[BostonCard]

Since it has been a recurring topic, I thought I would update:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23242/

The actual article on briefly touches upon it:

the office has dismissed the complaint “citing a procedural ground,”

That being said, the article did have an interesting link to an article in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...ect-storm/

Basically it states that it is not so much discrimination against Asian Americans so much as discrimination for other groups (minorities, athletes, legacies, etc., which tend not to have few Asian Americans).

Without another tag, it is within the academic niche that smart kids compete – basically against each other. That’s why the Asian American Coalition’s complaint is flawed: it assumes the Asian American kids are competing against Blacks, Hispanics and Caucasians. Without [a] special interest tag, they’re not; they’re competing against all just-smart kids; mainly each other.

Here "tag" denotes a group with advantaged admissions (for example, athletes).

BC

ADDENDUM: A second article in Bloomberg explains why the suit was thrown out:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...department

The U.S. Education Department dismissed a complaint against Harvard University alleging discrimination against Asian-American applicants in undergraduate admissions because a similar case is pending in federal court.

So, not really much of a dismissal.

BC

[BostonCard]

Since it has been a recurring topic, I thought I would update:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23242/

The actual article on briefly touches upon it:

the office has dismissed the complaint “citing a procedural ground,”

That being said, the article did have an interesting link to an article in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...ect-storm/

Basically it states that it is not so much discrimination against Asian Americans so much as discrimination for other groups (minorities, athletes, legacies, etc., which tend not to have few Asian Americans).

Without another tag, it is within the academic niche that smart kids compete – basically against each other. That’s why the Asian American Coalition’s complaint is flawed: it assumes the Asian American kids are competing against Blacks, Hispanics and Caucasians. Without [a] special interest tag, they’re not; they’re competing against all just-smart kids; mainly each other.

Here "tag" denotes a group with advantaged admissions (for example, athletes).

BC

ADDENDUM: A second article in Bloomberg explains why the suit was thrown out:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...department

The U.S. Education Department dismissed a complaint against Harvard University alleging discrimination against Asian-American applicants in undergraduate admissions because a similar case is pending in federal court.

So, not really much of a dismissal.

BC

[CTcard]

That being said, the article did have an interesting link to an article in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...ect-storm/

You seemed to have linked to the wrong Steve Cohen article. The one you describe seems to be this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...dmissions/

But they are equally inane.

[CTcard]

That being said, the article did have an interesting link to an article in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...ect-storm/

You seemed to have linked to the wrong Steve Cohen article. The one you describe seems to be this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2...dmissions/

But they are equally inane.

[Stymie]

Given that admission to elite universities significantly increases (real or imagined) future outcomes for students, I do not see this issue going away.  It seems clear to me that Stanford (and most other elite universities) have a complex quota system which favors various minorities (athletes, legacies, people of (certain kinds of) color, American citizens, etc.).  I cannot see this obvious discrimination passing the muster of the federal court system for much longer, but I could be wrong.....

[Stymie]

Given that admission to elite universities significantly increases (real or imagined) future outcomes for students, I do not see this issue going away.  It seems clear to me that Stanford (and most other elite universities) have a complex quota system which favors various minorities (athletes, legacies, people of (certain kinds of) color, American citizens, etc.).  I cannot see this obvious discrimination passing the muster of the federal court system for much longer, but I could be wrong.....

[BostonCard]

Indeed the US Supreme Court is looking at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/pol...sions.html

In the past (Gutter v. Bollinger; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger), the US Supreme Court ruled that schools can consider race in making admissions decisions, but in a related case (Gratz v. Bollinger; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger) the court ruled that schools cannot offer a predetermined point allocations to students of a particular race.  The original affirmative action case (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of...a_v._Bakke) found that affirmative action is legal, though specific quotas are not.  It might seem clear to you that elite universities have a "complex quota system which favors... people of (certain kinds of) color", but in light of UC regents v. Bakke, the admissions process at Stanford is designed to improve the racial/ethnic diversity at Stanford without imposing a "complex quota" or that even awards a quantifiable advantage to minorities.

Beyond race, which is presumably an immutable quantity, I don't see how the use of non-academic achievement (i.e., athletic achievement, musical achievement, etc.) in admissions would fail to pass muster in the federal courts.  It is not axiomatic that admissions to a school has to be based solely on academic achievement, and, in fact, I think it is desirable that schools consider other factors.  While there are disproportionately fewer Asian American athletes out there, being Asian American is not a disqualification for being a collegiate athlete (Lindsey Yamasaki, for example).

The common theme underlying the complaints is that (measurable) academic achievement in high school is or ought to be the sine qua non determinant for admissions to elite universities and therefore that disparities in academic achievement between groups applying to such universities necessarily implies discrimination against one group.  I reject that assertion.  There may indeed be discrimination against one group.  However, I don't think you can use disparities in grades and scores as evidence thereof.

BC

[BostonCard]

Indeed the US Supreme Court is looking at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/us/pol...sions.html

In the past (Gutter v. Bollinger; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger), the US Supreme Court ruled that schools can consider race in making admissions decisions, but in a related case (Gratz v. Bollinger; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger) the court ruled that schools cannot offer a predetermined point allocations to students of a particular race.  The original affirmative action case (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of...a_v._Bakke) found that affirmative action is legal, though specific quotas are not.  It might seem clear to you that elite universities have a "complex quota system which favors... people of (certain kinds of) color", but in light of UC regents v. Bakke, the admissions process at Stanford is designed to improve the racial/ethnic diversity at Stanford without imposing a "complex quota" or that even awards a quantifiable advantage to minorities.

Beyond race, which is presumably an immutable quantity, I don't see how the use of non-academic achievement (i.e., athletic achievement, musical achievement, etc.) in admissions would fail to pass muster in the federal courts.  It is not axiomatic that admissions to a school has to be based solely on academic achievement, and, in fact, I think it is desirable that schools consider other factors.  While there are disproportionately fewer Asian American athletes out there, being Asian American is not a disqualification for being a collegiate athlete (Lindsey Yamasaki, for example).

The common theme underlying the complaints is that (measurable) academic achievement in high school is or ought to be the sine qua non determinant for admissions to elite universities and therefore that disparities in academic achievement between groups applying to such universities necessarily implies discrimination against one group.  I reject that assertion.  There may indeed be discrimination against one group.  However, I don't think you can use disparities in grades and scores as evidence thereof.

BC