Harvard & UNC lawsuits: LEGACY PREFERENCE

Parents Forum
361

<p>

</p>

<p>Just a few of observations:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>This thread was about the lawsuit and the claim of discrimination. That lawsuit is almost entirely based on stats and almost every stat presented is based on a very narrow metric, namely the slightly better SAT scores. From there, the plaintiffs use unwarranted assumptions and falsehoods such as claiming that Asians applicants represent 46 percent of the qualified applicants. Again, solely based on an unverifiable (and ludicrous by all standard) definition. The rest is a statistical presentation extrapolated from the ratio of Asians applying versus admitted, with the self-serving position that the ratio should be proportional. In so many words, it is all about stats, and for a good reason: there is little else that could serve as a basis for such a lawsuit. If you think this is a matter that goes beyond stats, you might tell that to the plaintiffs.</p></li>
<li><p>There was already a thread regarding Asians, and it was closed with traffic redirected to another area of CC where such discussions have raged for close to a decade. This thread was restarted to focus on legacies. Unless one wants to debate the differences in legacy races, I believe that this thread will be closed. In so many words, it is safe to assume that everything that needed to be said about Asian admissions at Harvard or the impact of tiger parenting has been said multiple times in this forum. Hence the prior closing of the thread that turned out in a repetitive recycling of old arguments. </p></li>
<li><p>The discussion is not improved when people start reposting the same arguments that have been presented --accepted as plausible or entirely debunked-- over and over again, and especially when the posting is a simplistic position. It is the nature of a discussion forum, but when it derails a thread into a circular and unproductive cycle, it just means the thread has again exhausted its value. </p></li>
<li><p>I am as guilty as others who restarted focusing on Asians. My point here is that repeating the same arguments will cause this thread to be closed again. At the expense of the posters who might want to see the discussion about legacies continue. </p></li>
</ol>

362

<p>Kenzaburo You make a very fine point but a great deal of posters want to believe in “holistic” being used for good (i.e. affirmative action, diversity in interests, demographics etc) To some degree, Adcoms try to spread the wealth to satisfy the “good” but at the end of the day, the bottom line is Adcoms want the “best” students and those students generally come from High SAT and High GPA students. Guess who has these two stats in abundance? Yep, the Asian applicants. So it is not uncommon to see a large Asian population at top schools. </p>

<p>The lawsuits are also focused on the Legacy preference because until the top schools most dominate race is non-white, legacy preferences will always disproportionally benefit Whites. It is a subtle way to discriminate without appearing to do so. We hear how Legacies are stronger than the general applicant, if that is the case, then Legacies will do just fine without the preferential treatment. But we all know that is not the case, because the boost is not just a preference, it is a huge bump. According to Yang in his article, it takes an applicant from 5% at Harvard to 50% acceptance rate. A ten fold increase based solely on birthright.</p>

363

<p>head smack</p>

364

<p>

</p>

<p>Why am I thinking that TexasPG is keenly aware of that! That as well as understanding perfectly the plight of Asians in terms of admissions. </p>

<p>Fwiw, I find it quite remarkable that people interested in this cause are so quick to demonize someone as Yang, or even the Asians groups who spoke against the Ed Blum lawsuit by claiming “We are not your wedge.” In the end, if there is one common denominator, it is that love to dismiss arguments that in fact are meant to … help them and their cause. </p>

<p>But that is a very old story! </p>

365

<p>This article is not 100% on point but I was reading it and did think it relevant to the discussion, at least with respect to how heavily weighting test scores for admissions can have negative consequences: </p>

<p><a href=“The Cutthroat World of Elite Public Schools - The Atlantic”>The Cutthroat World of Elite Public Schools - The Atlantic;

366

<p>

</p>

<p>If wishes were horses …</p>

<p>How many of these posters are H adcoms? None? Thought so …</p>

367

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem with meritocracy (e.g., in sports, arts etc.) is that those with less merit get left out completely.</p>

368

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah right, show me those stats of applicants who applied to Harvard to those other majors who just couldn’t get in despite 2400 SATs.</p>

<p>I don’t think of myself as Asian despite my kids get lumped into that category simply because of where I was born. I really find it hard to find many among Asians rearing to be drama or writing majors who are getting turned down. Most of those not getting in - STEM.</p>

369

<p>

</p>

<p>Why the aggressive tone? This is not a forum of H adcoms, and nobody here has made such claim. All of us have the right to express our opinions based on various degrees of education, interest or experience. </p>

370

<p>@Kenzaburo, I have no idea what that comment is supposed to mean but many people who don’t have enough skill in one aspect of a sport or art can and do contribute in other areas, such as coaching, curating, or editing. Many posters here seem to want to boil complicated issues down to a binary in/out or yes/no, which is simplistic, misleading, and wrong. </p>

371

<p>xiggi I agree with you about Kenzaburo comment, not sure what the problem is there?</p>

<p>Apparently you were wrong about texaspg and your defense of him based upon his most recent posting.</p>

