Yale discriminated against whites and Asians, per Justice Department

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the whites who are so against the "holistic approach" are going to be in for a rude awakening if colleges actually get rid of it. Asians will dominate all Ivies. In this area, TJ is a prime example of what happens when admissions in academics is based solely on merit. While whites vast outnumber Asians in FCPS, TJ is almost seventy percent Asian. Also look at California at the college level. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with “holistic” admissions in theory. In practice, it is used to discriminate against whites and Asians, particularly in jurisdictions that have outlawed explicit racial discrimination in admissions. Just as it was used to discriminate against Jews many decades ago. Schools cannot be trusted on this point, so IMO all once can do is maximize the use of objective criteria. It’s a second-best solution, no doubt.

+1

It's amazing how some people don't get how "diversity and inclusion" and "holistic" admission is nothing more than a rebranding of quotas because quotas became unpopular. It was discrimination when they did it to the jews, and today it is still discrimination. These people are supporting a racist policy, plain and simple. If you truly want to level the playing field, quit picking favorites based on race and start providing resources for test prep for kids based on income.

It’s amazing how many people throw around words like “quotas”. Just because you say so — it’s “ rebranding”? Lol cute.

You can look at the student demographics for any of these schools over time. Racial make-up of the classes stays in a super-tight band. What do you call it when a school decides that a particular race must make up between x and y percent of the class every year? Just because they are lying about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Again, there is no reasonable factual dispute on this issue. It is obvious from the data.

If it’s “obvious from the data” then throw in some data. You’re making unsupported comments. If they’re “lying” prove it. Maybe you’re lying. Maybe you’re not. But unless you’re willing to “show your work” as my grade school teachers used to say, you’re opinions are really just your opinions.

What do you call it when someone raises questions to insert an opinion without supporting data? I call it sloppy.

Oh. You again. The former admissions officer.

Pp, don’t bother coming up with the data (which does exist), because then they will say that the evidence is just “anecdotal” and argue that unless you have a Yale Admissions officer admitting this on the record, it hasn’t been proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates-against-white-and-asian-students-justice-department-says.html

Fascinating to find an opposing ruling from the recent Harvard law suit. Are the admission preferences so drastically different, or was it simply a different evaluating body?

?? What ruling? The Harvard lawsuit was a court case that, after a trial, resulted in a ruling against the plaintiff.

This complaint you're citing is just an allegation by the Justice Department that, if it goes to trial, will also result in a loss. Yale just needs to mount the same defense Harvard did.

Promotion of underserved groups is totally justified given the educational barriers facing individuals and communities of color are tied to long-standing, systemic conditions. Racially segregated schooling, limited access to rigorous precollege curricula, poor college counseling, widening wealth gaps and other societal and historical forces all contribute to inequities in college access for too many students of color. It's time for those of us from privilege to speak aside and allow others to advance for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a school admits 6% of its applicants, you can’t cry foul about the “qualified” people not getting in. Most of the people who apply probably have perfect or near perfect stats. It’s known that subjective factors like essays, letters of recommendation, activities, and interviews are coming into play when all the applicants have stellar numbers.

That’s not true at all. African-American and Latinx students routinely get admitted with test scores hundreds of points lower than their white and Asian peers. There is simply no factual dispute on this issue. It’s obvious discrimination, but the schools are committed to it, so much so that they would rather stop using test scores entirely than give up this practice, which is where things are going.

Good. Schools like Yale shouldn’t buckle to the pressure to admit students based primarily on standardized tests. If they turned into drone academies for test-takers without considering the other talents and perspectives that applicants would bring to the school, they’d lose the very prestige that attracts so many applicants in the first place.

I think the the opposite, is true. If the student body is admitted based on social engineering criteria, not merit, then these schools will lose prestige. These schools are riding on the “prestige” developed over centuries of discrimination — not just by color, but by religion and social/financial standing. In the past, the rare smart middle class Irish or even Jewish kid that could get in was helped by the social connections they made, not the education they got. The connections to the old money and newer Gilded Age banking and industrialist families was invaluable. That’s becoming less and less true. Of course these colleges still have alumni networks, but so do many other schools in parts of the country that have more vibrant economies (especially post-covid). Getting into Harvard/Yale etc is not the “Golden Ticket” it used to be. Which is, by the way, the best argument for legacy preferences. Studies show that first generation college students obtain more benefit from admissions to a prestigious college than UMC kids do, and it is because of the exposure to a more privileged level of society and the connections they form (connections that UMC kids are born with). An Ivy that is mostly/all first gen students doesn’t serve that purpose.

