How Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in college admissions

[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.

Honestly, you should not have bothered typing all that stuff. Everyone, including yourself, knows it is untrue and what your real motivation is.

All that stuff you say about the current immigrants was said about all the ones that preceded them. including both my Italian and Irish great-grandparents.

People want to come here because they want to be American, not because they want to change America. And having a racial balance at top colleges that reflects American society is one of the best ways I can think of to promote assimilation. Maybe THE best. You know it is true.

[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

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.

Harvard is looking for self-confident extroverts who might end up rich/famous/powerful/influential one day. That hasn’t changed much though they’re placing their bets somewhat differently than they used to. They’ve got other institutional goals as well (e.g. diverse student body, happy undergrads, alumni donations), but well-rounded isn’t a big plus. Just different ways to stand out.

[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.

Honestly, you should not have bothered typing all that stuff. Everyone, including yourself, knows it is untrue and what your real motivation is.

All that stuff you say about the current immigrants was said about all the ones that preceded them. including both my Italian and Irish great-grandparents.

People want to come here because they want to be American, not because they want to change America. And having a racial balance at top colleges that reflects American society is one of the best ways I can think of to promote assimilation. Maybe THE best. You know it is true.

Just because you keep repeating everybody knows it's true doesn't make anything true. You are an idiot if you don't know that don't cultures don't assimilate well because they don't believe it endorse American values. Your idiotic lleftist brain just refused to see the obvious chaos that had occurred in many many countries that import people from cultures that are totally different

[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![/quote]

That is the dumbest come back i have heard. Because we have poor people in this country, we should import poor people who will test our services? You can't do anything about the folks already here, so you make sure you don't import more trouble and there is a lot of nonsense in the world incompatible with US culture

[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![/quote]

That is the dumbest come back i have heard. Because we have poor people in this country, we should import poor people who will test our services? You can't do anything about the folks already here, so you make sure you don't import more trouble and there is a lot of nonsense in the world incompatible with US culture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Harvard is looking for self-confident extroverts who might end up rich/famous/powerful/influential one day. That hasn’t changed much though they’re placing their bets somewhat differently than they used to. They’ve got other institutional goals as well (e.g. diverse student body, happy undergrads, alumni donations), but well-rounded isn’t a big plus. Just different ways to stand out.

Say what you will it's all listed there. Main point is still the same. Getting near perfect SATs are a dime a dozen. Have high SAT and be confident and be president better founded a club and captain of a sports team..... shoo in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Harvard is looking for self-confident extroverts who might end up rich/famous/powerful/influential one day. That hasn’t changed much though they’re placing their bets somewhat differently than they used to. They’ve got other institutional goals as well (e.g. diverse student body, happy undergrads, alumni donations), but well-rounded isn’t a big plus. Just different ways to stand out.

Say what you will it's all listed there. Main point is still the same. Getting near perfect SATs are a dime a dozen. Have high SAT and be confident and be president better founded a club and captain of a sports team..... shoo in

P.S interesting discussion on removing race and legacy admission and then gradually bringing in SES starting on Page 125. Unsuprisingly if you take out race but suprisingly also legacy asians whites go up and blacks/hispanics go down % admitted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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![/quote]

That is the dumbest come back i have heard. Because we have poor people in this country, we should import poor people who will test our services? You can't do anything about the folks already here, so you make sure you don't import more trouble and there is a lot of nonsense in the world incompatible with US culture

You think people who are religious nuts, against gays, women's rights, etc. are limited to poor people? You're reasoning skills are questionable. Please explain how you are connecting immigration policy to Harvard's admissions policies and affirmative action. I don't have a problem with Asians being treated fairly in admissions. Do you not see the contradiction in your anti- diversity position and supporting fair treatment of Asians in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This tells me that white folk feel threatened by Asians.

Also shows that some students from certain demographic groups will be admitted, regardless of their qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

How is pushing your child to start a business to get that coveted spot any different than Asian American parents pushing their kids to do all kinds of things, including e.c., to get that coveted spot?

If an Asian American parent does this, they are tiger parents, but if you do it, then it's just good parenting? Asian American parents have known for a while that high test scores and grades won't get them into elite universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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![/quote]

That is the dumbest come back i have heard. Because we have poor people in this country, we should import poor people who will test our services? You can't do anything about the folks already here, so you make sure you don't import more trouble and there is a lot of nonsense in the world incompatible with US culture

You think people who are religious nuts, against gays, women's rights, etc. are limited to poor people? You're reasoning skills are questionable. Please explain how you are connecting immigration policy to Harvard's admissions policies and affirmative action. I don't have a problem with Asians being treated fairly in admissions. Do you not see the contradiction in your anti- diversity position and supporting fair treatment of Asians in admissions?

Harvard's argument is that diversity is good and the University has a legitimate interest in it's racist racial balancing admission policy because it promotes diversity. I am saying, diversity is actually bad in most cases and at best is neutral and Just blindly promoting diversity is actually bad for a society.
I think diversity should have no place in college admission because it's actually terrible and because the only way to achieve diversity is to practice unfair racial balancing by discriminating against done other groups, in this case Asians
I don't get your argument looking poor people with the other views. You should read the statement carefully. It's an analogy

[Anonymous]

The richer Asians also discrimate against poorer Asians and also were pro affirmative action when it benefited them and now against it when it does not benefit them.

[Anonymous]

Many Asians have very good parents who care for them, school is important, they are given tutors, time to study parental help, have their own bedrooms and two parent families. Often parents have less kids to devote more resources to each kid.

Now let's take non-Asian kid from Projects. Six kids two bedroom apartment, no Dad, sleeps on floor, has to hustle to survive and is in dangerous neighborhood and terrible school.


Am I to believe we just pick higher GPA and SAT of two students and not consider adversity?

Hardly seems fair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many Asians have very good parents who care for them, school is important, they are given tutors, time to study parental help, have their own bedrooms and two parent families. Often parents have less kids to devote more resources to each kid.

Now let's take non-Asian kid from Projects. Six kids two bedroom apartment, no Dad, sleeps on floor, has to hustle to survive and is in dangerous neighborhood and terrible school.


Am I to believe we just pick higher GPA and SAT of two students and not consider adversity?

Hardly seems fair

Life's not fair. Get used to it. The Asian kid is not responsible for American inner city woes. BTW hardly seems fair that America with 5% of the world's population consumes 25% on the world's energy resources. Hardly seems fair that millions starve around the world while Americans grow fat on an abundance of food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many Asians have very good parents who care for them, school is important, they are given tutors, time to study parental help, have their own bedrooms and two parent families. Often parents have less kids to devote more resources to each kid.

Now let's take non-Asian kid from Projects. Six kids two bedroom apartment, no Dad, sleeps on floor, has to hustle to survive and is in dangerous neighborhood and terrible school.


Am I to believe we just pick higher GPA and SAT of two students and not consider adversity?

Hardly seems fair

If the non-Asian kid met the minimum cutoff for GPA/SAT, I'd choose him/her every day of the week. Hopefully I'd be able to choose both as they are both deserving of admission. However, If there were 10 spots available and I had 10 of the first example and only 1 of the second, then one of the first kids (Asian) would have to be rejected.