This lawsuit is getting interesting and might backfire on the people who encouraged the plaintiffs to file the lawsuit. It's no longer about just about Harvard trying to create a racial balance by limiting the number of Asian admits. It has revealed that about 29% of Harvard's admits are legacy, athletes, and the children of wealthy donors. Allegedly, Harvard keeps a list of donors, and their children are given preference.
They are allowed to admit legacy, athletes and children of donors if they want. As if we all didn't know this was going on?? I don't get it. This is kind of a "duh!" moment for me. Yes, they let athletes in. WE know, we know.
The part about keeping Asians at a 26% max is the part that's interesting to me. I like comparing them to CalTech, to show what happens when a school actually is unbiased in their admissions. 43% asian. That's what it should be everywhere if they were all being fair. I also like knowing that they are colluding with the other Ivies to make sure that they all have the same low % of Asians. Nice way to run a school.
Giving preferential treatment to legacy, athletes, and donor applicants has led to less-qualified candidates being admitted. The applicants in these three groups are overwhelmingly white. Of course, there is the "personality" excuse for not admitting more Asians, but if Harvard only stopped the preferential treatment of the groups listed above, there would be more Asians at Harvard.
If Harvard has the right to prefer groups that are overwhelmingly white, then they also have the right to eliminate Asian applicants because of their personality test scores and lack of extracurricular activities. If they're forced to get rid of their secret quota, then all they have to do is put more weight on non-academic credentials to keep the share of Asian students below 30%.
"He received a score of 1270 out of 1600 on the SAT, according to TMZ. The bottom 25% of students admitted had an average score of 1460."
Can a private university give legacy, athletes, and the children of wealthy donors preference? US Gov't Colleges like West Point gives legacy and athletes preferences. Merit does not exist 100%. It's often always about special groups. I admit I benefit from this and it's not right.
Unless there are regulatory requirements as part any government funding they get, a school can choose who to admit and reject based on their own criteria, particularly in highly competitive schools like Harvard.
I've always assumed it was considered general knowledge that the children of wealthy donors, legacies, and highly visible individuals (which would apply to athletes and folks like David Hogg) get preferred treatment. The rest I assumed was based on merit and who brings the best overall package and potential for future success.
I didn't realize there was a cap on Asian students (or any students), which I find interesting and counterintuitive for a school that stresses academic excellence. The rest, as stated so eloquently by dfrecore, should be a "duh" moment.
(01-14-2019, 06:55 PM)Merlin Wrote: Unless there are regulatory requirements as part any government funding they get, a school can choose who to admit and reject based on their own criteria, particularly in highly competitive schools like Harvard.
I think the point is being missed that any school can tweak criteria and application scoring rubrics to discriminate against any group. Getting rid of a cap won't change anything as long as Harvard says that many of the Asian applicants aren't a right "fit." Giving preferential treatment to legacy, athlete, and donor applicants is also counterintuitive for a school that stresses academic excellence.
The courts have already said that colleges and universities have a right to consider race in order to make their student bodies diverse, but people are still suing over it.
Legacy and athlete admits are common knowledge, but it was not known that Harvard was keeping a donor list to hand to the Dean.
I would think athletes would be way more black than white, but maybe I'm only looking at certain big-draw sports like basketball and football?
The whole "personality" thing is just a ruse; totally biased to limit Asians. They are given lower scores automatically, and it's completely subjective (how in the world can you rater personality?). Extra-curricular I'm not certain about. My son already knows that he's going to need lots of extra-curricular stuff to get into a good school. All of the kids who want to be in the Honor Society are required to have a certain number of hours of community service every semester. Same with some of the clubs. So this is not a good excuse not to have EC stuff during HS - they know it's required, and know it's looked at by colleges. That's easy enough to get for anyone.
In another report I read, they accounted for legacy & athletes, and still came up with something like 35% should be Asian based on qualifications.
The fact that the schools are all talking to each other and limiting Asians as a whole is the real problem here. One rogue school might be explained away. But when all of the most prestigious universities all have the exact same numbers, year after year, I think we've got a problem.
(01-14-2019, 07:13 PM)dfrecore Wrote: I would think athletes would be way more black than white, but maybe I'm only looking at certain big-draw sports like basketball and football?
Most of Harvard's athletes are white. You have to keep in mind that elite schools give more attention to sports that aren't popular with people who aren't wealthy and definitely aren't popular with minorities: polo, lacrosse, golf, etc.
Quote: For one, many elite colleges—including Ivy League schools and smaller Division III colleges—don't offer athletic scholarships, so they can't give low-income sports stars a free ride like big, Division I schools can.
I should have played golf instead of basketball.
These stats are from 2005, but it's proof that black athletes are not benefiting from Harvard's admissions practices.
Quote: While the most recent edition of the University of Central Florida's Racial and Gender Report Card (2005) estimates that 20.6 percent of NCAA Division I scholarship athletes are black, Harvard's recruited athletes—who cannot receive scholarships as per the rules of the Ivy League—do not come close to such a percentage.
According to official data obtained by The Crimson, the percentage of black athletes at Harvard not only hovers around a fourth of the national average, but is actually lower than the percentage of African-Americans in the wider student body.
Quote: Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like "positive personality," likability, courage, kindness and being "widely respected," according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.