The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

Nope -- the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of race.

And that applies to private institutions too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this paper really proves is that Woke White Liberals are using Asians as the sacrificial lamb to assuage their white guilt about Blacks and Browns without having to pay any costs themselves.

You have no idea why colleges seek racial balances that reflect the population. It has nothing to do with guilt. You are ignorant.

NP. I dont care "why." It's racism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't, and the fact you keep repeating it proves you don't understand.

Or don't WANT to, which is far more likely.

It is racism. You just be happen to be okay with your version of it.

...sigh...

no, it isn't, since it is not biased against any particular race.

No matter how many times you stomp your feet and keep asserting it is. It isn't.

DP. I don’t think you have any understanding of how affirmative action works.

I don't think you have any understanding that racial preferences in college admissions is NOT affirmative action.

Scratch that -- I know you don't understand that racial preferences in college admissions is NOT affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

Nope -- the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of race.

And that applies to private institutions too.

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

Nope -- the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of race.

And that applies to private institutions too.

Wow - Supreme Court is on the thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

It might be helpful to look up the meaning of affirmative action. Or are you trying to be funny? I can’t tell, but words have meanings and should be used correctly.

Putting together a class of students with many different interests and accomplishments is in no way akin to affirmative action, which is a process used to help students who have historically experienced discrimination. The experience of those who have experienced discrimination is trivialized when the phrase is used to refer to any admitted students who score highly in other categories plus academics, instead of only academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

It might be helpful to look up the meaning of affirmative action. Or are you trying to be funny? I can’t tell, but words have meanings and should be used correctly.

Putting together a class of students with many different interests and accomplishments is in no way akin to affirmative action, which is a process used to help students who have historically experienced discrimination. The experience of those who have experienced discrimination is trivialized when the phrase is used to refer to any admitted students who score highly in other categories plus academics, instead of only academics.

Butt hurt feelings.

URM kids have different accomplishments yet when they are admitted with lower scores, that's considered affirmative action. Some white kids have other accomplishments yet when they are admitted with lower score that's not considered affirmative action but "Putting together a class of students with many different interests and accomplishments".

Asian students have different kinds of accomplishments (yes many have similar E.C.s as other groups), but that's just ignored, and the line "who wants a university with just good test takers" is always spouted.

If there is no affirmative action being used for white athletes and legacies, then there is no affirmative action happening for URM either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

It might be helpful to look up the meaning of affirmative action. Or are you trying to be funny? I can’t tell, but words have meanings and should be used correctly.

Putting together a class of students with many different interests and accomplishments is in no way akin to affirmative action, which is a process used to help students who have historically experienced discrimination. The experience of those who have experienced discrimination is trivialized when the phrase is used to refer to any admitted students who score highly in other categories plus academics, instead of only academics.

Butt hurt feelings.

URM kids have different accomplishments yet when they are admitted with lower scores, that's considered affirmative action. Some white kids have other accomplishments yet when they are admitted with lower score that's not considered affirmative action but "Putting together a class of students with many different interests and accomplishments".

Asian students have different kinds of accomplishments (yes many have similar E.C.s as other groups), but that's just ignored, and the line "who wants a university with just good test takers" is always spouted.

If there is no affirmative action being used for white athletes and legacies, then there is no affirmative action happening for URM either.

Did you read the definition of affirmative action in the post above? I don’t want to be impolite, but you are not using the term correctly here. Harvard is not using affirmative action.

It’s not about the scores and never has been. Harvard is not and is not pretending to be a school like MIT or CalTech. They have different goals, and that’s fine. Every college does not have to be like every other college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

Nope -- the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of race.

And that applies to private institutions too.

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

Good mid-course correction

Now, I hope you know that Harvard once used those same arguments to, in practice, discriminate against Jewish students.

And that the ugly results of the "beautiful" rethoric is clear, systematic discrimination against Asian American students.

IMO that's clearly unconstitutional and I won't be surprised when SCOTUS declares it to be so. And rightly so. All the signals are there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

Nope -- the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of race.

And that applies to private institutions too.

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

Good mid-course correction

Now, I hope you know that Harvard once used those same arguments to, in practice, discriminate against Jewish students.

And that the ugly results of the "beautiful" rethoric is clear, systematic discrimination against Asian American students.

IMO that's clearly unconstitutional and I won't be surprised when SCOTUS declares it to be so. And rightly so. All the signals are there.

Yes, people like to make that comparison, but they are not the same.

Harvard has never selected students purely on the basis of test scores and grades. It’s not as though they were, and then switched it up just to keep out certain groups.

They have never claimed to be a school that was solely interested in academic achievement to the exclusion of all else. Highly talented athletes, musicians, actors, writers, singers have always had a leg up because of what they have to offer the school, regardless of race, religion, national origin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

That sure is a weird perspective. Both White and Asian students are getting screwed. It's just that one is getting screwed more than the other. We all know the real reason why they use a holistic approach to admissions.

[Anonymous]

Just curious if anyone has changed their views on this topic to any degree after reading this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious if anyone has changed their views on this topic to any degree after reading this thread?

I doubt it. People believe what they want to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is talking about racial discrimination. To be fair, I should have said, “...they can choose to admit whomever they want, within the bounds of the law...”. As a law abiding citizen, I figured others realized I was not suggesting breaking the law. Mea culpa.

I guess I should realize that not everyone starts from a foundation of doing things legally. I shouldn’t assume that everyone else assumes that suggestions made are only for legal actions.

Nothing in the law says that they can or must admit only those who score the highest on academic measures. They are allowed to be interested in students who score more highly on athletics, music, acting, debating, volunteering with the homeless- really any attribute they think would be a good addition to the Harvard community and enhance the college experience for all students there.

The goal is to put together a class with a wide range of accomplishments and interests, with the idea that just as much learning and growth takes place through interaction with others as takes place in a lecture hall. Harvard can decide what kind of accomplishments they want their students to have.

DP.. sure, but I think the study and that chart really shows that white people do get affirmative action, too. Call it what you want, but that's the end result. So, those white people who complain about how black/hispanics don't need to score as high as white (and asians) should just stop whining because clearly, we see that many white students don't have to perform as high as asians, either.

That sure is a weird perspective. Both White and Asian students are getting screwed. It's just that one is getting screwed more than the other. We all know the real reason why they use a holistic approach to admissions.

Yes to help rich white kids, right? Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative Action is racially based (and I also believe gender based for women, at least it was in some form).

Legacy/athlete admissions is NOT racially based, contrary to what some of you want to think. That's why this rant is falling on deaf ears. Trying to throw out phrases like affirmative action for legacies and athletes is not only insulting to the original premise of affirmative action, it also makes you seem childish.

The universities are not using legacy/athlete admissions to deliberately bolster their white student numbers. They use the admissions preferences for quite different reasons (and you ignore that legacy/athlete admissions include people of color these days and their share is only increasing as time goes on).

You really think the admissions committees at the Ivies, bastions of liberalism and progressiveness, are sitting around a table saying, oh, look, we need another 50 white students, quick, let's call the athletic department or the alumni office and see what applicants we can drum up.

It's only falling on YOUR deaf ears. And the sports that most Ivies recruit for are overwhelmingly white. Don't kid yourself. Black and brown kids aren't dominating lacrosse, field hockey, and rowing.......yet.