Seems to me it’s a fishing expedition...once you are involved in litigation you can serve discovery on these schools.

During discovery the litigants will get their hands on all sorts of records and communications that no doubt will show what the institutions knew and when they knew it. That will likely result in emails involving deans and other highly regarded and connected individuals. Normally these kinds of people in power will lie about the existence of emails/communications/records (even in litigation) but here they would be hesitant to lie/deystroy evidence because They know there is an FBI investigation/criminal component, so they won’t take that gamble.

At that point to avoid the embarrassment the powers that be will settle so they don’t have to turn over these records and emails or sit for depositions. No doubt like in the corporate world some deans/assistant deans will get a golden parachute to take the blame and the institutions will release a PR statement that they are happy to have resolved this matter noting no finding of wrongdoing or liability in the settlement, but used the opportunity to improve the institutions processes so nothing like this occurs in the future.

No way that data isn't already destroyed...

The article explains the rationale. If I was one of the students who played by the rules, and found out that somebody sitting next to me in class got a pass, I'd be upset. And, now, who's to say that somebody won't question every Stanford grad whether they really qualified? It tarnishes the brand that these students bought in to.

Of course, this is the exact same issue created by affirmative action/diversity/inclusivity campaigns.

No, it's not. I worked with a diversity program associated graduate programs at an "elite" university, so I have some insight into the application process, which differs from undergraduate admissions.

The first golden rule in these programs is never go after nor accept any student that is not qualified for the program. This does not benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit the student because they will ultimately fail. It doesn't benefit the department because they lose a slot for the student and the time investment. It doesn't benefit the school because it harms its reputation. Within the program that I worked, the idea that we had lax or easier admissions criteria for underrepresented students is categorically false and I mean this is the strongest possible sense.

Alright, so what did the program provide? A variety of things, but largely a support system for students who did not have peers from the same cultural background, which is important when you move away from your support system. It also provided resources for us to recruit at conferences, schools, and events that were overlooked by the departments themselves. Finally, it provided money to the departments assist in the cost of the tuition waivers for the students.

And, look, these programs are not perfect. However, let me be extremely clear, any notion that these students were not qualified and somehow tarnished the brand of the university are false. They were and are good and have been an asset to the university as well as their employers after graduation.

"The first golden rule in these programs is never go after nor accept any student that is not qualified for the program."

At this point, you should define "qualified". When affirmative action programs start accepting scores that are much lower than for other races, it begins to really call into question your argument.

I think kxyvr's argument is that they didn't do that. (That is kxyvr's grad program didn't, not that no program anywhere didn't.)

>When affirmative action programs start accepting scores that are much lower than for other races, it begins to really call into question your argument.

Might want to call into question your own argument since college admissions aren't based on a simple ranking of the highest scores. Wonder why diveristy programs get questioned but not legacy or athletic admissions.

Data has told another story. Mean test scores broken down by race at some schools have been known to show higher means for white and asian. Iirc thw source but i thought this was common knowledge.

Relevance? I just said test scores aren't the only measure. By your own argument Harvard should be majority (entirely?) asian students yet some how it's majority white. There are other considerations, as there should be. A fair approach is a subjective evaluation with a goal of keeping the student body relatively diverse as the country;s demographics.

They’re employing classic straw man argument

Even if I were to accept all of your assertions, the fact that such programs exist at all while admissions themselves are largely subjective is problematic. The issue isn’t that it tarnishes the university—the victims are the very students you intend to help. It casts doubt about themselves in their own mind, while also creating public scepticism.

This is a well known problem, written and talked about extensively by black intellectuals who came up before such programs were in place and had to mentor the generation that came up after.

How was success of the program being measured? And was next year's budget tied to any "diverse" graduates quotas being met?

The problem exists, if there's a monetary incentive or even bonus for quantity (and diversity implies to quantify) over quality.

Edit: Removed a line that could have been interpreted as unnecessary accusatory.

??? Stanford is definitely not an Ivy League school.

I assume parent was using "Ivy League" as a synonym for elite school with highly selective admissions. You're of course correct.

Stanford is ranked #7, following a tie between Columbia, MIT, U of Chicago, and Yale at #3.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

That's not what Ivy League means though, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

Yep, which actually makes it better than most of the Ivy League :)

Except they didn’t make it into an Ivy League college...