Reply to Should Asians boycott some elite universities that practice holistic admissions?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Should Asians boycott some elite universities that practice holistic admissions?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Supreme Court will be moving to the right, 5-4, solid conservative. Hopeful, no more robbing deserving Peter to pay URM Paul. [/quote]

Discrimination against Asian Americans will finally end. [/quote]

What discrimination? 5% of the population get 22% of the slots. With numbers like that, the status quo is what you want. [/quote]

Harvard's own internal study shows Asians should make up 43%. (Same as what CalTech is now.)[/quote]

No it does not.[/quote]

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/harvard-defends-integrity-of-admissions-in-response-to-allegation-of-bias-against-asian-americans/

"An internal Harvard University review from five years ago suggested Asian American applicants would be let into the undergraduate college in much greater numbers if academic performance were the only criterion for admission, according to court documents made public Friday.

The review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, uncovered by the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, appeared to indicate that applicants of Asian descent would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class at the ultra-selective university[b] under a hypothetical “academics-only” model.[/b] That was higher than the shares shown for other racial and ethnic groups in the review of admissions data spanning several years."[/quote]

'if academic performance were the only criterion for admission."

But it's not.[/quote]

Not sure what non-academic criteria a university whose business is to educate students is supposed to be using.   Caltech is strictly academic. Caltech students fare better than most Ivy League students under any measurable performance standards post college. [/quote]

And CalTech is an option available to you if that’s what you want and you have the scores to get accepted.  But many undergrads — especially people leaving home and attending a residential college — want to be in an educational environment where people study subjects other than STEM, where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where [b]the arts are a vital part of campus life[/b], etc.  And, as the [b]amicus briefs from military[/b] and corporate leaders suggest, many employers see exposure to a diverse environment as a crucial component in the education of future leaders.[/quote]

The military amicus brief said "the arts are a vital part of campus life"?  Sorry, but the purpose of the military is to defends - and at times when Bush or Trump say so - to invade other countries.  The military has always been one of the most egalitarian because it relies entirely on voluntary soldiers for this purpose.  It's a good thing we are not a Spartan militaristic society.  And it's a good thing the military amicus brief the the decision of the SCOTUS. [/quote]

No — do you understand how sentences work?  Each has its own subject.  Many undergrads want arts on campus, etc.  Corporate and military leaders think learning to negotiate diverse environments is a crucial component of the education of effective leaders.

And, actually, in Grutter, SCOTUS cited both the corporate and military briefs as part of the rationale for its decision.

“These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3—4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27. The primary sources for the Nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Id., at 5. At present, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military “must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse setting.” Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that “[i]t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.” Ibid.”[/quote]

You went from "where people value getting to know people with different experiences and perspectives, where the arts are a vital part of campus" to something decidedly racial: “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” The problem is under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, educational institutions that receive any federal money are obligated to treat individuals equally.

Grutter  is soo old.  We have a new Harvard challenge and we'll have a new SCOTUS decision in this one.  I am pretty sure we can all live with the Court's decision.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics