Student's for Fair Admissions is in the process of suing Harvard over discrimination, and their website (with legal filings) is probably the single best source of information on Ivy League admissions: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/updates/
Student's for Fair Admissions is in the process of suing Harvard over discrimination, and their website (with legal filings) is probably the single best source of information on Ivy League admissions: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/updates/
But it just plainly is racist against Asians. There is no greater good to be defended here that isn't a lie. And they even have a history of discrimination with quotas, although I tend to classify AA as not being racial quotas. But if people are measured unequal due to their race, they only affirm that race exists and that they don't treat everyone on their merits. I don't see advantages here.
As I said, logistics of knowledge are so cheap, that good education can reach anyone. Maybe a teacher is missing here, but it is a solid start.
Please. This is about affirmative action for people who aren't Asian or White. Not wealthy donors. The argument is that lack of privilege causes poor SAT scores which is preventing certain minorities from realizing their potential, and that this justifies selectively lowering the bar and allocating additional resources.
But this is all based on a conflation between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
Harvard's admission rate is <6% for general population - that includes affirmative action ethnicities. Harvards admission rate is >30% for "legacies" which make up one in six of their students, and even higher for donors. These are the kids who get in while being thick as a brick. The injustice is not primarily the black kid with 1400 SAT getting in over the east Asian kid with 1580 -- the injustice is the hundreds of CEOs/senators' kids being assured admission even being dumber than a sack of hammers.
There is definitely some application boost legacies get simply by virtue of being a legacy, but their applications are probably quite strong in general. So it's unlikely that dropping the SAT was meant to cater to them.
Good luck convincing an admissions officer that working a second job is more "valuable" in the process than doing all these other things when they want to maintain the "image" of the university.
Without an ACT/SAT you'll also probably get more applicants hoping to hit the lottery from an admissions officer too.
I will say that obviously wealthy parents can pay for a tutor for the ACT/SAT, but a poor kid can get a practice book for $20 and at least have a shot.
The UC system also removed SAT recently arguing it discriminates.
I haven't seen clear evidence though that the SAT discriminates more against poorer students than any other admissions factor. In fact given that richer kids go to elite colleges at higher rates than middle income, conditioned on same test score, I'm inclined to think it's being underweighted.
Internal UC studies that looked into how the test scores were applied to admissions determined there was no discrimination.
That's the entire diversity/inclusion in a nutshell. None of this has been scientifically verified and the basic premise is in contradiction with what we know about humans. But bringing this up anywhere where your name is visible is liable to get you cancelled.
First of all a distinction must be made between legacies and big donors. Legacies are often dismissed as getting in only because of their legacy status, but I'd wager that their grades, test scores and other accomplishments put them on the admissions bubble already. Dropping the SAT isn't going to help Harvard let more of them in because they're probably doing quite well to begin with.
Donors' children may have more wiggle room with their grades and scores, but they're a much smaller population than legacies and the idea that Harvard is going to drop standardized testing just to marginally increase the numbers of donors' children they can let in, like some nefarious plot to marginally increase donations, is laughable and culturally tone deaf.
Harvard administrators have no interest in drastically increasing the number of legacy or donor students. The admissions rates for those groups have likely been static for decades.
Harvard administrators do, however, have a huge interest in increasing black (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) admissions rates. This is made much more difficult by standardized testing scores.
In fact much of the stated justification by the schools and other intellectuals for dropping the tests is that it discriminates against the poor and minorities, which is ironic because it is one of the factors of admission least correlated with wealth and also because many minority groups do better on the test than the overall test taking population.
In the internet age that we live in today, with access to all sorts of methods of memorization, I would argue scores on a standardized test are largely irrelevant, beyond testing for if someone can pass a test or not. The highest score goes not to the person who thinks critically but to the one who gamed the system the most. If you can teach someone to win at candy-crush, you can get them to ace the SAT's.
Some of the most important people in society have not typically done well in structured schooling, and this is in part because a lot of education is bs in the first place.
Personally I see more merit in performing well on an exam with a clear statistical context, than in filling out some bullshit lab notebook or whatever it is that people at Harvard do to earn their A- (mean grade) or A (mode).
One problem with your argument is that, without the SAT, admissions counselors will have to depend MORE on structured schooling, because they have to lean more heavily on grades, school activities, and teacher recommendations.
