MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Yup. 22 deleted.
Boy, skieurope must be a killjoy. The thread died after he posted. 
I was wandering the vast wasteland called Internet, digging a bit deeper into college admissions. I did not know that the holistic admission that Harvard uses was created to limit the enrollment of Jewish students in the 1920s! I cannot believe the holistic admission is still allowed in this day and age. Before the holistic admission came about, it was strictly the entrance exam scores that determined the admission. It was completely objective.
Universities and colleges in China, Japan, and Korea use the same entrance exam system. Same in UK and France. The admission to the prestigious universities like Cambridge and Oxford is based on admissions test scores. Same with France’s Grandes écoles. Elite universities and colleges in other countries appear to have (mostly) objective admission process.
It looks like our elite universities are the only ones that appear to use a very subjective admissions process that was originally created to discriminate. I can’t believe people have and are still putting up with this crap process!
Here is an article that I found eye opening on the SFFA lawsuit. It’s published by none other than Harvard’s own Harvard Law Review: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/12/the-harvard-plan-that-failed-asian-americans/
I can see why non-Asian minorities are against the lawsuit and believe the lawsuit is an attack against the Affirmative Action. The opponents are rightfully afraid that if SFFA wins, the seats “reserved” for URMs, not whites, would be given to the Asian-Americans.
I say the lawsuit doesn’t go far enough. The lawsuit is ostensibly against racial discrimination against Asian-Americans but it doesn’t address the other non-academic preferences that hurts Asian-Americans more to the benefit of mostly white students such as legacy, development, z-list, recruited athletes, etc. Is that a separate issue that would necessitate a different lawsuit?
And why is a Jewish guy leading the lawsuit? Where are the groups representing the Asian-American people who are most negatively affected by the current admission process?
It just seems the SFFA lawsuit resulted in Asian-Americans fighting against URMs over a restricted number of seats so graciously set aside by Harvard. Rather, shouldn’t Asian-American get together with other URMs and fight against bullsh!t non-academic preferences that benefit less academically qualified privileged whites for more objective and fair admission process, i.e., Kushner?
“unhooked” whites could join in this as well. The vast majority of high achieving white students have no legacy, no millions to donate and are not recruited athletes. They are every bit as affected by these preferances as Asian kids. The problem is, those preferances are not illegal in any way. Just because many of us might not like them, or find them unfair, isn’t the basis for any lawsuit. Schools have every right to recruit athetes, reward alumni and cow tow to donors. The current suit is based on the fact that racial discrimination is, in fact, illegal. All those other preferances are not.
I agree on the “unhooked” whites. That’s why I changed to the wording to privileged whites (who are the biggest beneficiary). You say those other preferences are not illegal but why not? Discrimination is discrimination, isn’t it?
ApOstate…
“And why is a Jewish guy leading the lawsuit?”
“Rather, shouldn’t Asian-American get together with other URMs and fight against bullsh!t non-academic preferences that benefit less academically qualified privileged whites for more objective and fair admission process, i.e., Kushner?”
Am I imagining a latent antisemitism? Please clarify your reference to the Jewish lawyer I don’t understand the relevance of the attorneys religious beliefs?
First of all that article you cite Apostate was written by Harvard people so it’s obviously biased. Second of all this is a legal case. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in almost every circumstance. Recruited athletes, legacy, and all that other stuff is an entirely different matter because it is not based on race and is entirely legal. Pro sports discriminates on the basis of athletic ability. This argument is about making admission decisions based on race.
“People may not agree with how Harvard does athletic admissions or legacy but as a private institution that is Harvard’s right to decide.”
@SAY - Just replace “athletic admissions or legacy” with “use of race in admissions” and I think you just got Harvard’s defense argument.
Ap0state
“Yup, you are imagining it. If Blum was an Irish guy, I would’ve said why is an Irish guy leading the lawsuit? I was expressing my puzzlement at why a guy who should have no vested interest in the outcome of the lawsuit pursuing the lawsuit that would benefit an ethnic group that is not his own”.
civil rights act of 1964 proposed by John Kennedy. Yes he was Irish but he recognized and acted against injustices beyond “ethnic groups that are his own”. Loving vs Virginia or Brown vs Board of Ed are all landmark civil rights cases that were advocated for by people of various races and ethnicity but whom shared a common belief in equality and fairness.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Then you must have found it to be a real buzzkill when I deleted a further 8 posts discussing recruited athletes. We give a lot of leeway on this thread, but that was too far offtopic.
@skieurope - No worries. How do you cite or quote another post - i.e. the passage get highlighted in grey - in your post? Is that a function not available to new users?
@Nocreativity1 - Kennedy was the President of the United States. It’s his duty and responsibility to act on behalf of ALL American people, “beyond ethnic groups that are his own.” To paraphrase Senator Bentsen, Blum is no Jack Kennedy.
One difference between you and I is that I see Jews as an ethnic group while you see them as a religious group but that’s entirely another conversation.
Judaism is a religion, Islam is a religion, Hindu is a religion, Catholic is a religion. Don’t want to get banned by responding off topic but “Jews are an ethnic group” is the basis for generations of anti semitism.
It’s available to all. See this thread.
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/community-forum-issues/1290677-how-to-quote-posts-tutorial.html#latest
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Since the definition of Jewish in the context above has nothing to do with college, let’s move on, please. And I trust that I will not have to edit out sentences where users who AFAIK do not know each other IRL feel the need (or find it appropriate) to attach pejorative labels to other users based upon internet postings.
Race, religion, culture or whatever of the person leading the law suit matters little because it’s not personal for him. He is a political activist representing ultra right wing interest. Just doing is job, so to speak. The suit is funded by a right wing organization.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I have said many times that College Confidential is not a debate society. So let’s not make it worse be attempting to engage a banned poster. Additional posts deleted.
I have to say this thread has been broadening my horizon. I have been equating affirmative action with the Civil Rights Act but it turns out Blum and the SFFA is suing under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. How interesting.
Dig a little deeper. China has regional preferences - different test scores required for different provinces and quotas for students within the province of the university. The most desirable universities are much harder for rural kids to get into, for instance.
Oxford-Cambridge is not a test entry system. While British students take A levels and these are important as are grades etc., those who make that cut then go through a detailed interview (with a professor in the major they are applying to) and THAT is what determines who gets in at that point.
I’m not as familiar with Korea, Japan or France’s systems.