Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

I don’t think that special points for being a recruited athlete is an issue because that’s based on excellence in a particular area that a school seems to be important, just as there may be special points granted to a world class pianist, a national debate champion, etc.

Also, I don’t believe that giving special points to account for overcoming life obstacles, such as lower socioeconomic status, first generation college attendee status, or attending lower performing inner city or rural schools, is an issue, either.

Finally, it’s understood that an applicant that just has high test scores without significant extracurricular and leadership activities is not going to cut it at a university that uses holistic admissions.

All of the above is acceptable and true... but that still doesn’t mean that it’s equitable to discriminate against an Asian simply because he/she is Asian (which is much different than saying an inner city school student should get a bonus over an upper middle class suburban student regardless of race). A lot of people here seem to be jumping to the stereotype of the Asian “robot” yet again in assuming that they’re just grade/test score-obsessed automotans, when the reality is that these Asian applicants to Harvard and other top schools generally have all of the extracurricular, leadership and athletic achievements that you could reasonably ask for AND those top grades and test scores. There is absolutely nothing lacking in their applications from any objective or subjective measure and they would be 100% granted admission if they were black or Latino. Let’s not pretend that race is being used as even a tiebreaker between two relatively equal candidates - the evidence is that Asians are getting disproportionately docked on the one subjective “personality” score that’s being administered at the admissions office level.

Once again, propping an applicant up based on athletic prowess or a history of overcoming life obstacles that don’t impact affluent people are valid and worthy reasons to admit someone that may superficially have lower grades or test scores. That’s all totally reasonable and admirable. All of that can still be done without resorting to not-so-thinly veiled quotas to keep down the number of Asians based on race in an effort to have the campus look like a Benetton ad. Giving points to certain applicants based on non-racial factors doesn’t necessitate docking points for applicants based solely on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, white Gentile names outnumber Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1; in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are more than two high-ability white Gentile students for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.

Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.

When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.

However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.

Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

I’m looking forward to someone trying to defend the current fraudulent admission practices of the Ivy’s. That way I know who is FOS on this board.

Hillel International always reported the number of Jewish students at Harvard around 25-27%. This year they have mysteriously changed that number to around 12%.

It’s ethnic discrimination against non Jewish students. If they were being honest with this lawsuit they would be suing Harvard for discrimination against non- Jewish students.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

H has no case. And no nonsense justices outnumber goody-goody types by 5-4 this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

H has no case. And no nonsense justices outnumber goody-goody types by 5-4 this time.

They only have the facts and the law on their side, so yeah, not much of a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

Poor prep on which witnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

H has no case. And no nonsense justices outnumber goody-goody types by 5-4 this time.

They only have the facts and the law on their side, so yeah, not much of a case.

Lefties like you want AA, open border, welfare state, big gov., big brother... The gravy train's coming to an end. Get a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

I don’t think that special points for being a recruited athlete is an issue because that’s based on excellence in a particular area that a school seems to be important, just as there may be special points granted to a world class pianist, a national debate champion, etc.

Also, I don’t believe that giving special points to account for overcoming life obstacles, such as lower socioeconomic status, first generation college attendee status, or attending lower performing inner city or rural schools, is an issue, either.

Finally, it’s understood that an applicant that just has high test scores without significant extracurricular and leadership activities is not going to cut it at a university that uses holistic admissions.

All of the above is acceptable and true... but that still doesn’t mean that it’s equitable to discriminate against an Asian simply because he/she is Asian (which is much different than saying an inner city school student should get a bonus over an upper middle class suburban student regardless of race). A lot of people here seem to be jumping to the stereotype of the Asian “robot” yet again in assuming that they’re just grade/test score-obsessed automotans, when the reality is that these Asian applicants to Harvard and other top schools generally have all of the extracurricular, leadership and athletic achievements that you could reasonably ask for AND those top grades and test scores. There is absolutely nothing lacking in their applications from any objective or subjective measure and they would be 100% granted admission if they were black or Latino. Let’s not pretend that race is being used as even a tiebreaker between two relatively equal candidates - the evidence is that Asians are getting disproportionately docked on the one subjective “personality” score that’s being administered at the admissions office level.