I don’t think this is a bad thing, by the way. The special awe in which most people hold the Ivy’s has little to do with academic merit and everything to do with aspirations for admission to a higher social strata in a societal structure that was inherently discriminatory. It’s a good thing that this will go away. The question is whether they can still retain their reputation for academic excellence if their primary admissions criteria is diversity. The theory is that Harvard and Yale can, as they can still pretty much get their pick of the graduating seniors. But how many others can and for how long? The conventional wisdom is already trending toward the idea that admission to the “top” Ivys (whatever that means) is obtained by having a “hook” and not merit, or is, at best, a lottery.

You haven't said anything that supports the claim that a college that just admits top-test takers will maintain its prestige, and few are suggesting that Ivies should now serve "mostly/all first gen students." You've offered up a lot of words, but no compelling argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates-against-white-and-asian-students-justice-department-says.html

Fascinating to find an opposing ruling from the recent Harvard law suit. Are the admission preferences so drastically different, or was it simply a different evaluating body?

?? What ruling? The Harvard lawsuit was a court case that, after a trial, resulted in a ruling against the plaintiff.

This complaint you're citing is just an allegation by the Justice Department that, if it goes to trial, will also result in a loss. Yale just needs to mount the same defense Harvard did.

Promotion of underserved groups is totally justified given the educational barriers facing individuals and communities of color are tied to long-standing, systemic conditions. Racially segregated schooling, limited access to rigorous precollege curricula, poor college counseling, widening wealth gaps and other societal and historical forces all contribute to inequities in college access for too many students of color. It's time for those of us from privilege to speak aside and allow others to advance for a while.

What does it mean to "speak aside"?

It sounds like you're saying that when you have far more than enough it's gracious to let others have more, but there are still plenty of people out there who don't yet have what you have and they aren't just Black, Hispanic, or impoverished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the whites who are so against the "holistic approach" are going to be in for a rude awakening if colleges actually get rid of it. Asians will dominate all Ivies. In this area, TJ is a prime example of what happens when admissions in academics is based solely on merit. While whites vast outnumber Asians in FCPS, TJ is almost seventy percent Asian. Also look at California at the college level. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with “holistic” admissions in theory. In practice, it is used to discriminate against whites and Asians, particularly in jurisdictions that have outlawed explicit racial discrimination in admissions. Just as it was used to discriminate against Jews many decades ago. Schools cannot be trusted on this point, so IMO all once can do is maximize the use of objective criteria. It’s a second-best solution, no doubt.

+1

It's amazing how some people don't get how "diversity and inclusion" and "holistic" admission is nothing more than a rebranding of quotas because quotas became unpopular. It was discrimination when they did it to the jews, and today it is still discrimination. These people are supporting a racist policy, plain and simple. If you truly want to level the playing field, quit picking favorites based on race and start providing resources for test prep for kids based on income.

It’s amazing how many people throw around words like “quotas”. Just because you say so — it’s “ rebranding”? Lol cute.

You can look at the student demographics for any of these schools over time. Racial make-up of the classes stays in a super-tight band. What do you call it when a school decides that a particular race must make up between x and y percent of the class every year? Just because they are lying about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Again, there is no reasonable factual dispute on this issue. It is obvious from the data.

And, FWIW, I think having explicit racial quotas, while bad and unfair to some, would be infinitely preferable to the lies and bs that go on now.

Yet the result is the same.

Just let the damned colleges do what they want and let courts decide if they break the law.

At least everyone agrees they have good intentions.

They do not have good intentions for Asian Americans.

Right. They do not have good intentions for any single specific race, just that no single race is excluded because they believe that makes their college better.

I know you won’t accept that but it is truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asian Americans are vastly over-represented at the Ivies, relative to the general population in this country. Considerably fewer would probably make those schools more interesting and relevant to the country's future. Shut up and stop whining. You are not that special.

Asian population - USA: 5.6%

Brown 14.1%
Columbia 28.0%
Cornell 18.1%
Dartmouth 17.0%
Harvard 22.1%
Penn 19.8%
Princeton 20.0%
Yale 19.1%

The fact that you think a school should be representative of the overall % of population tells me you believe in quotas, which is illegal.

They are over represented because they are high achievers. I'm sorry that makes you feel bad. Maybe try studying more instead of playing ball?

Sorry you are incorrect. There is a difference between quotas against races and ensuring that no race is excluded, which in a zero sum game is exactly what would happen.

How come you don’t complain about the “bias” at Amherst college? They admit the same way. Why just the ivies? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a school admits 6% of its applicants, you can’t cry foul about the “qualified” people not getting in. Most of the people who apply probably have perfect or near perfect stats. It’s known that subjective factors like essays, letters of recommendation, activities, and interviews are coming into play when all the applicants have stellar numbers.

