I’ve written about Harvard based on my work experience with their graduates. To a person, they were not properly trained and always tried some classroom methods that slowed down our work and always failed. We had to undo it and then do things the right way. They consistently over estimated their abilities.
I have the same lack of respect for UNC-CH for the same reason. Additionally, UNC-CH was part of the Fauci gain of function Covid research that took place with the Wuhan labs.
I worked in RTP and while the Tar Heel graduates were at least better workers than those from Harvard, they came with the same attitude that we gave a shit where they went to college vs what they could do to help our company.
HERE IS WHAT THEY DID
Harvard and UNC are being sued because they allegedly (HA) discriminate(d) against Asians. Why? Because they have higher GPA’s and test scores, but are of the wrong skin color for diversity and wokeness.
You’d think that for prestige, you’d want the best and the brightest, but Harvard and by extension the Ivy League and Duke (UNC-CH isn’t that great, I lived there and watched who went and who came out, they didn’t get into Harvard so they wound up there).
Instead, they want to be woke, show diversity, embarrass the Alumni and further taint the reputation and respect for the institution and it’s graduates.
The Petition for review by SCOTUS:
Harvard uses race at every stage of the admissions process. To begin, Harvard recruits high-school students differently based on race. App.154-56. African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard, but white and Asian-American students must score a 1350. JA.577:6-581:20; JA.3741. In some parts of the country, Asian-American applicants must score higher than all other racial groups, including whites, to be recruited by Harvard.
* * *
Harvard’s admissions data revealed astonishing racial disparities in admission rates among similarly qualified applicants. SFFA’s expert testified that applicants with the same “academic index” (a metric created by Harvard based on test scores and GPA) had widely different admission rates by race. App.179-80; JA.6008-09. For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).
From Legal Insurrection:
The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Asian students. It provides, in part:
The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.
It goes on to say:
The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants — or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it.
The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs…
The statistics are shocking. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment….
Not a single college or university supported the Asian students. To the contrary, several dozen briefs were filed against SFFA on behalf of hundreds of colleges, universities, higher-education and professional-school associations, teachers unions, more than 1,000 professors and deans and even college basketball coaches.
One of the most striking things about these briefs is the openness with which colleges admit to having racial preferences and their complete lack of sympathy for the Asian victims of discrimination.
The American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, bluntly demanded the court “not ban race-conscious admissions policies.” The University of California president and chancellors argued that “universities must retain the ability to engage in the limited consideration of race.”
A group of highly competitive schools including most of the Ivy League claimed, “No race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body.”
Without racial preferences, in other words, these schools could not achieve their desired racial mix….
So Harvard lets in those who it knows won’t be able to make it (look up STEM studies, entrance vs graduation), saddle them with excessive student loan debt and then let them get a degree in the Arts, for those who stick it out. They enter the job world penalized by both knowledge and debt.
The rest of them will be ok as long as they stay with their alumni buddies. Work is just the next Ivy League club anyway, going by their definition.