"they really don’t understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant"
I think it's pretty clear that even if they did understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant and refocused their energies on meeting those criteria en masse, these elite schools would change that criteria, because the criteria are a means to an end.
> these elite schools would change that criteria, because the criteria are a means to an end.
That’s a nice opinion you have.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
The case against Harvard showed us pretty much everything behind the curtain. If there is any systemic bias against any group, that must be the best kept secret in the world.
“Don’t be fooled by those using the Jewish quota of the mid-20th century or charges of discrimination against Asian Americans (also despicable when true, but which the lower courts convincingly found was not the case here) as an excuse to limit the inclusion of Black and Latino students at selective universities.”
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."
… yet somehow a district court found no reasonable claim of discrimination, and the appellate court upheld that finding.
Imho, this article is an example of how the NYT has gone off the rails with their agenda-based spin on reporting.
The article flat out says the following:
“Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans.”
All of those can influence the personal rating positively.
This lawsuit is an attempt by anti-affirmative action people to end affirmative action. They are using Asians as a figurative cudgel to beat other minorities, and this saddens me.
Fwiw, I think affirmative action is not without flaws and could be improved (e.g., I struggle to see why Asians aren’t given affirmative action status at these universities similar to how Asians have this status with the federal government — there has been and still is oppression and discrimination against Asian Americans), but I think there are large swathes of the country that are still in favor of this policy.
Removing legacies/athletes/staff is a reasonable step to take, since each of those fall into a separate pool of admits. Harvard also had higher thresholds for sending recruitment letters.
"This lawsuit is an attempt by anti-affirmative action people to end affirmative action"
That's an ad hominem attack that does not address the claims on merit.
I personally think fairly evident that Harvard et al are essentially attempting to address systemic inequalities in access, while also maintaining a large pool of legacy (ie donor) admits. Whether or not this is "fair" or "unfair" is actually not something I have a strong opinion about. What I do find abhorrent is the unwillingness to admit that's what they are doing, choosing instead to claim that asian kids have a harder time getting in because they have worse personalities.
I think it's pretty clear that even if they did understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant and refocused their energies on meeting those criteria en masse, these elite schools would change that criteria, because the criteria are a means to an end.