Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel like this is basically what the plaintiffs in this case are arguing. I think they’re coming at this from the point-of-view that “higher test scores & GPA= more qualified.” But really, what does “more qualified” mean when it comes to college admissions? If Harvard and other elite schools were just looking to graduate the students with the highest test scores, it could easily do that and this case would be moot. Schools like Harvard are looking to graduate students who can do more than ace a multiple choice test. They are looking for well-rounded leaders, creators, thinkers, etc. Many of these qualities can’t be determined by test scores and GPA alone. Who is “more qualified”: Student A who’s from an upper-middle class family that could afford tutors, expensive extracurricular activities, and access to similar high-achieving families, or Student B who is from a low income, single parent household who, despite working after school and growing up in a rough neighborhood, excels regardless. I worry that if student A has a higher test score and GPA, the plaintiffs would argue that Student A deserves to be admitted over Student B, though many would argue that Student B worked harder by virtues of having less than Student A. Is someone who got a perfect math score on their SAT “more qualified” than a student who scored a 710 on the math section but is artistically gifted or is just simply a charismatic go-getter? Thinking of qualifications as simply a numbers game is where I think these plaintiffs are getting tripped up on when college admissions has never been about pure numbers- otherwise, why bother with essays and recommendations?
This whole post was valuable but I invite those who believe students with near perfect test scores are “more qualified” need to read and reread this part. This is how college admissions actually works at most elite schools.
Anyway they already do take a whole lot of factors into consideration OP, including many of the things you mentioned. They are typically looking to just get an interesting mix of high achievers who fit into that schooll’s culture.
Was it really discrimination or is it just more of that quota crap?
It’s a the quota crap. And WTH is ‘real’ diversity anyway. As opposed to what?
‘Real’ diversity would require colleges to admit students like public schools do. With no restrictions. That’s real. That’s INDISCRIMINATE.
But as long as we are taking about a PRIVATE top-level university program in which only some can thrive and one where the ‘some’ are more than the available spaces... then yes, they have the right to choose the criteria that best serves their purpose. Never has that criteria been based on grades alone. Ever.
Private schools have been rejecting people with stellar grades since their inception. It’s the whole idea behind being PRIVATE. They get to choose.
All this is a lot of time has been wasted on this whining. I’m fully behind Harvard on this one.
It’s a the quota crap. And WTH is ‘real’ diversity anyway. As opposed to what?
‘Real’ diversity would require colleges to admit students like public schools do. With no restrictions. That’s real. That’s INDISCRIMINATE.
But as long as we are taking about a PRIVATE top-level university program in which only some can thrive and one where the ‘some’ are more than the available spaces... then yes, they have the right to choose the criteria that best serves their purpose. Never has that criteria been based on grades alone. Ever.
Private schools have been rejecting people with stellar grades since their inception. It’s the whole idea behind being PRIVATE. They get to choose.
All this is a lot of time has been wasted on this whining. I’m fully behind Harvard on this one.
That's what I don't understand. Why are we so,obsessed with having some quota based on race, gender, etc? Whatever happened to the best person getting the job or the spot in school? Why do people always assume it's because of race or gender? Since when did the color of your skin or the genitalia you have qualify you for anything special? Also, isn't not getting into Harvard the most extreme example of a First World problem you can find?
Harvard is a private institution of higher education and neither potential students nor current students are employees.
Yes, I know that, duh. I am referring to their methods of selection; would an employer be able to get away with such methodology?
Harvard can still use business justification, meaning they have a legitimate reason for their discriminating. It does not have to be a "business" for such justification, that is just the term used.
Prompted by the Harvard discrimination trial, I wonder how a truly diverse student body would look like.
Look at Harvard.
Quote:
The Ivy League school’s incoming freshman class is comprised of 50.8 percent of minorities — including African-Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans or Pacific Islanders – compared to 47.3 percent last year, the Boston Globe reported.
Races are not enough - e.g. West Africans could very well be more genetically and culturally different compared to East Africans than Whites compared to Hispanics. Genetic diversity in admissions can be found by giving applicants ancestry DNA tests and optimizing for the total genetic distance between each pair of students.
Genetic diversity?
Seriously?
Quote:
But ancestry differences are only somewhat correlated with cultural differences. The cultural differences can be added by looking at what culture(s) the student grew up in and assigning a value to each cultural factor (e.g. importance of marriage, patriotism, sports).
