Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard gets TJ'd it will lose it's reputation and status at the top.

Instead of having an uber liberal gender studies be-an-academic-for life reputation it will have a productive STEM, go-build-something reputation.

It will turn into a robot factory. It would be a fail.

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrisy at Harvard is astounding. If for arguments sake, Blacks and Hispanics were scoring extremely well in the tests, they would be screaming for making a choice by academic criteria alone and denounce other fuzzy factors that favored white students.

They are looking for any way, and I truly do mean any effing way ( legal, barely legal, immoral, amoral, discriminatory... anything) to increase URM enrollment.

One writer in 1910 observed that in colleges there were “two classes, the one, favored according to undergraduate thinking, holding its position by financial ability to have a good time with leisure for carrying off athletic and other showy prizes; the other class in sheer desperation taking the faculty, textbooks, and debating more seriously. Each class runs in the same rut all its life.” Second-generation Jews obviously did not have the economic resources or the social standing to participate in the collegiate “leisure class.” For them a college education was less a mark of status than a vehicle out of the lower class, and this inevitably gave Jews a sense of purpose lacking elsewhere.

Numerous writers during the early 1900’s commented on the outstanding academic record of Jewish students. According to one observer: “At every university and college that I have visited, I have heard ungrudging praise of the exceptional ability of the Jewish, especially of the Russian-Jewish, students.” Even those uneasy about the influx of Jews rarely denied their enterprise as students. One comments begrudgingly: “History is full of examples where one race has displaced another by underliving and overworking.” Indeed, Jewish academic success, and the willingness of Jews to violate the “taboo on scholarship” (as one Yale professor called it), was a source of considerable resentment, and constituted no small part of the “Jewish problem.”

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard gets TJ'd it will lose it's reputation and status at the top.

Anonymous wrote:


Considering race or gender in admissions is NOT OK.

Admissions officers should look at applicants without seeing the names, sex or purported ethnicity of students. If students share info in their personal statements, that's fine because it's their choice.

Anonymous wrote:I think its clearly terrible if colleges are grading Asians down on the soft skills bc of bias. Do they have criteria for how they rate things like "positive personality" or other non-academic attributes. It is 100% valid to consider these traits for admissions but they have a process for doing do that isnt lets cut out students we dont like to favor white ppl.

At the same time the argument that the only way for Harvard to have an unbiased admissions is to "considered only academic achievement" is clearly off. The system we have looks beyond academics bc wider world does too (including ever office ive been in).

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the last paragraph?

"What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18 percent, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans."

This is exactly what's going on in higher education at all the better colleges and universities, especially privates.

If Asians have a case then so do whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than any other race on personal traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday in federal court in Boston by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Harvard’s own researchers cited a bias against Asian-American applicants in a series of internal reports in 2013. But Harvard ignored the findings, the court papers said, and never publicly released them.

On summary sheets, Asian-American applicants were much more likely than other races to be described as “standard strong,” meaning lacking special qualities that would warrant admission, even though they were more academically qualified, the plaintiffs said. They were 25 percent more likely than white applicants to receive that rating. They were also described as “busy and bright” in their admissions files, the plaintiffs said.

Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them

Harvard’s 2013 internal review found that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent from the actual 19 percent. After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31 percent. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26 percent.

What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18 percent, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans.

Great journalism and summary. thanks for reading through the court papers so fast and getting it into the Associated Press/ NYTimes.

I suspect more colleges and magnet programs will get the same subpoenas.