<p>xiggi This is in response to your post #7. I will address it one paragraph at a time.</p>
<p>“The first statement is utterly irrelevant as the “application rate” bears no statistical relevance to the outcome of a selection. There is no validity in claiming than an increase of 100 percent of a particular pool of candidates should yield an equal increase in admitted applicants. That is statistical voodoo, and not unlike most of the claims in that lawsuit.”</p>
<p>You missed the entire point of the complaint. Since the application rates are fluid for different ethnicity, the acceptance rates should also be fluid and not based upon a fixed quota. Quotas have been ruled unlawful and are not allowed.</p>
<p>The same applies to the qualification of the pool. The claims are always based on the a small percentage of top applicants that are rejected by the big name schools that happen to have 10 percent or less admit rates. Unless the claimants had access to the closely kept admission files, there is no way to present claims about the quality of an entire subgroups. Cynically, the same group that objects to be viewed as “all looking alike” seems to sell the notion that the entire pool of Asians happens to be equally qualified.</p>
<p>The claims are based upon those of the top applicants because those are the group of students who are generally the most deserving of admission. Try to make the argument that a “B” student with a 1000 SAT should have been granted admission into the top schools. Yes, the plaintiff’s will have access to " closely kept admission files" under rules of Discovery. Your belief that “there is no way to present claims about the quality of an entire subgroups”, you are wrong about this and this is why you are not trying this case.</p>
<p>“Further, the fact that the admissions have remained stable are de facto ruining the argument of a racial discrimination. For this to be demonstrated through simplistic mathematical averages, the percentage of over-representation of a certain groups should have dipped below the point of equal representation AND the number of URM should have gone the other way. The reality is different: the fastest growing segments of the population are NOT become more represented at school such as Harvard. Again, the stability of admission rate shows the contrary of what is claimed, which is an indirect way to ask for more … over-representation! And a higher pace than it has been so far in terms of population represention.”</p>
<p>Again you are wrong. Quotas are not allowed. Please distinguish percentage of enrollment by ethnicity versus admission rate by ethnicity. I am sure that the plaintiff’s lawyers will point out that the admission rate of Asian Americans are much lower than other ethnicity at each bucket of test scores and GPA.</p>
<p>“Lastly, most arguments of racial preferences will fall flat when the SES are introduced as a variable. The schools will have little problems indicating that they accept LOW numbers of poorer students on a rather uniform scale. In so many words, the schools should be able to demonstrate that they accept more Asians than any other race when they consider family income. If there is an inherent “discrimination” at a school such as Harvard is that they have paid MUCH closer attention to race than they have at increasing the number of lower SES students. And for that last part, we DO have compelling evidence courtesy of Carnevale et al. Evidence that goes well beyond the weak sauce a la Espenshade that is built on the flimsiest and narrowest of evidence such as SAT scores taken out of context.”</p>
<p>Wrong again. Similarly situated SES applicants should have similar admission rates across all ethnicity, I am sure the data will show that low SES Asian American applicants will again have lower admit rates compared to other ethnicity.</p>
<p>There won’t be any winners, but the outcome if debated correctly might end --once for all-- a discussion that has gone nowhere for the longest of times.</p>
<p>There will be a winner and a loser, much like in the college admission process. Given the trend of the Supreme Court to believe racism is no longer a problem, it doesn’t look good for Harvard and other top schools.</p>
<p>As to your comments about “legacies”, you are wrong once more. Washington and Lee is 85%+ White and it admits its legacies at about 50% acceptance rate which is about 2.5 times its normal admit rate. Who do you think is benefiting most by this policy?</p>
<p>pizzagirl comment "Page 27 is a hoot!</p>
<p>This particular phrase is troubling:
"Statistical evidence
reveals that Harvard uses “holistic” admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian
Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to
compete against each other for admission. "</p>
<p>If Asian Americans have higher scores on average, then even if admissions were done by pure lottery (take 1 out of every X Asian-Amer, whites, Hisp, Afr Am, etc.) then the “lottery-admitted” Asian American pool would have higher stats than the lottery-admitted white pool, the lottery-admitted Hisp pool, and so forth. That doesn’t prove “holding to a higher standard” - it just means that the overall pool “floats higher.”"</p>
<p>Your math and logic seem to be off. You assume in a lottery that all applicants will be put in the drawing pool. Believe it or not only “qualified applicants” get into this drawing pool. The argument of the lawsuit is that there are higher percentage of Asian Americans who meet the qualification levels to be a “qualified applicant”, thus if a lottery was done, more Asian Americans would be selected out of the drawing pool.</p>
<p>sally305 comments “Oh, good grief. This might be THE most desperate attempt ever of a student to get into Harvard.”</p>
<p>This lawsuit is not about this one student who wants to get into Harvard, but the bigger picture of racial discrimination in the admission process. This is about ending racial discrimination disguised as “holistic admission.”</p>
<p>Parent1337 comment “Why can’t a private institution do whatever it pleases? Does the government find some way to mess with their business via grant qualifications and such? Just curious.”</p>
<p>If a private institution does not receive federal and/or state funds, they can do what they please, but every college receives federal and/or state funds. Harvard for example received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funds each year and that does not include student loans/pell grants and other federal financial aid.</p>
<p>Periwinkle comments “It’s a debate over whether the university should prize intellect, or future leaders. I don’t personally think high test scores are proof of intellect. Standardized tests tend to favor people who are strong in both math and critical reading.”</p>
<p>Believe it or not, intellect and leadership are not mutually exclusive. Although some will agree with you that “don’t personally think high test scores are proof of intellect”, I’m pretty sure low test scores are proof positive of low intellect. Many would say the same about GPA. Harvard uses test scores in its admission decision so it does have value for Harvard’s purposes. If the tests are so meaningless do away with them in the admission process but most colleges use them, yes, even those schools that are test optional.</p>