No...you either have the grades & test scores, etc. or you don't. But I will admit that some get admitted to colleges they shouldn't due to "football" or "lacrosse". That all works out in the wash.
Quote:
Additional information can be used - e.g. growing up in a single-parent household, living in a big vs. small city, having or not having siblings, playing or not playing an instrument, religiousness, political ideology (gamed too easily?), parents' occupations. Even physical differences can be used - e.g. sex (which is done already), height, face shape, color blindness.
You can check those boxes off on the "Common App".
Quote:
But in order to create leaders in various fields, colleges should assign higher weights to differences in thinking. Some of it is already done by the choice of a major - an average music major is different in many ways than the average Computer Science major).
What?
Quote:
One test that can be useful to create and consider would be questions with answers that can be arrived at in two or more ways and that take up about the same amount of time to answer (in order to prevent gaming the test). A test of writing can also be made (expressing ideas or solutions in different but just as readable ways).
What does that even mean?
Quote:
Personality testing such as the Big Five or MBTI or self-esteem test can be done. In practice, colleges would likely ignore or penalize some differences in thinking and personality, e.g. they would probably prefer open-minded students to close-minded students, globalists to nationalists, extroverts to loners.
Huh?
Quote:
Political diversity should also matter.
No, it should not.
Quote:
Friends are a large influence on each student. There could be questions about them.
No, there "couldn't"/shouldn't be.
Quote:
Colleges would probably not care about what might be important child development differences, e.g. playing or not playing a given video game, reading a given book, playing outside, time spent watching TV. But using these would improve diversity.
No words for that mess.
Quote:
In practice, the desired diversity could be made to mirror the scores of widely defined U.S. or world residents. The demographics change with time, though. Would this or using predicted future results be discriminatory? Using scores of current leaders in various fields (if even possible to gather), might also be discriminatory - e.g. the Senate members are definitely different in many ways (sex, race, age, background, personality) from other U.S. citizens.
The heck?
Quote:
All this seems like a costly process but Harvard's endowment is at $37.1 billion, so they could do it if they really want more diversity. Some of these would likely cause more discrimination lawsuits, especially if religion and genetic info are used. But a race is a protected class too. If Harvard loses, would they be able to use methods such as diversity in cultures? Or would it be shown to be a proxy for race? Could telling students to do an ancestry DNA test and only using their answers to a question about their ancestry be legal?
What are you talking about?
Quote:
An NBER study showed that black patients receive more effective care from black doctors. If that's true among other races and ethnicities, it'll show that racial or ethnic diversity does matter (but it would also show that it's better to send patients to doctors of the same race, which has no chance politically). Given the legal and political uncertainty about these issues, it is more likely that such new methods would be used in China first. If shown to be successful, would it cause the U.S. (and Europe, where they are even less likely to be used) to follow?
Quote:
(I hope this is not political or controversial enough to be moved to P&OC)
That should be the least of your worries.
Last edited by Informed Info; 10-20-2018 at 01:37 AM..
Yes, I know that, duh. I am referring to their methods of selection; would an employer be able to get away with such methodology?
Apples and oranges.
College students aren't employees of the college they attend.
Quote:
Harvard can still use business justification, meaning they have a legitimate reason for their discriminating. It does not have to be a "business" for such justification, that is just the term used.
Term used by whom?
Still apples and oranges.
Harvard still doesn't employ their students.
Last edited by Informed Info; 10-20-2018 at 01:38 AM..
This whole post was valuable but I invite those who believe students with near perfect test scores are “more qualified” need to read and reread this part. This is how college admissions actually works at most elite schools.
Anyway they already do take a whole lot of factors into consideration OP, including many of the things you mentioned. They are typically looking to just get an interesting mix of high achievers who fit into that schooll’s culture.
This. They're a private university' they can decide what criteria are important to them. I haven't studied this current issue, but it sounds like some Asian kids, who were used to being on top due to the prodding of their tiger moms and dads, are miffed that all that tiger-mom-ing didn't earn them the prize they'd been promised.
Lots of 4.0 kids get rejected from UC Berkeley. Because there are so many 4.0 kids, the school uses additional criteria, and not only extra-curricular. It's also aiming for a mix of economic backgrounds, kids who managed to prevail over challenging circumstances, and so on. But that includes Asian kids, as well as others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
