Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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%?

Welcome Russian trolls. We know you are trying to stir shit up

[Anonymous]

Is it possible that Harvard would accept a narrow finding that it discriminated against Asians and not appeal so as to not provoke a full scale examination of Affirmative action at SCOTUS?

Sffa can't appeal if they win right? But the judge could find very narrowly for them right?

[Anonymous]

So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

Can we pay teachers, nurses, cops, and fire fighters more too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

"Start paying STEM"?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/graduates-pay-2017.aspx

Your premise is flawed on nearly every point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

Can we pay teachers, nurses, cops, and fire fighters more too?

Yes, yes, no, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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%?

Welcome Russian trolls. We know you are trying to stir shit up

Hey, Dems are way better than Russians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^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.

Let it go. Whether it was EA or ED is irrelevant. The point remains the same.

-New poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^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.

Let it go. Whether it was EA or ED is irrelevant. The point remains the same.

-New poster.

No, it isn't.

-New Poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

"Start paying STEM"?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/graduates-pay-2017.aspx

Your premise is flawed on nearly every point.

No it’s not. Working for Goldman Sachs is going to start at at least double the STEM salary and go up from there. It’s not on your ‘list’ because those are jobs for the elite and not a general career choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

"Start paying STEM"?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/graduates-pay-2017.aspx

Your premise is flawed on nearly every point.

No it’s not. Working for Goldman Sachs is going to start at at least double the STEM salary and go up from there. It’s not on your ‘list’ because those are jobs for the elite and not a general career choice.

If you don't like capitalism, you've got other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, IMP part of the problem lies in how certain careers are compensated vs. others. Why should a bond trader or hedge funder ever make more than an engineer or astrophysicist? They shouldn't but they DO. The Ivys have always been "humanities" "liberal arts" schools, where a history degree can get you a job at Goldman Sachs. Why? Because if everything posted in this thread: prestige, connections, generational money. Unfortunately, we are losing stem talent to Wall Street..START PAYING STEM and the stem schools would be as "prestigious" as the Ivy League. Are Asians better at stem? I think on some level, not sure if it's genetic predisposition or cultural but they do score higher on STEM based standardized tests. Spoiled white kids skate taking easier classes and then land the big $$ job, that is really what's going on here.

It’s definitely NOT biological. To even suggest it is irresponsible. Let’s not spread misinformation where there is no peer reviewed scientific study to back up such a suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^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.

Let it go. Whether it was EA or ED is irrelevant. The point remains the same.

-New poster.

No, it isn't.

-New Poster

Is that because the EA Harvard admits are going to spend x-mas breaking applying to other elite schools and senior year spring interviewing with old alum of various elite school/getting dressed up reading about the school/driving to the interview?? and then tell Harvard that has a crazy high yield of EA kids no? Is that why its so relevant that Harvard tried to get rid of EA but brought it back because it allowed them to accept and retain its desired applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^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.

Let it go. Whether it was EA or ED is irrelevant. The point remains the same.

-New poster.

No, it isn't.

-New Poster

Is that because the EA Harvard admits are going to spend x-mas breaking applying to other elite schools and senior year spring interviewing with old alum of various elite school/getting dressed up reading about the school/driving to the interview?? and then tell Harvard that has a crazy high yield of EA kids no? Is that why its so relevant that Harvard tried to get rid of EA but brought it back because it allowed them to accept and retain its desired applicants

You sound deranged.