Currently, Harvard’s case is still in the process of discovery, a stage during which both parties can request information from one another to use in subsequent court proceedings.
Though Harvard administrators rejoiced after the Supreme Court upheld race-conscious admissions policies at the University of Texas, it is unclear whether the decision will similarly apply to Harvard as it fights to protect its admissions policies in court.
As a lawsuit alleging discrimination in Harvard’s admissions practices remains delayed—awaiting a Supreme Court decision on the related affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin—the College’s use of race as a factor in admissions decisions has once again come under scrutiny.
About 80 percent of the students admitted to the Class of 2020 plan to matriculate in the fall—a yield rate comparable to that for the Class of 2019—after Harvard saw a record high number of applicants and a historic low percent acceptance.
As HLS admissions officers are finalizing next year’s class, they are doing so with an eye toward a group of fields that deviate from the traditional path to legal studies: STEM.
A five-time U.S. presidential candidate and longtime public figure, Nader—a Harvard Law School graduate who built his career on consumer protection activism and environmentalism—seemed an odd fit for a University governing board, much less as a member of Unz’s “Free Harvard, Fair Harvard” ticket.
Much like his campaign for Board of Overseers, Ron Unz’s debate debut was unconventional and almost did not happen.
In the current race to the bottom that is the acceptance rates of elite colleges, Stanford has taken top prize—admitting a lower percentage of applicants than Harvard for the fourth year in a row.