Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't HYPS rich enough to just not take Pell Grants (i.e. federal funding) anymore so they can do what they want with admissions? Or is there a bigger chunk of federal funding you have to turn down?

I heard a talking head on TV quote $600M per year as the money Harvard gets from the Federal government in various forms. I guess it's not easy to turn that down..

That's not why Harvard is fighting this. Plus it would be the federal government and the general public that loses out if Harvard is no longer doing critical research, etc. People think this will actually hurt Harvard, it will not.

Cut the BS. It's a 2-way street. They need us as much as we need them. Do you think Harvard has a monopoly on intelligence and research?

Of course they don't have monopoly. But they can find research funding elsewhere and the findings will benefit someone else or some other country. The feds aren't the only ones that fund research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't HYPS rich enough to just not take Pell Grants (i.e. federal funding) anymore so they can do what they want with admissions? Or is there a bigger chunk of federal funding you have to turn down?

I heard a talking head on TV quote $600M per year as the money Harvard gets from the Federal government in various forms. I guess it's not easy to turn that down..

That's not why Harvard is fighting this. Plus it would be the federal government and the general public that loses out if Harvard is no longer doing critical research, etc. People think this will actually hurt Harvard, it will not.

Cut the BS. It's a 2-way street. They need us as much as we need them. Do you think Harvard has a monopoly on intelligence and research?

Of course they don't have monopoly. But they can find research funding elsewhere and the findings will benefit someone else or some other country. The feds aren't the only ones that fund research.

The Feds don't fund any specific research. The $600m is in the form of grants and tax credits for being a non-profit, etc. Harvard gets to decide how that money is used. A loss of that magnitude IS A BIG LOSS, regardless of who you are.

[Anonymous]

Harvard isn't walking away from $600m in research money to carry on a meaningless diversity charade. Harvard probably wants to lose this case to justify ending affirmative action, i.e. "We were court ordered to. Hands were tied, now we're 97% Asian/white/Indian, sorry!"

[Anonymous]

I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

^ same here, but that was at a big state U. My kid in a LAC doesn't have that problem (but of course we're paying up the ying yang for this simple priviledge).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

^ same here, but that was at a big state U. My kid in a LAC doesn't have that problem (but of course we're paying up the ying yang for this simple priviledge).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't HYPS rich enough to just not take Pell Grants (i.e. federal funding) anymore so they can do what they want with admissions? Or is there a bigger chunk of federal funding you have to turn down?

I heard a talking head on TV quote $600M per year as the money Harvard gets from the Federal government in various forms. I guess it's not easy to turn that down..

That's not why Harvard is fighting this. Plus it would be the federal government and the general public that loses out if Harvard is no longer doing critical research, etc. People think this will actually hurt Harvard, it will not.

Cut the BS. It's a 2-way street. They need us as much as we need them. Do you think Harvard has a monopoly on intelligence and research?

Of course they don't have monopoly. But they can find research funding elsewhere and the findings will benefit someone else or some other country. The feds aren't the only ones that fund research.

The Feds don't fund any specific research. The $600m is in the form of grants and tax credits for being a non-profit, etc. Harvard gets to decide how that money is used. A loss of that magnitude IS A BIG LOSS, regardless of who you are.

It's a loss but they can and would be able to fill that gap. But it doesn't matter anyway because they aren't going to need to worry about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard isn't walking away from $600m in research money to carry on a meaningless diversity charade. Harvard probably wants to lose this case to justify ending affirmative action, i.e. "We were court ordered to. Hands were tied, now we're 97% Asian/white/Indian, sorry!"

WRONG!

[Anonymous]

Just saying. Separating Indians from Asians (since India is in the continent of Asia) is like saying North Americans (meaning the Canadians and the Mexicans) and Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to college 25 years ago and had to deal with foreign instructors who could barely speak English. Now my kids are in college and say they don't have *one* native English speaking GA. Break up the college cartels. Start with ending this diversity scam and ending the student visa scam. If visa kids want to study here let them attend colleges outside of the top 100.

This lawsuit is about Asian AMERICANS not Asian nationals (i.e., foreign graduate students). Stop thinking of Americans as just white and black people.

[Anonymous]

For the class of 2022, Harvard University received 42,749 applications. It admitted 1,962 people. The 4.59 percent admissions rate is a record low for the school. The forces against affirmative-action would have you believe that they want those roughly 2,000 spots to go to people based on “merit,” and then define “merit” to only mean a student’s grade point average and standardized test score.