That’s not true at all. African-American and Latinx students routinely get admitted with test scores hundreds of points lower than their white and Asian peers. There is simply no factual dispute on this issue. It’s obvious discrimination, but the schools are committed to it, so much so that they would rather stop using test scores entirely than give up this practice, which is where things are going.

Good. Schools like Yale shouldn’t buckle to the pressure to admit students based primarily on standardized tests. If they turned into drone academies for test-takers without considering the other talents and perspectives that applicants would bring to the school, they’d lose the very prestige that attracts so many applicants in the first place.

I think the the opposite, is true. If the student body is admitted based on social engineering criteria, not merit, then these schools will lose prestige. These schools are riding on the “prestige” developed over centuries of discrimination — not just by color, but by religion and social/financial standing. In the past, the rare smart middle class Irish or even Jewish kid that could get in was helped by the social connections they made, not the education they got. The connections to the old money and newer Gilded Age banking and industrialist families was invaluable. That’s becoming less and less true. Of course these colleges still have alumni networks, but so do many other schools in parts of the country that have more vibrant economies (especially post-covid). Getting into Harvard/Yale etc is not the “Golden Ticket” it used to be. Which is, by the way, the best argument for legacy preferences. Studies show that first generation college students obtain more benefit from admissions to a prestigious college than UMC kids do, and it is because of the exposure to a more privileged level of society and the connections they form (connections that UMC kids are born with). An Ivy that is mostly/all first gen students doesn’t serve that purpose.

I don’t think this is a bad thing, by the way. The special awe in which most people hold the Ivy’s has little to do with academic merit and everything to do with aspirations for admission to a higher social strata in a societal structure that was inherently discriminatory. It’s a good thing that this will go away. The question is whether they can still retain their reputation for academic excellence if their primary admissions criteria is diversity. The theory is that Harvard and Yale can, as they can still pretty much get their pick of the graduating seniors. But how many others can and for how long? The conventional wisdom is already trending toward the idea that admission to the “top” Ivys (whatever that means) is obtained by having a “hook” and not merit, or is, at best, a lottery.

You haven't said anything that supports the claim that a college that just admits top-test takers will maintain its prestige, and few are suggesting that Ivies should now serve "mostly/all first gen students." You've offered up a lot of words, but no compelling argument.

OK, simpler words for you. These colleges have two sources of “prestige:” (1) the historical social standing and wealth of its students’ backgrounds (the antithesis of diversity) and (2) the academic excellence of its students. For good reasons, these institutions have purposefully walked away from #1 (see “need blind admission),” and based their “prestige” on academic excellence. If the perception, and indeed, the reality, is that admission is based upon other “talents and perspectives” and not academic merit, then source of prestige #2 goes away. Test taking is but one measure of academic excellence, but it is a widely used measure (see the importance of test scores in various college rankings). Almost every discussion of “top [number]” college on this board refers to a ranking based, at least in part, on standardized test scores.

You’ve suggested that colleges that admit top test takers will turn “into drone academies for test-takers without considering the other talents and perspectives” and will lose prestige. You have provided no support for this assertion, which, by the way, is a reflection of the racist trope that Asian students are simply “drone” test takers without personality or leadership skills. Is your argument that there are no students who are excellent test-takers who have other “talents or perspectives?”

And actually, there are those on this thread that have suggested that the “privileged” need to step back and allow the non-privileged their turn at these institutions. I’m actually fine with that. However, no one should be under the illusion that these institutions will retain their current “prestige,” which, after all, is a subjective thing, if the perception is that admission is based upon non-academic criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the whites who are so against the "holistic approach" are going to be in for a rude awakening if colleges actually get rid of it. Asians will dominate all Ivies. In this area, TJ is a prime example of what happens when admissions in academics is based solely on merit. While whites vast outnumber Asians in FCPS, TJ is almost seventy percent Asian. Also look at California at the college level. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with “holistic” admissions in theory. In practice, it is used to discriminate against whites and Asians, particularly in jurisdictions that have outlawed explicit racial discrimination in admissions. Just as it was used to discriminate against Jews many decades ago. Schools cannot be trusted on this point, so IMO all once can do is maximize the use of objective criteria. It’s a second-best solution, no doubt.

+1

It's amazing how some people don't get how "diversity and inclusion" and "holistic" admission is nothing more than a rebranding of quotas because quotas became unpopular. It was discrimination when they did it to the jews, and today it is still discrimination. These people are supporting a racist policy, plain and simple. If you truly want to level the playing field, quit picking favorites based on race and start providing resources for test prep for kids based on income.

