Should Asians boycott some elite universities that practice holistic admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I identify as Asian

why? You have zero advantage when it comes to college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted. But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus life, etc. And, as the amicus briefs from military and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted. But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus life, etc. And, as the amicus briefs from military and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.

The military amicus brief said "the arts are a vital part of campus life"? Sorry, but the purpose of the military is to defends - and at times when Bush or Trump say so - to invade other countries. The military has always been one of the most egalitarian because it relies entirely on voluntary soldiers for this purpose. It's a good thing we are not a Spartan militaristic society. And it's a good thing the military amicus brief the the decision of the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted. But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus life, etc. And, as the amicus briefs from military and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.

The military amicus brief said "the arts are a vital part of campus life"? Sorry, but the purpose of the military is to defends - and at times when Bush or Trump say so - to invade other countries. The military has always been one of the most egalitarian because it relies entirely on voluntary soldiers for this purpose. It's a good thing we are not a Spartan militaristic society. And it's a good thing the military amicus brief the the decision of the SCOTUS.

...it's a good thing the military amicus brief is not[b] the decision of the SCOTUS. That's what the 8 current and 1 soon-to-be SCOTUS justices are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted. But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus life, etc. And, as the amicus briefs from military and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.

The military amicus brief said "the arts are a vital part of campus life"? Sorry, but the purpose of the military is to defends - and at times when Bush or Trump say so - to invade other countries. The military has always been one of the most egalitarian because it relies entirely on voluntary soldiers for this purpose. It's a good thing we are not a Spartan militaristic society. And it's a good thing the military amicus brief the the decision of the SCOTUS.

No — do you understand how sentences work? Each has its own subject. Many undergrads want arts on campus, etc. Corporate and military leaders think learning to negotiate diverse environments is a crucial component of the education of effective leaders.

And, actually, in Grutter, SCOTUS cited both the corporate and military briefs as part of the rationale for its decision.

“These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3—4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27. The primary sources for the Nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Id., at 5. At present, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military “must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse setting.” Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that “[i]t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.” Ibid.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul.

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end.

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want.

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)

No it does not.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university under a hypothetical “academics-only” model. That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using. Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college.

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted. But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus life, etc. And, as the amicus briefs from military and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.

The military amicus brief said "the arts are a vital part of campus life"? Sorry, but the purpose of the military is to defends - and at times when Bush or Trump say so - to invade other countries. The military has always been one of the most egalitarian because it relies entirely on voluntary soldiers for this purpose. It's a good thing we are not a Spartan militaristic society. And it's a good thing the military amicus brief the the decision of the SCOTUS.

No — do you understand how sentences work? Each has its own subject. Many undergrads want arts on campus, etc. Corporate and military leaders think learning to negotiate diverse environments is a crucial component of the education of effective leaders.

And, actually, in Grutter, SCOTUS cited both the corporate and military briefs as part of the rationale for its decision.

“These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3—4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27. The primary sources for the Nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Id., at 5. At present, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military “must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse setting.” Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that “[i]t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.” Ibid.”

You went from "where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus" to something decidedly racial: “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” The problem is under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, educational institutions that receive any federal money are obligated to treat individuals equally.

Grutter is soo old. We have a new Harvard challenge and we'll have a new SCOTUS decision in this one. I am pretty sure we can all live with the Court's decision.

[Anonymous]

Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why 22%?

5.6 percent of the total American population IDs as Asian. Seems like a very high % vs population?

Sounds like 22% is way too high...maybe it should be like 6%?

I'm sure you would support harvard being 2% jewish then?

For the millionth time, Judaism is not a race, and religion is not factored in college admissions at most selective colleges.

You would be laughed at with that assertion in Israel.

You’d also be laughed at by any Jewish person. While one can convert to Judaism, it is also an ethnicity. There are several variations, including Ashkenazi and Sephardic. It’s such an ethnicity, in fact, that in genetic screenings (such as during pregnancy), doctors do a “Ashkenazi Jew panel” to screen for genetic disorders that tend to crop up within the Ashkenazi Jewish community. I know because I am 50% Ashkenazi and my husband is 75%, so our obgyn did that panel.

Man oh man oh man oh man.... I think I am being trolled here pretty well!

This thread is in the forum "College and University Discussion" and is about college admissions.

In college admissions, "Jewish" is not considered a race and there is no place to choose it. So in this discussion, Jewish is 100%, in-arguably, without debate, 100%, no question, not a race. Not. A. Race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

Let's just wait and see who the new appointee is. I doubt Trump makes the same mistake Reagan did in appointing a liberal like Kennedy. (Reagan's third choice btw.) From that point on, I expect Harvard to start tweaking the stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grutter (2003] was reaffirmed two years ago (in Fisher II). Both predate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Harvard College’s approach to admissions was singled out in Bakke as an example of a race-conscious process that DOES treat individuals equally.

Yes, conservative ideologues appointed to SCOTUS could ignore decades of doctrine on this issue and overturn any of these cases and others. Not cause for celebration.

In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

well. we'll know better in 2028 then. BTW, that's what is known as obiter dicta.