Point 2 I agree but it may being late to the game with democracy, perhaps as those conservatives learn how to use their power, point 2 will apply less and less, Point 1 no so much, depending on what we are talking about; In America yes because they lack the power to do so (talking about ethnic minorities in the US), but in the rest of the world religious conservatives will force their views on others when they have power regardless of ethnicity. The plus of other places is that usually the government has little power over the population. I do give lots of credit to the Catholic church (and the Eastern orthodox) while they take a bit of a god made it happen approach, they do teach in their schools about the science of evolution. Madrasas may also have differences depending on who funds them, I would imagine that Saudi Arabia funded ones are not too interested in evolution, while more liberal ones probably do teach the science of evolution. But as democracy spreads, populist leaders will learn how to use such topics to get power.
I think ethnic/racial minorities tend to view experts favorably because the balance of the views of experts tend to align with their interests. Economics, racial/equal protection issues, environmental policy, national spending priorities, etc. Most of the "think tank" views tend to be the same views promoted by Democrats. Yeah, but we're talking about America here. Not Yemen or Nigeria or wherever. The country is majority white. It won't be in a few decades, but barring a massive influx of climate refugees on a scale we can scarcely imagine, it will continue to be a white plurality country for another 100 years at least. And as long as socially conservative Christians continue to look upon Muslims, Hispanics and Black people with elevated suspicion/outright disdain, those groups aren't going to join forces to create a socially conservative agenda. And although the do agree on certain philosophical tenets (like evolution vs. creationism), their policy views are quite different. % who believe abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases vs. legal by group...and this is purely religious tradition not race/ethnicity within those traditions: Black Protestant: 42% illegal vs. 52% legal White Evangelical denominations: 63% vs. 33% Muslim: 37% vs. 55% Catholic: 47% vs. 48% Mainline: 35% vs. 60% Similar differences exist in areas such as environmentalism, government assistance to the poor, size of government, homosexuality, etc. Even though there are similarity in areas such as scriptural interpretation and creationism.
I would be surprised if that was the case, baring a very militaristic response to immigration. And if that is the case, expect civil war (another?).
More evolved rich Whitelandians just game the system. A study done in the Harvard admissions suit finds that 43% of white students are legacies, athletes, children of donors & faculty. I didn't follow the suit closely, but IIRC the Asians students who brought it were blaming other minorities for keeping them out. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/...on-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html
White people will very likely continue to be a plurality (as opposed to majority) that far out. Data from 2015 to 2065: NH White 62% down to 46% Hispanic (all races) 18% to 24% NH Black 12% to 13% NH Asian 6% to 14% They don't project more than 40-50 years out, but what we've seen since 2010 is a big drop in birth rates in Latin America and declining immigration. Meanwhile birth rates in a lot of Asia are still relatively high so more immigration pressure is coming from places like SE Asia and South Asia. So barring some sort of massive influx due to climate change, the increase in Hispanics will taper. 100 years from today, if humanity still exists, we're probably looking at a country that is 35-40% NH white, 30% Hispanic (if people still identify as Hispanic, and many probably will not), 20% NH Asian and 10-15% NH Black. And really, you could probably multiply all those percentages by 0.7, because 30% of the actual population will probably be "a bunch of shit" and all of this will matter a lot less than it does today. At least we can hope. The only scenario I find terrifying is the scenario in which we've gotta find homes for 60 million Central Americans and Caribbeans over a 40 year period. Not for reasons of race, but because that will mean humanity has well and truly screwed the entire planet. That will be some serious Mad Max type of stuff.
I was thinking some emphasis on climate change refugees. Based on what I have seen, I'm guessing there will be a constant movement northward from Central America and Mexico.
More reporting on white athletes getting into Ivies. Fancypants sports participation is also important in getting hired at top professional firms. This part explains why: In her 2015 book Pedigree, the Northwestern sociologist Lauren A. Rivera asked what elite employers were looking for from potential hires. She found the answer came down to three simple words: Ivy League sports. Elite firms based their entry-level hiring decisions on two things, Rivera wrote. First they screened for the “best” universities, harvesting the senior crops of schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. Second, they scrutinized candidates’ extracurricular activities, especially the sports they played in high school and college. As you might have guessed, playing any sport wasn’t good enough. Recruiters strongly preferred candidates who played “hockey, tennis, squash, or crew”—rare and exclusive sports, whose rarity and exclusion was precisely the point. “You will never find a squash player in a public school in Detroit,“ one banker told her. “To them, squash is a vegetable." In elite firms, filtering for fancy sports allowed high-status adults to hire their socioeconomic clones without having to ask the rude question: “So, kid, is your family rich like mine, or no?” Keeps the elite elite-ing on in democratic 'Merica: And for what? The hoarding of economic opportunity. Affluent parents, elite colleges, and elite firms are participants in a vast machine for replicating privilege. Rich parents coach their children to become fluent in a secret language of code words—sculling, cradling, state squash tournament—whose utterances may, years later, open the very gates of privilege through which the parents themselves once passed. Elite status is thus carried on, generation to generation, through the maintenance of a particular social language: the code of fancy sports. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ersity-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/
Crew Ice Hockey Swimming/Diving Field Hockey Lacrosse Cross Country Volleyball Squash Tennis Golf Fencing Water Polo Women's Soccer (Men's Soccer less so) Not only will 90%+ of recruited Ivy athletes in these sports be white, but a large percentage of them -- maybe as much as half -- will come from prep schools. That's a large part of what prep schools offer to parents, the chance to get their wealthy kids into Ivies through non-revenue sports programs.
At least in Chicago area, the top boys' soccer players are split roughly equally between two groups - 1) Suburban white kids 2) Hispanic players from all over, meaning both city and the burbs As the second group rarely has the grades/academic background to get into Ivies, even as recruited athletes, the Ivy players tend pretty much to come from upscale backgrounds. So yeah. And with the girls, not many Hispanic players, or even from blue-collar white neighborhoods. Pretty much the Lake Forest/Naperville set.
I went to university in Canada. I found it odd how many of the hockey or football players, who I thought weren't very smart, always managed to find good jobs after finishing school.
Do you still find it odd? I once also found it strange, but do not now ... because I have since realized that many if not most white-collar jobs don't rely on technical competence, they are about persuasion. And hockey/football players are good at persuading people, as they invoke hero worship. So it all makes sense. It might not be just, but it's logical.
They don't even have to have been that good. I did a consulting job once and the boss was a guy a bit older than I am whom everyone in the office would tell me "played college football for the Miami Hurricanes." Hmm. Impressive. Wait... The Hurricanes were terrible when I was a kid. Sure enough, I asked him. The three years he played varsity ball (back in the old days, Freshmen weren't eligible) they won 8 games total. He said he'd appreciate it if I didn't tell them. I said it's not my place.
https://www.insider.com/college-boa...olleges-to-reject-students-admissions-2019-11 The Wall Street Journal recently published a report that the SAT people are selling student data to elite and aspiring-to-elite colleges. Why? Well, it seems that these colleges are asking those students to apply, knowing full well that they're going to get rejected. This pads the admission numbers and increases the rejection rate. The WSJ report is linked for those who aren't paywalled out. The revelations come at a bad time for the College Board. While more students than ever are taking the SAT, schools are increasingly dropping it as a requirement over concerns that it's gamed by wealthy families who can afford to hire tutors for students taking the test. But the organization is standing by the practice. Jaslee Carayol, a College Board spokesperson, told Insider that the practice of licensing data could actually benefit students. "Search helps launch a student's future by connecting students with college and scholarship opportunities at the time when they begin thinking about postsecondary education, so they have time to get to know various colleges and make informed college choices," Carayol said. I've been hating the College Board people since I read an article in Harper's while I was in college that pointed out that the Educational Testing Service had a 27 hole golf course on their campus. In its report, the Journal focused on Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, which had an acceptance rate of 11% in 2017. 17 years ago, the school had an acceptance rate of 46%. Other universities across the country have seen their admission rates drastically shrink in the past two decades. . . . Students taking the SAT to check a box that asks them if they want to share their personal information with schools. They're led to believe that the forfeiture of their personal data may help them get recruited by the school, the Journal says. But the chances of that actually happening are exceedingly low. Test-takers — who may spend significant amounts of money on test prep and the test itself — are having their own data sold without any apparent benefit to themselves.
I'm wondering about legality of that. Some of the test takers are under 18, and therefor unable to legally consent to many things. Is this an area which that u18 designation does not apply?
Perhaps it's gotten worse,but I checked that box years ago and got a pile of shit from LACs,honors admission programs;ROTC scholarships,and other large prestigious unis (non-Ivy).
I can't remember if I did or not, but since it was a given I was going to one of Directional universities in Illinois, it was largely irrelevant. Now that I think of it, I must have: why else would places like St. Norbert in Green Bay or Graceland in Iowa have sent me stuff? There were others, but those are the head scratchers I remember.
I really thought hard about GWU. No idea why Carleton College thought I'd move some place colder than Northern New York.
Carleton pitched me, repeatedly, when I lived in the Bay Area, 40 years back. (I think it went after anybody who surpassed its threshold PSAT score.) Of course I had never heard of the school and wasn't about to move to flipping Minnesota. I have since learned that it would be a pretty good place to attend, all things considered.
Northfield, MN, is a mighty nice college town, home of Carleton and St. Olaf, with the Twin Cities about an hour away.