Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too long to read, but my opinion is that AA should be removed because it always makes the minorities "less than". I mean that they are always perceived to have been given an unfair leg up and the perception (often incorrect) is that they were only admitted because they were Black etc. Many of these kids are equally as smart as other kids and don not deserve any kind of asterix next to their name.
I think the playing field should be level so it is known that everyone there has earned their spot. Maybe AA was required years ago when there really was a different in opportunity but now there are so many qualified minorities and access to testing materials is free (Khan Academy) for anyone who wants it, so I don't think AA is required anymore. It is outdated in my opinion and I actually think it does more damage than good by being divisive.

So “the playing field should be level” when it comes to entering college — although the playing fields are far from “level” prior to that point. I guess that will work out quite well for those who’ve been privileged all along.

Bitter laugh. I’m not even sure where to begin here. “Divisive”? Is that “divisive” and “damaging” like the legacies of centuries of systematic discrimination? That kind of divisive? Or were you thinking of some OTHER type of “divisive” and “damage”?

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too long to read, but my opinion is that AA should be removed because it always makes the minorities "less than". I mean that they are always perceived to have been given an unfair leg up and the perception (often incorrect) is that they were only admitted because they were Black etc. Many of these kids are equally as smart as other kids and don not deserve any kind of asterix next to their name.
I think the playing field should be level so it is known that everyone there has earned their spot. Maybe AA was required years ago when there really was a different in opportunity but now there are so many qualified minorities and access to testing materials is free (Khan Academy) for anyone who wants it, so I don't think AA is required anymore. It is outdated in my opinion and I actually think it does more damage than good by being divisive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

And all the biased questions that are easier for certain people

Certain people = studied hard and prepaRared

Certain people = bad personalities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

Harvard and others should consider cutting back on their number of sports (especially the ones mostly wealthy kids play). Many hardly generate interest on campus attendance wise. Ask Stanford about trying to do that though...

Revenue sports actually add to most schools' diversity.

Anonymous wrote:To the short-sighted Asian parents, enjoy your short-lived victory. The only real repercussion for the dismantling of AA is that mediocre white men will get an extra leg up on everyone else. This is just cementing white supremacy. Why would conservative white men advocate on behalf of Asian students unless they think they have something to gain from doing away from the current system?

Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

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?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

DC. I attended a Public School. This was definitely the case at least through the ‘80s. I took the SAT once, Achievement tests in (I think) 3 subject areas, and one AP exam — which included a hand written essay. No coaching, no specific prep materials. I got into Harvard and Yale, among other schools. The good part about that is that it was a very low stress experience, because I had no idea that the scores were important.

No one advised me about choosing schools, or helped me in any way with the essays — which were different for each application.

So a lot more kids are taking the tests, a lot more kids are taking them more than once (I didn’t realize that you could do this then), and a lot of families and schools are doing coaching and tutoring — even in primary grades — with the eventual goal of scoring well on these tests.

Where was this?

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too long to read, but my opinion is that AA should be removed because it always makes the minorities "less than". I mean that they are always perceived to have been given an unfair leg up and the perception (often incorrect) is that they were only admitted because they were Black etc. Many of these kids are equally as smart as other kids and don not deserve any kind of asterix next to their name.
I think the playing field should be level so it is known that everyone there has earned their spot. Maybe AA was required years ago when there really was a different in opportunity but now there are so many qualified minorities and access to testing materials is free (Khan Academy) for anyone who wants it, so I don't think AA is required anymore. It is outdated in my opinion and I actually think it does more damage than good by being divisive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

And all the biased questions that are easier for certain people

Certain people = studied hard and prepared