It’s amazing how many people throw around words like “quotas”. Just because you say so — it’s “ rebranding”? Lol cute.

You can look at the student demographics for any of these schools over time. Racial make-up of the classes stays in a super-tight band. What do you call it when a school decides that a particular race must make up between x and y percent of the class every year? Just because they are lying about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Again, there is no reasonable factual dispute on this issue. It is obvious from the data.

And, FWIW, I think having explicit racial quotas, while bad and unfair to some, would be infinitely preferable to the lies and bs that go on now.

Yet the result is the same.

Just let the damned colleges do what they want and let courts decide if they break the law.

At least everyone agrees they have good intentions.

They do not have good intentions for Asian Americans.

Asian Americans are vastly over-represented at the Ivies, relative to the general population in this country. Considerably fewer would probably make those schools more interesting and relevant to the country's future. Shut up and stop whining. You are not that special.

Asian population - USA: 5.6%

Brown 14.1%
Columbia 28.0%
Cornell 18.1%
Dartmouth 17.0%
Harvard 22.1%
Penn 19.8%
Princeton 20.0%
Yale 19.1%

Jews make up 2% of the US population and make up more than 20% of the Ivies but don’t see anyone complaining about that. Double standard against Asian Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the whites who are so against the "holistic approach" are going to be in for a rude awakening if colleges actually get rid of it. Asians will dominate all Ivies. In this area, TJ is a prime example of what happens when admissions in academics is based solely on merit. While whites vast outnumber Asians in FCPS, TJ is almost seventy percent Asian. Also look at California at the college level. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with “holistic” admissions in theory. In practice, it is used to discriminate against whites and Asians, particularly in jurisdictions that have outlawed explicit racial discrimination in admissions. Just as it was used to discriminate against Jews many decades ago. Schools cannot be trusted on this point, so IMO all once can do is maximize the use of objective criteria. It’s a second-best solution, no doubt.

+1

It's amazing how some people don't get how "diversity and inclusion" and "holistic" admission is nothing more than a rebranding of quotas because quotas became unpopular. It was discrimination when they did it to the jews, and today it is still discrimination. These people are supporting a racist policy, plain and simple. If you truly want to level the playing field, quit picking favorites based on race and start providing resources for test prep for kids based on income.

It’s amazing how many people throw around words like “quotas”. Just because you say so — it’s “ rebranding”? Lol cute.

You can look at the student demographics for any of these schools over time. Racial make-up of the classes stays in a super-tight band. What do you call it when a school decides that a particular race must make up between x and y percent of the class every year? Just because they are lying about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Again, there is no reasonable factual dispute on this issue. It is obvious from the data.

And, FWIW, I think having explicit racial quotas, while bad and unfair to some, would be infinitely preferable to the lies and bs that go on now.

Yet the result is the same.

Just let the damned colleges do what they want and let courts decide if they break the law.

At least everyone agrees they have good intentions.

They do not have good intentions for Asian Americans.

Asian Americans are vastly over-represented at the Ivies, relative to the general population in this country. Considerably fewer would probably make those schools more interesting and relevant to the country's future. Shut up and stop whining. You are not that special.

Asian population - USA: 5.6%

Brown 14.1%
Columbia 28.0%
Cornell 18.1%
Dartmouth 17.0%
Harvard 22.1%
Penn 19.8%
Princeton 20.0%
Yale 19.1%

Jews make up 2% of the US population and make up more than 20% of the Ivies but don’t see anyone complaining about that. Double standard against Asian Americans?

There are Asian Jews. It is a religion not a race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? Is there really any advantage to going to an ivy league school other than bragging rights? Ivy league schools are so last century.

If you don't care, then don't bother posting here. move on.

I don't really care if my kids attend ivies. Honestly, I don't expect them to. However, discrimination is wrong. Why should ivies get a pass at discriminating against people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone even cares about their kid going to an ivy. There are smart people at every school, great professors at other Universities and amazing Developmental opportunities for college kids at schoolS other than certainly this HYP nonsense.

I have worked with people from the Ivys who are bright but can’t manage their grocery list. I have worked with people who went to state schools and were some if the smartest mentors I had.

The school that represents the most Fortune 500 CEOs is Texas A&M.

Like Asians, pick other schools and make them great.

I have suggested to my kids to not even bother applying. It’s Totally their choice, but they’ve got too many strikes against them. Their skin color, their religion, their college educated parents and their middle class background. Unless one of them brokers a peace deal between Israel and Palestine and even then, chances of them getting in are slim to none.

Seriously These schools are just not all that.

I guess those Jewish people back then should've done the same thing rather than fight discriminaton.

I'm Asian American, and I went to a B rated state school, make six figures. But, the issue is not about whether one can be successful without a degree from an elite insitution. It's about discrimination.

I don't care if my DCs go to an Ivy. I would be happy with UMD. But, discrimination is not ok.

However, I do think that there is value in a diverse student body, but again, I don't think to achieve this that we should accept discrmination.

I'm a PP who stated that giving a leg up for lower income people, irrespective of skin color, is good approach. But, if a black student from a well to do family whose parents have law degrees have an easier time getting in than a student whose skin color is lighter and whose parents have just a lowly bachelors from a no-name univ., then that would be discrimination.

Discrimination based on what, exactly? You have said nothing about the personal attributes of your hypothetical individual students. But you have somehow managed to conclude that not accepting the “lighter “ kid would be discrimination. Note that you say absolutely nothing about the “well to do” “lighter” students who are accepted. Apparently “discrimination “ is only an issue for you when black students from well to do families are admitted while “lighter” kids from less well to do families are not — again, irrespective of the personal qualities of the individual kids.

You assume that these Asian Am. students only know how to take tests and don't have any personality. There are many many Asian American students who not only do extremely well academically but also have stellar ec's, leadership skills etc... but they still get passed over by someone with darker skin who don't have the same credentials simply because they want a diverse student body.

Like I said, there's value in diversity, but if they have a higher threshold for certain groups than others based on skin color, the yes , that is wrong.

The fact is that there are way more higher achieving (and I don't mean just academically) Asian Am. students from different SES than Black or Hispanic students. And that is why these Asian Am. students are competing with each other rather than competing with the total applicant pool. If these schools were completely race blind, the schools would lean heavily Asian Am. How do I know this? Look at Cal after prop 209 passed, and Cal tech.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m asking you to support your assertions with actual data. Going off on tangents with your imagined assumptions about what you imagine my assumptions to be isn’t data. So if you say something like “ way more achieving” I will ask you how you are defining “ way more achieving” and what data you’re using to support your assertions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? Is there really any advantage to going to an ivy league school other than bragging rights? Ivy league schools are so last century.

Some of us actually enjoy and grow from the experiences and relationships we develop. If you don’t care then none of this really matters. It’s about finding a good fit for each student. Having said that, some experiences at some schools will give students some advantages. Or have historically, particularly re: things like law schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the whites who are so against the "holistic approach" are going to be in for a rude awakening if colleges actually get rid of it. Asians will dominate all Ivies. In this area, TJ is a prime example of what happens when admissions in academics is based solely on merit. While whites vast outnumber Asians in FCPS, TJ is almost seventy percent Asian. Also look at California at the college level. Be careful what you wish for.

I have no issue with “holistic” admissions in theory. In practice, it is used to discriminate against whites and Asians, particularly in jurisdictions that have outlawed explicit racial discrimination in admissions. Just as it was used to discriminate against Jews many decades ago. Schools cannot be trusted on this point, so IMO all once can do is maximize the use of objective criteria. It’s a second-best solution, no doubt.

+1

It's amazing how some people don't get how "diversity and inclusion" and "holistic" admission is nothing more than a rebranding of quotas because quotas became unpopular. It was discrimination when they did it to the jews, and today it is still discrimination. These people are supporting a racist policy, plain and simple. If you truly want to level the playing field, quit picking favorites based on race and start providing resources for test prep for kids based on income.

It’s amazing how many people throw around words like “quotas”. Just because you say so — it’s “ rebranding”? Lol cute.

You can look at the student demographics for any of these schools over time. Racial make-up of the classes stays in a super-tight band. What do you call it when a school decides that a particular race must make up between x and y percent of the class every year? Just because they are lying about it doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Again, there is no reasonable factual dispute on this issue. It is obvious from the data.

If it’s “obvious from the data” then throw in some data. You’re making unsupported comments. If they’re “lying” prove it. Maybe you’re lying. Maybe you’re not. But unless you’re willing to “show your work” as my grade school teachers used to say, you’re opinions are really just your opinions.

What do you call it when someone raises questions to insert an opinion without supporting data? I call it sloppy.

Oh. You again. The former admissions officer.

Pp, don’t bother coming up with the data (which does exist), because then they will say that the evidence is just “anecdotal” and argue that unless you have a Yale Admissions officer admitting this on the record, it hasn’t been proven.

Hardly. I hope your imaginative assumptions/ lies are serving you well. Thanks for the career suggestion though.

[Anonymous]

Racism is very sad. Shame on Yale

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is that this case ends after Biden’s appointees get onboard. Or, at worst, it ends in court, with Yale winning. So don’t get your hopes up Ivy wannabes!