I remember how it was -- JR
Activist lawyers demand Harvard ENDS 'legacy admissions' as they argue they unfairly favor white students
There is a certain logic to this but it overlooks the link between legacy admissions and donations to Harvard from the legatee's family. Legacy admissions are to a significant extent paid for -- often handsomely. And Leftist morality seldom harms their own pockets
Harvard has been hit with a complaint over its legacy admission policies - days after the Supreme Court ruled to outlaw affirmative action in US schools.
Filed Monday by attorney activist group Lawyers for Civil Rights, the complaint claims the university's long-held practice of favoring descendants of alumni also unfairly favors white applicants, and thus discriminates against students of color.
It also implores feds to 'declare that Harvard's ongoing use of Donor and Legacy Preferences is discriminatory', and demands Harvard 'immediately cease considering an applicant's relationship' to alumni - or risk losing its federal funding.
The complaint was brought after three separate Boston-area groups requested the US' Education Department review the practice, all on the basis it gives an unfair boost to the children of alumni - most of whom are white.
'Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?' asked Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights representing the three parties.
'Your family's last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.'
The three groups represented by Espinoza-Madrigal include the woman of color-geared Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network.
It is not yet clear whether the complaint has been heard been heard by the Education Department - which was recently mentioned by President Biden in a statement that slammed the SCOTUS decision.
Meanwhile, a Harvard spokesperson, when asked Monday night, said the school had no comment on the complaint and its comments, while reiterating a statement aired last week.
'As we said, in the weeks and months ahead, the university will determine how to preserve our essential values, consistent with the court's new precedent,' rep Nicole Rura said.
Selective schools like Harvard face increasing pressure to eliminate special preferences for the children of alumni and donors in the wake last week's ruling.
As progressives seek to somehow reverse the decision - which was reached by a 6-3 conservative majority - Harvard's and others' legacy practices have come under renewed scrutiny, after already garnering some negative attention before the pandemic.
At the time, a 2019 study enacted by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard were either recruited athletes, legacy students, children of staff, or on the dean's interest list - applicants whose relatives have donated to the school.
The organization further found that the number drops dramatically when looking at black, Latino and Asian American students - as Americans from the latter demographic continue to celebrate the ruling.
According to the study, less than 16 percent of all applicants the year prior came from those categories.
The study also found that roughly 75 percent of white students admitted from those four categories, 'would have been rejected if they had been treated' the same as non-whit applicants.
The report raised questions about the role of wealth, race and access in college admissions at prestigious universities.
That debate came to a head on Thursday, when the Supreme Court said race-conscious policies adopted by Harvard to ensure that more non-white students are admitted are unconstitutional.
The decision served a major blow to efforts to attract diverse student bodies and is expected to prompt new challenges to admission policies.
According National Bureau of Economic Research, almost 70 percent of all legacy applicants are white, compared with 40 percent of all applicants who do not fall under those categories.
On Monday, Lawyers for Civil Rights - a Boston-based nonprofit that works with 'communities of color and immigrants to fight discrimination', according to its website - cited several of these statistics, writing that nearly 70 percent of Harvard applicants with family ties to donors or alumni are white.
It further claimed that some 28 percent of Harvard's class of 2019 were legacies, meaning that those with family ties to the 386-year-old institution were roughly six times more likely to be admitted than other applicants.
Such has been the case in the years since - meaning fewer admissions slots for non-legacy applicants.
This directly affects black applicants, the agency argued, using the date to prove that those of that class are far less likely to have family ties to the school.
The groups are demanding the Department of Education investigate Harvard's admission practices, before ordering the school to abandon legacy preferences.
In Monday's complaint, they added the recent Supreme Court ruling had made it even more imperative to eliminate policies that disadvantage non-white applicants.
Harvard's acceptance rate for its class of 2023 was just 4.5 percent.
Over the past few days, many - such as New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and MSNBC commentator Joy Reid - have called the college's admission practices into question,
The Bronx and Queens rep on Saturday tweeted that if the Supreme Court 'was serious about their ludicrous 'colorblindness' claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged.'
