Harvard being sued for discriminating against Asian students

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
2,408
Location
CA
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Originally Posted By: raytseng
If someone is smart enough, they can just use the internet and watch recorded lectures and read books.
I can't begin to say how wrong that is...and I'm afraid that in many ways the "Google U" degree is going to be the downfall of our society.
I dunno. Before the internet everyone knew someone who had the answer or had experienced whatever. Google just brings myth, legend and folklore to us all the faster. Even if I'm wrong on that, think about this: in the past (or today), how many projects (be it building a house or changing oil) were tackled by people who didn't (don't) know what they are doing? IMO Google changes it but only slightly. Nothing new under the sun and all that.
How did you spin off to equating Google with learning outside of being a paying accepted student? A lot of the universities put their full lectures online, along with textbooks assigments and so on that's more what I'm getting Or As my other example you can go to just about any lecture hall and sit in the back of the room and get a free educatio.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,727
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: redbone3
Harvard is discriminating against Asian students because they have higher grades and better scores. If race is not considered in admissions there would be a higher percentage of Asian students admitted than expected by their percentage of the population. That much is fact. My hypothesis is that Harvard is considering the success of getting money out of their alumni, and just maybe, extracting money from Asian alumni is less successful than it is on others.
That dog won't hunt because there are plenty of wealthy Asian minorities. At Harvard, as well as everywhere else in the country. They represent the same amount of wealth as blacks and or Hispanics. (Within 1%). So if they're out to squeeze cash out of the alumni, they're not getting any more or less from Asians than any other minority. https://www.statista.com/statistics/300528/us-millionaires-race-ethnicity/
 
Messages
18,389
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: redbone3
You kinda missed the point. Harvard is discriminating against Asian students because they have higher grades and better scores. If race is not considered in admissions there would be a higher percentage of Asian students admitted than expected by their percentage of the population. That much is fact. My hypothesis is that Harvard is considering the success of getting money out of their alumni, and just maybe, extracting money from Asian alumni is less successful than it is on others.
It is a business after all. You want your alumni to look good while blending in. If all the good ones there end up being Asian (like how the tech industry ended up in the last 20 years), and you are an odd alumni non Asian, that would look very bad when you graduate. People would think you are paying your way in rather than being one of the smart one they want.
 
Messages
18,389
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Is this discrimination against foreign asians only or all asians, including those born in the US?
Most likely the US born Asians. Foreign students usually have their own quota and are not competing against the US student quotas.
 
Messages
10,060
Location
Central Washington
Its bcause Asians are "overrepresented" so therefor they get to be placed lowest on the acceptance list even though they are minority overall. Its disgusting and how they can claim its alright is just ludicrous. Hope they get their [censored] handed in court.
 
Messages
18,389
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: raytseng
because college isn't about learning. If someone is smart enough, they can just use the internet and watch recorded lectures and read books. Access to the knowledge is freerer than ever. Heck if you want to you can go to just about any university and sit in the back of the room and get a "free" education. Ill leave it to you to figure out what college really provides, but it may be hard for some to see another perspective. There's a good freakonomics episode that goes through it, but that is just a starting point The "asians are cheap" stereotype is dumb argument too if you even think 2 seconds about it. If it is just about legacy donations, don't you think your stereotypeed smart asians that are good at math and pragmatic and eschewing partying will easily comprehend the pay for admittance scheme and pay to ensure theur kids get in, versus johhny smith who graduated and spending his late 20s partying in new york or taking his kid on ski trips and europe? Theyre paying for piano lessons and weekend math classes and tutors; education is a blank check for asians and they're going to lock down those donations once their first child is born and have 18years of donations before the application is due. anyway in before the lock
1) Affluent people from old money (not really white or Jews vs other minorities), tends to have a better start. Stay at home mom, tutors, schools with better teachers (not just smaller class size and union teachers that can't be fired), parents with better educations, less distracting environment, more opportunities paid for by the parents, etc. This definitely help, and I think that's how the "extra curricular activities" are used to screen out the "work hard but weren't born with or into it" pool. 2) Influential and powerful parents tend to know each other and "help each other out". When a big group of them wear their alma mater proudly, they will keep the image up and keep their offspring in. The image needs to be up to date of course, but the primary goal is they have to be in, not out, or it doesn't do much for them. For this reason you want diversity, but not strictly "fair" or "equal" or "merit based". Just enough so their influence (not money, the new money from tech boom engineering parents can't buy themselves in) can continue. These school is there to build a network, not just provide education. If you have too many students that are not part of "it", and they form their own network (i.e. Asian middle class tech children) and segregate from the old influential families, that would be very bad for the future alumni network. You want them to be included and gradually invited, but not overwhelm the status quo. Add them together you have the policy of today's Harvard, and any other private Ivy League. It is not a public service, they need to take care of their own priorities first, remember that.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,778
Location
New England
I think a person is a package and has different things to offer a university. Skin color/nationality/race alone is not a deciding factor but just part of a matrix to make a package.
 

