Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al
Filing
421
DECLARATION re 412 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 115, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 118, # 119 Exhibit 119, # 120 Exhibit 120, # 121 Exhibit 121, # 122 Exhibit 122, # 123 Exhibit 123, # 124 Exhibit 124, # 125 Exhibit 125, # 126 Exhibit 126, # 127 Exhibit 127, # 128 Exhibit 128, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135, # 136 Exhibit 136, # 137 Exhibit 137, # 138 Exhibit 138, # 139 Exhibit 139, # 140 Exhibit 140, # 141 Exhibit 141, # 142 Exhibit 142, # 143 Exhibit 143, # 144 Exhibit 144, # 145 Exhibit 145, # 146 Exhibit 146, # 147 Exhibit 147, # 148 Exhibit 148, # 149 Exhibit 149, # 150 Exhibit 150, # 151 Exhibit 151, # 152 Exhibit 152, # 153 Exhibit 153, # 154 Exhibit 154, # 155 Exhibit 155, # 156 Exhibit 156, # 157 Exhibit 157, # 158 Exhibit 158, # 159 Exhibit 159, # 160 Exhibit 160, # 161 Exhibit 161, # 162 Exhibit 162, # 163 Exhibit 163, # 164 Exhibit 164, # 165 Exhibit 165, # 166 Exhibit 166, # 167 Exhibit 167, # 168 Exhibit 168, # 169 Exhibit 169, # 170 Exhibit 170, # 171 Exhibit 171, # 172 Exhibit 172, # 173 Exhibit 173, # 174 Exhibit 174, # 175 Exhibit 175, # 176 Exhibit 176, # 177 Exhibit 177, # 178 Exhibit 178, # 179 Exhibit 179, # 180 Exhibit 180, # 181 Exhibit 181, # 182 Exhibit 182, # 183 Exhibit 183, # 184 Exhibit 184, # 185 Exhibit 185, # 186 Exhibit 186, # 187 Exhibit 187, # 188 Exhibit 188, # 189 Exhibit 189, # 190 Exhibit 190, # 191 Exhibit 191, # 192 Exhibit 192, # 193 Exhibit 193, # 194 Exhibit 194, # 195 Exhibit 195, # 196 Exhibit 196, # 197 Exhibit 197, # 198 Exhibit 198, # 199 Exhibit 199, # 200 Exhibit 200, # 201 Exhibit 201, # 202 Exhibit 202, # 203 Exhibit 203, # 204 Exhibit 204, # 205 Exhibit 205, # 206 Exhibit 206, # 207 Exhibit 207, # 208 Exhibit 208, # 209 Exhibit 209, # 210 Exhibit 210, # 211 Exhibit 211, # 212 Exhibit 212, # 213 Exhibit 213, # 214 Exhibit 214, # 215 Exhibit 215, # 216 Exhibit 216, # 217 Exhibit 217, # 218 Exhibit 218, # 219 Exhibit 219, # 220 Exhibit 220, # 221 Exhibit 221, # 222 Exhibit 222, # 223 Exhibit 223, # 224 Exhibit 224, # 225 Exhibit 225, # 226 Exhibit 226, # 227 Exhibit 227, # 228 Exhibit 228, # 229 Exhibit 229, # 230 Exhibit 230, # 231 Exhibit 231, # 232 Exhibit 232, # 233 Exhibit 233, # 234 Exhibit 234, # 235 Exhibit 235, # 236 Exhibit 236, # 237 Exhibit 237, # 238 Exhibit 238, # 239 Exhibit 239, # 240 Exhibit 240, # 241 Exhibit 241, # 242 Exhibit 242, # 243 Exhibit 243, # 244 Exhibit 244, # 245 Exhibit 245, # 246 Exhibit 246, # 247 Exhibit 247, # 248 Exhibit 248, # 249 Exhibit 249, # 250 Exhibit 250, # 251 Exhibit 251, # 252 Exhibit 252, # 253 Exhibit 253, # 254 Exhibit 254, # 255 Exhibit 255, # 256 Exhibit 256, # 257 Exhibit 257, # 258 Exhibit 258, # 259 Exhibit 259, # 260 Exhibit 260, # 261 Exhibit 261)(Consovoy, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 262 Unredacted version of Declaration, # 263 Exhibit 1 (filed under seal), # 264 Exhibit 2 (filed under seal), # 265 Exhibit 5 (filed under seal), # 266 Exhibit 6 (filed under seal), # 267 Exhibit 7 (filed under seal), # 268 Exhibit 8 (filed under seal), # 269 Exhibit 9 (filed under seal), # 270 Exhibit 10 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 271 Exhibit 11 (filed under seal), # 272 Exhibit 12(filed under seal), # 273 Exhibit 13 (filed under seal), # 274 Exhibit 14 (filed under seal), # 275 Exhibit 16 (filed under seal), # 276 Exhibit 17(filed under seal), # 277 Exhibit 18(filed under seal), # 278 Exhibit 19 (filed under seal), # 279 Exhibit 20 (filed under seal), # 280 Exhibit 22 (filed under seal), # 281 Exhibit 23 (filed under seal), # 282 Exhibit 24 (filed under seal), # 283 Exhibit 25(filed under seal), # 284 Exhibit 26 (filed under seal), # 285 Exhibit 28 (filed under seal), # 286 Exhibit 29 (filed under seal), # 287 Exhibit 31 (filed under seal), # 288 Exhibit 32 (filed under seal), # 289 Exhibit 33 (filed under seal), # 290 Exhibit 35 (filed under seal), # 291 Exhibit 36 (filed under seal), # 292 Exhibit 37 (filed under seal), # 293 Exhibit 38(filed under seal), # 294 Exhibit 39 (filed under seal), # 295 Exhibit 40 (filed under seal), # 296 Exhibit 41, # 297 Exhibit 42 (filed under seal), # 298 Exhibit 43 (filed under seal), # 299 Exhibit 44(filed under seal), # 300 Exhibit 45 (filed under seal), # 301 Exhibit 46 (filed under seal), # 302 Exhibit 47 (filed under seal), # 303 Exhibit 48 (filed under seal), # 304 Exhibit 51 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz).