Once again, propping an applicant up based on athletic prowess or a history of overcoming life obstacles that don’t impact affluent people are valid and worthy reasons to admit someone that may superficially have lower grades or test scores. That’s all totally reasonable and admirable. All of that can still be done without resorting to not-so-thinly veiled quotas to keep down the number of Asians based on race in an effort to have the campus look like a Benetton ad. Giving points to certain applicants based on non-racial factors doesn’t necessitate docking points for applicants based solely on race.

Don’t be shocked if in the near future all standardize testing requirements are dropping from
selectiive school applications. It would solve a huge issue for selective schools and essentially allow them to reject or accept who any candidate with impunity. It is widely understood that grades from different schools are not comparable so GPAs mean nothing without context ( An A from a failing school, an average suburban or an elite boarding school are not the same). Harvard will be able to justify admitting the same mix of wealthy kids (feeder, well know schools) and it may lead to a drop in first generation or low income students of all kind because the lack of testing and non feeder school education will cause make it harder for the students to obtain acceptance. ..The idea that the most elite wealthy schools that have for generations made America’s leaders are going to change their purpose and mission and squander their wealth and resources on any minority group is laughable. In the end, Harvard will likely find a way remain Harvard training ground for world leaders not cal tech.

[Anonymous]

What’s laughable is the child-like simplicity of PP’s “analysis”.

[Anonymous]

PP's "analysis" consists mostly of his or her wishful thinking. He or she needs to get a real job (one that can pay for a house.)

[Anonymous]

It would be better if you addressed the merit's of PP's post rather than resorting to things like "get a real job" which is neither insightful or funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

I don’t think that special points for being a recruited athlete is an issue because that’s based on excellence in a particular area that a school seems to be important, just as there may be special points granted to a world class pianist, a national debate champion, etc.

Also, I don’t believe that giving special points to account for overcoming life obstacles, such as lower socioeconomic status, first generation college attendee status, or attending lower performing inner city or rural schools, is an issue, either.

Finally, it’s understood that an applicant that just has high test scores without significant extracurricular and leadership activities is not going to cut it at a university that uses holistic admissions.

All of the above is acceptable and true... but that still doesn’t mean that it’s equitable to discriminate against an Asian simply because he/she is Asian (which is much different than saying an inner city school student should get a bonus over an upper middle class suburban student regardless of race). A lot of people here seem to be jumping to the stereotype of the Asian “robot” yet again in assuming that they’re just grade/test score-obsessed automotans, when the reality is that these Asian applicants to Harvard and other top schools generally have all of the extracurricular, leadership and athletic achievements that you could reasonably ask for AND those top grades and test scores. There is absolutely nothing lacking in their applications from any objective or subjective measure and they would be 100% granted admission if they were black or Latino. Let’s not pretend that race is being used as even a tiebreaker between two relatively equal candidates - the evidence is that Asians are getting disproportionately docked on the one subjective “personality” score that’s being administered at the admissions office level.

Once again, propping an applicant up based on athletic prowess or a history of overcoming life obstacles that don’t impact affluent people are valid and worthy reasons to admit someone that may superficially have lower grades or test scores. That’s all totally reasonable and admirable. All of that can still be done without resorting to not-so-thinly veiled quotas to keep down the number of Asians based on race in an effort to have the campus look like a Benetton ad. Giving points to certain applicants based on non-racial factors doesn’t necessitate docking points for applicants based solely on race.

Don’t be shocked if in the near future all standardize testing requirements are dropping from
selectiive school applications. It would solve a huge issue for selective schools and essentially allow them to reject or accept who any candidate with impunity. It is widely understood that grades from different schools are not comparable so GPAs mean nothing without context ( An A from a failing school, an average suburban or an elite boarding school are not the same). Harvard will be able to justify admitting the same mix of wealthy kids (feeder, well know schools) and it may lead to a drop in first generation or low income students of all kind because the lack of testing and non feeder school education will cause make it harder for the students to obtain acceptance. ..The idea that the most elite wealthy schools that have for generations made America’s leaders are going to change their purpose and mission and squander their wealth and resources on any minority group is laughable. In the end, Harvard will likely find a way remain Harvard training ground for world leaders not cal tech.

