Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With all due respect, it is not possible for you to understand this since your salary depends on not understanding it. Nice meme you got there. Too bad it's inappropriately applied. For reference, my salary or income has never been related to my advising of admissions committees/personnel. It has all been volunteer by request. I will add that I am very connected to the Asian-American community, and I would speak ou…
My point being that there is a natural urge to defend your profession regardless of whether you are being paid for it. There need not be a cabal. The officials can easily see that there are too many Asians for this year so the just bin some of the applicants. Just the same way they did it for the Jews. The most parsimonious analysis of the data leads to this conclusion. Of course as you say, maybe studying too much f…
I currently run a small PE firm. I don’t see any of my comments being in defense of my profession.
I was a professor in my former career. I have never worked in admissions. That has never been my career, and I feel absolutely no need to defend it.
Furthermore, I am very open to criticizing admissions processes (there is plenty to criticize), but I find myself spending so much time addressing misinformation/disinformation that the really good stuff never comes up (biggest ones being treatment of 13th year recruited athletes as well as opacity in the admissions process that seems unnecessary).
> The officials can easily see that there are too many Asians for this year so the just bin some of the applicants.
This simply does not happen.
> The most parsimonious analysis of the data leads to this conclusion.
Two courts disagree with you.
Here is a brief:
https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/uploads/si...
Some quotes:
“The district court found “no evidence of any racial animus whatsoever” toward Asian-American applicants and “no evidence” that “any particular admissions deci- sion was negatively affected by Asian American identity.’”
“The district court found the testimony of Harvard’s admissions officers—all called by SFFA—“consistent, unambiguous, and convincing” that “there was no discrimination against Asian American applicants with respect to the admissions process as a whole and the personal ratings in particular.” To the contrary, “[n]ot one of them had seen or heard anything disparaging about an Asian American applicant despite the fact that decisions were made collectively and after open discussion about each applicant.”
These are from pp 11-12 in the brief. I strongly recommend reading the entire thing.
> I mean how much more ridiculous can Harvard's defense get, really?
It’s clear to me that you are basing your comments on pre-conceived and poorly informed ideas.
At this point, I assume that you are just trolling for the sake of trolling.
Please read the brief I linked to. It will debunk much of what you claim to be true.
If the Supreme Court overrules the lower courts, it will be for a very technical legal reason — that is, that race is used at all in admissions decisions — and it will not be because any racist-based admissions process had ever been implemented.
Best of luck moving forward.