<p>It probably will not deter a particular group to play the current game, but that is mostly irrelevant as they are not interested in a “dialogue” as much as rehashing the same trite old song. What is might do is either prompt changes at the schools that are targeted or … simply put of lid on the claims by reinforcing that there was no wrongdoing. </p>
<p>It won’t be perfect but, at least, it might bring an end to the confusion about what constitutes a perfectly legal system of preferential admissions that is hardly discriminatory. </p>
<p>Again, I look forward to the last act of this play as the lawsuit will help focus on what is important and relevant. Of course, it would be hypocritical of me to pretend that I am optimistic about the chances of this lawsuit as I consider it woefully inadequate on almost every front, and mostly baseless in its legal challenges. </p>
<p>If there is something positive that might come from a decision that dispel the notions of discrimination is that the future generations of applicants might finally understand that paradigms do involve over time and that the low hanging fruits of yesterday are higher. </p>
<p>On a personal basis, I think that in terms of understanding admissions,not much has changed in the favorite approach by the … vocal crowd. And that is easily confirmed by the “cases” presented in the lawsuit. But heck, it seems that about 20 percent of the successful applicants are indeed smarter as they have cracked the safe! </p>
<p>Guys this is just getting silly. Let’s all act like adults here. I get it that some of you don’t like STEM, but ad vomitus? Come on that’s just plain rude. </p>
<p>By the way I said nothing about who is qualified and who is not. I merely said that if there is an Asian cap then that’s illegal. This is simply per US law where racial discrimination is not allowed for schools receiving Federal money. Anyone disagree with me there?</p>
<p>Please don’t put words in my mouth. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>Well this thread had turned into a STEM degree reigns supreme, and all others are useless and less challenging. Some of us take offense to that.</p>
<p>While this is of course true - my brother majored in art and makes a lot more than most engineers using his degree very directly - from what I’ve read Asian students do in fact choose STEM majors more than other ethnic/racial groups do, especially men and especially when international Asian students are included. </p>
<p>My brother also chose an LAC at which he was a URM, by the way. There are schools and majors within schools that don’t get as many qualified Asian applicants as they’d like. </p>
<p>xiggi, “If there is something positive that might come from a decision that dispel the notions of discrimination is that the future generations of applicants might finally understand that paradigms do involve over time and that the low hanging fruits of yesterday are higher.”</p>
<p>This is where we disagree. There is no dispelling the notions of discrimination. Either Harvard will be found using quotas or they won’t. If Harvard gets the suit dismissed, there is nothing stopping the rightful suspicion that Harvard got away with discriminatory practices.</p>
<p>“As noted earlier, this is despite the fact that, by 2008, Asian Americans made up over 27
percent of Harvard’s applicant pool, and approximately 46 percent of applicants with
academic credentials in the range from which Harvard admits the overwhelming majority
of students.”</p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean by “crowding” an applicant pool. (I don’t mean this pejoratively, but descriptively.) And what i was trying to get to with a hypothetical 30,000 applicants for 1,500 Harvard spots upthread.</p>
<p>Asians are 5% of the US population. They are 27% of Harvard’s applicant pool.
Is any number under 27% evidence that they are discriminated against?</p>
<p>If every Asian in the country “crowded” the applicant pool - such that it was, oh, let’s say, 75% Asian, would Harvard be justified in saying - hey, we don’t want a 75% Asian school?</p>
<p>You can apply this to any other group, btw. Since Jewish students are the other fun ones to play with, right now Jews are 2% of the population and in the neighborhood of 20% of the actual students at elite schools. That might mean that 20% of the applicants are Jewish and they get in fair share - or it might mean that (hyperbole) 80% of the applicants are Jewish but they discriminate against them and hold them to only 20% of the actual students.</p>
<p>What is the % at which one can fairly judge whether someone is overrepresented or underrepresented?
% of the overall population?
% of the overall population within X radius of the school?
% of the overall applicant pool (regardless of qualification)?
% of the overall applicant pool within X radius?
% of the overall applicant pool who has a certain level of qualification (e.g., SAT scores over such-and-such)?</p>
<p>What number is it that once you’ve reached it, you’d say - nope, no discrimination here?</p>
<p>“Hey Periwinkle, what’s the harm if no URM gets into Harvard? After all, as you say, no one is harmed if they don’t get into Harvard?”</p>
<p>The harm is to the students at Harvard. You are less likely to learn about your fellow man if the school is filled with people of similar backgrounds and experiences. </p>
</p>