EXHIBIT 122
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Redacted:
PII/SPI
@gmail.corn]
Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:02:23 PM
Pacholok, Olesia
NYT: Better Colleges Failing to Lure Talented Poor
> The findings underscore that elite public and private colleges, despite
> a stated desire to recruit an economically diverse group of students,
> have largely failed to do so.
> ...Top low-income students in the nation's 15 largest metropolitan areas
> do often apply to selective colleges, according to the study, which was
> based on test scores, self-reported data, and census and other data for
> the high school class of 2008. But such students from smaller
> metropolitan areas — like Bridgeport; Memphis; Sacramento; Toledo, Ohio;
> and Tulsa, Okla. — and rural areas typically do not.
> [Top universities] continue to focus their recruiting efforts on a small
> subset of high schools in cities like Boston, New York and Los Angeles
> that have strong low-income students.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/educationischolarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html
Better Colleges Failing to Lure Talented Poor
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 16, 2013 131 Comments
Most low-income students who have top test scores and grades do not
even apply to the nation's best colleges, according to a new analysis
of every high school student who took the SAT in a recent year.
The pattern contributes to widening economic inequality and low levels
of mobility in this country, economists say, because college graduates
earn so much more on average than nongraduates do. Low-income students
who excel in high school often do not graduate from the less selective
colleges they attend.
Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom
fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country's 238
most selective colleges, according to the analysis, conducted by
Caroline M. Hoxby of Stanford and Christopher Avery of Harvard, two
longtime education researchers. Among top students in the highest
income quartile, that figure was 78 percent.
The findings underscore that elite public and private colleges,
despite a slated desire to recruit an economically diverse group of
students, have largely failed to do so.
Many top low-income students instead attend community colleges or
four-year institutions closer to their homes, the study found. The
students often are unaware of the amount of financial aid available or
simply do not consider a top college because they have never met
someone who attended one, according to the study's authors, other
CONFIDENTIAL
HARV00026550
experts and high school guidance counselors.
"A lot of low-income and middle-income students have the inclination
to stay local, at known colleges, which is understandable when you
think about it," said George Moran, a guidance counselor at Central
Magnet High School in Bridgeport, Conn. "They didn't have any other
examples, any models — who's ever heard of Bowdoin College?"
Whatever the reasons, the choice frequently has major consequences.
The colleges that most low-income students attend have fewer resources
and lower graduation rates than selective colleges, and many students
who attend a local college do not graduate. Those who do graduate can
miss out on the career opportunities that top colleges offer.