HYPS MIGHT drop Standardized testing in the future after Kavs kills AA (and even with that group I doubt P will) but even that is doubtful. Progressives have asked H to drop it already - H internally look at it and decided not to.

But the tier under that? JHU, Duke, CMU, NU, WUSTL, lower ivies - haha not a chance. They'll keep testing because their yields and brands aren't nearly as strong as HYS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else followed this case?

Imo H’s case, witness prep was extremely poor

Poor prep on which witnesses?

The adcom broads that were on the stand and stumbled on q's about direction given by higher ups on the use of race.

Even fitz and khurana were pretty poor on the stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

I don’t think that special points for being a recruited athlete is an issue because that’s based on excellence in a particular area that a school seems to be important, just as there may be special points granted to a world class pianist, a national debate champion, etc.

Also, I don’t believe that giving special points to account for overcoming life obstacles, such as lower socioeconomic status, first generation college attendee status, or attending lower performing inner city or rural schools, is an issue, either.

Finally, it’s understood that an applicant that just has high test scores without significant extracurricular and leadership activities is not going to cut it at a university that uses holistic admissions.

All of the above is acceptable and true... but that still doesn’t mean that it’s equitable to discriminate against an Asian simply because he/she is Asian (which is much different than saying an inner city school student should get a bonus over an upper middle class suburban student regardless of race). A lot of people here seem to be jumping to the stereotype of the Asian “robot” yet again in assuming that they’re just grade/test score-obsessed automotans, when the reality is that these Asian applicants to Harvard and other top schools generally have all of the extracurricular, leadership and athletic achievements that you could reasonably ask for AND those top grades and test scores. There is absolutely nothing lacking in their applications from any objective or subjective measure and they would be 100% granted admission if they were black or Latino. Let’s not pretend that race is being used as even a tiebreaker between two relatively equal candidates - the evidence is that Asians are getting disproportionately docked on the one subjective “personality” score that’s being administered at the admissions office level.

Once again, propping an applicant up based on athletic prowess or a history of overcoming life obstacles that don’t impact affluent people are valid and worthy reasons to admit someone that may superficially have lower grades or test scores. That’s all totally reasonable and admirable. All of that can still be done without resorting to not-so-thinly veiled quotas to keep down the number of Asians based on race in an effort to have the campus look like a Benetton ad. Giving points to certain applicants based on non-racial factors doesn’t necessitate docking points for applicants based solely on race.

Don’t be shocked if in the near future all standardize testing requirements are dropping from
selectiive school applications. It would solve a huge issue for selective schools and essentially allow them to reject or accept who any candidate with impunity. It is widely understood that grades from different schools are not comparable so GPAs mean nothing without context ( An A from a failing school, an average suburban or an elite boarding school are not the same). Harvard will be able to justify admitting the same mix of wealthy kids (feeder, well know schools) and it may lead to a drop in first generation or low income students of all kind because the lack of testing and non feeder school education will cause make it harder for the students to obtain acceptance. ..The idea that the most elite wealthy schools that have for generations made America’s leaders are going to change their purpose and mission and squander their wealth and resources on any minority group is laughable. In the end, Harvard will likely find a way remain Harvard training ground for world leaders not cal tech.

This is the key that distinguish Harvard from others universities. I do not see them dramatically changing their admission system that has historically been able to identify future leaders to increase admission of applicants who are good test takers. Harvard recognizes that scoring above a certain level on a test does not necesarily make the applicant smarter or a future leader From what which has been made public it seems Harvard is looking for (and some how able to identify) an X factor in applicants that are accepted. If non-Asian students prepared to the same degree as some Asian applicants then all test scores would increase. Despite what some on here like to suggest, Asian students are NOT biologically more intelligent than non-Asians. On the average they work harder (with weekend classes and the like) therefore it should be no surprise that their test scores reflect that. That’s it. I suspect Harvard knows this and for that reason will never rely on test scores as a major factor for admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be better if you addressed the merit's of PP's post rather than resorting to things like "get a real job" which is neither insightful or funny.

Uhg, you just missed the point. It's the unemployed and underemployed sitting around at home hoping for handouts. It always was.