Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

Anonymous wrote:Might have made a mistake w/ the code:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

The biggest change will be number of women. It will take longer, but once race is disallowed, there will be lawsuits using the same logic challenging the use of gender. Right now, girls out preform boys across the board in high school.

+1 especially all-women/ all-men schools will see lawsuits, especially considering the politics around LGBTQ rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

The biggest change will be number of women. It will take longer, but once race is disallowed, there will be lawsuits using the same logic challenging the use of gender. Right now, girls out preform boys across the board in high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

It simply isn't true that these schools are as coveted as USNWR makes it out to be. Harvard has a low admissions percentage, but it gets less than half the number of applicants that other colleges get. Of the more than 2 million high school students who apply to college only a little over 1% even apply to Harvard. This is an issue of interest to far fewer people than you may believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.