It's like we have these two irreconcilable ideas:
- Diversity is good
- Discrimination is bad
When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?
- Diversity is good
- Discrimination is bad
When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?
Then again, if they test for both things, how are they supposed to not prioritize one over another?
Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
> The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges.
Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further.
> For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc.
That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
Is that the case? I always thought that the case is brought on because the diversity candidate is NOT often "equally qualified,"
If it means "someone who is equally likely to be successful at Harvard" the answer is likely yes. Like I said there is no shortage of people who fit that definition.
If it means "someone who has quantifiably the exact same quality of resume" the answer is potentially no.
Although if you subscribe to the second definition, you should probably have a bigger complaint against athletes and children of alumni, staff, or donors. Almost half of all white students at Harvard are in one of those groups[1] and yet there are always more complaints about "diversity" than there is about these students.
[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...
But the reality is that it's more of a spectrum, and in general universities usually want to take the most qualified people they can, just like companies want to get the most qualified job applicants.
Absolutely discrimination. Unless the definition of discrimination has changed significantly that is.
The difference is when it is systematic. It is currently systematic in most universities and schools.
The US has nothing remotely close to India's level of diversity.
Skin color? India has the whole spectrum from dark brown to people who could pass for southern European.
Religion? India has a huge variety.
Economic? Everything from some of the poorest people in the world to multi-billionaires.
What percentage of the population's ancestors has been enslaved by other parts of the population's ancestors? Still very high.
Please explain how you are measuring diversity if you want to make the outrageous claim that India is not diverse.
Stop treating it like an exclusive club that hands out occupational licenses for an elite class of the well connected few and give as many people as you can a quality education. With the money that these universities receive that should be possible. If increase in the amount of students would have even remotely kept pace with funding we wouldn't have the need to treat this like a zero-sum race game.
I think the name 'Race Conscious' is not a great description where it actually means race and oppression.
Hasan Minhaj did a pretty informative episode on the lawsuit against Harvard affirmative action -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm5QVcTI2I8