Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

I think some pp’s Have retreated to make this a point about Harvard making “leaders” - which is silly ok but fine you can comfort yourself with that point - without understanding this case was never just about Harvard.

The effects when this goes to scotus will be magnified at the t7-50 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate as the last one this same plaintiff filed against Univ of Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate as the last one this same plaintiff filed against Univ of Texas.

Umm., the last I heard just before the case went to trial was that the court struck down H's summary judgment request that the case has no merit and should be halted. When the court's already spoken that the case has merit and may proceed forward - and you are here pontificating, "Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate," you sure sound like an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate as the last one this same plaintiff filed against Univ of Texas.

Umm., the last I heard just before the case went to trial was that the court struck down H's summary judgment request that the case has no merit and should be halted. When the court's already spoken that the case has merit and may proceed forward - and you are here pontificating, "Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate," you sure sound like an idiot.

P survived the motion for summary judgment, the standard for which is "... there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment" I still contend the case is meritless, not that there are no disputes of material fact.

You keep beating this dead horse. Why don't we wait to see how the court rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate as the last one this same plaintiff filed against Univ of Texas.

Umm., the last I heard just before the case went to trial was that the court struck down H's summary judgment request that the case has no merit and should be halted. When the court's already spoken that the case has merit and may proceed forward - and you are here pontificating, "Doesn't matter what I want. It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate," you sure sound like an idiot.

P survived the motion for summary judgment, the standard for which is "... there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment" I still contend the case is meritless, not that there are no disputes of material fact.

You keep beating this dead horse. Why don't we wait to see how the court rules?

I dunno if you know what you are saying: "It's a meritless lawsuit which will meet the same fate." And, "Why don't we wait to see how the court rules." Do you not realize you don't make sense? I feel sorry for a law firm that hired a paralegal like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that's why H uses "personality" in their assessments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP I disagree. Kids cut schools from their list under pressure. If you ask for more (essays, test or recommendations) than competing schools you loose applicants. If HYPS drop scores other schools will follow.. just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back because kids just applied ED elsewhere. I don't think its realistic for the plaintiffs to think that elite schools are going to abandon their missions and long term donors/alumni/supporters to become CalTech. Has any American institution become overrun with AA candidates NO. There is more diversity on the margin and admission standards to almost everything have changed to keep it that way. So I think the college admission process will shift to protect the descendants of the names on the buildings/scholarships/professorships, athletes on the playing fields, legacies that may not have an official tip and a host of others. I am not sure what that will all mean but I remained convinced it will not look like CalTech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Weak troll. -1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP I disagree. Kids cut schools from their list under pressure. If you ask for more (essays, test or recommendations) than competing schools you loose applicants. If HYPS drop scores other schools will follow.. just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back because kids just applied ED elsewhere. I don't think its realistic for the plaintiffs to think that elite schools are going to abandon their missions and long term donors/alumni/supporters to become CalTech. Has any American institution become overrun with AA candidates NO. There is more diversity on the margin and admission standards to almost everything have changed to keep it that way. So I think the college admission process will shift to protect the descendants of the names on the buildings/scholarships/professorships, athletes on the playing fields, legacies that may not have an official tip and a host of others. I am not sure what that will all mean but I remained convinced it will not look like CalTech.

Harvard does not have ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP I disagree. Kids cut schools from their list under pressure. If you ask for more (essays, test or recommendations) than competing schools you loose applicants. If HYPS drop scores other schools will follow.. just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back because kids just applied ED elsewhere. I don't think its realistic for the plaintiffs to think that elite schools are going to abandon their missions and long term donors/alumni/supporters to become CalTech. Has any American institution become overrun with AA candidates NO. There is more diversity on the margin and admission standards to almost everything have changed to keep it that way. So I think the college admission process will shift to protect the descendants of the names on the buildings/scholarships/professorships, athletes on the playing fields, legacies that may not have an official tip and a host of others. I am not sure what that will all mean but I remained convinced it will not look like CalTech.

Harvard does not have ED.

you are correct it has EA... such a dumb comment. same difference. The point is Harvard could not sustain its desired admitted class bucking the system by pulling out of having an ED/EA class... signed Harvard Alum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP I disagree. Kids cut schools from their list under pressure. If you ask for more (essays, test or recommendations) than competing schools you loose applicants. If HYPS drop scores other schools will follow.. just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back because kids just applied ED elsewhere. I don't think its realistic for the plaintiffs to think that elite schools are going to abandon their missions and long term donors/alumni/supporters to become CalTech. Has any American institution become overrun with AA candidates NO. There is more diversity on the margin and admission standards to almost everything have changed to keep it that way. So I think the college admission process will shift to protect the descendants of the names on the buildings/scholarships/professorships, athletes on the playing fields, legacies that may not have an official tip and a host of others. I am not sure what that will all mean but I remained convinced it will not look like CalTech.

Harvard does not have ED.

you are correct it has EA... such a dumb comment. same difference. The point is Harvard could not sustain its desired admitted class bucking the system by pulling out of having an ED/EA class... signed Harvard Alum

"same difference"? No, not even close.

People new to the process come here. If you can't state accurate facts then maybe you shouldn't state any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP I disagree. Kids cut schools from their list under pressure. If you ask for more (essays, test or recommendations) than competing schools you loose applicants. If HYPS drop scores other schools will follow.. just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back because kids just applied ED elsewhere. I don't think its realistic for the plaintiffs to think that elite schools are going to abandon their missions and long term donors/alumni/supporters to become CalTech. Has any American institution become overrun with AA candidates NO. There is more diversity on the margin and admission standards to almost everything have changed to keep it that way. So I think the college admission process will shift to protect the descendants of the names on the buildings/scholarships/professorships, athletes on the playing fields, legacies that may not have an official tip and a host of others. I am not sure what that will all mean but I remained convinced it will not look like CalTech.

Harvard does not have ED.

you are correct it has EA... such a dumb comment. same difference. The point is Harvard could not sustain its desired admitted class bucking the system by pulling out of having an ED/EA class... signed Harvard Alum

"same difference"? No, not even close.

People new to the process come here. If you can't state accurate facts then maybe you shouldn't state any.

PP I don"t understand your point at all. Harvard had EA, it tried to get rid of it and reinstated the program because according to Harvard desired applicants were picking a school during the early decision/action admission cycle and not applying to Harvard. That is a fact that is well documented and very easy to look up. Therefore, Harvard decided it needed to have an EA admission round to be competitive. The point is not the difference between EA and ED but you can keep posting that if you like. Most selective colleges fill a substantial portion of their class during the early round whether its EA or ED and the kids stick with that reach choice. You cant apply to any other school except a state schools so its kind of not really relevant to kids shooting for an ivy.

[Anonymous]

^^Why are you arguing this? All I did was correct an error to avoid misinformation. The point is you posted"just like when Harvard dropped ED Harvard brought it back ". Someone reading your post who didn't know would think Harvard had ED.

EA and ED are very different by definition, and the rules for each can differ by college.

This is where you should just say "Yes I was mistaken" and drop it or not reply at all.

[Anonymous]

here is an excellent take on the lawsuit:

[Anonymous]

Harvard should become an HBCU to make up for past discrimination.

Why is 14% the “right level” of AA’s at H?

Why not 24, 34, 44%?