How Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the article (seems like so many posters are taking the plaintiffs allegations as fact).

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.[/b


[b]“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

We just don’t disagree, we vigorously disagree. Vigorously, I say.

[Anonymous]

This tells me that white folk feel threatened by Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's all layed out here. Basically each applicant gets ranked in four categories on a scale. Academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. Harvard wants top people in each category and ideally top people in multiple categories. Also, top academic kids are a dime a dozen. You need top academics plus at least one of the other criteria.

The ratings also indicate that applicants who are highly rated on non-academic dimensions
are much scarcer than applicants with a high academic rating. Exhibit 5 shows that about 42% of
applicants have an academic rating of 1 or 2, while fewer than 25% of applicants receive a 1 or 2 on
each of the other three profile ratings. Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three
dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on
Ratings Combination
Number of
Applicants Admission Rate
Candidates who Excel on One Dimension
1. Academic rating of 1, no other 1s 663 68%
2. Extracurricular rating of 1, no other 1s 453 48%
3. Personal rating of 1, no other 1s 41 66%
4. Athletic rating of 1, no other 1s 1,340 88%
Multi-Dimensional Candidates
5. Three ratings of 2, one rating of 3 or 4 9,266 43%
6. Four ratings of 2 622 68%
Weaker Candidates
7. No ratings of 1 or 2 55,981 0.1%
CONFIDENTIAL Page 29
non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish
applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating.

Start on page 28

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

This document is such an eye opener to someone who has elementary aged kids. The emphasis on non-academic traits is fascinating. It isn't enough to have the highest test score and GPA. Harvard really is looking for well rounded students. Instead of sending my kids to academic enrichment camps, maybe I need to send them to drama camp, have them specialize in a sport, or start a business.
I really thought it was enough to be the highest academically achieving kid, and it just isn't. It is only one out of four categories Harvard is considering. If this document lays out is the criteria for accepting students, I don't see how they can lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article (seems like so many posters are taking the plaintiffs allegations as fact).

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.[/b



[b]“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

Great. Then we should just believe Harvard and it's self serving statement along with it's ad hominem attack on Blum. Eff Harvard. Hope they lose big.

Harvard doesn’t lose.

Blum will lose this fight just like he lost the one in Texas. His aim is not to help Asian Americans, but to end all affirmative action in college and school admissions. This will only help whites and Asians and hurt the colleges. My kid doesn't want to be in a school that is predominantly white and Asian. Everyone loses -- not just African Americans and Hispanics. Except, of course, the Asians who seem to want the makeup of the college campus to be such. This is what angers me the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article (seems like so many posters are taking the plaintiffs allegations as fact).

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.[/b



[b]“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

Great. Then we should just believe Harvard and it's self serving statement along with it's ad hominem attack on Blum. Eff Harvard. Hope they lose big.

Harvard doesn’t lose.

Blum will lose this fight just like he lost the one in Texas. His aim is not to help Asian Americans, but to end all affirmative action in college and school admissions. This will only help whites and Asians and hurt the colleges. My kid doesn't want to be in a school that is predominantly white and Asian. Everyone loses -- not just African Americans and Hispanics. Except, of course, the Asians who seem to want the makeup of the college campus to be such. This is what angers me the most.

Yes, if the composition of the Supreme Court remains, plaintiffs will lose. Even if Kennedy, J. retires, it most likely won’t be until the Harris Administration, with a Democratic Senate intact. No need to take a dig at Asians, though. Assuming arguendo your “kid” wants that type of diversity, you no doubt think it shouldn’t come at the expense of his or her obtaining a seat at the institution, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's all layed out here. Basically each applicant gets ranked in four categories on a scale. Academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. Harvard wants top people in each category and ideally top people in multiple categories. Also, top academic kids are a dime a dozen. You need top academics plus at least one of the other criteria.

The ratings also indicate that applicants who are highly rated on non-academic dimensions
are much scarcer than applicants with a high academic rating. Exhibit 5 shows that about 42% of
applicants have an academic rating of 1 or 2, while fewer than 25% of applicants receive a 1 or 2 on
each of the other three profile ratings. Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three
dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on
Ratings Combination
Number of
Applicants Admission Rate
Candidates who Excel on One Dimension
1. Academic rating of 1, no other 1s 663 68%
2. Extracurricular rating of 1, no other 1s 453 48%
3. Personal rating of 1, no other 1s 41 66%
4. Athletic rating of 1, no other 1s 1,340 88%
Multi-Dimensional Candidates
5. Three ratings of 2, one rating of 3 or 4 9,266 43%
6. Four ratings of 2 622 68%
Weaker Candidates
7. No ratings of 1 or 2 55,981 0.1%
CONFIDENTIAL Page 29
non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish
applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating.

Start on page 28

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

It's all BS. They are using all these fuzzy metrics just so that they can score the Asians low and use that to build a case to reject them to racially balance their class. Just like they did with the Jews in the 1920s and 30s.

It's not as if Asians are aliens and couldn't score well on these metrics. If they were being evaluated without bias, a larger proportion of Asians would get higher scores on these dimensions as well. They don't not because they are uni dimensional robots, they don't because the adcoms eff them over in their ratings just to reject them in large numbers.

You would never accept an assertion that blacks are less intelligent as a race, but so many on these forums have no problem thinking that Asians are just GPA grubbing drones and thus would as a race score lower on these metrics.

These bigoted adcoms are just deliberately scoring Asians low on these fuzzy metrics because it is very hard to dispute them. How the heck can someone challenge whether someone is well respected widely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's all layed out here. Basically each applicant gets ranked in four categories on a scale. Academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. Harvard wants top people in each category and ideally top people in multiple categories. Also, top academic kids are a dime a dozen. You need top academics plus at least one of the other criteria.

The ratings also indicate that applicants who are highly rated on non-academic dimensions
are much scarcer than applicants with a high academic rating. Exhibit 5 shows that about 42% of
applicants have an academic rating of 1 or 2, while fewer than 25% of applicants receive a 1 or 2 on
each of the other three profile ratings. Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three
dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on
Ratings Combination
Number of
Applicants Admission Rate
Candidates who Excel on One Dimension
1. Academic rating of 1, no other 1s 663 68%
2. Extracurricular rating of 1, no other 1s 453 48%
3. Personal rating of 1, no other 1s 41 66%
4. Athletic rating of 1, no other 1s 1,340 88%
Multi-Dimensional Candidates
5. Three ratings of 2, one rating of 3 or 4 9,266 43%
6. Four ratings of 2 622 68%
Weaker Candidates
7. No ratings of 1 or 2 55,981 0.1%
CONFIDENTIAL Page 29
non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish
applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating.

Start on page 28

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

It's all BS. They are using all these fuzzy metrics just so that they can score the Asians low and use that to build a case to reject them to racially balance their class. Just like they did with the Jews in the 1920s and 30s.

It's not as if Asians are aliens and couldn't score well on these metrics. If they were being evaluated without bias, a larger proportion of Asians would get higher scores on these dimensions as well. They don't not because they are uni dimensional robots, they don't because the adcoms eff them over in their ratings just to reject them in large numbers.

You would never accept an assertion that blacks are less intelligent as a race, but so many on these forums have no problem thinking that Asians are just GPA grubbing drones and thus would as a race score lower on these metrics.

These bigoted adcoms are just deliberately scoring Asians low on these fuzzy metrics because it is very hard to dispute them. How the heck can someone challenge whether someone is well respected widely?

Yup. Using fuzzy criteria as a barrier to entry has been done for eons to keep out the unwanteds. Shame on the quiet bigotry of Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy and the Asian kids tended to be boring and more concerned with test scores and grades than campus life. If Harvard’s past tactics are deemed discriminatory, they’ll be smart enough to find a way to further de-emphasize standardized test scores to maintain some sense of balance.

I went to Harvard and noticed that the URM just weren't as smart, and the white kids seemed like they were more concerned with sports and greek life and getting drunk. See what I did there?

[Anonymous]

Well, the original countries listed are primarily based on religious differences. What do you propose that the US do about diversity? If you are arguing that diversity is bad then letting in more Asians will also create a diversity problem at Harvard. Following your logic Harvard should be predominantly white--is that your point?

The ugly truth is that we humans are tribal creatures. We prefer our own in groups and resist out groups. That's a fact. That is why diversity will never work even though it is great as an abstract concept, just like communism did not work. Both try to fight natural human behavior.

So the intelligent thing to do is not bother with diversity like Caltech does. Select without trying to racially balance the class. Harvard is not going to perish if they become 45% Asian, just like the NBA and NFL didn't perish when blacks came to dominate those sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is Harvard engages in "racuial balancing" and that is perfectly legal.

sorry, racial

As a Harvard Alum, I agree that having a balanced class is valuable in the learning and social experience. The kids who came in with only high GPA/SAT scores added absolutely nothing to the experience and environment. I've also talked to a number of my former Asian classmates and none of them support this lawsuit. I don't think they want to be further stereotyped by an influx of high GPA/SAT robots.

You can't possibly be a Harvard alum because you're too dumb. Nobody gets into Harvard with just high gpa/sat score (especially asians). And don't you get it? Asians aren't saying that they should get in based on just high academic stats. What they're complaining about is that even if they have everything else (interesting ec's, great essay, interviews, recs...), they simply have a harder time getting in just because they're asians. As in, if you or anyone else was reading all of Harvard's applications (not just the test scores, gpas but everything going into the application) without knowing the applicant's race, you would be selecting way more asian applicants for admission. That's racial discrimination, that they're being excluded solely based on race and nothing else.

PP here: They are not being excluded because they're Asian. They are competing against other Asians and only a certain number can get in. That's not racial discrimination. It's a quota system or a planned number of each ethnicity. Stop acting that Harvard is racist. It's just a numbers game and the folks on the wrong side of the numbers are mad.

DP.. quotas based on race is wrong. So says the supreme court. So by your admissions, Harvard is breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were an Asian student at Harvard right now, I would be feeling so superior, knowing that I overcame a higher bar in every factor than any other race there.

+1 You know you are all that if you are Asian American and got into Harvard. If you are URM, people will assume you aren't as smart because of affirmative action. That URM student may be super smart, but there will always be that stigma, just like how some people make assumptions that most Asian American students are nothing but robots with no personality.

See how stereotyping works?

[Anonymous]

No one said it wasn't highly imperfect, but do you disagree that our melting pot was a critical factor in making us the great country we are?

You are living in a fools paradise if you think the proponents of diversity support the concept of a meeting pot. They actually oppose it vehemently. They want everybody to be distinct and not assimilate. This is why as diversity had increased on campus, we are seeing all these fights on free speech. The new students DON'T WANT TO MELT. They want the culture to change to accommodate them. And that has resulted in pitched battles everywhere on college campuses.

And the melting pot theory only worked because most of the folks coming into this country were kind of homogenous. If you start importing folks with very different cultures and beliefs into this country as immigrants, you will have chaos. Most of the world does not believe in freedom of speech, religion, equal rights for women, gays, atheists etc. These are uniquely American values and to some extent Western European values. If you don't screen people who come to this country to make sure that they don't import their tribal beliefs into this country and like a fool just keep chanting "Diversity is good", you will wake up one day in a very different America where these values are no longer universal. They may not even be the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one said it wasn't highly imperfect, but do you disagree that our melting pot was a critical factor in making us the great country we are?

You are living in a fools paradise if you think the proponents of diversity support the concept of a meeting pot. They actually oppose it vehemently. They want everybody to be distinct and not assimilate. This is why as diversity had increased on campus, we are seeing all these fights on free speech. The new students DON'T WANT TO MELT. They want the culture to change to accommodate them. And that has resulted in pitched battles everywhere on college campuses.

And the melting pot theory only worked because most of the folks coming into this country were kind of homogenous. If you start importing folks with very different cultures and beliefs into this country as immigrants, you will have chaos. Most of the world does not believe in freedom of speech, religion, equal rights for women, gays, atheists etc. These are uniquely American values and to some extent Western European values. If you don't screen people who come to this country to make sure that they don't import their tribal beliefs into this country and like a fool just keep chanting "Diversity is good", you will wake up one day in a very different America where these values are no longer universal. They may not even be the law of the land.

Lol, we have Americans that don't believe in what you posted!

[Anonymous]

It is incredibly hard to get into Harvard as an Asian or white kid from an area with such a deep pool of high achieving ec+ kids. How does one stand out as unique in a pretty uniform group like this, with many kids capable of doing Ivy-level work? I often joke we should move to South Dakota before college applications come due.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one said it wasn't highly imperfect, but do you disagree that our melting pot was a critical factor in making us the great country we are?

You are living in a fools paradise if you think the proponents of diversity support the concept of a meeting pot. They actually oppose it vehemently. They want everybody to be distinct and not assimilate. This is why as diversity had increased on campus, we are seeing all these fights on free speech. The new students DON'T WANT TO MELT. They want the culture to change to accommodate them. And that has resulted in pitched battles everywhere on college campuses.

And the melting pot theory only worked because most of the folks coming into this country were kind of homogenous. If you start importing folks with very different cultures and beliefs into this country as immigrants, you will have chaos. Most of the world does not believe in freedom of speech, religion, equal rights for women, gays, atheists etc. These are uniquely American values and to some extent Western European values. If you don't screen people who come to this country to make sure that they don't import their tribal beliefs into this country and like a fool just keep chanting "Diversity is good", you will wake up one day in a very different America where these values are no longer universal. They may not even be the law of the land.

Lol, we have Americans that don't believe in what you posted!

Seriously, it’s the people already living here who should be screened. Immigrants didn’t put Trump in power.