Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is Harvard engages in "racuial balancing" and that is perfectly legal.

sorry, racial

As a Harvard Alum, I agree that having a balanced class is valuable in the learning and social experience. The kids who came in with only high GPA/SAT scores added absolutely nothing to the experience and environment. I've also talked to a number of my former Asian classmates and none of them support this lawsuit. I don't think they want to be further stereotyped by an influx of high GPA/SAT robots.

You can't possibly be a Harvard alum because you're too dumb. Nobody gets into Harvard with just high gpa/sat score (especially asians). And don't you get it? Asians aren't saying that they should get in based on just high academic stats. What they're complaining about is that even if they have everything else (interesting ec's, great essay, interviews, recs...), they simply have a harder time getting in just because they're asians. As in, if you or anyone else was reading all of Harvard's applications (not just the test scores, gpas but everything going into the application) without knowing the applicant's race, you would be selecting way more asian applicants for admission. That's racial discrimination, that they're being excluded solely based on race and nothing else.

PP here: They are not being excluded because they're Asian. They are competing against other Asians and only a certain number can get in. That's not racial discrimination. It's a quota system or a planned number of each ethnicity. Stop acting that Harvard is racist. It's just a numbers game and the folks on the wrong side of the numbers are mad.

Bingo. And you didn't know that the courts specifically told schools they were not allowed to do that in previous cases? You said it yourself. They're breaking the law.

??? They specifically are allowed to take race into account in shaping their class and this was decided in 2016 in Fisher v. UT (a case BTW that was brought and lost by the same plaintiff as this case), So I don't know what law they're breaking.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article (seems like so many posters are taking the plaintiffs allegations as fact).

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.[/b



[b]“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

Great. Then we should just believe Harvard and it's self serving statement along with it's ad hominem attack on Blum. Eff Harvard. Hope they lose big.

Harvard doesn’t lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

??? Blacks make up over 15% of the class. It is very unlikely they could have attained that level without a thumb being placed on the scale in their favor. They are over-represented at Harvard. Indeed the only group under-represented now is whites.

You are a bad human being.

PS the kid admitted to Harvard from my school two years back had 1600 SAT, Presidential Scholar, NMS, president of class, and a great guy. African American also. He invites you to take the thumb off the scale for him and jam it up your ass.

Well, you should read the article posted by th OP. It says:

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.

Why is that a bad thing? Justice O'Connor observed that our Nation’s very best schools are a gateway for entry into the elite echelons of society. It’s only fair that, as we become increasingly diverse, we broaden the classes, legally, to include more Hispanics and African Americans. Will someone)s ox be gored along the way? Angry plaintiffs suggest so. But the greater good must win out.

it's all layed out here. Basically each applicant gets ranked in four categories on a scale. Academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. Harvard wants top people in each category and ideally top people in multiple categories. Also, top academic kids are a dime a dozen. You need top academics plus at least one of the other criteria.

The ratings also indicate that applicants who are highly rated on non-academic dimensions
are much scarcer than applicants with a high academic rating. Exhibit 5 shows that about 42% of
applicants have an academic rating of 1 or 2, while fewer than 25% of applicants receive a 1 or 2 on
each of the other three profile ratings. Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three
dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on
Ratings Combination
Number of
Applicants Admission Rate
Candidates who Excel on One Dimension
1. Academic rating of 1, no other 1s 663 68%
2. Extracurricular rating of 1, no other 1s 453 48%
3. Personal rating of 1, no other 1s 41 66%
4. Athletic rating of 1, no other 1s 1,340 88%
Multi-Dimensional Candidates
5. Three ratings of 2, one rating of 3 or 4 9,266 43%
6. Four ratings of 2 622 68%
Weaker Candidates
7. No ratings of 1 or 2 55,981 0.1%
CONFIDENTIAL Page 29
non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish
applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating.

Start on page 28

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is Harvard engages in "racuial balancing" and that is perfectly legal.

sorry, racial

As a Harvard Alum, I agree that having a balanced class is valuable in the learning and social experience. The kids who came in with only high GPA/SAT scores added absolutely nothing to the experience and environment. I've also talked to a number of my former Asian classmates and none of them support this lawsuit. I don't think they want to be further stereotyped by an influx of high GPA/SAT robots.

You can't possibly be a Harvard alum because you're too dumb. Nobody gets into Harvard with just high gpa/sat score (especially asians). And don't you get it? Asians aren't saying that they should get in based on just high academic stats. What they're complaining about is that even if they have everything else (interesting ec's, great essay, interviews, recs...), they simply have a harder time getting in just because they're asians. As in, if you or anyone else was reading all of Harvard's applications (not just the test scores, gpas but everything going into the application) without knowing the applicant's race, you would be selecting way more asian applicants for admission. That's racial discrimination, that they're being excluded solely based on race and nothing else.

PP here: They are not being excluded because they're Asian. They are competing against other Asians and only a certain number can get in. That's not racial discrimination. It's a quota system or a planned number of each ethnicity. Stop acting that Harvard is racist. It's just a numbers game and the folks on the wrong side of the numbers are mad.

Bingo. And you didn't know that the courts specifically told schools they were not allowed to do that in previous cases? You said it yourself. They're breaking the law.

Oh no! Arrest them all! You have no idea of the admission criteria besides test scores and GPA. Being a valuable member of the university community is much more comprehensive than that[b]. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your view of the world but it is what it is. Harvard is for the future leaders who use creativity and personal skills AS WELL AS their intellect to make a difference in the world.

