@Ccdd14. ??Based on?
Here’s a little unscientific data review. I took a look at the CC results threads for Yale this year. I counted up the reporting applicants who identified as Asian, and then categorized them as STEM or non-STEM (mostly based on intended major, but on ECs if major wasn’t listed). There were 26 Asian applicants, and 16 of them appeared to me to be STEM students. Interestingly, the ratio of admitted/rejected (or waitlisted or deferred if there was no RD report was different depending on intended major: Admitted: 7 STEM/6 non-STEM Not admitted: 9 STEM/4 non-STEM. Obviously, it’s too small a sample to say anything definitive, and the group could also be self-selecting in some way (obviously, people who are admitted are way more likely to report than those who are not).
If this was shown to statistically impact Asians in a negative way as it relates to a nonminority (white kids), then that is not discrimination. It is a pattern that is disproportionately affecting Asians. That pattern must be shown to be used to promote an important goal, in the least impactful way. The UT case did not say UT can’t use AA. It just said the trial could needs to used the “strict scrutiny” standard in measuring it, meaning It has to be more than a reasonable method. It must be shown that other methods were considered, and deemed to not further the important goal.
I would imagine Universities can show their reasoning process includes this. In fact, I would imagine law firms wrote the rationale processes for them to achieve the goal and be ready for such a challenge. For all we know, UT has such a rationale and will bring it out on retrial.
Here’s a very interesting op-ed on the effect of legacy admissions. His point, which I think is a valid one, is that Harvard and the other so-called elite institutions cannot claim that they are all about ‘equality, diversity, and social mobility’ while giving a huge advantage to legacies, children of big donors and children of the well-connected. The alumni children are not a diverse group. They are wealthy and mostly white.
(He also makes the great point that they favor the legacies (particularly donors) while getting taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks. Many are sitting on huge piles of money as endowments.)
They are also openly discussed with counselors. Reasons for college lists tend to be narrowly associated with rankings. I have a student whose parents “have memorized the entire list,” in her words. And this is also obvious when I speak to their parents.
Importantly, the college list is not matched to the academic profile (accomplishments, competitiveness) of the student, but to the desires of the family. That tendency is hardly limited only to Asian Americans but it is especially dominant and narrowly focused in most of that population. The minority among those I encounter in my work get it, and apply appropriately (realistically, with a diverse list likely to result in several admission offers because of observable match).
Well, I think this mixes up two different elements of the case. Affirmative action is a conscious policy that deliberately takes race into account. It has to be used to promote an important goal (i.e., diversity), and it has to be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. As I said above, if any school will be able to marshall an argument that its policies are narrowly tailored, it will be Harvard.
But the other part of the case is a lot harder. Harvard doesn’t admit that it takes Asian students’ race into account when evaluating them with respect to white students–in fact, I’m sure that Harvard will say (as Princeton did in the Jian Li case) that it has a specific policy against doing this. If it turns out that other policies–like legacy preferences, geographical diversity, athletic recruitment, need to fill different majors–have the impact of disadvantaging Asian students, I think the plaintiffs still lose if there is no proof that those policies were intended to disadvantage Asians.
So the plaintiffs in this case are limited to Asian groups and the defendants are how many schools?
There is one case in which an Asian group is seeking to have the Dept. of Education investigate Harvard’s admissions practices (which I predict won’t go anywhere for political reasons).
There are two other cases filed in federal court. One against Harvard. The other against UNC. Two different federal district courts.
@BatesParents2019, based on my (limited) personal experience during Ivy recruiting process.
I have no doubts that to produce a racially balanced student body is one of the institutional objectives of Ivy schools. So they deploy some “magic” during the admission process. Same with 50/50 gender ratio but nobody questions how they achieve this feat every year as this ratio is considered desirable by most people.
@TatinG My impression was that it was a coalition of 60 Asian groups against numerous schools. Among the political reasons is that Asian Americans don’t vote. The others are quite obvious.
@CCDD14 Let me ask you, if the real reason was one of academic balance, how would you react?
