<p>I’d bet that H wins easily, based on Simpson’s Paradox. (Great AP Stats item.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice. Very nice.</p>
<p>13 percent of Athletes are Asian. Probably around 5 to 7 percent of legacies are Asian. That is about 30 percent of the school’s students. Harvard recruits in all 50 states including lots of rural areas which hurts Asians. Asians can dominate other areas and Harvard can look like there is discrimination when there isn’t.</p>
<p>for the stat-challenged:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now not suggesting that they’ll find a bias in favor of any group, other than the standard hooks (legacies, athletes, URM’s, one-eyed, left-handed oboe players…)…</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson’s_paradox">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson’s_paradox</a></p>
<p>
I don’t think this is true. Harvard is not a government entity, so I don’t think simply showing disparate impact will be enough for the plaintiffs to prevail (if they can really prove it, which I doubt). No, the plaintiffs will need some kind of smoking gun showing discriminatory intent, and I simply don’t think they’ll find it. No such smoking gun has leaked out of any selective college with respect to Asians, as far as I am aware. The use of holistic review will make it very difficult, if not impossible, even to show unconscious bias.</p>
<p>Exactly, Hunt.</p>
<p>There are really two issues: 1) is the disparate impact real, which is may not be from a true statistical analysis* - see Simpson’s Paradox; and, 2) even if it is real, correlation <> causation. Unless they find meeting minutes/notes/e-mails in the Discovery fishing expedition, suggesting that, ‘don’t accept that kid bcos we already have too many Asians…’, the Obi Wan/Jedi court will say, ‘move along.’</p>
<ul>
<li>Most attorneys are math-challeged, (which is probably why they go to law school in the first place). However, H has plenty of quant jocks…</li>
</ul>
<p>“No, the plaintiffs will need some kind of smoking gun showing discriminatory intent, and I simply don’t think they’ll find it. No such smoking gun has leaked out of any selective college with respect to Asians, as far as I am aware. The use of holistic review will make it very difficult, if not impossible, even to show unconscious bias.”</p>
<p>This is what distinguishes this from the “Jewish problem” of many years ago. At that time, there was widespread animus towards Jews, and plenty of documentation that these schools deliberately wished to limit the number. There is a huge, huge difference between “we don’t want too many of X type” and “we want to ensure that there isn’t too many of ANY type.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, there can also be “we want enough of A, B, C type”, which effectively limits X type, even if that is not the stated intent. It would not be surprising if some of the super-selective schools preferred that their students were plurality white, for marketing purposes, since some white students may not want to attend a school where they are members of a smaller minority group.</p>
<p>
Let’s assume, for a moment, that this is true of Harvard. Let’s also assume that this would be illegal (and I’m not entirely sure that it would be).</p>
<p>How are you going to prove it? Do you think there’s a piece of paper identifying the maximum acceptable percentage of Asian students? Do you think admissions officers are briefed on this policy? I think that’s very, very unlikely.</p>
<p>I think it would be insightful if you could take all the apps that meet whatever minimum standard is deemed reasonable (let’s make it 2100 SAT and a 3.8 hs GPA, just for grins), then have a computer “take” randomly every nth until the class was full, and then see how that class would compare to the real class admitted. Forget race - let’s just take every nth. You might wind up with an uber-supply of certain majors, and not enough of others. You might wind up with an orchestra with all violin players and no oboe players. You might wind up with enough for five tennis teams and no one on the water polo team. You might wind up with a super-over-concentration of people from New England or California. I think a college is entitled to decide that they want a representation of all majors, all musician types, all athletic teams, and all areas of the country. Don’t you?</p>
<p>"Of course, there can also be “we want enough of A, B, C type”, which effectively limits X type, even if that is not the stated intent. "</p>
<p>Yet no one seems to mind that Exeter, Andover, etc. are “overquota’ed” (these schools want enough of those types) and therefore that limits the pool size for kids from normal public schools. Why is that? Why is that a bucket that it’s ok for them to prioritize?</p>
<p>Well, race is a special class, as is religion.</p>
<p>I would note, though, that nobody ever seems to get too upset about the fact that, year in and year out, many highly selective colleges have about the same percentage of male and female students.</p>
<p>Chances of a smoking gun are low. They don’t save files past some minimal time; review notes are carefully written to avoid characterizing by race or other sensitive points. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are numerous problems with accepting what the plaintiffs pretend to possess. The data they have presented hardly supports the precise element they want to demonstrate exists and happens to be illegal. </p>
