1. Yup, I did check out the link. I completely agree with its conclusion -- that Stuyvesant's model need not be scrapped for something like Harvard's. Though, I never claimed that.
2. I'm in complete agreement.
3. I'm a fan of the lottery. Fair and to the point. It has its own issues, though.
Overall, Stuyvesant was in retrospect, a poor selection to emphasize the overall point I was trying to make. Though, one must wonder why Asian's prosper in that situation and not Blacks and Latinos. It's something I'll have to do research on later. Thanks for the link, it had some good sources, by the way.
2. If you're talking about racial discrepancy, Blacks/Latinos are certainly under-represented. If you're talking about socioeconomic discrepancy, roughly half the students come from poor or lower-middle-class families, which I would consider to be a huge win for a elite school.
3. How would you propose remedying the underepresentation of Blacks/Latinos without harming the socioeconomic diversity? If these elite schools adopted an ivy-league admissions system, you would surely see a student body that resembles ivy-league student bodies.