Asians are suing Harvard and UNC - Chapel Hill for use of quotas

[Anonymous]

Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

Source? And is that more $$$ per student, or more $$$ overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

Source? And is that more $$$ per student, or more $$$ overall.

"Harvard, Princeton, Yale -- and all the other members of the Ivy League, for that matter -- were also given 5 to 8 times the median to pay their students in work-study jobs. That is money the institutions got directly, to be spent on behalf of needy students.

And they got 5 to 20 times the median amount of grant money to look after the everyday needs of their poor students, despite having some of the largest endowments in the nation, if not the world. (Harvard and Yale both have endowments of more than $10 billion. Princeton's is $8.7 billion.)

Such disparities have been a sore point among universities for years, leftovers from an era when federal money was given to colleges on an individual, almost negotiable basis. Now, for the first time in more than two decades, the nation's financial aid officers are calling for the imbalances to be wiped away, replaced by a system that steers financial aid toward the universities that poor students actually attend, rather than those with the biggest reputations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/us/rich-colleges-receiving-richest-share-of-us-aid.html

The above is just financial aid funds. My guess is that federal research funds distribution would be even worse between major private universities and major public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

Source? And is that more $$$ per student, or more $$$ overall.

"Harvard, Princeton, Yale -- and all the other members of the Ivy League, for that matter -- were also given 5 to 8 times the median to pay their students in work-study jobs. That is money the institutions got directly, to be spent on behalf of needy students.

And they got 5 to 20 times the median amount of grant money to look after the everyday needs of their poor students, despite having some of the largest endowments in the nation, if not the world. (Harvard and Yale both have endowments of more than $10 billion. Princeton's is $8.7 billion.)

Such disparities have been a sore point among universities for years, leftovers from an era when federal money was given to colleges on an individual, almost negotiable basis. Now, for the first time in more than two decades, the nation's financial aid officers are calling for the imbalances to be wiped away, replaced by a system that steers financial aid toward the universities that poor students actually attend, rather than those with the biggest reputations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/us/rich-colleges-receiving-richest-share-of-us-aid.html

The above is just financial aid funds. My guess is that federal research funds distribution would be even worse between major private universities and major public universities.

Yes, but research funding is generally for graduate school. Graduate school admission for research degrees is IMO much more of a meritocracy. Professors want the best students they can exploit for 5-7 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

Source? And is that more $$$ per student, or more $$$ overall.

"Harvard, Princeton, Yale -- and all the other members of the Ivy League, for that matter -- were also given 5 to 8 times the median to pay their students in work-study jobs. That is money the institutions got directly, to be spent on behalf of needy students.

And they got 5 to 20 times the median amount of grant money to look after the everyday needs of their poor students, despite having some of the largest endowments in the nation, if not the world. (Harvard and Yale both have endowments of more than $10 billion. Princeton's is $8.7 billion.)

Such disparities have been a sore point among universities for years, leftovers from an era when federal money was given to colleges on an individual, almost negotiable basis. Now, for the first time in more than two decades, the nation's financial aid officers are calling for the imbalances to be wiped away, replaced by a system that steers financial aid toward the universities that poor students actually attend, rather than those with the biggest reputations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/us/rich-colleges-receiving-richest-share-of-us-aid.html

The above is just financial aid funds. My guess is that federal research funds distribution would be even worse between major private universities and major public universities.

Yes, but research funding is generally for graduate school. Graduate school admission for research degrees is IMO much more of a meritocracy. Professors want the best students they can exploit for 5-7 years.

Yes research funding is generally for graduate schools but the point is that the private universities receive not only vastly more federal aid money but also vastly more federal research money as institutions.

This point is made to respond to various comments that say private universities (as opposed to public universities) should do what ever they want to do since they do not receive public funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top private universities receive more public funds than public universities.

Source? And is that more $$$ per student, or more $$$ overall.

"Harvard, Princeton, Yale -- and all the other members of the Ivy League, for that matter -- were also given 5 to 8 times the median to pay their students in work-study jobs. That is money the institutions got directly, to be spent on behalf of needy students.

And they got 5 to 20 times the median amount of grant money to look after the everyday needs of their poor students, despite having some of the largest endowments in the nation, if not the world. (Harvard and Yale both have endowments of more than $10 billion. Princeton's is $8.7 billion.)

Such disparities have been a sore point among universities for years, leftovers from an era when federal money was given to colleges on an individual, almost negotiable basis. Now, for the first time in more than two decades, the nation's financial aid officers are calling for the imbalances to be wiped away, replaced by a system that steers financial aid toward the universities that poor students actually attend, rather than those with the biggest reputations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/us/rich-colleges-receiving-richest-share-of-us-aid.html

The above is just financial aid funds. My guess is that federal research funds distribution would be even worse between major private universities and major public universities.

Yes, but research funding is generally for graduate school. Graduate school admission for research degrees is IMO much more of a meritocracy. Professors want the best students they can exploit for 5-7 years.

