How Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High-achieving Asian-American applicants who play a musical instrument and want to concentrate in a STEM field are a dime a dozen. Kids who fit that profile are competing against one another, and only the ones who are true outliers or offer something else distinctive will gain admission. Harvard offers a liberal arts curriculum at the UG level and consequently looks for an array of disciplinary interests and talents. They are looks for future award-winning anthropologists, authors, artists and history scholars as much as for future doctors and engineers. Statistically, the pool for each of the former categories is less deep.

Right. Many on this thread are not acknowledging the key point that Harvard's interest in diversity pertains to many areas, including field of study. There are only so many STEM kids Harvard will admit. My guess is that any quotas have just as much, or more, to do with this as with race or ethnicity.

Because every Asian applicant is a future STEM major?
Way to stereotype.

Check out the MD Middle School magnet discrimination thread. Full of Asian parents outraged their STEM focused children were not invited to the Takoma Park MS magnet under the new admissions process. NOT ONE complained about lack of admission to the humanities program at Eastern. Every single Asian American kid I knew at Harvard was a STEM major who wanted to become a doctor or engineer. Nothing wrong with that, but they were competing against a pool of very similar kids for admission. This is anecdotal evidence of course but I've encountered few Asians with a serious interest in the humanities or social sciences[u]. Would love to see the stats on the breakdown of intended majors by race and ethnicity.

When the playing field becomes more level in humanities and social sciences you will see more Asians in those fields as well. By the way, it is anecdotal of course, why did you go to Harvard in particular when there are hundreds of other colleges/universities in the US? Like wise, if you see Asians in STEM majors don't be so shocked. They chose to major in STEM subjects. When the old boy system wanes by next generation your children will scramble just as Asian children do now, that is if they want a decent financial ability in their lives.

Curious about what you mean when the playing field becomes more level (see bolded portion). It seems because so few Asians are interested in these fields, those that are would have an advantage for admissions and would be recruited for positions (kind of like women in Engineering).

DP.. the reason a lot of Asians go into STEM fields is because there is less subjective criteria, and therefore, less discrimination, and more job security.

And u can't BS through STEM. Either u can do Calculus or u don't. No brownie points based on the color of skin there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ yet none of those justices were STEM majors.

If they were, they would have been more analytical and more objective in their reasoning about every case before them instead of leaning more ideological in their decisions, especially because there generally is no recourse to their decisions beyond the Supreme Court of which they are justices.

[Anonymous]

This lawsuit makes we wonder, whether the UChicago announcement to make SAT/ACT optional is because they see the "writing on the wall" and are trying to make the selection process so opaque, that it will be very hard to bring such a lawsuit against them in the future? Who wants to spend millions defending these lawsuits which drag on for years and generate lots of negative publicity

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This lawsuit makes we wonder, whether the UChicago announcement to make SAT/ACT optional is because they see the "writing on the wall" and are trying to make the selection process so opaque, that it will be very hard to bring such a lawsuit against them in the future? Who wants to spend millions defending these lawsuits which drag on for years and generate lots of negative publicity

Thoughts?

I expressed my opinion on this in the thread about UChicago dropping SAT/ACT requirement for admissions in future. Here it is again:

This may be partly a response to the case against Harvard about discrimination in admissions. The more objective measures such as standardized test scores eliminated from applicant evaluation, the more difficult it is to show evidence of discrimination.

[Anonymous]

The sad part about harassment, discrimination, and abuse is what goes around comes around. Any group in disadvantageous position seems to get exploited:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-05-07/news/9605070134_1_eastern-europe-prostitutes-western-europe

[Anonymous]

My kid is at UChicago. From what I’ve seen over the past several years, the test-optional decision is part of a long-term, multi-faceted campaign to attract more first gen and lower income students to the school. Odyssey Scholars, the Coalition App, Metcalf fellowships, the No Barriers financial aid initiative, summer outreach programs like Adelante, scholarships for the kids of local public school teachers, cops, and firefighters have been other aspects of this concerted effort.

Simultaneously, the school has also done things to increase the numbers of very high income students admitted (investments in new dorms and athletic facilities, ED 1/2, scaling back merit aid, expanding the size of entering classes) as well as to enhance the school’s profile/desirability more generally.

You can agree or disagree with the various goals (and/or the means used to further them). And I do, LOL! But I don’t see the test-optional move as motivated by a desire to avoid (or win) a lawsuit like the one Harvard is currently facing. OTOH, timing of the announcement could certainly be opportunistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:low personality scores? That's gotta be one of the most racist factors, ever. Yet, somehow it's OK to tolerate this-- Asians are the victims of discrimination the same way Catholics are bashed on this site. Not acceptable. I'm not Asian.

Personality scores are determined through the interview. That's why students are interviewed. I think it's a fair metric. You can't just go by test scores to admit an entire class. Life is based on personal interaction...not a number.

