Anonymous wrote:Interestingly at our private the Asian kids (and my kid is half Indian) are having the worst early placement (surprisingly?)

Will have to see how it turns out in RD…

Everyone is have awful early placement this year. My kid's school is predominantly white and all the top students are seeing deferrals and denials in the early round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more racial discrimination.

I guess we have to wait to see the results after this cycle. Plenty of schools are interpreting it as they can use the essay to continue doing what they are doing---selecting for race/urm. I believe that is contrary to the SC ruling.

It is contrary to the ruling. Queue up the next wave of lawsuits after this cycle...

Interestingly at our private the Asian kids (and my kid is half Indian) are having the worst early placement (surprisingly?)

Will have to see how it turns out in RD…

^^ the biggest donors are pulling out left and right of Harvard. I have heard Hopkins (though not Bloomberg) is facing similar trend.

“Will America’s elite universities get back to the roots of educating American children — young adults — to be the future leaders of our country or are they going to maintain being lost in the wilderness of microaggressions and a DEI agenda that has no real endgame,” Griffin said.

DEI policies have emerged as a flashpoint at major universities and in the business world, with some arguing they have gone too far.

Griffin suggested that students at elite schools are “just caught up in the rhetoric of oppressor and oppressee and… just like whiny snowflakes.”

A number of other major Harvard donors have halted their donations to the school, including former Victoria’s Secret billionaire Leslie Wexner and billionaire Len Blavatnik, whose family foundation has donated at least $270 million to Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:Attorneys have the right to remain silent cuz anything they say can and will be used against Harvard in a court of law. Harvard's not doing too well these days. Harvard's been bi-a-t-ch slapped back to the stone age so many times that it's watching its mouth.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/money/harvard-ken-griffin-halts-donations/index.html

Griffin, one of the richest people in the world, joins a growing list of donors to Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and other top schools who have decided to close their checkbooks.

At a conference in Miami on Tuesday, Griffin expressed deep frustration with the state of American universities, including the disastrous testimony before Congress by the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn.

Griffin, the founder of hedge fund Citadel, said he is no longer supporting Harvard financially but would like that to change.

“Until Harvard makes it very clear that they’re going to resume their role as [educators of] young American men and women to be leaders, to be problem solvers, to take on difficult issues, I am not interested in supporting the institution,” Griffin told CNBC’s Leslie Picker during the MFA Network Miami conference.

Just last April, Griffin made a $300 million gift to Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS). At the time, the billionaire praised Harvard as a “great institution” and hailed FAS for being “committed to advancing ideas that will shape humanity’s future, while providing important insight into our past.”

Across four decades, Griffin has donated more than $500 million, Harvard said at the time. That includes a $150 million contribution to financial aid in 2014 that Harvard said holds the record for the “largest single gift to undergraduate financial aid and to Harvard College.”

Griffin, who has built a fortune that Bloomberg estimates is $37 billion, is now expressing significant concern about the direction of elite schools and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more racial discrimination.

But schools can absolutely form the cohorts they want, and students can self-identify as having attributes the school might find desirable.

What it DOESN'T mean, as some seem to think, is that grades and test scores will suddenly be the end-all, be-all criteria for admission. They'll continue to just be one of many considerations.

The supreme court just said the exact opposite.

Anonymous wrote:No more racial discrimination.

But schools can absolutely form the cohorts they want, and students can self-identify as having attributes the school might find desirable.

What it DOESN'T mean, as some seem to think, is that grades and test scores will suddenly be the end-all, be-all criteria for admission. They'll continue to just be one of many considerations.

Anonymous wrote:No more racial discrimination.

I guess we have to wait to see the results after this cycle. Plenty of schools are interpreting it as they can use the essay to continue doing what they are doing---selecting for race/urm. I believe that is contrary to the SC ruling.

Anonymous wrote:All colleges have a legal counsel office.

All of them got the last case 100% wrong

Attorneys have the right to remain silent cuz anything they say can and will be used against Harvard in a court of law. Harvard's not doing too well these days. Harvard's been bi-a-t-ch slapped back to the stone age so many times that it's watching its mouth.

No more racial discrimination.

All colleges have a legal counsel office.

Nobody can speak with authority about what they mean. The supreme court announces the broad rule which then gets fleshed out by circuit courts. There are going to be follow on suits that establish the contours of the ruling

Any attorney doing that work ought to be smart enough to NOT discuss it anywhere on the internet SMH

I see some version of this citation when people discuss this case:

"Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. ... A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university."

But they "ellipsis" out the enormous qualifier/limiter that was clearly stated:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

So, are there any attorneys on this forum who are actually advising these institutions on the legalities of their admissions policies? Because I can guarantee you those attorneys have read the whole opinion, not one limited and misleading citation.