Minding The Campus

It's easy to stay within the bounds of acceptable college discourse by following two simple rules: be progressive, and don't be not progressive. Education colleges explicitly filter out people with non-progressive views[1]: "Someone who provided essential support during my troubles told me a funny story. He was posting information about me on Facebook, and up popped an ad for USC's online Masters of Arts in Teaching program. On impulse, he called the recruiter to see if they had any sort of ideological requirements and (quoting from his note) "asked him if USC enforces belief in specific values like 'equity' or that 'everyone can learn,' and [the recruiter] assured me that one of the admission essays is precisely on this point and that people with unsuitable views are weeded out!" " And Harvard has made it clear that they do not permit questioning certain progressive ideas for which the evidence is not persuasive[2]. In the popular consciousness, you may see these sentiments expressed as "you have the right to speech, but not the right to hate speech" or "you don't have the right to be offensive" or "if you say offensive things, expect consequences". [1] http://www.nas.org/articles/Achievement_Gap_Politics [2] http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_death_of_fr…

4-H Club president hurts your chances of admission, just like being involved in JROTC or anything else that has the faintest whiff of social conservatism. But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call "career-oriented activities" was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student's chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. "Being an officer or winning awards" for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, "has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions." Excelling in these activities "is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission." http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punish…

CalTech doesn't discriminate by race at all: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2010/12/why_caltech_is_in_a_class_by_i…

The idea that Common Core prevents students from taking calculus is disputed: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/a_sorry_attack_on_th… Further, a citation to Caltech's admission policy would be handy; I found sources directly disputing your claim (also in the context of Common Core), citing Caltech Math1a to rebut it.

The fact that the comparables are rising in price, and aid is available, makes the hikes at state schools thinkable. The budget problems in states then force the issue. Federal subsidies aren't the only reason for higher-educational inflation but there are growing hints that subsidies get largely captured by fee-increases. See for example these discussions: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/u-s-universities-feast-on-fed… http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/02/why_they_seem_to_ris…

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2009/11/grade_inflation_is_o… "Finally, the "draft fear" explanation cannot explain why a very similar pattern of grade inflation has occurred over the decades in Canadian universities which were spared the tumult of the Vietnam protest era and student fears that they might be drafted and sent overseas to fight and die."

which it's not Jesus. Do we live in the same reality? http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punish… TL;DR: The Espenshade study found that African chromosomes (by the "one-drop rule") equaled 450 SAT points over Asian chromosomes as a college admissions factor. (Not that actual genetic testing was used. It probably should be, though. Why encourage race fraud?) Your link is to a study in which "affirmative action" is used in the sense it was originally implied, not the sense in which it is actually used: Note that none of these constitute "reverse discrimination," an accusation affirmative action plans often face. In no case was a top-performing man denied a reward if he outperformed everyone else. The main effect the researchers found was an increase in the number of able women willing to participate.

I'd guess it would look a lot like Caltech. http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/12/why_caltech_is_in_a_… > A combined SAT score of 1470 (the 99th percentile by national standards) placed an entering Caltech freshman at only the 25th percentile among his fellow students. (At Harvard and Princeton, by contrast, the 25th percentile is reached by a score of only 1380) > Only 4 percent of the U.S. population, Asians made up a whopping 40 percent of the incoming freshmen class in 2008, a slightly larger proportion than the 39 percent figure for whites.

> It skims the cream from every race and class and population Interestingly, it turns out poor "cream" whites and Asians are excluded from elite private institutions. Other races get preference for being poor, but only rich white kids get into Harvard. http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punish…

Here are some highlights from that article of KC Johnson's (from http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2014/06/if-she-had-drinks-you-may-be-a… -- your call as to how mainstream Minding the Campus is): > Broadening what constitutes sexual assault by redefining consent has been a principal goal of “activists”—who have worked with sympathetic faculty and (increasingly) the OCR. The McLeod case at Duke is a particular obvious example of how the new standards might function: two students were drinking and had sex, after which the university concluded that the male student, Lewis McLeod, had committed sexual assault because the accuser could not give consent. Why? Dean Sue Wasiolek explained: Even when both students consumed alcohol, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.” As that standard is actually illegal, it's rare to see it admitted to so openly. > Minding the Campus staff examined the alcohol-related policies of U.S. News & World Report’s 55 top-ranked universities. The schools fall into three categories: those that bypass the issue entirely; those that link sexual assault to the incapacitation of the victim; and those, troublingly, that have such a vague definition of consent to almost certainly be arbitrary. > The majority of the top schools—32 of the 55—employ an incapacitation standard. [...] A few of these policies, such as Berkeley’s, Rochester’s, Yeshiva’s, and Penn…

however the word of someone claiming they personally are being marginalized and victimized should generally be given more weight than someone else claiming that that person isn't. No it absolutely should not, and the applications that we've seen when this framework of thought is proof enough of what happens when we give the victim more legal weight than the accused. Title IX is a perfect example of this flawed implementation of "justice" to the point where the victims receive all the benefits of due process, but the accused does not. Taking the victim at their word is preposterous and absolutely and wholly contrary to the way our legal framework was designed, and ought to work: Quote: "OCR’s language implies that the rights of accused students at public colleges do not merit lengthy discussion and further suggests by negative implication that accused have any rights at all.57 The Letter also states that “[w]hen taking steps to separate the complainant and alleged perpetrator, a school should minimize the burden on the complainant, and thus should not, as a matter of course, remove complainants from classes or housing while allowing alleged perpetrators to remain.” In other words, alleged perpetrators should automatically suffer life-upending punishments like expulsion from their residences upon accusation because they are likely guilty. The writing on the wall from this treatment of due process rights is unmistakable: it implies, “oddly and ominously, that…