Similarly, Reid - a graduate of Harvard herself - claimed Thursday hours after the SCOTUS ruling 'the only reason' she was admitted to Harvard was because of affirmative action.
Others from more conservative schools of thought, such as Republican Senator Tim Scott, also agreed, saying last week that 'one of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs where they have preferential treatment for legacy kids.'
Others have maintained that doing away with the practice - which dates back to the 1920s - 'would make Harvard far less white, wealthy, and privileged.'
The complaint adds to accelerating pressure on Harvard and other selective colleges, and argue Harvard is violating a federal law banning race discrimination for programs that receive federal funds, as virtually all U.S. colleges and universities do.
It is currently making its way through the proper channels.
*******************************************
Success Academy smashes Regents AND lefty lies on standardized testing
Yet more hard data disproves the Democrats’ line that standardized tests are somehow racist: Success Academy, fresh off the heels of a massive study proving how handily it smashed regular public schools in terms of actually teaching kids, has put up insane numbers on New York’s state Regent exams.
All Success 8th-graders took multiple Regents, tests meant for 11th- and 12th-graders. These charter kids — mostly low-income black and Hispanic students, i.e. the children the left claims simply can’t be expected to do well on standardized tests — knocked them out of the park.
Some 99.8% passed the algebra Regents; 47% scored a 5, the highest mark. In English, 94.6% passed; in biology, 96%.
And younger kids kicked butt too, with Success 7th graders taking the global history and geography Regents and 90% passing.
To put this in context, the pass rate for city high schoolers on the algebra test was 57% in 2022, 65% on bio, 73% on English and 74% on global history.
Meanwhile, the “systemic racism” lie (and pressure from teacher unions to hide the failings of public schools) has led the progressive-controlled state Board of Regents to wage war on the exams, with a series of outright cancellations plus waterings-down of what constitutes a pass.
The board now has a grand commission of “experts” prepping a report to justify axing the Regents Exams entirely, while much of the Legislature plots endlessly to strangle the entire charter-school sector.
Quality education is easily the most important social tool for helping the disadvantaged rise. So how did opposing good public schools (which is what charters like Success are) and high standards of academic achievement wind up as core elements of the New York “progressive” agenda?
https://nypost.com/2023/07/02/success-academy-excels-on-standardized-tests-despite-democrats-claims/
***************************************Ivy League University Reveals It Will Use A.I. Chatbot to Teach Course This Fall
At the dawn of the upcoming academic year, the venerable halls of Harvard University will bear witness to an unprecedented event: an A.I. chatbot will be co-teaching a prominent coding class.
While this may be regarded as a testament to Harvard’s pioneering spirit, it also raises profound questions about the future of education.
The university’s decision, outlined by Professor David Malan, who will be responsible for overseeing the A.I. powered teaching, represents a marked departure from traditional teaching methods.
This foray into the realm of artificial intelligence in education may be indicative of Harvard’s commitment to staying abreast of technological advancements. Yet it simultaneously ushers us into largely uncharted territory, a domain that, while seemingly ripe with promise, is also riddled with potential pitfalls.
A word of caution comes from Martin Rand, co-founder and CEO of PactumAI, who stressed the inherent limitations of such an approach.
“I would say the dangers are that we have to consider that these are statistical models. These will come up with most probable answers and high probability can also mean mediocrity,” Rand warned.
“So professors need to be there to provide exceptionalism, and I think Harvard has taken the right approach in providing this only to introductory courses,” he said.
Despite this, Rand conceded that there may be some potential benefits, such as stimulating further innovation and education. Nonetheless, the overarching tone is one of skepticism.
According to the university’s student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, Professor Malan has argued that the chatbot will offer diverse functions — from troubleshooting students’ coding errors to providing immediate feedback and answering their questions. This, according to Malan, aligns with the course’s tradition of continually introducing novel software into its syllabus.
However, the effectiveness of such tools remains to be seen. “Our own hope is that, through AI, we can eventually approximate a 1:1 teacher:student ratio for every student in CS50, as by providing them with software-based tools that, 24/7, can support their learning at a pace and in a style that works best for them individually,” Malan told The Crimson.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/ivy-league-university-reveals-will-use-chatbot-teach-course-fall
******************************************************My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment