This troll thread is super boring...

Anonymous wrote:MIT and Caltech have relatively few blacks. Oxford and Cambridge don’t either.

Well, for Oxford and Cambridge, that’s largely because the UK is roughly 87% white. Add on top of that the fact that fewer UK residents apply to college than in the US, and it’s not surprising that the Oxbridge student population isn’t particularly diverse. I also don’t know if affirmative action is really a thing there.

Anonymous wrote:Of note, whites are underrepresented at Harvard, versus the US population. They make up 46% of Harvard’s freshman class, but 73% of the US population.

You seem to not know the difference between the population going to college and the US as a whole. Only 50% of children are non-Hispanic white.

MIT and Caltech have relatively few blacks. Oxford and Cambridge don’t either.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is a worldwide institution that aims to educate leaders for the whole world.

Asians represent 60% of the world's population, so ...

How is it a “worldwide” institution? It’s located in the USA. Do they consider their mission first and foremost to educate Americans, or to educate the brightest young people around the world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems that perhaps your math skills aren't the best. If they proportionally increase all races by the same amount (which is the case in a percentage-based allocation), then all groups suffer the same decline in quality. If they increase black admissions by proportionally more, which you are suggesting, then the quality of black applicants drops by more. Is it really hard to see?

If this was true, you are suggesting that there is a difference in 'strength of applicant' between various racial pools.

There absolutely is. How could you possibly say otherwise?

Anonymous wrote:why are blacks capped at 15% of the student body year in year out -- you could boost it to 30-45% without a drop in quality, yes?

A non sequitur is a fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it. Also known as irrelevant reason and fallacy of the consequent.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-non-sequitur-1691437#:~:text=A%20non%20sequitur%20is%20a,and%20fallacy%20of%20the%20consequent.

Anonymous wrote:SAT scores broken down

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I suspect there's no such chart for GPA (for lots of reasons, vs College Board having centralized data on scores), but that might be interesting to consider in the test optional context.

(We know there are at least some legitimate reasons for individual situations (not averages) when a person may not have a test score that fairly represents their capability. But then there are also stories of students who, for various reasons, do not have a GPA that fairly represents their academic capability, and owe their college opportunities to a high test score. I've seen these voices on social media, though the TO proponents, many of whom would like to see testing completely eliminated, seem to ignore these voices. Sorry if this is a tangent...)

Why don’t we just forbid whites from attending Harvard and completely fill the university with black students. It seems like we only care about race these days anyway.

Harvard is a worldwide institution that aims to educate leaders for the whole world.

Asians represent 60% of the world's population, so ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of note, whites are underrepresented at Harvard, versus the US population. They make up 46% of Harvard’s freshman class, but 73% of the US population.

Non-Hispanic whites are 60% of the country.

Overall. They are not 60% of the population that is college aged.

52.9% of the US are non-hispanic white.

about 37% of non-hispanic white US citizens have college degrees

SAT scores broken down

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of note, whites are underrepresented at Harvard, versus the US population. They make up 46% of Harvard’s freshman class, but 73% of the US population.

Non-Hispanic whites are 60% of the country.

Overall. They are not 60% of the population that is college aged.

Anonymous wrote:Seems that perhaps your math skills aren't the best. If they proportionally increase all races by the same amount (which is the case in a percentage-based allocation), then all groups suffer the same decline in quality. If they increase black admissions by proportionally more, which you are suggesting, then the quality of black applicants drops by more. Is it really hard to see?

If this was true, you are suggesting that there is a difference in 'strength of applicant' between various racial pools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems that perhaps your math skills aren't the best. If they proportionally increase all races by the same amount (which is the case in a percentage-based allocation), then all groups suffer the same decline in quality. If they increase black admissions by proportionally more, which you are suggesting, then the quality of black applicants drops by more. Is it really hard to see?

I believe you are ignoring OP’s premise, which is that Harvard has enough highly qualified applicants to fill a class 3x the actual size with no drop in quality and with the same demographics. Whether you believe that probably depends on how much you rely on factors like SAT scores to measure quality.

SAT increases diversity...

Why is Harvard being used as the objective here? This seems a little bit like a straw man exercise.