Anonymous wrote: Can Irish Americans, German Americans, Italian Americans, Blonde Hair people, people under 5 feet tall, people with pimples, and so on and so on sue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His attitude alone sends him to the rejection pile. He sounds incredibly entitled. No one said that academics alone determine admissions. Harvard wants successful people; this guy ain’t one of them.

+1

Anonymous wrote:No consideration is given to children of immigrants for going through a society and educational system which neither you nor your parents understand.

Often parents are hyper focused on protecting kids from bad influences and good grades but ignorant of rest of the life equation.

Add that to bullying and judgement that peers, teachers, coaches, parents of peers and even bystanders give and you have adversity which gets absolutely ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His attitude alone sends him to the rejection pile. He sounds incredibly entitled. No one said that academics alone determine admissions. Harvard wants successful people; this guy ain’t one of them.

In a non-Asian kid, it would be seen as courage and leader to stand up for himself.

Anonymous wrote:His attitude alone sends him to the rejection pile. He sounds incredibly entitled. No one said that academics alone determine admissions. Harvard wants successful people; this guy ain’t one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis of 2003 affirmative action decision by Jeannie Suk Gersen a law prof at Harvard in the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-justice-john-paul-stevenss-papers-reveal-about-affirmative-action

"I discovered that a draft of the majority opinion, by the swing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (appointed by Ronald Reagan), said that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly in admissions decisions,” but liberals apparently balked at it."

...

"Why might a statement that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly” have been objectionable to liberals? It was highly foreseeable, even in 2003, that future waves of litigation over admissions would involve Asian Americans, who were held up as “model minorities” in educational achievement. And it was also foreseeable that their complaints would concern not just preferences for underrepresented minorities such as Black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants but also admissions practices that allegedly favor white applicants over Asian American ones. As a result, liberal Justices (or law clerks) in Grutter may have wished to avoid explicitly endorsing an Asian American entitlement to “be treated similarly” to white applicants. That might be a slippery slope to an entitlement to be treated similarly to Black or Latino applicants—which would destroy affirmative action."

Very interesting piece, thank you for sharing. As one of the clerks said "there has to be a better way" than affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:His attitude alone sends him to the rejection pile. He sounds incredibly entitled. No one said that academics alone determine admissions. Harvard wants successful people; this guy ain’t one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Wrong.

You stating this over and over doesn't change the facts. The LORs and teacher recs were meh.

Good academic stats aren't enough for Harvard and elite oublics. Maybe for other state colleges.

If the highly subjective standards you appear to support were working to reduce, not increase, the percentage of Black students at a college, you and everyone else on this thread who supports them would be shrieking about how those standards are “racist” and discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis of 2003 affirmative action decision by Jeannie Suk Gersen a law prof at Harvard in the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-justice-john-paul-stevenss-papers-reveal-about-affirmative-action

"I discovered that a draft of the majority opinion, by the swing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (appointed by Ronald Reagan), said that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly in admissions decisions,” but liberals apparently balked at it."

...

"Why might a statement that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly” have been objectionable to liberals? It was highly foreseeable, even in 2003, that future waves of litigation over admissions would involve Asian Americans, who were held up as “model minorities” in educational achievement. And it was also foreseeable that their complaints would concern not just preferences for underrepresented minorities such as Black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants but also admissions practices that allegedly favor white applicants over Asian American ones. As a result, liberal Justices (or law clerks) in Grutter may have wished to avoid explicitly endorsing an Asian American entitlement to “be treated similarly” to white applicants. That might be a slippery slope to an entitlement to be treated similarly to Black or Latino applicants—which would destroy affirmative action."

Very interesting piece, thank you for sharing. As one of the clerks said "there has to be a better way" than affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis of 2003 affirmative action decision by Jeannie Suk Gersen a law prof at Harvard in the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-justice-john-paul-stevenss-papers-reveal-about-affirmative-action

"I discovered that a draft of the majority opinion, by the swing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (appointed by Ronald Reagan), said that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly in admissions decisions,” but liberals apparently balked at it."

...

"Why might a statement that “white and Asian applicants must be treated similarly” have been objectionable to liberals? It was highly foreseeable, even in 2003, that future waves of litigation over admissions would involve Asian Americans, who were held up as “model minorities” in educational achievement. And it was also foreseeable that their complaints would concern not just preferences for underrepresented minorities such as Black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants but also admissions practices that allegedly favor white applicants over Asian American ones. As a result, liberal Justices (or law clerks) in Grutter may have wished to avoid explicitly endorsing an Asian American entitlement to “be treated similarly” to white applicants. That might be a slippery slope to an entitlement to be treated similarly to Black or Latino applicants—which would destroy affirmative action."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the problem.

A quick look at Harvard’s admissions data shows that 20.9 percent of admits were Asian American, which is far, far above the percentage of Americans identifying as such

Similarly, black admits were at 13.9 percent, which is a little above the national population. But there are fewer black students that do well academically in high school, so that’s a generous acceptance rate

Win-win for everyone fixated on race Asian Americans are over represented. Black Americans correspond to the national average. Most of the white kids are there because of rich kid privileges

Perfect

Not sure about the Native Americans though

again, since when does a college have to reflect the total population? Demographics of the total population doesn't have any bearing on Harvard admissions since the entire population isn't applying to Harvard.

Look at the total number of Asian American *applicants* compared to the total number admitted. That's the number you want to look at. There are waay more Asian Americans applying than URM. The rate of admissions is much lower for Asian Americans than URM, and the scores of the URM are much lower. So, it's not a win-win for Asian American applicants. Data analysis is important.

Yes, they can apply to other schools, but that is not the point of the lawsuit or the thread.

It IS about a demographic profile! How many young men want to attend a school with few women? Not many. Same with women; they want men. Gender has nothing to do with smarts, but it is an important criteria anyway. The same is true of ethnicity. Asians don’t seem to understand that American colleges are not just about smarts. What’s next? Do Asians want more Asian immigration because they’re smart? Should the US give immigrants IQ tests? You could make an argument for such, but that isn’t what’s done. Get over yourselves!