Appears that the interview scores are higher than what admissions used,so not personal interaction at all. These are kids that will be successful anyway, but, the racial markdown is not at all OK.

The personality score is based on recommendations, essays, and interviews. The interviews are the lowest weighted part. There is no evidence of a racial markdown, just that on average, Asian-Americans had lower scores. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Asian-Americans as a group had higher extracurricular scores exclusively because they were more likely to participate in math/science clubs and playing musical instruments -- they were less likely to participate in everything else. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate leadership, empathy, and the other traits the personality score is trying to capture.

Damn what a fantastic analysis. Lets do this for Blacks

There is no evidence of a racial discrimination, just that on average, Blacks tend to commit more crimes. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Blacks as a group had higher participation in crimes because they were more likely to value gangsterism-- they were less likely to participate in everything else like education. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate good citizenship, empathy, and the other traits that upright individuals possess.

I think your comment makes your biases perfectly clear and disqualifying.

Huh? I am sure that was a sarcastic comment, to show how racist the earlier post was when it came to Asians, which apparently many here don't realize because they keep making group characteristic comments on all Asians

There is no parallel. The first poster specifically referenced average differences among Harvard applicants based on the actual subjects and data from the lawsuit. The second poster decide to use ugly stereotypes about African-Americans.

[Anonymous]

Asians discrimate against non-Asians as it is an attempt to discrimate against non-Asians and crush diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at UChicago. From what I’ve seen over the past several years, the test-optional decision is part of a long-term, multi-faceted campaign to attract more first gen and lower income students to the school. Odyssey Scholars, the Coalition App, Metcalf fellowships, the No Barriers financial aid initiative, summer outreach programs like Adelante, scholarships for the kids of local public school teachers, cops, and firefighters have been other aspects of this concerted effort.

Simultaneously, the school has also done things to increase the numbers of very high income students admitted (investments in new dorms and athletic facilities, ED 1/2, scaling back merit aid, expanding the size of entering classes) as well as to enhance the school’s profile/desirability more generally.

You can agree or disagree with the various goals (and/or the means used to further them). And I do, LOL! But I don’t see the test-optional move as motivated by a desire to avoid (or win) a lawsuit like the one Harvard is currently facing. OTOH, timing of the announcement could certainly be opportunistic.

Based on your information it appears to me that the strategy of UChicago is to change its entering student profile in the near future into a dumbbell shape (squeezing the middle of a balloon to have the ends bulge with a narroew middle). It will have more students at both ends of the economic spectrum and fewer students in the middle class, upper middle class ranges compared to the current profile. It will affect negatively the number of hardworking, striving Asian students (since they predominantly belong to MC and UMC economic categories) entering UChicago. It can not be anything but a conscious decision on the part of UChicago leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at UChicago. From what I’ve seen over the past several years, the test-optional decision is part of a long-term, multi-faceted campaign to attract more first gen and lower income students to the school. Odyssey Scholars, the Coalition App, Metcalf fellowships, the No Barriers financial aid initiative, summer outreach programs like Adelante, scholarships for the kids of local public school teachers, cops, and firefighters have been other aspects of this concerted effort.

Simultaneously, the school has also done things to increase the numbers of very high income students admitted (investments in new dorms and athletic facilities, ED 1/2, scaling back merit aid, expanding the size of entering classes) as well as to enhance the school’s profile/desirability more generally.

You can agree or disagree with the various goals (and/or the means used to further them). And I do, LOL! But I don’t see the test-optional move as motivated by a desire to avoid (or win) a lawsuit like the one Harvard is currently facing. OTOH, timing of the announcement could certainly be opportunistic.

Based on your information it appears to me that the strategy of UChicago is to change its entering student profile in the near future into a dumbbell shape (squeezing the middle of a balloon to have the ends bulge with a narroew middle). It will have more students at both ends of the economic spectrum and fewer students in the middle class, upper middle class ranges compared to the current profile. It will affect negatively the number of hardworking, striving Asian students (since they predominantly belong to MC and UMC economic categories) entering UChicago. It can not be anything but a conscious decision on the part of UChicago leaders.

I agree with you re the dumbbell shape (so, in that sense, I may have biased your perception by my presentation). But I’m not sure I agree with your assessment re the effect of these policies on Asian students, for a series of reasons. First, hard-working Asian American students do/will continue to qualify for first-gen and low income programs (which includes free tuition for families earning up to $125K. And in other parts of the country that’s indisputably middle class). Secondly, I think Asian (immigrant?) families are more likely to prioritize/save/make sacrifices for their childrens’ education than native-born whites in the US. Thirdly, there are a substantial number of UMC/rich Asian and Asian American families who can afford UChicago tuition — they’re paying it now — and I can’t see that changing. To put this a different way, donut hole families in MoCo or NoVa won’t benefit from these programs, but that’s a narrow and relatively privileged subgroup of Asian Americans. And, of course, it’s a demographic that includes lots of white families as well. It’s an economic rather than a racial barrier and it already exists.

