Maybe they did get in but the admissions office winged the wong number o

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

The personality criteria reminds me of two things: The student evaluations which professors receive, and the criteria among tenure criteria for professors that they be "collegial". Both of these have been long the subject of criticism within the academic community.

There are studies which show that more attractive people routinely receive higher student evaluations, as do men. Even when students take a course online, they routinely rate a professor higher if they think he is male. Men are more likely to be described as 'brilliant', a 'genius', etc. (also, studies have shown that letters of recommendation look different depending on factors like the race and gender of the person being rated. A man is more likely to be described as brilliant while a woman is more likely to be described in physical terms or congratulated on her ability to balance her studies with her family responsibilities).

On the subject of collegiality, it's been found that people generally rate people as collegial (or likeable) if they are similar to themselves. In some ways, it's the "would you like to have a beer with him" question -- among the people you might not like to have a beer with, you can include the Mormon guy, the woman in the hijab, the overweight divorced woman, etc. We shouldn't be making decisions about who to hire in our workplaces based on how comfortable we feel with them, but on the quality of their work.

The problem with only taking students who are likeable, is that from what I understand Albert Einstein was a bit of an asshole, Temple Grandin makes people uncomfortable, you might have to work a little harder to joke around with the deaf guy, the woman in the hijab, etc. I suspect that likeability basically means "this person is similar to me."

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

^^^PP is either drunk or mentally disadvantaged.

Asians in general are stupid when it comes to white folk.

No offense. Harvard was created by rich WASPs and for rich WASPs.

White folks are not all the same. White Jews and Catholics have be heavily discrimated. Italians, Pollacks and Krouts too. And white folks can be different countries, races, religions etc and also immigrants.

My Asian friends will call me American cause I am white but call themselves Chinese, Indian or Korean etc.

Meanwhile white flood have nationalities too. Irish, Italian etc.

Anonymous wrote:The whole diversity position that Harvard takes is totally hypocritical. They want "certain" kinds of diversity and not others. They are not saying all kinds of diversity is good, they are saying "only certain kinds of diversity is good.

Diversity they don't particularly care for or try to seek out in their admission process

1) Conservative applicants
2) Non Jewish white kids ( most of the white kids on campus are Jewish). Non Jewish whites are severely underrepresented on campus, but who cares
3) Multi-generational Blacks and Hispanics. This is the dirty little secret that Harvard never talks about. Most of the "so called African Americans and Latinos they recruit are first generation immigrants or immigrants themselves. It is all a shell games
4) URM Asians. There are those also but Harvard never publishes stats on them either.

It’s the typical liberal hypocrisy you’ll find embedded in higher education. They’ll bend over backwards and relax all sorts of criteria to get blacks and Latinos......those are the right kind of diversity candidates

Anonymous wrote:There are double the amount of African Americans in the United States then Asians.

Harvard has way way more Asians than Africans Americans admitted each year.

Harvard is a private school who only uses GPA and ACT/SAT as part of metrics.

Ironic that they want to go to a place they think is terrible and they are suing.

You seem especially dim. Read about the llawsuit before spouting off worthless and factually incorrect idiocies.

The whole diversity position that Harvard takes is totally hypocritical. They want "certain" kinds of diversity and not others. They are not saying all kinds of diversity is good, they are saying "only certain kinds of diversity is good.

Diversity they don't particularly care for or try to seek out in their admission process

1) Conservative applicants
2) Non Jewish white kids ( most of the white kids on campus are Jewish). Non Jewish whites are severely underrepresented on campus, but who cares
3) Multi-generational Blacks and Hispanics. This is the dirty little secret that Harvard never talks about. Most of the "so called African Americans and Latinos they recruit are first generation immigrants or immigrants themselves. It is all a shell games
4) URM Asians. There are those also but Harvard never publishes stats on them either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Florida, with its 6,500 Jewish (out of 33,720 total) undergraduates, edged out out other heavily Jewish public colleges, like University of Maryland and University of Michigan (both with 6,000 plus Jewish undergrads). Two of the top three and four of the top 20 public colleges are in Florida. The private college with the most Jews is New York University, with 6,000 (out of 24,985 total).

Please don’t say “Jews.” Say “Jewish students.”

Everybody calls it NY Jew instead of NYU

>50% of the white admits in our private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are double the amount of African Americans in the United States then Asians.

Harvard has way way more Asians than Africans Americans admitted each year.

Harvard is a private school who only uses GPA and ACT/SAT as part of metrics.

Ironic that they want to go to a place they think is terrible and they are suing.

Care to share the percentage of Jews in the us vs the percentage of Jews at Harvard since you enjoy these types of statistics

Judaism is not a race.

Oh how naive you are

Oh how cryptic and without an informed response you are.

Judaism is not a race.

Particularly not in the arena of college admissions. End period.

Of course Jews and Israelis consider themselves a race. Read the talmud already.

Anonymous wrote:University of Florida, with its 6,500 Jewish (out of 33,720 total) undergraduates, edged out out other heavily Jewish public colleges, like University of Maryland and University of Michigan (both with 6,000 plus Jewish undergrads). Two of the top three and four of the top 20 public colleges are in Florida. The private college with the most Jews is New York University, with 6,000 (out of 24,985 total).

Please don’t say “Jews.” Say “Jewish students.”