NO2

Messages
956
Location
Michigan
Harvard doesn't need to care about alumni donations. There endowment is getting close to $40 billion with only about 6700 undergrad students. That works out to around $6 million per undergrad. The Ivy's have a history of discrimination, starting with Jews in the 1920's. They were the equivalent of today's US born Asians, who are just too successful. Colleges like UCLA, UC Berkeley, Michigan and Georgia Tech located in states where race is not an admission factor have Asian admission rates 3-5x greater. Of course Harvard will say that they want a 'diverse' class, but they won't explain why a black student from a poor family in a bad neighborhood is admitted with an SAT score far lower than an Asian kid attending the same school with a similar family situation. PC is rampant at those schools. I've personally seen Asian kids turned down by Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. but admitted to schools that don't discriminate by race like Caltech (considered the school with the best financial outcome of any school in the USA and where merit is the only criteria)
 
Messages
24,366
Location
Central Florida
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
School acceptance criteria based on any type of ethnicity, religion, or skin color needs to be 100% outlawed and banned in the US. A student's ability to be accepted into a selective school should be 100% about your achievements, leadership, and grades/test scores and not your racial or ethnic background or income level, or religion (or lack thereof).
Yep.
 
Messages
2,168
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
I very much doubt Asian students are "smarter overall". Good study skills does not denote intelligence, and your study skills start in elementary school and are largely guided by your parent(s) attention to prioritizing their children's behaviour. High pre-secondary marks do not necessarily mean post-secondary success either; some students excel when the criteria is spelled our for them and fail when confronted with the less structured environment of college. Nor does College enrolment necessarily indicate intelligence; if unusual nteligence were a requirement for post-secondary study and graduation the schools would have much smaller campuses. Average intelligence is enough to succeed in a college program if you apply yourself. A few bright students will become apparent and will lead their classmates if they too can apply themselves. Many bright students drop out, some going on to very successful careers sans diploma, leaving their more average classmates to the task of graduation. Some of the dullest people ever to enter a workplace do so armed with a degree, sometimes an advanced one. Above average intelligence is a mark of roughly one quarter of convicted criminals. I don't see Asians over-represented in that population. Affirmative Action programs have survived many a court challenge unscathed and unchanged. As long as the litigants can't prove they were not fairly selected from the balance of applicants remaining after AA selection is complete and via the school's usual defendable criteria the suit is doomed to failure.
 
Messages
2,766
Location
Bend, Oregon
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
School acceptance criteria based on any type of ethnicity, religion, or skin color needs to be 100% outlawed and banned in the US. A student's ability to be accepted into a selective school should be 100% about your achievements, leadership, and grades/test scores and not your racial or ethnic background or income level, or religion (or lack thereof).
Fully agree...........
 
Messages
2,766
Location
Bend, Oregon
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: newbe46
I am wondering if this will extend to Nobel Prize. If diversification comes before objective measurable achievement, really what is the point of having something like SAT score?
It already has. One recent president received the Nobel Peace Prize before any accomplishments in office other than being the first member of his race to achieve that office.
And he did nothing for "peace'....but his skin color was the main factor.
 

Al

Messages
19,277
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
"Learning" in many cases precludes considering politically incorrect ideas, theories, research. If you flashed the "The Bell Curve"book in a sociology class at Harvard..some would die of heart failure. Anyone with an open mind would find it hard to dismiss the book as hogwash.
 
Messages
2,168
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
School acceptance criteria based on any type of ethnicity, religion, or skin color needs to be 100% outlawed and banned in the US. A student's ability to be accepted into a selective school should be 100% about your achievements, leadership, and grades/test scores and not your racial or ethnic background or income level, or religion (or lack thereof).
Fully agree...........
What is and what should be is not the issue; AA is here to stay for the foreseeable future so that ship has sailed. You may have some success insisting that performance is not watered down to accomodate poor performing AA applicants, or insisting that additional resources are added to accomodate AA applicants rather than shoehorning them into existing programs and resources at the expense of otherwise qualified candidates.
 
