I guess I’m just not that pessimistic @milee30. Maybe there is some truth to the process as you lay it out, but I’m not sure I agree that it is this big malicious conspiracy with malevolent motives. They only have so many spots. They can’t take everyone. I personally think they are trying to shape the class as best, and yes as FAIRLY, as they can given all of the pressure for the multiple stakeholders that they face. If we think Harvard is the enemy of the people, we have a bigger issue than AA to deal with.
Has absolutely nothing to do with being an enemy - has everything to do with H acting in its own self interest. It’s not evil as I’d define evil, it is simply egotistical and primarily concerned with self promotion and preservation. As for the idea that fairness is even a tiny part of the process… are you perchance interested in buying a bridge? I have one in excellent condition for sale; it’s a once in a lifetime investment opportunity!
It’s much more than that. There’re all sorts of levers (so-called “tips”) that Harvard admissions can pull to alter the outcome to anything Fitzsimmons so desires. How could anyone in good conscience be in favor of a process that totally lacks accountability and transparency, in anything, let alone in super competitive college admissions?
@milee30 I mostly agree with you in terms of Harvard having to whittle down 40K applicants. Although I don’t think all the files then go to Fitzsimmons’ office where he makes the final list. He’s definitely the architect of Harvards program in the sense that Harvard likes to have final say and lots of flexibility on the final choices. Whether they got it right in terms of everyone having a fair shake and opportunity is a definite “No”. There are just too many qualified people. There’s nothing evil about it. The trial does shed light on the methodology of Harvard’s acceptance. That is good. More people who know the system might induce changes. But then again maybe not.
I think there’s a good chance that Fitzsimmons at 74 will retire after the trial ends.
Thanks you for you last post. I think you just nailed it.
While I don’t work in education, I have seen executive level people (one is a house hold name) who don’t use email and its not because they don’t know how.
I have also experienced an executive who gets pissed if you send them an email to confirm a conversation. I just glad it wasn’t me who did that. She ripped that person apart in public. She ripped me apart in front of a bunch of people for not confirming something with her. Quite the leader!
@milee30 the first part of your following quote sounds to me like you are saying the people making Harvard decisions are not very nice people…call it evil or not. And honestly, not sure the sarcasm about the bridge was necessary or productive.
“…it is simply egotistical and primarily concerned with self promotion and preservation. As for the idea that fairness is even a tiny part of the process… are you perchance interested in buying a bridge? I have one in excellent condition for sale; it’s a once in a lifetime investment opportunity!”
We are never going to be able to find a definition of “fair” that makes everyone happy. Let’s see what the courts decide.
Is there a report anywhere that tells us what colleges the Harvard rejects ended up at? Anyone have one? My Harvard-rejected-valedictorian-nearly perfect SAT score and nearly perfect in every way according to her mother-daughter ended up at Georgetown and is killing it, just got an amazing internship in NYC for the coming summer paying her lots of money. She also got into Dartmouth but was ok with giving up the Ivy League for an “inferior” school.
Now I’m the one getting sarcastic, but I can’t help but get a little bent out of shape by all the talk about what’s fair and what’s not. I think we are losing sight of the big picture, people.
This isn’t kindergarten, it’s business and a legal issue. Fair and nice have nothing to do with any of the issues being discussed. How well the rejected applicants do is similarly irrelevant. I have no idea if any of these people are “nice”; simply isn’t relevant. WRF could spend his free time hand feeding orphaned kittens and every kid rejected from H could end up a billionaire… wouldn’t have any bearing on what is being discussed.
The issue is whether H is illegally discriminating using racial criteria and whether H’s tax exempt status violates the tax code.
I’m not a lawyer, and I’m thinking this may have come up already, but if Harvard is ultimately “sued” or stripped of their exempt status, would they have their own case saying they were singled out? I know there is supposedly a similar situation going on with Yale, and maybe there was something on UNC, but is it right or legally right that just Harvard has to go through this right now?
@milee30 your tone was pretty personal and emotional and accusatory in your quote that I thought was you accusing Harvard of being evil. I was playing off of that. I don’t think it’s right to make them sound so deceptive, especially when so many schools probably do the same thing.
Was Rosa Parks getting all bent out of shape when she refused to sit on the back of the bus? Was she losing sight of the big picture, especially given that the bus did take her to her destination?
College is a business. In the case of a college like Harvard, it’s a Big Business with not just millions but actual billions of dollars at stake. The Hs of the world do not achieve or maintain their position through luck or by a primary focus on being nice and fair, they define goals and means to achieve them. They hopefully operate within an ethical framework, but that is also much different than a focus on being nice or fair. Their goal in admissions is to admit a class of students that will help them maintain and advance their position of wealth and influence. The data released as part of the lawsuit makes it clear that the admissions process is not a sentimental one, it is not focused on achieving a good outcome for any particular individual but instead is crafted to select the applicants who will best meet H’s needs. That’s not fair or unfair or mean or nice or evil or good… it’s simple business.
All selective colleges operate with a substantially similar business orientation, but with differences in what they prioritize and the mechanisms they use to achieve their goals.
And - as private entities - colleges have the absolute right to set their own goals and process, no matter how unfair or mean as long as they follow the law.