Such an admissions policy would be stupid and those people know it. That’d be like filling out a basketball team with only the five people who jumped the highest and performed the best on a three point shooting skills contest.

No matter what those 4.59 percent, and their parents, want you to think, getting into Harvard or any other top university is not all about “merit” so closely and illogically defined. The 4.59 percent who get are not objectively “smarter” than the other 40,787 applicants. A school with an overabundance of choice is going to look at any number of factors in order to come up with a first year class.

. . .

This should be a point-and-click violation of Bakke. You can easily uphold the principles of affirmative-action, while finding Harvard guilty of imposing a racial quota. It’s really not hard.

. . .

Instead of upholding precedent in Bakke, the Court will likely overturn it. The hard-right majority opinion will probably be written by Clarence Thomas, a man whose entire career has been devoted to pulling the ladder up behind him, then admonishing people who can’t scale the cliff.

It’ll be a bad day for African-Americans, Latinos, and white women — who are actually the primary beneficiaries affirmative-action style policies in the employment context, but don’t seem to know it.

But it won’t be a good day for Asian-Americans. You can’t make a deal with white supremacists and come out ahead. Without Bakke, all of the “race-neutral” ways universities use to neg Asian-American applicants will still be in place. Blum and his cohort will have an important victory over black and brown people. Asian-Americans will still be trying to out-compete all of the other Asian-Americans out there for the limited number of spots not already earmarked for white kids who have the right connections.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/asian-american-aff...nBz1M6Lltx6K-Nn8EErDIJNiw&rf=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal philosophy that has served me well is.. never hire a professional that is a product of AA. The standards were lowered too much, commitment and capacity is not either. The few times I went to doctors for emergencies, the AA candidate proved my philosophy right.

How do you know if someone is the product of AA? Do you assume anyone that is not white or Asian?

That's one of the tragedies of AA. Unfortunately, black Americans at Harvard are assumed to be there because of AA -- and the data supports it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal philosophy that has served me well is.. never hire a professional that is a product of AA. The standards were lowered too much, commitment and capacity is not either. The few times I went to doctors for emergencies, the AA candidate proved my philosophy right.

How do you know if someone is the product of AA? Do you assume anyone that is not white or Asian?

That's one of the tragedies of AA. Unfortunately, black Americans at Harvard are assumed to be there because of AA -- and the data supports it.

So what? When you’re in, you’re in.

[Anonymous]

People who are pro affirmative action should have their families forced to go to affirmative action doctors and surgeons so that anti racist admissions folks don't get accidently and unfairly put under their care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the class of 2022, Harvard University received 42,749 applications. It admitted 1,962 people. The 4.59 percent admissions rate is a record low for the school. The forces against affirmative-action would have you believe that they want those roughly 2,000 spots to go to people based on “merit,” and then define “merit” to only mean a student’s grade point average and standardized test score.

Such an admissions policy would be stupid and those people know it. That’d be like filling out a basketball team with only the five people who jumped the highest and performed the best on a three point shooting skills contest.

No matter what those 4.59 percent, and their parents, want you to think, getting into Harvard or any other top university is not all about “merit” so closely and illogically defined. The 4.59 percent who get are not objectively “smarter” than the other 40,787 applicants. A school with an overabundance of choice is going to look at any number of factors in order to come up with a first year class.

. . .

This should be a point-and-click violation of Bakke. You can easily uphold the principles of affirmative-action, while finding Harvard guilty of imposing a racial quota. It’s really not hard.

. . .

Instead of upholding precedent in Bakke, the Court will likely overturn it. The hard-right majority opinion will probably be written by Clarence Thomas, a man whose entire career has been devoted to pulling the ladder up behind him, then admonishing people who can’t scale the cliff.

It’ll be a bad day for African-Americans, Latinos, and white women — who are actually the primary beneficiaries affirmative-action style policies in the employment context, but don’t seem to know it.

But it won’t be a good day for Asian-Americans. You can’t make a deal with white supremacists and come out ahead. Without Bakke, all of the “race-neutral” ways universities use to neg Asian-American applicants will still be in place. Blum and his cohort will have an important victory over black and brown people. Asian-Americans will still be trying to out-compete all of the other Asian-Americans out there for the limited number of spots not already earmarked for white kids who have the right connections.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/asian-american-aff...nBz1M6Lltx6K-Nn8EErDIJNiw&rf=1

That's a long post to state the patently obvious.