The new study is beginning to receive attention among scholars and
college officials because it is more comprehensive than other research
on college choices. The study suggests that the problems, and the
opportunities, for low-income students are larger than previously
thought.
"It's pretty close to unimpeachable — they're drawing on a national
sample," said Tom Parker, the dean of admissions at Amherst College,
which has aggressively recruited poor and middle-class students in
recent years. That so many high-achieving, lower-income students exist
"is a very important realization," Mr. Parker said, and he suggested
that colleges should become more creative in persuading them to apply.
Top low-income students in the nation's 15 largest metropolitan areas
do often apply to selective colleges, according to the study, which
was based on test scores, self-reported data, and census and other
data for the high school class of 2008. But such students from smaller
metropolitan areas — like Bridgeport; Memphis; Sacramento; Toledo,
Ohio; and Tulsa, Okla. — and rural areas typically do not.
These students, Ms. Hoxby said, "lack exposure to people who say there
is a difference among colleges."
Elite colleges may soon face more pressure to recruit poor and
middle-class students, if the Supreme Court restricts race-based
affirmative action. A ruling in the case, involving the University of
Texas, is expected sometime before late June.
Colleges currently give little or no advantage in the admissions
process to low-income students, compared with more affluent students
of the same race, other research has found. A broad ruling against the
University of Texas affirmative action program could cause colleges to
take into account various socioeconomic measures, including income,
neighborhood and family composition. Such a step would require an
increase in these colleges' financial aid spending but would help them
enroll significant numbers of minority students.
Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8
percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the
study found.
"If there are changes to how we define diversity," said Greg W.
Roberts, the dean of admission at the University of Virginia,
referring to the court case, "then I expect schools will really work
hard at identifying low-income students."
Ms. Hoxby and Mr. Avery, both economists, compared the current
approach of colleges to looking under a streetlight for a lost key.
CONFIDENTIAL
HARV00026551
The institutions continue to focus their recruiting efforts on a small
subset of high schools in cities like Boston, New York and Los Angeles
that have strong low-income students.
The researchers defined high-achieving students as those very likely
to gain admission to a selective college, which translated into
roughly the top 4 percent nationwide. Students needed to have at least
an A-minus average and a score in the top 10 percent among students
who took the SAT or the ACT.
Of these high achievers, 34 percent came from families in the top
fourth of earners, 27 percent from the second fourth, 22 percent from
the third fourth and 17 percent from the bottom fourth. (The
researchers based the income cutoffs on the population of families
with a high school senior living at home, with $41,472 being the
dividing line for the bottom quartile and $120,776 for the top.)
Winona Leon, a sophomore at the University of Southern California who
grew up in West Texas, said she was not surprised by the study's
results. Ms. Leon was the valedictorian of her 17-member senior class
in the ranch town of Fort Davis, where Advanced Placement classes and
SAT preparation were rare.
"It was really on ourselves to create those resources," she said.
She first assumed that faraway colleges would be too expensive, given
their high list prices and the cost of plane tickets home. But after
receiving a mailing from QuestBridge, an outreach program for
low-income students, she came to realize that a top college might
offer her enough financial aid to make it less expensive than a state
university in Texas.
On average, private colleges and top state universities are
substantially more expensive than community colleges, even with
financial aid. But some colleges, especially the most selective, offer
enough aid to close or eliminate the gap for low-income students.
If they make it to top colleges, high-achieving, low-income students
tend to thrive there, the paper found. Based on the most recent data,
89 percent of such students at selective colleges had graduated or
were on pace to do so, compared with only 50 percent of top low-income
students at nonselective colleges.
The study will be published in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
The authors emphasized that their data did not prove that students not
applying to top colleges would apply and excel if colleges recruited
them more heavily. Ms. Hoxby and Sarah Turner, a University of
Virginia professor, are conducting follow-up research in which they
perform random trials to evaluate which recruiting techniques work and
how the students subsequently do.
For colleges, the potential recruiting techniques include mailed
brochures, phone calls, e-mail, social media and outreach from alumni.
Another recent study, cited in the Hoxby-Avery paper, suggests that
very selective colleges have at least one graduate in the "vast
majority of U.S. counties."
CONFIDENTIAL
HARV00026552