Asian students at UChicago are diverse in many respects. I don’t know the extent to which their diversity reflects (or how it deviates from) Asian America as a whole. That said, I don’t know whether “Asian America” is a lived reality for anyone. Certainly there’s a media/pop cultural construct that transcends local experience, but identities/allegiances/demographics/experiences/migration histories can vary dramatically in different parts of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:low personality scores? That's gotta be one of the most racist factors, ever. Yet, somehow it's OK to tolerate this-- Asians are the victims of discrimination the same way Catholics are bashed on this site. Not acceptable. I'm not Asian.

Personality scores are determined through the interview. That's why students are interviewed. I think it's a fair metric. You can't just go by test scores to admit an entire class. Life is based on personal interaction...not a number.

Appears that the interview scores are higher than what admissions used,so not personal interaction at all. These are kids that will be successful anyway, but, the racial markdown is not at all OK.

The personality score is based on recommendations, essays, and interviews. The interviews are the lowest weighted part. There is no evidence of a racial markdown, just that on average, Asian-Americans had lower scores. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Asian-Americans as a group had higher extracurricular scores exclusively because they were more likely to participate in math/science clubs and playing musical instruments -- they were less likely to participate in everything else. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate leadership, empathy, and the other traits the personality score is trying to capture.

Damn what a fantastic analysis. Lets do this for Blacks

There is no evidence of a racial discrimination, just that on average, Blacks tend to commit more crimes. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Blacks as a group had higher participation in crimes because they were more likely to value gangsterism-- they were less likely to participate in everything else like education. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate good citizenship, empathy, and the other traits that upright individuals possess.

I think your comment makes your biases perfectly clear and disqualifying.

Huh? I am sure that was a sarcastic comment, to show how racist the earlier post was when it came to Asians, which apparently many here don't realize because they keep making group characteristic comments on all Asians

There is no parallel. The first poster specifically referenced average differences among Harvard applicants based on the actual subjects and data from the lawsuit. The second poster decide to use ugly stereotypes about African-Americans.

No. That was sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

My issue with harvard is not their practice as it is now, it is that it isn't transparent and they don't admit it. Why not? I think people would be a lot more accepting if they just came out specified quotas.

My other issue is that virtually every school in the top 30 or so parrots this process/policy.

Michael Brendan Daughtery had a great article in national review where he talked about how it would be better/more palatable if different 'elite' schools had differing policies instead of all of them behaving like this.

[Anonymous]

They do have different strategies (all holistic but different priorities/insights/challenges) and Harvard basically characterizes certain details of its admissions policy as the equivalent of a trade secret. Which makes sense given that each elite is trying to choose students that will bolster its reputation. So they’re predicting which HS seniors will end up rich/famous/powerful/influential. If you’re especially good at doing that, you’re not going to be eager to share your recipe with your competitors. And, in general, we don’t require this kind of transparency from private corporations. Transparency is a norm for public institutions in a democracy.

[Anonymous]

They are free to be as opaque as they want if they give up all federal funds remotely associated with the university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:low personality scores? That's gotta be one of the most racist factors, ever. Yet, somehow it's OK to tolerate this-- Asians are the victims of discrimination the same way Catholics are bashed on this site. Not acceptable. I'm not Asian.

Personality scores are determined through the interview. That's why students are interviewed. I think it's a fair metric. You can't just go by test scores to admit an entire class. Life is based on personal interaction...not a number.

Appears that the interview scores are higher than what admissions used,so not personal interaction at all. These are kids that will be successful anyway, but, the racial markdown is not at all OK.

The personality score is based on recommendations, essays, and interviews. The interviews are the lowest weighted part. There is no evidence of a racial markdown, just that on average, Asian-Americans had lower scores. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Asian-Americans as a group had higher extracurricular scores exclusively because they were more likely to participate in math/science clubs and playing musical instruments -- they were less likely to participate in everything else. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate leadership, empathy, and the other traits the personality score is trying to capture.

Damn what a fantastic analysis. Lets do this for Blacks

There is no evidence of a racial discrimination, just that on average, Blacks tend to commit more crimes. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Blacks as a group had higher participation in crimes because they were more likely to value gangsterism-- they were less likely to participate in everything else like education. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate good citizenship, empathy, and the other traits that upright individuals possess.

I think your comment makes your biases perfectly clear and disqualifying.

Huh? I am sure that was a sarcastic comment, to show how racist the earlier post was when it came to Asians, which apparently many here don't realize because they keep making group characteristic comments on all Asians

There is no parallel. The first poster specifically referenced average differences among Harvard applicants based on the actual subjects and data from the lawsuit. The second poster decide to use ugly stereotypes about African-Americans.

You are a moron with no sense of irony and a sarcasm detector missing