The question here is whether H is following the law. Is it illegally discriminating against applicants based on race or the use of racial quotas? Does it violate US tax code by providing a benefit for private individuals who are improperly taking tax deductions for their donations?
I suppose H could try the defense of - it’s so unfair you’re picking on us because we’re super nice and why us when everybody is doing it and besides all those Asians end up doing just fine wherever else they go anyways… but it’s tough to picture that holding much weight in court.
“Why are you picking on us?” isn’t going to fly. You can’t refuse a speeding ticket because everyone else was also speeding.
Whether those kids who were rejected did fine at another school is irrelevant. They missed 4 years of experiences at Harvard. If that happened because of race, the school should be punished.
@hebegebe the Rosa Parks example is ridiculous. I don’t think you can compare that situation at all. Being required to sit on the back of the bus vs. being denied admission to HARVARD??? Really? But, Rosa Parks wasn’t that long ago and could serve as a justification for AA and the need to have African Americans on the campuses of our elite universities, no?
Let’s see how the courts rule on this. I’m really not sure and it seems like it could go either way. I haven’t dissected the reports like most of you have, but I just think just think regardless of the actual laws on race and the use of racial quotas, that giving someone and edge because they are black is not different than giving someone an edge for other superficial reasons.
@milee30 I realize college is a business in many ways, but I wouldn’t go so far as comparing it in the absolute sense with a company whose only goal is to increase shareholder value. I think there is a very legitimate reason to sustain racial diversity on campus (for both altruistic and selfish reasons) and I trust Harvard’s ability to decide what the right balance is more so than a group of angry rejects who really weren’t deprived of anything in the end except a degree that had the name “Harvard” on it.
I also understand your point about the “law”…but we all know it’s more than that. It’s not just the “law”…if that’s what gets them the win in the end, so be it, but there is more to this debate and fight than the laws on the books. All I hope is that when it’s over the applicants that truly DESERVE the bump (and we could debate all day long who is most deserving) don’t get screwed…but that could be where this is heading.
I suspect the usual suspects will be the winners in the end…and that’s my own demographic.
The question is, narrowly, did Harvard discriminate against Asian students based on the information they have provided to the court? From what I have read so far, it’s pretty clear they did. Though I’d love to hear from people who don’t think the actual data points in that direction. Not so interested in the fairness or other factors ( legacy, sports the whole gamut). We know there’s a lot of other issues regarding admissions. Just did they or didn’t they reject applicants that would have gotten in had they not be Asian?
“…but it’s tough to picture that holding much weight in court.”
But it’s even tougher to prove a racial discrimination in court. I suspect that what Blum is after, for now at this stage of the lawsuit, is winning the court of the public opinion and sentiments and setting it up for the Supreme Court decision.
What a colossal but typical failure in contemporary “critical thinking” to understand legal principles as those relate to supposedly universal (and self-determined) “rights” to a particular private education at a particular school.
Realizing this thread is more than just a forum for the Harvard case, but how do you attempt to prove discrimination when the acceptance rate is 5%!!!
@Epiphany very well said. I think you hit the nail on the head actually…a big part of the problem is that there are some people that actually think they are entitled to go to the school they want to because of their achievements. It just doesn’t work that way. Life just doesn’t work that way.
I know many people think it’s irrelevant, but I really would love to see a list of where the Harvard rejects ended up. I happen to think it’s completely relevant.
It will be interesting to see if the courts buy the balancing the class diversity argument. If they say they can’t, what about schools that are trying to balance classes by gender (especially those that admit more women in engineering)? By geographic location?
From what I have read here and from other sources, Asian students have very similar adit rates to unhooked white kids targgetting the same fields. In other words, an unhooked white CS student and an unhooked Asian CS student have about the same chance of admission. It would be interesting to compare the reasons given for the rejected unhooked white kids to those of the rejected Asian kids. Are they also being dinged on personality measures?
In any case, my guess is that Harvard’s ability to give a bump to URMs will not be curbed by this lawsuit. Unless plaintiffs can show that Asian’s have been disadvantaged in comparison to other unhooked candidates, Harvard will win and nothing will change.
By the way, given that Asian students are still being admitted in rather large numbers, they will soon be benefitting from the legacy advantage as well.
“Harvard will win and nothing will change.”
Not so fast. If Harvard wins, SFFA will appeal and the case will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court.
Of course it’s relevant. Otherwise, the accusers would have to prove in court that H provides, today, unique advantages not shared by any other institution of Higher Education in the United States. And of course it is demonstrably provable otherwise.
In addition, there’s this quite relevant argument by our poster @momofsenior1 that other varieties of “discrimination” would also have to be scrutinized: geographical distribution, “preferences” for women in engineering programs, etc. With regard to the latter, the hypocrisy on this thread absolutely reeks. No one is bringing up the blatant, blatant, over-the-top discrimination in Harvey Mudd admissions, which HMC has all but acknowledged publicly - namely, that an underachieving (far less than 4.0) but “passionate” female applicant who is an undocumented immigrant will, by policy, be preferred over high-achieving males of legal status. This is inside information direct from the committee.