You're a broken record. I said even if asians are found to be better in all other factors, like recs, essay, ec's, whatever "soft" factors they're considering, they are having to meet a higher bar. ONCE AND FOR ALL, NOBODY is saying anyone should get in based on just gpa's & sat scores.

+1 What the NY Times article notes is that the Asian students are being rejected based on being lower ranked on ridiculous subjective criteria such as "likability" and sense of humor. Guess what- people tend to like other people of their own race and find things humorous when it pertains to their own cultural frame of reference.

Anonymous wrote:Wow this thread is just open season for all the closet racists (or perhaps, not so closet racists) to air out their "wisdom." Asians are unfriendly robots, blacks and Hispanics are undeserving and only attain their spots due to affirmative action. Unbelievable that these stereotypes are being peddled on a DC listserv.

Why do you think DC should be immune? Its everywhere. DC may be worse because everyone is so desperate to get ahead.

Wow this thread is just open season for all the closet racists (or perhaps, not so closet racists) to air out their "wisdom." Asians are unfriendly robots, blacks and Hispanics are undeserving and only attain their spots due to affirmative action. Unbelievable that these stereotypes are being peddled on a DC listserv.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy and the Asian kids tended to be boring and more concerned with test scores and grades than campus life. If Harvard’s past tactics are deemed discriminatory, they’ll be smart enough to find a way to further de-emphasize standardized test scores to maintain some sense of balance.

They will go test optional-- it is only a matter of time.

+1

Tests are optional at more and more schools, for this very reason.

Mixed reactions from Asians, whether or not they want affirmative action:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-affirmative-action-is-complicated-for-asian-americans/ar-AAyJLvK?li=BBnbcA1

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it possible that the problem is not ethnicity but intended major? Harvard essentially invented the liberal arts education in this country, and they cannot build a freshman class entirely with engineering and hard science majors. Forty percent of their freshmen’s intended majors are social sciences and humanities. Yes, it’s a stereotype, but it’s been very true in my neighbors and acquaintances that Asian parents don’t want their kids to major in humanities and social sciences.

If that's true -- and I believe it might be -- a case-by-case analysis of the applicants will show that and the defendant will prevail as a result.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one thing that i really haven't seen anywhere by the defenders of diversity is Why is it so good or even needed. They just assert it, when evidence all over the world shows that bringing together people of different world views, races and religion forcibly under one roof only increases animosity and conflict

Turkey, Serbia, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Itaq, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, India, Myanmar on and on There is not a single country where diversity had worked. And like everywhere in the world, it will fall on the US and plunge this country into chaos

The one I can think of where it worked great is called the United States of America.

And we can certainly debate whether colleges should strive for diversity. The fact is they do, and in the case of private colleges, it is currently their prerogative.

We can also debate whether athletes should have preferences, or other talents... etc.

I call BS on this assertion. It has not worked in the US. Whether you talk about slavery, the bigotry against the Irish, Italians,, Polish or the terrible political divide in this country that has been steadily building in this country since the immigration act of 1965 remade the demographics of the US, diversity had not worked for this country. In fact it has given rise identity politics on both sides

No one said it wasn't highly imperfect, but do you disagree that our melting pot was a critical factor in making us the great country we are?

Isn’t it possible that the problem is not ethnicity but intended major? Harvard essentially invented the liberal arts education in this country, and they cannot build a freshman class entirely with engineering and hard science majors. Forty percent of their freshmen’s intended majors are social sciences and humanities. Yes, it’s a stereotype, but it’s been very true in my neighbors and acquaintances that Asian parents don’t want their kids to major in humanities and social sciences.

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy and the Asian kids tended to be boring and more concerned with test scores and grades than campus life. If Harvard’s past tactics are deemed discriminatory, they’ll be smart enough to find a way to further de-emphasize standardized test scores to maintain some sense of balance.

I went to HYPS schools for undergrad and grad school and think you’re completely wrong. Perhaps you were a legacy and they intimidated you because they actually deserved to be there.

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy and the Asian kids tended to be boring and more concerned with test scores and grades than campus life. If Harvard’s past tactics are deemed discriminatory, they’ll be smart enough to find a way to further de-emphasize standardized test scores to maintain some sense of balance.

They will go test optional-- it is only a matter of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one thing that i really haven't seen anywhere by the defenders of diversity is Why is it so good or even needed. They just assert it, when evidence all over the world shows that bringing together people of different world views, races and religion forcibly under one roof only increases animosity and conflict

Turkey, Serbia, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Itaq, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, India, Myanmar on and on There is not a single country where diversity had worked. And like everywhere in the world, it will fall on the US and plunge this country into chaos

The one I can think of where it worked great is called the United States of America.

And we can certainly debate whether colleges should strive for diversity. The fact is they do, and in the case of private colleges, it is currently their prerogative.

We can also debate whether athletes should have preferences, or other talents... etc.

I call BS on this assertion. It has not worked in the US. Whether you talk about slavery, the bigotry against the Irish, Italians,, Polish or the terrible political divide in this country that has been steadily building in this country since the immigration act of 1965 remade the demographics of the US, diversity had not worked for this country. In fact it has given rise identity politics on both sides

Well, the original countries listed are primarily based on religious differences. What do you propose that the US do about diversity? If you are arguing that diversity is bad then letting in more Asians will also create a diversity problem at Harvard. Following your logic Harvard should be predominantly white--is that your point?