Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

No. A quota is what was at issue in Bakke. The school set aside a specific number of spots for minorities.
And read what I said: making sure all races (not certain races) are MORE proportionally represented is not a quota.
This is not a case involving quotas

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Princeton?

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics

In 2015, the Education Department cleared Princeton University of bias against Asian applicants -- after a nine-year investigation in which it reviewed such data.

The reason Asian-American applicants have such a tough time getting into Princeton, OCR concluded, was that everyone has a tough time getting into Princeton.

The OCR report found that there are so many highly qualified applicants to Princeton that the university rejects many with stellar if not perfect academic records. And OCR found that Asians could also be found among some of the less than perfect applicants, as well....

Princeton also told OCR (and the agency confirmed), “that less than stellar grades or test scores do not mean that an applicant is automatically foreclosed from admission. OCR in its file review found examples of applicants who did not have the highest quantifiable qualifications, such as grades and test scores, who were nonetheless admitted by the university based on other qualities and the overall strength of their applications. Some of these applicants were Asian.

“The university reported to OCR that the university ‘frequently accepted to the Class of 2010 applicants from Asian backgrounds with grades and test scores lower than rejected non-Asian applicants.’

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Princeton?

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics

Anonymous wrote:The bias is not used to determine the development candidates. The incredibly rich kids get in, with much lower standards, and that’s life. The reason the bias against Asians exist is because they want to preserve their culture. That’s also why they use legacy so much. Legacy is also another way to favor their longstanding culture and yes can race is a part of culture. Do you know why MIT’s demographics are really different than Harvard? Because they aren’t interested in culture. They are interested in have the best math and science candidates. The culture of institutions like Harvard and Yale are built on wealthy white elite culture. It’s still amazing that a supposedly liberal community like the DC metro area doesn’t understand the idea of white privilege. When the top of the pyramid is white- CEOs, University Deans, even just the overwhelmingly white alumni reading apps, the bias is just simply there. Harvard’s own internal study found it. Unfortunately, instead of just addressing it, they buried it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a simple way to fix this. Harvard first sets a floor on what it will take to be considered "qualified" to attend Harvard. They can set this floor however they like, but it has to be the same for all races. Then have a third party firm, anonymize ALL Applications. They read through the application and remove anything that would help identify the race of the applicant, including zipcode. They also toss out any application that does not meet the floor.

They then forward the apps to Harvard. Harvard can use any criteria it wants to pick its class. They assign ranks to all their applicants. and pick the top 2000. After this is done, only the URM applicant pool (but not names) is revealed to them. So they will know that applicant #31938 is black from North Dakota. and 20,987 is Hispanic from Texas.

Now lets say that the resulting class is 2% black and they want to increase that to 6%. They now have a choice.

Eject one non URM applicant out of the pool and get one URM in or balance between one URM and another. They don't know who they are ejecting. They only know their ranking in the pool. They stop when their diversity goal is reached.

That should be the final admitted class.

I think the deal is that URM stats are so much lower that if you did this, you would end up with very few in the pool.

this. It's the reason why pure SES based affirmative action is pushed back upon. Studies show if we used the Israeli model here (they use SES based affirmative action for their universities), URM populations would drastically fall because URM academic scores are so low and there are a lot of poor Asians out there with much higher scores.

There was a study by brookings that showed that the poorest Asians scored as high, if no higher, than the richest blacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a simple way to fix this. Harvard first sets a floor on what it will take to be considered "qualified" to attend Harvard. They can set this floor however they like, but it has to be the same for all races. Then have a third party firm, anonymize ALL Applications. They read through the application and remove anything that would help identify the race of the applicant, including zipcode. They also toss out any application that does not meet the floor.

They then forward the apps to Harvard. Harvard can use any criteria it wants to pick its class. They assign ranks to all their applicants. and pick the top 2000. After this is done, only the URM applicant pool (but not names) is revealed to them. So they will know that applicant #31938 is black from North Dakota. and 20,987 is Hispanic from Texas.

Now lets say that the resulting class is 2% black and they want to increase that to 6%. They now have a choice.

Eject one non URM applicant out of the pool and get one URM in or balance between one URM and another. They don't know who they are ejecting. They only know their ranking in the pool. They stop when their diversity goal is reached.

That should be the final admitted class.

I think the deal is that URM stats are so much lower that if you did this, you would end up with very few in the pool.

Anonymous wrote:What about Yale?

Anonymous wrote:Here is a simple way to fix this. Harvard first sets a floor on what it will take to be considered "qualified" to attend Harvard. They can set this floor however they like, but it has to be the same for all races. Then have a third party firm, anonymize ALL Applications. They read through the application and remove anything that would help identify the race of the applicant, including zipcode. They also toss out any application that does not meet the floor.

They then forward the apps to Harvard. Harvard can use any criteria it wants to pick its class. They assign ranks to all their applicants. and pick the top 2000. After this is done, only the URM applicant pool (but not names) is revealed to them. So they will know that applicant #31938 is black from North Dakota. and 20,987 is Hispanic from Texas.

Now lets say that the resulting class is 2% black and they want to increase that to 6%. They now have a choice.

Eject one non URM applicant out of the pool and get one URM in or balance between one URM and another. They don't know who they are ejecting. They only know their ranking in the pool. They stop when their diversity goal is reached.

That should be the final admitted class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.

That's nonsense. MAKING SURE THAT A CERTAIN RACE IS [b]proportionally represented is the very definition of a quota[/b]. You cannot racially balance unless you have a quota in mind. Otherwise what does it mean to racially balance? And quotas are illegal. That is very clear. So when you say hey "2% blacks" is too less but "10 percent is ok" and I will shape my class based on that, you are enforcing a quota and the Supreme court has said that is illegal.

If you were not racially balancing your class, one year you would get 2% blacks, one year you would get 10%. Your number would depend on the applicant pool.

Anonymous wrote:The bias is not used to determine the development candidates. The incredibly rich kids get in, with much lower standards, and that’s life. The reason the bias against Asians exist is because they want to preserve their culture. That’s also why they use legacy so much. Legacy is also another way to favor their longstanding culture and yes can race is a part of culture. Do you know why MIT’s demographics are really different than Harvard? Because they aren’t interested in culture. They are interested in have the best math and science candidates. The culture of institutions like Harvard and Yale are built on wealthy white elite culture. It’s still amazing that a supposedly liberal community like the DC metro area doesn’t understand the idea of white privilege. When the top of the pyramid is white- CEOs, University Deans, even just the overwhelmingly white alumni reading apps, the bias is just simply there. Harvard’s own internal study found it. Unfortunately, instead of just addressing it, they buried it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No - both of which is legal. Where in the world do you get that use of race in college admissions is illegal?

No. You are wrong. Read what I said carefully. The Supreme Court has said that using race as A FACTOR is legal. Racial Balancing is using race based quotas. That is illegal. and deliberately scoring Asians low on certain scores to bring their admission rates down so that you can balance your class racially is also illegal.

Perfectly legal. And balancing, i.e., making sure all races are more proportionally represented is not a quota.
You're talking out of the plaintiff's play-book here, and they will lose. The use of race in the fashion Harvard is doing it to have a balanced class of the type students they want is perfectly legal.