<p>An additional problem that appears is what a (very smart) writer such as Carey writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/upshot/for-accomplished-students-reaching-a-top-college-isnt-actually-that-hard.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/upshot/for-accomplished-students-reaching-a-top-college-isnt-actually-that-hard.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0</a></p>
<p>Simply stated, the growth in applications might not necessarily represent a growth in students qualified to attend H and sufficiently qualified to warrant an offer of admission. It is good to remember that most numbers presented by the plaintiffs are intimating that one can reduce admissions’ decision to the application of a single metric, namely standardized test scores. As we know, the variances in GPA and rankings are minimal in the pool of students convinced they might be a shoo-in at Harvard --which might be the case of 30,000 vals in the country! </p>
<p>All in all, the statistical evidence and purported imbalance amounts to a big dud! There are simply no support for a theory that would require proportional admissions at a school that accepts about 1 out of every 20 applicants. Further, as soon, as the theory would be implemented, the question about what to use as a denominator would arise. Are SAT scores truly better than a racial proportional distribution? If one seeks equity and equitable distribution, it is fair to attack every element of what constitutes a preference item! </p>
<p>And, lastly, here is another “food for thought” … what if HYPS borrowed a page from Bates or Bowdoin and declared themselves “test optional?” What would be then be left for the lawsuit based on SAT scores and “revised” representation percentages? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Football, basketball and hockey would improve. 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>5 years ago, H wanted 3 subject tests and they changed that to 2 but suggested they preferred applicants take as many as they can to provide a better academic profile. This year they are stating that if a student felt the cost is onerous, they can choose not to take them at all. </p>
<p>SAT is also changing starting 2016 (some kids who took SAT recently think the experimental section is based off of 2016 test and it is too simple - lot more 2400s?). It is considered more academic in nature making it easier for good students.</p>
<p>xiggi Are QUOTAS legal? If they are not, then how does Harvard explain the consistent percentage of Asians (ie quota) year in and year out given that the number of Asian applicants have increased from year to year? </p>
<p>Why can’t the plaintiff show that there is a procedure in place that limits Asian enrollment at Harvard to win their case? See, if each applicant is judged “holistically” and individually then the percentage of Asians or any other ethnicity should be fluid each year and not static. The only way that Harvard or any other institution can have a static enrollment of Asians is by manipulation. Isn’t manipulation in this manner, defacto quota? If so, wouldn’t this be illegal?</p>
<p>Contrary to Hunt’s opinions, the plaintiff only needs to establish a prima facie case, which I think they have. Harvard needs to provide a rebuttal of why the percentage of Asians are consistent year in and year out given that Harvard claims that it looks at each applicant individually and holistically. Harvard will have to explain how in the admission process that it naturally results in the same percentage of Asians being admitted each year. Which I think is going to be their downfall. Unless any of you out there know a method, other than direct manipulation, to result in such specific proportioning of student enrollment based upon race?</p>
<p>I think the percentage of students who are Asians is rising at Harvard. </p>
<p>VOR, it is pretty simple. I do NOT have to explain how quotas work or what they are. I do NOT have to convince you of the legality of Harvard’s practices. And you do not have to repeat the same argument ad nauseam to convince me. And this because the only thing that matters is how successful the plaintiff’s quasi-brief might work in a court setting. </p>
<p>I happen to think that you are misunderstanding the legal process of this federal complaint, but it is OK for you to have an opinion different from mine. Obviously, you also seem to think the brief filed was compelling, and that is OK. We ought to agree to disagree. In the meantime, I repeat once more that I welcomed the filing and that I would like to see a process of discovery. Not because I think there is one iota of validity in the claims but because I’d love this issue to be debated in terms of evidence as opposed through anecdotes and voodoo-pseudo scientific analysis. </p>
<p>Again, I can only lament about the fact that, for all the Blum riches, there could not be better examples and a modicum of intelligence and realism in the claim filed. Could your side really not come up with something better? </p>
<p>I can’t believe you don’t understand that it’s not a cap (“we don’t want more than x% of Asians, ever, under any circumstance”) but that it’s a desire to have diversity which just naturally comes out of the hide of whites and Asians.</p>
<p>I bet the size of the pool from Massachusetts has remained generally stable, too. That’s not because there is an internal quota on students from Massachusetts; it’s that the n+1th student from Massachusetts is not as compelling as the first student from North Dakota. </p>
<p>From the U.S. Department of Justice:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>