Messages
3,646
Location
Worst Case, Ontario
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
I very much doubt Asian students are "smarter overall". Good study skills does not denote intelligence, and your study skills start in elementary school and are largely guided by your parent(s) attention to prioritizing their children's behaviour. Nor does College enrolment necessarily indicate intelligence; if unusual nteligence were a requirement for post-secondary study and graduation the schools would have much smaller campuses. Average intelligence is enough to succeed in a college program if you apply yourself. A few bright students will become apparent and will lead their classmates if they too can apply themselves. Many bright students drop out, some going on to very successful careers sans diploma, leaving their more average classmates to the task of graduation. Above average intelligence is a mark of roughly one quarter of convicted criminals. Don't see Asians over-represented in that population.
From what I understand about Chinese: Higher IQs on average, school top priority, culture where old provides for young then the young reciprocate later on. Intelligence is partially genetic, attending college is an indicator of intelligence (not the best) but to finish post secondary you have to attend class and do work. When you say college is not an indicator of intelligence you are diminishing the achievements of people with degrees. Of course your arguments have merit, but they are just generalizations.
 
Messages
2,168
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
I very much doubt Asian students are "smarter overall". Good study skills does not denote intelligence, and your study skills start in elementary school and are largely guided by your parent(s) attention to prioritizing their children's behaviour. Nor does College enrolment necessarily indicate intelligence; if unusual nteligence were a requirement for post-secondary study and graduation the schools would have much smaller campuses. Average intelligence is enough to succeed in a college program if you apply yourself. A few bright students will become apparent and will lead their classmates if they too can apply themselves. Many bright students drop out, some going on to very successful careers sans diploma, leaving their more average classmates to the task of graduation. Above average intelligence is a mark of roughly one quarter of convicted criminals. Don't see Asians over-represented in that population.
From what I understand about Chinese: Higher IQs on average, school top priority, culture where old provides for young then the young reciprocate later on. Intelligence is partially genetic, attending college is an indicator of intelligence (not the best) but to finish post secondary you have to attend class and do work. When you say college is not an indicator of intelligence you are diminishing the achievements of people with degrees. Of course your arguments have merit, but they are just generalizations.
That College graduation is not an indication of intelligence is a simple fact; not an opinion. In Canada more than 50% of the adult over-25 population has a post-secondary diploma or degree; I don't think you are suggesting that 54% (2016 Census) represents "above average" intelligence, or that Canadians somehow are some kind of super-race. I certainly don't see much evidence to support it. Opinions can be challenged by other opinions, facts must be disproved. That does not mean intelligent people cannot graduate college or that intelligent people are not part of the set of graduates versus the general population. I see no diminishing of achievement in any of that. A College degree *IS* an achievement by definition.
 
Messages
2,168
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: newbe46
I am wondering if this will extend to Nobel Prize. If diversification comes before objective measurable achievement, really what is the point of having something like SAT score?
It already has. One recent president received the Nobel Peace Prize before any accomplishments in office other than being the first member of his race to achieve that office.
And he did nothing for "peace'....but his skin color was the main factor.
Well, Adolf Hitler was named TIME magazine's "person of the year" (I'm pretty sure it was called "Man of the Year then, but maybe not) in the late 1930's. Anybody can win a subjective criteria award like a Nobel Peace Prize. It's a mistake to read too much into such an award (especially the Peace Prize, which has had many true warmongers as it's winner). Maybe one day everyone will win one, like "participant awards" in a primary school PhysEd class. All we have to do is wait until a million dollars is worth the value of a bus token. Shouldn't take long.
 
Messages
11,754
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
That College graduation is not an indication of intelligence is a simple fact; not an opinion. In Canada more than 50% of the adult over-25 population has a post-secondary diploma or degree; I don't think you are suggesting that 54% (2016 Census) represents "above average" intelligence, or that Canadians somehow are some kind of super-race. I certainly don't see much evidence to support it. Opinions can be challenged by other opinions, facts must be disproved. That does not mean intelligent people cannot graduate college or that intelligent people are not part of the set of graduates versus the general population. I see no diminishing of achievement in any of that. A College degree *IS* an achievement by definition.
Both can be true. The average college graduate can be more intelligent than the average non-graduate AND you have more than 50% of the population with a degree. Not everyone gets a hard science or similarly academically rigorous degree. I won't go into some of the more dubious degree programs, but I imagine many can fill in the blanks. A population as a whole can be more intelligent than another population and still have members who are less intelligent than the lower intelligence population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top