[IvyAdmisions]

On what basis?

The Ivy League schools understand that admission is a ticket to a comfy-but-historically-and-culturally-insignificant middle-class life. Their goal is to guard against applicants seeeking that and to look for those who will go further.

It's not unlike VCs who guard against investing in founders who will take the first acquisition offer they see so they can score a few million and live comfortably. That outcome does nothing for them.

[reitzensteinm]

You're making an argument of rational self interest, which doesn't at all speak to morality.

Imagine a company that maintains a culture of grooming executives through the ranks. After reviewing their data, they find that more women than men leave to start families. Are they then justified to hire only men, or more subtly divert resources to only groom male junior employees?

OK, so an Ivy League school wants to continue with policies with racist outcomes because it's better for the school. It's probably going to stay legal for quite some time, so they'll be free to continue. But they shouldn't receive a dime of government money, and will deserve the scorn they'll be viewed with in history.

[extra88]

Asian students make up a much greater percentage of Harvard College students than the percentage of Asians in the U.S. population, that doesn't sound like a racist outcome.

What's most frustrating is this case is a stalking horse for white racists who want to eliminate race as a consideration to keep higher education predominantly white and therefore economically advantaged.

[tomp]

> they find that more women than men leave to start families

They're definitely justified in filtering out people (men and women) who are more likely to leave to start familier, and prefer those who won't.

This is of course a bad outcome for society, but that's how capitalism works - and if we want companies to optimize for/prefer families, then we should structure the societal incentives such.

[forapurpose]

> This is of course a bad outcome for society, but that's how capitalism works - and if we want companies to optimize for/prefer families, then we should structure the societal incentives such.

There's a premise here (and in many similar arguments) that the capitalists and their decision-makers (the managers) can only follow financial incentives; they are almost victims of circumstance with no agency of their own.

Markets and financial incentives are useful tools, but very imperfect. To keep society functioning and to do good and do well, we all must sacrifice some financial benefits. What is the financial incentive for soldiers, as a simple example, or for nurses who serve in Ebola zones? For Albert Einstein? 'The market made me do it' is not a defense; there are financial incentives for murder too; we must make our own decisions and we are responsible for the consequences.

From another perspective, it's ironic that capitalists, traditionally more conservative, take on this structuralist argument, usually abhorred by the right. If we say the system makes minorities and women poor, they say it's nonsense. If we say the system makes capitalists do evil, well what else could they do?

[tomp]

> There's a premise here (and in many similar arguments) that the capitalists and their decision-makers (the managers) can only follow financial incentives

No that's just your interpretation.

> there are financial incentives for murder too

Indeed, whici is why the society introduced significant non-financial (and financial) disincentives for murder to counteract them.

[kanel_]

Tsk tsk, of course we should restrict those who seek upper middle class lives in law and medicine, when clearly we should instead be selecting for upper-upper middle class livelihoods in I-banking and, once in a blue moon, management consulting!