Yale discriminated against whites and Asians, per Justice Department

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I am aware, not only did the Asian lawsuits use test scores, IT ALSO used soft skills to prove that Asian-Americans were discriminated against. Many of these kids are musicians and artists. There are less athletes but it is not nil. We have Asian-American friends who have had to prove themselves 3x over purely because of their race. I am so tired to claim Americans of Asian ethnicity lack soft skills when I see plenty who prove otherwise.

+1 this is true. Plenty of Asian Americans who have great e.c. and top scores get denied. If a URM person had the same exact transcript/application, that person would get in.

The problem is that they are competing against themselves as a group rather than against ALL applicants.

As my white DH says, Asian Americans are victims of their own success.

No, Asian Americans are victims of racial discrimination due to their inadequate political clout.

PP here.. I'm Asian American.



I don't think they are discrimianted because they are of Asian heritage. The problem is that these institutions want a diverse student body. I don't think that's a bad thing. We chose a school cluster in part because of the diversity. I think it's a laudable goal.

Unfortunately, there are just a lot of really qualified Asian American students. Many of these students don't have legacy or sports as their "hook". They only have their brains and hard work, and many are not from really wealthy families.

The group is indeed a victim of their own success, unfortunately. Is there some discrimination against them purely because of their "race"? There certainly could be some in the admissions office who are indeed racist. For example, I read an article about how some in the admissions office would mark the Asian American applicants as not having good "people skills" or whatever label they use even though they had ever met the application, but the person who interviewed the applicant stated on the feedback that the applicant did have those skills.

I don't know if this type of thing is systemic or it was just a few bad apples. But, I do think that these institutions have a right to achieve a diverse student body.

Having stated that, however, I think that in order to achieve this, they really should get rid of legacies. I know why they admit legacies, but if they truly want a diverse student body and care about the purety of their admissions, then they should get rid of legacies. IMO, they are trying to play two games at the same time.

What does it mean to have a "diverse student body"? Not trying to be difficult, but who gets to decide what it means to be a "diverse student body"? I think the problem with this concept is that then you're effectively creating quota systems based on some pre-conceived notion of how things should be. I support the concept of affirmative action, but I worry that it devolves into a quota system based on the arbitrary choice of some admission officers of what a "diverse student body" should look like. A quota system I think is what causes people to cry that the process is unfair.

All that being said, none of this really gets at the larger structural issues in society. That is, by the time you're applying to college at 17 years old, much of your life has been shaped by the opportunities in front of you, so in some sense, things can never be fair or equal. Even if you eliminated all the "unfair" preferences (race, legacies, etc.) in an admissions process, it wouldn't change the larger structural issues. That is, you could have a "fair" admissions process but it still may not actually really be fair.

It’s not about quotas. It’s more:: all things being equal — does one student bring something extra to the table. And “extra” could mean a wide variety of things— from having been a refugee, to being a musical prodigy, to being a 10th generation legacy — so that all of those kids can sit together in a dining hall and communicate with each other to build a better world. Looking at ‘fair’ and measuring that with test scores and awards isn’t the point. It’s more about getting a group of people with the skills and aptitude to do well (the easy part) and then building an interesting community.

Except it doesn’t work out that way. Look at aunt Becky case for example. People just use whatever means necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As far as I am aware, not only did the Asian lawsuits use test scores, IT ALSO used soft skills to prove that Asian-Americans were discriminated against. Many of these kids are musicians and artists. There are less athletes but it is not nil. We have Asian-American friends who have had to prove themselves 3x over purely because of their race. I am so tired to claim Americans of Asian ethnicity lack soft skills when I see plenty who prove otherwise.

+1 this is true. Plenty of Asian Americans who have great e.c. and top scores get denied. If a URM person had the same exact transcript/application, that person would get in.

The problem is that they are competing against themselves as a group rather than against ALL applicants.

As my white DH says, Asian Americans are victims of their own success.

No, Asian Americans are victims of racial discrimination due to their inadequate political clout.

PP here.. I'm Asian American.



I don't think they are discrimianted because they are of Asian heritage. The problem is that these institutions want a diverse student body. I don't think that's a bad thing. We chose a school cluster in part because of the diversity. I think it's a laudable goal.

Unfortunately, there are just a lot of really qualified Asian American students. Many of these students don't have legacy or sports as their "hook". They only have their brains and hard work, and many are not from really wealthy families.

The group is indeed a victim of their own success, unfortunately. Is there some discrimination against them purely because of their "race"? There certainly could be some in the admissions office who are indeed racist. For example, I read an article about how some in the admissions office would mark the Asian American applicants as not having good "people skills" or whatever label they use even though they had ever met the application, but the person who interviewed the applicant stated on the feedback that the applicant did have those skills.

I don't know if this type of thing is systemic or it was just a few bad apples. But, I do think that these institutions have a right to achieve a diverse student body.

Having stated that, however, I think that in order to achieve this, they really should get rid of legacies. I know why they admit legacies, but if they truly want a diverse student body and care about the purety of their admissions, then they should get rid of legacies. IMO, they are trying to play two games at the same time.

What does it mean to have a "diverse student body"? Not trying to be difficult, but who gets to decide what it means to be a "diverse student body"? I think the problem with this concept is that then you're effectively creating quota systems based on some pre-conceived notion of how things should be. I support the concept of affirmative action, but I worry that it devolves into a quota system based on the arbitrary choice of some admission officers of what a "diverse student body" should look like. A quota system I think is what causes people to cry that the process is unfair.

All that being said, none of this really gets at the larger structural issues in society. That is, by the time you're applying to college at 17 years old, much of your life has been shaped by the opportunities in front of you, so in some sense, things can never be fair or equal. Even if you eliminated all the "unfair" preferences (race, legacies, etc.) in an admissions process, it wouldn't change the larger structural issues. That is, you could have a "fair" admissions process but it still may not actually really be fair.

It’s not about quotas. It’s more:: all things being equal — does one student bring something extra to the table. And “extra” could mean a wide variety of things— from having been a refugee, to being a musical prodigy, to being a 10th generation legacy — so that all of those kids can sit together in a dining hall and communicate with each other to build a better world. Looking at ‘fair’ and measuring that with test scores and awards isn’t the point. It’s more about getting a group of people with the skills and aptitude to do well (the easy part) and then building an interesting community.

I'd have no issue if all things were equal but there are significant gaps in test scores by race. At Harvard Asians averaged the highest at 767 followed by whites at 745, Latinos at 718, Native Americans at 712 and Blacks at 704. That's not all things being equal now is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pointing the finger at minorities. Legacies are the ones you should be concerned about. Legacies and friends/relatives of big donors are a huge population in the Ivy League.

What some people don't understand is that as long as you meet the minimum requirements, then you are qualified to get in. It's not about choosing the top scores/GPAs. We can all agree that colleges want a diverse population so once a student meets the minimum score/GPA qualification, they are evaluated on other criteria.

An asian getting a 1600 on the SAT has the same chance as another minority getting a 1400. They both meet the guidelines and then it's on to other criteria. However, they don't even look at the scores for some legacies and friends of top donors.

Yes the “holistic review “ mantra.

+1. Everybody understands how the game is played but stop acting like your URM child didn't receive a sizable handicap during the admissions process. And as much noise as you'd like to make about legacy admits, that cohort's quantitative metrics are at least in the ballpark of the median. And why would I care about a handful of large donors being advantaged if their gifts benefit the school overall?

Some are in the ballpark of the median and some aren't. Same with URMs. My point is that whether you're above or below the median, you still qualified for admissions. And, nobody every said that colleges only consider the quantitative metrics. You can't just take the top 1,000 quantitative scores to fill a class of 1,000....you'd have an entire school full of test preppers with diversity of thought.

Also, I would hope you're not advocating buying admissions by donating...at least that's what your last statement implies.

[Anonymous]

I truly don’t understand the angst of white parents about this. Do yourself a favor and do some research about amazing and successful alumni of some “second-tier” schools. If your child is the Einstein destined for greatness you believe them to be they will shine wherever they go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still fascinated that some Asians find comfort in having white supremacists on their side on college admissions. Luckily most of us understand that those who don't want African-Americans in elite colleges would be happy to bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act.

+1. They're just using Asian-Americans here.

Asian American kids are discriminated in college admissions - it is fact.

Lol: You get that saying “it is fact” (sic) doesn’t make it one, right? So the least you could do is throw in some supporting data or something.
Also, showing that there are students with great grades, nice extra curricular activities, and wonderful test scores who don’t get accepted by Yale, or wherever, isn’t saying anything since there are a lot of Valedictorians with good scores who apply.

OP — you’re making a great point.

My guess is that Yale is thrilled to get more students like Maya Lin — who are brilliant, creative individuals, and somewhat less thrilled to get students of any background who don’t stand out from the crowd of hardworking valedictorians who write essays about their over supervised community service projects.

I can't believe that anyone still believes that Asians aren't discriminated against in the admissions process. Can you imagine the outrage if AA applicants had to score significantly higher on the SAT than everyone else? They would go insane! You must be a justice warrior type to be in such denial.

The important thing here is that test scores aren’t the important thing.

Right discount the only objective measure out of many because it doesn’t fit with the narrative.

More objective than other factors.

SAT scores have been shown time and time again to NOT be objective and everybody know GPA is not objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows reverse racism exists. That's why people with 1 drip of black blood pretend to be black.

+1. See e.g. Harris who was raised by her Asian mom since her parents divorced when she was 7, but claimed as African American.

Her father is black, she's not claiming to be black, she is black. Also, Asians consider half black/half Asian kids black. I have biracial black/white kids and all their white friends refer to them as black and all my white friends refer to them as black, despite them knowing my kids have a white parent. Society does no treat them as biracial, they treat them as black. And, by the way, whites invented the one drop rule.

Copmala pretends to be black when it suits her.

And lives in a world that will never stop reminding her what it’s like to be — not just a woman of color, but a Black woman in America.
Let’s see how many of Bunker Boy’s frenzied tweets have racial components.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a difficult issue. Most years at our super strong public high school, the valedictorian is a strong student that has the objectively high numerical average but it often acheived without taking some high level classes in which it is difficult to get high grades.

But this does not seem to deter the admissions committee at some very selective colleges from choosing some of the lower ranked but more highly challenged students for admission and not the valedictorian.

They don't have to always take the valedictorian who may have achieved that by avoiding challenges.

Don’t be a dimwit.....this is about meeting racial quotas regardless of qualifications.

Nonsense. There are many more qualified applicants then there are spots at many if these institutions. Knock out every unqualified applicant and these schools still have too many takers for too few positions.

If this were the case then black and Latino admits would have comparable stats but they don’t....they are markedly lower.

Again, the focus on admission isn’t just or even primarily “stats”. It’s. What can this person offer the community over an above having the “stats” that suggest that they will do well academically.

Keep trying to convince yourself of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Love this post!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop pointing the finger at minorities. Legacies are the ones you should be concerned about. Legacies and friends/relatives of big donors are a huge population in the Ivy League.

What some people don't understand is that as long as you meet the minimum requirements, then you are qualified to get in. It's not about choosing the top scores/GPAs. We can all agree that colleges want a diverse population so once a student meets the minimum score/GPA qualification, they are evaluated on other criteria.

An asian getting a 1600 on the SAT has the same chance as another minority getting a 1400. They both meet the guidelines and then it's on to other criteria. However, they don't even look at the scores for some legacies and friends of top donors.

Thank you for stating this so clearly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't like this graphic because of its implication: blacks are mental midgets. A better representation would be the kids are all the same height, and the fencing rises higher as it blocks the view of the kid on the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still fascinated that some Asians find comfort in having white supremacists on their side on college admissions. Luckily most of us understand that those who don't want African-Americans in elite colleges would be happy to bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act.

+1. They're just using Asian-Americans here.

Asian American kids are discriminated in college admissions - it is fact.

Lol: You get that saying “it is fact” (sic) doesn’t make it one, right? So the least you could do is throw in some supporting data or something.
Also, showing that there are students with great grades, nice extra curricular activities, and wonderful test scores who don’t get accepted by Yale, or wherever, isn’t saying anything since there are a lot of Valedictorians with good scores who apply.

OP — you’re making a great point.

My guess is that Yale is thrilled to get more students like Maya Lin — who are brilliant, creative individuals, and somewhat less thrilled to get students of any background who don’t stand out from the crowd of hardworking valedictorians who write essays about their over supervised community service projects.

I can't believe that anyone still believes that Asians aren't discriminated against in the admissions process. Can you imagine the outrage if AA applicants had to score significantly higher on the SAT than everyone else? They would go insane! You must be a justice warrior type to be in such denial.

The important thing here is that test scores aren’t the important thing.

Right discount the only objective measure out of many because it doesn’t fit with the narrative.

First up — it’s not as objective as all that, and it’s only one point out of many things that Yale looks at to create an interesting class.

I don’t have a narrative. Just basing my comments on my own experiences and observations as a student.

It is more objective than all the other factors.

In some ways. But it’s also comparing two student who may have the exact same scores — while one had 14 years of private schools and tutoring and one grew up in a rural area, is taking the tests in a language they’ve only been speaking for 5 years, and didn’t find out about SATs until a week before the test. Both students have the skills to suggest that they will do well academically, but they’re bringing very different packages and possibly very different skill sets to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly don’t understand the angst of white parents about this. Do yourself a favor and do some research about amazing and successful alumni of some “second-tier” schools. If your child is the Einstein destined for greatness you believe them to be they will shine wherever they go.

+1,000 big fish small pond applies to colllege the same as high school

If your kid is a star better to go to a tier 2 school get one on one faculty time the best internships and job connections

vs a tier 1 school where your kid is just one of the herd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly don’t understand the angst of white parents about this. Do yourself a favor and do some research about amazing and successful alumni of some “second-tier” schools. If your child is the Einstein destined for greatness you believe them to be they will shine wherever they go.

You're having a hard time understanding why people might have a problem with unfair discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Asians are always saying that they're discriminated against in the college admissions process. We've been hearing this for years and now they're supporting right-wing politicians who are using them for their own racist agendas.

I don't know why Asians don't understand that colleges (especially the Ivy League) don't just admit the highest scores. There are so many other factors. This is a hard fact and I just don't understand why that isn't getting through. You can complain and support all of the anti-URM politicians you want but the schools are going to do what they want to do.

It's not like Asians aren't represented at all of the top colleges...Maybe your kid didn't get in with his high scores but someone else's Asian kid did. Maybe you should look at their scores and complain about them. We all know that schools have a "quota" on the number of Blacks, Asians, Latinos, gender, everything. You're competing against your own racial category....and everyone that's admitted has met the minimum quantitative score standards. If you raise the standards, nothing will change...you'll still be in the same situation. If the school is going to admit 500 Asians and your kid is ranked #501, then you don't get in under any situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't like this graphic because of its implication: blacks are mental midgets

I am the OP of the graphic, and it does not say that at all.