New study on relative impact of Harvard Admissions Preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These are great questions and I hope they motivate discussion. I fear that if Harvard changed its admission policies to what some people here seem to want (scores and grades only, as far as I can tell from their comments), then Harvard would lose some of the attributes that make it so appealing in the first place. (Also, incidentally, admitting solely based on test scores and grades would kill every department except sciences, pre-med, and maybe Econ).

Finally a proposal to actually improve college in this country. Think about how much education productivity would improve by getting rid of fluff majors. Goodbye ridiculous political horseshit in college. Maybe an additional benefit would be fewer damn lawyers.

Oh spare me this garbage. Tell your kid they can only study those things you think are worth it. But the idea that you would willfully cut off areas of learning is just asinine and extremely arrogant.

Interestingly in your line of argument you implicitly agree that there are "fluff majors."
Of course I also never said I disagreed with distribution requirements for my kids. However, I would be perfectly happy that they not be exposed to your kids and other of their fellow ethnic studies majors.



I hope you enjoyed calling an anonymous poster trying to jerk people's chains "arrogant." Way to show your toughness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These are great questions and I hope they motivate discussion. I fear that if Harvard changed its admission policies to what some people here seem to want (scores and grades only, as far as I can tell from their comments), then Harvard would lose some of the attributes that make it so appealing in the first place. (Also, incidentally, admitting solely based on test scores and grades would kill every department except sciences, pre-med, and maybe Econ).

Finally a proposal to actually improve college in this country. Think about how much education productivity would improve by getting rid of fluff majors. Goodbye ridiculous political horseshit in college. Maybe an additional benefit would be fewer damn lawyers.

Oh spare me this garbage. Tell your kid they can only study those things you think are worth it. But the idea that you would willfully cut off areas of learning is just asinine and extremely arrogant.

Interestingly in your line of argument you implicitly agree that there are "fluff majors."
Of course I also never said I disagreed with distribution requirements for my kids. However, I would be perfectly happy that they not be exposed to your kids and other of their fellow ethnic studies majors.



I hope you enjoyed calling an anonymous poster trying to jerk people's chains "arrogant." Way to show your toughness.

So what you’re really saying is that ethnic studies majors are fluff because, what, they’re not about white people.

So you’re not just an arrogant (boy that felt good!) narrow-minded troll, you’re a little white troll.

And yes, I enjoyed that very much.

[Anonymous]

Why is a white troll worse than a colorless troll, you hopeless racist?

And why do you think I'm white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is a white troll worse than a colorless troll, you hopeless racist?

And why do you think I'm white?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if they have removed the legacy question from the Common Application? DS said he had the ability to answer the legacy question for the university dh went to but was not given that option for Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if they have removed the legacy question from the Common Application? DS said he had the ability to answer the legacy question for the university dh went to but was not given that option for Harvard

If it’s not there, I would think that they’d removed it. Maybe call the admissions office and check to make sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?
I

Thomas Sowell should be required reading for any liberal dems.

https://youtu.be/eUbOcgj8AjQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?
I

Thomas Sowell should be required reading for any liberal dems.

https://youtu.be/eUbOcgj8AjQ

WTF does liberal vs conservative have to do with this? I'll tell you: nothing.

To repeat (assuming you are the PP)

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?
I

Thomas Sowell should be required reading for any liberal dems.

https://youtu.be/eUbOcgj8AjQ

I'll read Sowell once self-described conservative republicans read any book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?
I

Thomas Sowell should be required reading for any liberal dems.

https://youtu.be/eUbOcgj8AjQ

WTF does liberal vs conservative have to do with this? I'll tell you: nothing.

To repeat (assuming you are the PP)

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?

You might learn something. We are trying to help you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fascinating.

So, the best way to help Asian Americans who, as you say, have been subject to much injustice in the past...is to discriminate AGAINST them in college admissions?

This is beyond absurd. It's plain obscene.

Again, many people are arguing based on an incorrect premise.

Racial balance in college admissions is not designed to hurt of help any one race.

Racial balance in college admissions is designed to help colleges better achieve their mission.

Past injustices, while horrible and possibly worthy of social correction, are completely irrelevant to this topic, and to insist they are indicates you do not understand.

Well you can definitely count me in as a person who also finds it fascinating. I haven't heard a single reason - reasonable or otherwise - for such blatant discrimination yet.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Saying that it's a "mission" is the exact same thing as saying "because I want to". It's not a reason. It's not a justification. It's not a defense against racism. Not when the stakes are so high here.

You point is a great one -- but it works totally against your position.

What if I went through life, avoiding people of a certain race even when I have a lot of power over them and it really hurts them for me to do so, and then I just claimed, "oh it's not discrimination or illegal in the slightest, I just have a mission to not interact with people from x race, and that's what I'm doing." Would that be okay with you?

Its seems like you are arguing for racial balance.

That's what colleges feel they need -- a balance of ALL races that reflects the population of the country so that students of all races can be comfortable and want to attend and the colleges can attract as many students as possible.

It's not racism because it benefits all races, (such as an Asian applicant at Notre Dame or Grinnell, a black student at Harvard or Middlebury a white student at Spelman or Morehouse) even though it may make it harder for certain students at certain schools.

You've made this claim a couple of times now, so I'm sure you have proof the way we have proof of preferential admissions for black applicants to Harvard, right?

You know the only college there is that kind of data for is Harvard, right? Because that is the only college that was sued?

Since you ask, yes, I do:

https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198 is a great source and something you should read. It is the definitive volume on the topic.

Also, consider the terms "URM" (under-represented minority) and "ORM" (Over-represented minority). The fact that these terms exist, and are used by college admissions departments in decisions, let you know the facts, and all you have to do is look for colleges where the representation of the race is under the societal percentage.

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?
I

Thomas Sowell should be required reading for any liberal dems.

https://youtu.be/eUbOcgj8AjQ

WTF does liberal vs conservative have to do with this? I'll tell you: nothing.

To repeat (assuming you are the PP)

If you choose to respond, please answer this question:

Do you think that most competitive colleges are seeking racial balance in their cohort?

You might learn something. We are trying to help you.

By not answering the question? That would help me.

[Anonymous]

of course they are

and India and China don't care and take the top scores period

The american college system is different it's holistic vs score based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:of course they are

and India and China don't care and take the top scores period

The american college system is different it's holistic vs score based

And Harvard affirmative action students’ post-graduation life chances aren’t really great. Employers take holistic view when sizing up applicants. They don’t always take top USNews ranking school students, often taking lower tile students, lower gpa, etc based on their holistic evaluation. Black Harvard graduates apparently don’t do well in the labor force under holistic evaluation. Same thing Harvard is doing.