It may be a coalition. And yes, you are right about the other reasons. Asians don’t have enough political clout.
@tating So if the groups are complaining and not a harmed individual and complaining about all the Ivy League schools, doesn’t this make the complaint shakey? You would think among the constituents of these groups there would be a random pattern of some kids getting in some and not others.
The coalition of65 groups is the one seeking an investigation be the federal Dept. of Education and the Justice Dept.
Individuals have filed cases in federal courts against Harvard and UNC.
Separate forums. The individual cases were filed last fall. The coalitions filed in May.
@BatesParents2019
" Let me ask you, if the real reason was one of academic balance, how would you react? "
I really do not understand your question. What part of my original statement you are unhappy with?
@CCDD14 You used the term “magic” and to me it suggested that it was racial. All I am suggesting is that it could be due to balancing things like how many students are in certain fields of study or even geography.
A lot of this discussion skips through the woods, taking whatever direction.
“The data could easily be filtered for hooks like athletes, SES (FA recipients), geography or legacy. When clouds of Asian-American legacies or Asian-American athletes or Asian-American Californians are consistently being held to higher admissions criteria than clouds of legacies or athletes or Californians of other races, than that is statistical evidence of a pervasive bias.”
Dream on.
Asian Americans are NOT being held to higher standards by any proof out there today. The fact that the ones given an admit have high scores doesn’t say there is discrimination going on.
If you had 20 pre-meds, all with research, the sort of ECs adcoms see as challenging and having impact, who each wrote perfect essays (from an adcom’s perspective, not the kid’s, the parents’ or the high school English teacher or CC kids,) do you want the colleges to throw darts?
But these other factors are not all equal. someone against AA please tell me you get that.
And Bakke was abut a public school. In the intervening years, SCOTUS allowed for the creation of a balanced class.
Btw, anyone wonder why the lawsuit doesn’t come from whites, whose numbers are disproportionately diminishing?
This is a very interesting question. Accepting at face value someone’s previous comment that 30% of Asians are from California (I have no idea if this is true, but go with it…), and Harvard decided that only 12% of their student population would be taken from California (consistent with California’s proportion of the US population), then this would lead to a disparate impact of their admissions policy on Asians. I’m not sure if this would be acceptable, since (from Griggs v. Duke Power Co, via Wikipedia) “where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.” Could proportional state representation be so critical to Harvard that it legally justifies the disparate impact?
The info’s from the 2010 census. 17,320,856 Americans who identify as As-Am, 5,556,592 from CA => 32.08%.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Such ignorance on the thread. (We keep trying, @lookingforward )
No school takes some kind of exact proportional amount of students from 50 states, reflecting population spread. It may surprise some of you that the Elites tend to be very generous as well as realistic in that regard. Rather, they concede that greater application numbers from particular states during any given cycle warrants (sometimes) more acceptances there. They have generously awarded spots beyond proportion to TX and CA students in the past, for example. I think the big winners during my first daughter’s acceptance year were CA, TX, MD, and maybe MA.
But there’s another, even more salient point that slips right past all of you who are so dead-set on some paranoid conspiracy theory. Newsflash: the colleges (with no offense meant, @lookingforward ) are pretty self-interested. What are they most afraid of? Not of having “too many” of any particular ethnic group or geographical area or even (if it’s minor) area of academic concentration. It’s that they sure as H don’t want a peer institution to snag a great brain with great potential. IOW, they’re selfish. If they find (and they do) great brains from CA in STEM areas, take it to the bank those students will be seriously considered, and many given offers. There is one Ivy in particular – I won’t name which one – which has been aggressively seeking CA brains in STEM areas for reasons totally of self-interest.
The very idea that any Elite school is actually trading excellence for some contrived, contorted, artificial balance is absurd on its face. These schools have 3 full pastry buffets every cycle from which to choose. They’re going to rearrange those trays to maximize both the greatest diversity and the greatest academic potential they can structure together, and whatever “sacrifices” they have to make to effect that arrangement will be minor.