<p>tex I would love to show you the data as soon as Harvard provides the data I requested, it shouldn’t take too long probably another 20 or 30 years. I’ve got pull with a Harvard insider, so the wait time is much shorter.</p>

<p>Kenzabura What is wrong with meritocracy? Do you know a better way to fill NBA rosters than by ability? or who gets into Olympic finals? or job selection? or anything else for that matter. How else should selection be based upon?</p>

372

<p>" If Harvard wanted to limit STEM then it could do like Cornell and require applicants to choose their college of engineering or the arts etc. for admission into each department within Harvard if this was such a concern."</p>

<p>Cornell’s College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) like most others of its type elsewhere, also houses STEM majors: Physics, chemistry, Biology, computer science. Applicants to that college do not apply to a specific major within CAS. They are free to explore and choose a major later on.</p>

<p>It would be undesirable to force a 17 year old to specify a particular major
within CAS before matriculation, given how often students change their minds about that. And also they really don’t want to make it very difficult to change majors within the college, for that very reason
(i.e. that so many change their minds). So there are few obstacles from changing from humanities to STEM majors,or vice versa, once someone is there, nor do they want there to be.</p>

<p>However, I have to imagine CAS admissions has some idea of the likely subject interest profile of the
entering class, by reading the applications. And they probably have guidelines gearing this profile to have some correspondence with the staffing they have in the various subject areas.
That only makes sense, doesn’t it?</p>

<p>From the university’s perspective, it makes much more sense to admit students based on its
staffing and what subjects it offers than to try to change its staffing to accommodate students who feel they are entitled to attend there, regardless of any priorities of the university to populate their subject areas appropriately. IMO.</p>

<p>And they probably have to be wary of the applicant who clearly has a STEM type profile, from the application. but claims he is going to major in Philosophy, or whatever, in the hopes that this garners some admissions advantage.
Because at the end of the day such applicants may be more likely to be swelling the ranks of the
STEM subjects, beyond the proportions that the university has targeted for those majors.</p>

<p>So I think it’s probably a challenge to limit particular types of majors within CAS,
except by admitting based on profile indicated in the application,</p>

<p>As far as I’m aware Harvard College has similar majors to cornell’s CAS, so they include STEM
majors within it. They are not going to require pre-frosh to select specific majors just to accomodate some non-institutional priority. They need to select students based on their institutional staffing. Seems to me. as best they can, which may involve some reasonable assumptions that may not always
be correct in each individual case.</p>

373

<p>VOR, I wrote this “Why am I thinking that TexasPG is keenly aware of that! That as well as understanding perfectly the plight of Asians in terms of admissions.”</p>

<p>I was not “defending” TPG. He does not need me for that! I stand by my words. </p>

374

<p>Why does this issue so often get the NBA comparison? </p>

<p>Kenzaburo is a new poster- he/she will need to, as we all have, learn more of posters’ backgrounds and perspectives over time. Respectfully, I’m not putting my resume out to anyone just because a challenge is issued. Nor do I need to know others’ specific experience to decide, more or less, whether their positions may have some validity. Or interest. On an anon forum, we represent ourselves through our words and attitudes.</p>

375

<p>moneydad Point well taken. However, the point of my post was if colleges wanted to limit based upon desired majors, it could. Nothing more. However to further clarify, a student may change majors, but that doesn’t mean that the school allows the change if room does not exist. There are many schools that require competitive admissions into majors so wanting to change from a French major to Biology major might not be in the cards for some wanting to change. This is also the case for Cornell et. al. </p>

<p>xiggi whatever you say. I think your buddy @fabrizio would say your a chameleon of sorts.</p>

376

<p>May we please save references to an outside poster to the thread he (consistently) appears on and skip the personal prodding? Thanks.</p>

377

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe in meritocracy. But as the example of the New York exam schools show - people with less merit do not. It is understandable. I wish I were Robert De Niro, too, without putting in the effort.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It was supposed to mean exactly what it said, people with less merit often complain about meritocratic systems.</p>

378

<p>QuantMech, more Asian faculty children would not lead to more Asian students from the faculty children pool. Harvard has 2,400 faculty members. The children of such faculty members can’t all go to Harvard, because there wouldn’t be space for anyone else. Harvard also doesn’t want a student body consisting solely of the children of professors–as high-scoring, intellectual, and all-around-nice as they might be.</p>

379

<p>My last comment on this topic but if the people who get to decide what merit is stand to benefit from that definition, I’d complain too. “Merit” is not some Platonic form concept. </p>

<p>If “merit” is broadly and comprehensively defined, then you would expect other factors (such as race) to appear at the environmental rate, unless one wants to make the claim that merit is somehow asymmetrically distributed across the population, a claim I would definitely not make but others may want to try on. I would claim that since we don’t see that in college populations, “merit” is not well-defined in admissions. </p>

380

<p>

</p>

<p>That would require each faculty member having one kid every year during tenure at Harvard, ending with some 30+ odd kids at retirement.</p>