female (and I believe average racial academic scores will support this assumption), then the black male or female may receive a much larger admissions boost and yet report fewer accepted, both because there are fewer in absolute numbers and because each one needs far more help to qualify for acceptance. In other words, even if we say that perhaps only fifty, or twenty, or any other percentage, of accepted white females would qualify for college without the benefits of their sex, it is likely that an even lower percentage of blacks (both male and female) would qualify without the benefit they receive. And so, the question of who is the "largest beneficiary" becomes very muddled. If you say that it's only by absolute numbers and without any regards to population percentage or degree of "bonus points" needed, then sure, maybe you can make a case for white women. But, if you try to add any sort of controls for population percentages and things like who needs the most flagrant help to qualify, I think that position likely becomes much harder to defend.
They are the single largest demographic block and over represented by population size.
It’s been repeatedly proven to be affirmative action and preferential admissions, colleges tacitly admitted to it for decades, it’s also the reason they started grading on a curve after the 70s. You’re making extremely small claims that can’t account for a gap that made non Jewish white men go from the majority to the smallest minority in 3 generations.
The average iq of a bachelors graduate dropped a full standard deviation from 1960 to 2000. There’s no major demographic shift that occurred in that timeframe aside from white women becoming the majority of college students. You can argue that TODAY is worse, but this is because of the standard that WAS set for white women to get degrees and not have to compete.
If we’re doing a per capita assumption of today’s graduates I could agree with that stance, historically however it’s not even a comparison, we’re talking about over 30 years where white women where vastly over represented in colleges while minority groups were about even.
When I enrolled the school I went to for my graduate program was the eighth rated school in the US overall. There were a ton of women that started with me.
By the final class, it was a fraction of the number of women. They just flit around and go on a whim but once it gets tough they drop out. Meanwhile kids that really bust their ass go to some CC so Buffy can find dick with high earning potential.
The high-preforming, ultra-competent, voluntary migrants were just used as a rhetorical weapon to justify mass migration.
The only good news with the destruction of universities is that it will reverse the brain drain of other areas of the country. If competent white men are being actively prevented from being placed into major corporations, then they will still make very good achievements as individual businessmen in their local environments. Similar trends were noticed with cities near gulags in the Soviet Union (where highly intelligent people survived the gulag and just started working in local neighborhoods, creating highly productive cities generations later); as well as in Southern Black segregated neighborhoods (which built cottage industries because high-preforming blacks weren't being hired to compete with the managerial class). Effectively, white communities will have the same result.
It has been hilarious to see big corporations start delivering crap products the more they hired or were run by Indian people and women.
Until that big corporation's crap product is a critical component to your car, plane, computer, or defibulator.
Sergei Brinn (whose parents were both professors?) is a world of difference from the Afghan and Somali migrants whose famous achievements are raping kids and reproducing with their close relatives.
Yes, that's my point.
Never, unless we get out from under the jew's thumb.
Lol pajeet slave owner asks "is this bad for america?"
When Trump stops being a fucking sissy and throws the regressive leftists into death camps that's when.
This is why the MSM made such a big deal about that rich white celebrity woman doing whatever she could to get her white kid into college. I didn't agree with her actions but I definitely understood them.
If she wasn't White colleges would have been lining up to take her child in.
Nobody is going to mention he has an egg of a head?
Should have been a caesarean birth