Your initial question, by the way, is flawed. School is not success, and education by itself is not a contribution to society. So why you use those things to judge a college entrance exam is unclear to me.
An entrance exam is a measure of intellectual horsepower. Tons of rich people throw money at SAT courses and still fare poorly, while tons of smart kids whose families wouldn't be able to afford college without financial aid fare well.
No its not. What are neurons? What are networks of neurons? How do the wiring of neurons affect the way an intelligence output answers? Can neurons be cultivated in certain ways? If so, can you cultivate a network of neurons to output answers with the most efficiency and correctness?
If so, what is the difference between one network optimized for standardized testing and another optimized for political upheaval? Do the neurons fire less quickly in the latter because they can't pass the answers to a test as quickly?
In other words, as you said, doing well in school means little outside of school.
So if you really wanted to come full circle on it, you could say it's actually good that people who aren't able to game a system, end up staying outside of that system.
[1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
Harvard is a non-profit institute that seeks to create a diverse & successful that leave a mark on the world, which therefore upholds the eliteness of Harvard.
So exactly like Hollywood who has rightly or wrongly be heavily campaigned against because of discrimination, btw it is ironic but if you check the numbers white women are over represented same as black people, the 2 leading-voices among the minorities, its is Asian- Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Native Americans who are completely sidelined in that industry.
but who is implementing this, exactly, and on what agenda?
it's "harvard" the institution, the non-profit business.
instead of having a clear motive: making money, we have to guess what "diverse and successful" means.
does a powerful institution in our society owe us an explanation for this? maybe not.
There's definitely something else going on here.
In 1996 California passed prop 209 which banned affirmative action on the state level. All top UC schools have become majority asian despite California being less than 20% asian.
Now considering Harvard, there was a federal case brought against it since asians scoring higher marks than peers were being rejected.
Harvard's defense was that they were scoring lower, on average on "personality" scores -- a qualitative measure on admissions.
By contrast, african americans were scoring highest on these personality scores.
Ultimately, the case was won by Harvard since the intent was not determined to be pernicious.
It's no question Harvard artificially diversifies its student body, but affirmative action does come at a cost.
The most obvious criteria is: most likely to graduate.
Some others that aren't bad:
* Highest expected value of future donations
* Highest expected value of impact (publication)
* Highest expected value of future salary
* Highest expected value of holding public office (the weighting here might be contentious)
As long as all of the criterion are achievement based, I expect them to screen for roughly the same people, demographically.
This. This is the one. If you view everything Harvard does as supporting this goal, it all makes perfect sense.
You don't necessarily want the smartest kids. You want the kids that are most likely to go on to make the most money AND the kids who are most likely to have a strong emotional connection to the university so they write big checks.
Most likely to graduate is interesting. Almost everyone I know who didn’t graduate, it was due to finances. Purely academic reasons, at least anecdotally, seem relatively uncommon now.
That's probably true for the Ivy's since they get the cream of the crop.
The community colleges near me have a 25% 6 year graduation rate. I guarantee you that's not all due to finances.
1. I'm have yet to be convinced that Harvard is trying to maximize its benefit to society.
2. Even if we stipulate that Harvard's sole goal is to maximize its benefit to society, it may be that increasing the number of Jeff Deans or Jim Kellers, even by a small amount, is more beneficial to society than better educating a lot of average people.
... or it may not be. My point is that the approach you suggest is not obviously correct.
Well, it used to be, but it isn't any more now that they're rejecting standardized tests.
Perhaps, but sure as hell is better than race to qualify a candidate.
Years ago I tried to counsel her parents into letting her do extra-curricular activities that did not fit the stereotypical Asian student profile, but they would not hear it. Piano it was, rather than sports or other non-academic work/volunteering. They did not understand that an Asian girl with a 4+ GPA and years of piano training was not going to get a fair shake when it came to college admissions.
Yeah, you might not get Berkeley, but an A+ student is guaranteed admission to a UC. The profile you describe is far better than the average student at UCR and would be quite competitive at Davis or Irvine.
Did something fall through here? Did she not even apply to a mid-tier "safety school"?
https://priceonomics.com/where-are-all-the-white-people-in-s....
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#:~....
No Asians go big or go home. They yield to all schools that are prestigious regardless of race-neutrality because all of these school (on the surface) appear to be race neutral.