Maybe everybody who's been denied employment at Google, and met all of Google's hiring requirements, should sue Google for nepotism, eh?

EDIT: I checked and it's still an impacted major at my alma mater, too.

(2) Yes, I think that is the argument, that Google was willing to hire based on merit while universities are running admission processes that discriminate against Asian students even when their claimed policy is to not discriminate. The lawsuit against the University of California is due to UC’s lack of transparency or responsiveness on investigations into this student’s rejection.

https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/nanzhong

Re: the UC decisions, I hope this gets a fair investigation but I will note that I know multiple people who’ve been involved in university admissions who’ve all commented on how insanely competitive things are now at the top schools. Everyone got the message that they should major in CS over the last couple of decades and the programs mentioned in the news articles must get a hundred applicants for every open spot.

I’ve heard too many stories about turning down kids with perfect SATs, multiple AP 5s, great extracurriculars, etc. because they weren’t even the only graduate from their high school with those characteristics.

College admissions are a second-order planning process (IE, you have to consider whether the applicant is likely to accept your offer, if you forgo an offer to another candidate with lesser creds that was more likely to accept). See https://www.amazon.com/Gatekeepers-Admissions-Process-Premie... for some insight into the process.

What would that change? If you know how those companies hire, it’s not like his father would be allowed to even interview him, let alone hire him. You still have to make it through several interviews with other people.

Again, absolutely none of that is cheating - humans are just prone to thinking we’re far more rational than we actually are and there’s something like half a century of psychology and neuroscience studies showing that it’s both significant and requires effort to correct for.

Do we know that he was a top candidate though? Like, I know that sounds obtuse, because clearly he had some good scores, solid GPA, etc. But in a vacuum it's hard to disprove that there weren't 1000 other candidates with equally impressive stats.