@BatesParents2019: There are certainly reasons why what may appear to be racial balancing may turn out to be no such thing. A variable like intended field of study may be one such reason (i.e., Harvard may be seeking diversity in field of study, and that might correlate with race, so the correlation between admission and race might not reflect a causal link). Another example of a variable that likely correlates with race is the applicant’s state.
^Exactly. Roughly 1/3 of all Asian Americans live in California. There’s no way Harvard is going to admit a class that 1/3 Californians.
Without getting down into the legal weeds, it is very difficult to win a motion to dismiss that is based on a factual question. Most are legal questions. The Harvard case is a factual question: Does Harvard comply with the new ‘strict scrutiny’ standard articulated in the Fisher v. Texas case? This case will not be over quickly. There will be discovery and a long legal road. (I am talking now about the case filed last fall. The case filed last month with the EEOC alleges the same thing but will take a different procedural road. It is unlikely that this Justice Dept. will do anything in support of the plaintiffs).
Second, there is a big misconception among some here that private colleges are free to discriminate as they want. Not true. If they take federal funds (which they all do) they are not free to discriminate any way they want.
@TatinG As I said, there will be no political will, nor should there be, when some schools are above 20% Asian already and the applicants in question are of such high qualification with dozens of equally good opportunities. This has not been the case historically for other minority groups, clearly.
@foosondaughter In all likelihood the most gifted Asian applicants are competing with each other to a great extent and the true issue is a resource allocation issue, whether it is due to major or state concentration.
Time will tell…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-race-college-admissions.aspx
Polling. 2/3rds do not favor racial preferences. Not that polling should play into court decisions.
Caltech does not admit by race. Their classes are something like 40% Asian. Caltech does not suffer from having a large percentage of Asians in prestige or by any other measure. Neither do the UCs.
Earlier in this thread, someone posted Harvard’s acceptance rates by racial category. Asians were just a fraction of a percentage point below Whites,Mixed, and “Other.” Given the greater likelihood of legacy connections among white applicants, that does not seem like a staggering discrepancy. The acceptance rate for Hispanics was less than a full percentage point higher. African-Americans were about two percentage points higher, but still so low (under 8%) that it ought to dispel any concerns about vastly inferior qualifications. I wonder what percentage of varsity athletic prospects are African-American. Athletic promise is at least as great a “hook” as race or ethnicity, and if a much higher proportion of black than white applicants are recruited athletes, then a higher acceptance rate is not race-based.
I wonder if Harvard even saves admissions files once decisions are made. Some schools don’t keep anything beyond current year files.
^what % of apps are from Asians to Cal schools? Those are the Cal schools, so you would expect more Californians going thefe naturally. Could that play into the higher attendance rate?
I was told by some ad reps that they toss them.
@TatinG Caltech is maybe not a good example. From 2008 to 2012 only 12 students majored in a Humanity. Your example I believe supports my argument that Harvard and the other Ivy schools would have to divert resources from a variety of other majors to take more Asian students. Should they be forced to become STEM schools?
I continue to believe Asian students need to learn how to stay out of the traffic rather than expect schools to do away with or marginalize other areas of study to accommodate them.
The UCs are large state schools, not a good example.
A college’s profile and attractiveness is hardly just based on “prestige.” Many students find it much more appealing to attend a more national university, where there is much more geographical diversity, than attending any in-State public, whatever the State.
Also CalTech is 31% female, 69% male. This is a significant issue for many of my male students who have taken CalTech off their list.
If they don’t save their application files, then statistics are all they are going to have as a defense in this case. The plaintiffs will put on a prima facie case of discrimination by laying out the statistics. Then Harvard to counter will say what “We choose holistically and do not use racial quotas”. “We choose the best candidates by essays, extracurriculars, etc” But what will they show as evidence that they don’t use racial quotas? The lawsuit was filed in November. Surely the 2014-2015 files would have been saved. Tossing evidence after a lawsuit has been filed is the basis for another suit.
I’m not sure statistics is enough. The Plaintiff has to prove the case, not Harvard.
Under Fisher’s strict scrutiny test the burden of proof is on the university. That’s Fisher v. Texas the most recent case on AA in college admissions.
Are you kidding me? This turn in the discussion is the most fascinating thing I’ve read on CC in weeks! @TatinG @Hunt @epiphany don’t stop! More law talk!
Gee, I didn’t think I was doing any “law talk.” LOL. I thought I was doing college admissions talk. Silly me. ;
Per SCOTUSblog, H has to save the files now because of the action. SOP.
Remember, “better” stats doesn’t guarantee a better application, under holistic. And, I don’t recall that UT had to provide application files for review by plaintiffs. Fisher suggests Harvard can use words in their own defense.
I also believe the Ivies, MIT, Stanford and others have been lining up their “what we look for” to provide a basis for their defense.
None of this is as simple as it can seem from the outside. Poster Cardinal Fang once suggested “Fang’s Razor” - roughly, in certain actions, never assume the other guy is dumber than you are. Or doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Common Data Set for Harvard University, 2013-14:
5 academic areas are “considered” (without any indication of prioritizing)
10 non-academic areas are “considered” (without any indication of prioritizing)
http://oir.harvard.edu/files/huoir/files/harvard_cds_2013-14.pdf
It’s immaterial how any particular person outside of Harvard’s admissions committee prefers a weighted emphasis on particular factors. Someone else’s preferences for levels of consideration have no legal effect on Harvard University.
There, I just used a “legal” word for @iwannabe_Brown
And this: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/application-process/what-we-look
Epiphany, I can’t get past thinking that, while Harvard is an obvious target for media attention, it’s the wrong one to do battle with. Some smaller/less armed school would be mush.
Yes, I’m always entertained by the display of sheer arrogance every time this subject gets raised on CC every week few seconds.