Anonymous wrote:I wish we had an admission process where the applicant is merely designated with a number and there is no indication of race or other identifying information pertaining to ethnicity.

Then go ahead and use the holistic approach and it would be interesting to see which students were offered admission.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

To continue the wild generalizations and stereotyping, what about the Asian kids who have come from the same economic background as other you are in the candidates, but who have worked their asses off studying and spending whatever Time they have available on education? Those who go to kaman instead of equally expensive sporting events?

If you have an Asian kid from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background, then they ought to make that known in the application. That kid with perfect scores does very well. If you want to make an argument that economic advantage ought to be considered more seriously than race/ethnicity, I'm right there with you.

But people would still cry Aff. Action because a disproportionate number of Blacks and Latinos are lower SES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought below was an interesting perspective from a Yahoo poster. Usually Yahoo comments are despicably racist but I thought this comment was interesting even though I disagree on one of his opinions.

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
WJ Alden • 17 hours ago
As a private university, Harvard should have the right o admit whomever it wants. Of course most people at Harvard don't think businesses should have the right to hire whomever they want, so I guess they can't use that argument.

However, while Asians in the US may do better, on average, than non-Asians, they do not outperform the rest of us to a degree that suggests they should be >20% of Ivy League student bodies. Whether in politics, business, or culture, the evidence just isn't there. Are universities supposed to stick purely to grades and test scores - on which Asians do really, really well - to decide whom to admit, or can they look at post-college performance to understand that those aren't great predictors of our future elite?

If you look at just grades and test scores you could probably make a strong case that elite universities are discriminating against Asians. A look at post-college success, though, greatly weakens the case.

Of course not. It's still white's world out there. I must tell you, I am tired of people making Asian kids so one dimentional - like they can't do anything other than GPA and test scores. The fact that they perform at a higher level (w/ GPA/test scores) doesn't mean they can't do other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:admissions committees will say they use a 'holistic" approach; like X played they bagpipes and we don't have a bagpipe player so she got the nod over Y who had slightly higher grades and SATs but only played the violin, and we have tons of those. The courts will not tell Harvard what criteria it must use in shaping its classes.

Kinda sounds like using "fit" in hiring decisions. Excellent way to continue discrimination.

Not really. That's what the current law is. The Supreme Court will never ban affirmative action,

You do know that affirmative action is not restricted just to ethnicity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

To continue the wild generalizations and stereotyping, what about the Asian kids who have come from the same economic background as other you are in the candidates, but who have worked their asses off studying and spending whatever Time they have available on education? Those who go to kaman instead of equally expensive sporting events?

If you have an Asian kid from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background, then they ought to make that known in the application. That kid with perfect scores does very well. If you want to make an argument that economic advantage ought to be considered more seriously than race/ethnicity, I'm right there with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

To continue the wild generalizations and stereotyping, what about the Asian kids who have come from the same economic background as other you are in the candidates, but who have worked their asses off studying and spending whatever Time they have available on education? Those who go to kaman instead of equally expensive sporting events?

And what about the non-Asian kids who have come from high, middle, and poor economic backgrounds who work their asses off studying and foregoing sports, etc, and who could not afford expensive Kaplan preps and met and exceeded labeled expectations but are still under the label of affirmative action even though they earned it the good old fashion way.

Sure would be nice to have that label removed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

CalTech is dedicated to the sciences. Not everyone wants to be one or go to CalTech.

I also agree that the holistic view is the better bet overall for everyone. Nobody wants a room full of Stepford kids.

According to that report, something like 30% of the admitted kids are legacy. Talk about Stepford.

30% of Asian or 30% of white?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

To continue the wild generalizations and stereotyping, what about the Asian kids who have come from the same economic background as other you are in the candidates, but who have worked their asses off studying and spending whatever Time they have available on education? Those who go to kaman instead of equally expensive sporting events?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

To continue the wild generalizations and stereotyping, what about the Asian kids who have come from the same economic background as other you are in the candidates, but who have worked their asses off studying and spending whatever Time they have available on education? Those who go to kaman instead of equally expensive sporting events?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

CalTech is dedicated to the sciences. Not everyone wants to be one or go to CalTech.

I also agree that the holistic view is the better bet overall for everyone. Nobody wants a room full of Stepford kids.

According to that report, something like 30% of the admitted kids are legacy. Talk about Stepford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

CalTech is dedicated to the sciences. Not everyone wants to be one or go to CalTech.

I also agree that the holistic view is the better bet overall for everyone. Nobody wants a room full of Stepford kids.

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And nobody but nobody gets into Harvard or any other Ivy with substandard grades. Period.

AA or Latinos do.

Your intention is to race bait, pure and simple. And for what it's worth, not every Asian or white student who applies has a perfect SAT score and perfect GPA. But contrary to your belief, there are AA and Latino students who DO have better scores. But they are not recognized for their academic success. They are accused of getting in because of affirmative action. What is your excuse for the 1.6% American Indians who are admitted. Kick them to the curb too? Don't you people ever get enough?

Show me the data. Make me a believer.

Nobody has to cater to you. You can google just like everybody else does. You are not exceptional and no one should kowtow to you because you don't want to believe. That's a personal problem. Do your own research.

Yeah sure. I thought so.

Not the PP you're trying to be sarcastic with, but your position is untenable: that there are no AA's or Latinos with perfect SAT scores and grades? Um, that's just silly. I'm married to one.

Anonymous wrote:Why not let the market handle this at this point? If Caltech is better at picking students than Harvard, than over time, Harvard will start doing what Caltech is doing. After all, Harvard wants successful alum as much as Caltech does, right? They want that magic combination of big donors and big names in academia and politics and science, right? So, if Caltech's way (of not giving any leg up to students from disadvantaged group) is better at predicting those outcomes, then it will win out. If it isn't, then forcing Harvard to do it their way is forcing Harvard to pick a set of students that isn't as good as what it could have picked with its more "holistic" view. Personally, I'm betting the more holistic view is the better bet. Because I'd rather have an URM student with 50 fewer SAT points because he/she didn't take the prep class but a much greater sense of the real world than yet another white or Asian kid who took Kaplan and Kumon and hasn't dealt with any real adversity in life. But let's let the market decide. now we have an experiment out there in Caltech, so let's see what happens.