Yes research funding is generally for graduate schools but the point is that the private universities receive not only vastly more federal aid money but also vastly more federal research money as institutions.

This point is made to respond to various comment
s that say private universities (as opposed to public universities) should do what ever they want to do since they do not receive public funds.

Very interesting article, PP. I'm one of the posters who believes that private universities should get to pick the students they want. I was unaware of the inequity in public funding, but that does seem unfair.

Still seems like too separate issues though. The funding thing isn't fair and should be corrected. But I don't see how more provisions for lower income kids have anything to do with discriminating against Asians students.

[Anonymous]

"Here in the US, Stuyvesant High School is a true meritocracy. Twenty-eight thousand New York City 8th graders sit for an SAT-like test, and the top 800 scorers are admitted (about a 3% acceptance rate). Admission is based upon ONE quantifiable criteria — test scores. Transcripts, course rigor, GPA, teacher recommendations, essays and extracurricular’s ARE NOT considered.

Fifty-years ago, Stuyvesant was 70% Jewish. Now the school is 70% Asian. Does the educational system at Stuyvesant suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Does the orchestra suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Do the athletic teams suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Does the debate team, robotics team, drama society suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Having two kids recently graduate from the school, the answer is absolutely not! It works at Stuy; it could work at Harvard or any other college for that matter. (In fact, it has worked quite successfully in the California State College system.) But, most US private and public colleges want to control the mix of students who are admitted."

[Anonymous]

I wonder what fraction of the people who do the interviewing of potential students at Harvard/Yale are Asian-Americans? In my field (which is stem), I have strongly noticed interview result in hiring of people that remind the interviewee of themselves when they were young. To get fair admissions for asians, to have people who can easily see their multi-dimensionality, we need to have Asian interviewers and a strong representation of asians on the admissions committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Here in the US, Stuyvesant High School is a true meritocracy. Twenty-eight thousand New York City 8th graders sit for an SAT-like test, and the top 800 scorers are admitted (about a 3% acceptance rate). Admission is based upon ONE quantifiable criteria — test scores. Transcripts, course rigor, GPA, teacher recommendations, essays and extracurricular’s ARE NOT considered.

Fifty-years ago, Stuyvesant was 70% Jewish. Now the school is 70% Asian. Does the educational system at Stuyvesant suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Does the orchestra suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Do the athletic teams suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Does the debate team, robotics team, drama society suffer by admitting just the top test scorers? Having two kids recently graduate from the school, the answer is absolutely not! It works at Stuy; it could work at Harvard or any other college for that matter. (In fact, it has worked quite successfully in the California State College system.) But, most US private and public colleges want to control the mix of students who are admitted."

Interesting, but your point is.... Harvard isn't a meritocracy and never has been, nor is it a public school. If Harvard or any other elite university wants to model themselves after Stuyvesant and use only one test for entrance, I'm sure they will. But so far they haven't. And the way people can game tests, that seems sort of smart. The other thing you forget is a lot of people would have no interest in going to a college where entrance is based on a test score no matter what it was called. A bunch of great test-takers, wow, how engaging.

[Anonymous]

Would there be less rape at UVa and other party schools if they admitted people based on academic merit and not "well-roundedness" (code for sports, children of white alums)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would there be less rape at UVa and other party schools if they admitted people based on academic merit and not "well-roundedness" (code for sports, children of white alums)?

Certainly, UVA does admit kids on merit or it wouldn't be so hard to get into -- and 60% Asian TJ wouldn't send so many kids there -- though I hear some in this year's class are now having second thoughts.

how would you distinguish the overseas kids who get in by paying full freight as opposed to merit? they're not white alum's children or sports recruits and their behavior isn't always in keeping with Jeffersonian ideals, either. plenty of questionable admissions decisions to go around, I think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112602043.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would there be less rape at UVa and other party schools if they admitted people based on academic merit and not "well-roundedness" (code for sports, children of white alums)?

There certainly would be less rape/sexual assaults with less legacies and jock/fraternity types with entitlement attitude admitted to the university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would there be less rape at UVa and other party schools if they admitted people based on academic merit and not "well-roundedness" (code for sports, children of white alums)?

There certainly would be less rape/sexual assaults with less legacies and jock/fraternity types with entitlement attitude admitted to the university.

But who's to say what might replace it. Spoiled kids with little moral compass tend to be universal phenomenon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112602043.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would there be less rape at UVa and other party schools if they admitted people based on academic merit and not "well-roundedness" (code for sports, children of white alums)?

There certainly would be less rape/sexual assaults with less legacies and jock/fraternity types with entitlement attitude admitted to the university.

But who's to say what might replace it. Spoiled kids with little moral compass tend to be universal phenomenon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112602043.html

At least they didn't make it a habit to gang rape female students on a regular basis. We are taking about sexual assaults/rapes/gang rapes not any and all criminal offenses.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought this thread was discussing Asian suing Harvard and UNC for use of quotas -- how did the rape at UVA come into it? Are Asians troubled by quotas there as well?