How Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in college admissions

[Anonymous]

I have no beef in this fight and could not give a rats behind about Harvard, but clearly they and other elite universities are discriminating against Asian Americans. To Harvard, they are the Jews of the 21st-century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The two young people that got into Harvard are white, both gay, both very self driven, over came obstacles in their lives, unique personalities, very creative but not brilliant though they got very good grades and SAT's, but not at the top of their classes. They are unicorns.

jewish or goys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is blatant discrimination and racism to say that Asians have robotic personalities.

If you think East Asians have somewhat immobile facial features, that DOES NOT mean they are unfeeling.
Just as being darker-skinned DOES NOT mean that someon eis dirty.

You see where that leads?

maybe Harvard is thinking about the sexual satisfaction of its female students? URM men are better in bed than ORM men and for many women of a certain class, college is the first time where they are really exposed to URM men of a certain profile.

I think women would really hate it if Harvard became 30%+ Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is blatant discrimination and racism to say that Asians have robotic personalities.

If you think East Asians have somewhat immobile facial features, that DOES NOT mean they are unfeeling.
Just as being darker-skinned DOES NOT mean that someon eis dirty.

You see where that leads?

maybe Harvard is thinking about the sexual satisfaction of its female students? URM men are better in bed than ORM men and for many women of a certain class, college is the first time where they are really exposed to URM men of a certain profile.

I think women would really hate it if Harvard became 30%+ Asian.

Since you went there:

URM men also are dead beat Dads, commit more crime, have higher incidence of STD's and perhaps most important of all have lower IQ.

I don't think Harvard women want that for their progeny. Just sayin.... Everybody can play this game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

Wrong. Read up on the legal concept of Disparate Impact. Life's such a bitch when this ridiculous theory is now targeted against minority population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a pretty biased summary, but I'll bite.

As a Chinese-American parent, I want my DC to be evaluated as an individual based on his own achievement and characteristics. When you focus on group claims that Asian-Americans are "better" on average because they have higher test scores and grades, then you also might have to accept that the group on average may have personality traits that are "lesser" too. There is a cost to immigrant parents who insist that their children follow a narrow path of grinding at grades and test scores and playing a classical instrument. Often that cost is not developing the ability to "play well with others" which is at the core of empathy, respect, and leadership.

I've met dozens of really smart Asian-American college applicants who could not or did not know how to talk about how to persuade or lead others. And I've met many others who were great at it. The ones who are leaders and have great grades and scores get in to Harvard and other elite schools at many times their representation in the population. As a group, we're still grossly over represented after screening out the followers. As I tell new immigrant parents all the time, there is no gaokao in the US and getting a perfect GPA and SAT score is not sufficient to get into the top colleges.

This argument is a red herring. Harvard consistently devalues "Asian personal traits" so that they can reduce the number from a possible "46% to approx 18% to 20%. That is clear in the data. That is the problem, not that Aisan Americans are one dimensional. They are looking for ways to reject Asians to keep their numbers low

WTF is an "Asian personal trait?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

Wrong. Read up on the legal concept of Disparate Impact. Life's such a bitch when this ridiculous theory is now targeted against minority population.

I agree it's ridiculous. But Asians are proportionally represented so under that theory they will lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a pretty biased summary, but I'll bite.

As a Chinese-American parent, I want my DC to be evaluated as an individual based on his own achievement and characteristics. When you focus on group claims that Asian-Americans are "better" on average because they have higher test scores and grades, then you also might have to accept that the group on average may have personality traits that are "lesser" too. There is a cost to immigrant parents who insist that their children follow a narrow path of grinding at grades and test scores and playing a classical instrument. Often that cost is not developing the ability to "play well with others" which is at the core of empathy, respect, and leadership.

I've met dozens of really smart Asian-American college applicants who could not or did not know how to talk about how to persuade or lead others. And I've met many others who were great at it. The ones who are leaders and have great grades and scores get in to Harvard and other elite schools at many times their representation in the population. As a group, we're still grossly over represented after screening out the followers. As I tell new immigrant parents all the time, there is no gaokao in the US and getting a perfect GPA and SAT score is not sufficient to get into the top colleges.

This argument is a red herring. Harvard consistently devalues "Asian personal traits" so that they can reduce the number from a possible "46% to approx 18% to 20%. That is clear in the data. That is the problem, not that Aisan Americans are one dimensional. They are looking for ways to reject Asians to keep their numbers low

WTF is an "Asian personal trait?"

That should be read as "Personal traits/qualities" of Asian applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

Wrong. Read up on the legal concept of Disparate Impact. Life's such a bitch when this ridiculous theory is now targeted against minority population.

I agree it's ridiculous. But Asians are proportionally represented so under that theory they will lose.

Nope, if any policy that Harvard institutes "such as the way they practice Holistic admissions" disproportionately impacts Asian Americans even if Harvard is not intending to be racist or discriminatory, then that policy would come under the umbrella of "Disparate Impact", because without it Asian Americans would be 40+% of Harvard's class.

[Anonymous]

To put it in the language of Chinese intellectuals -- Lu Xun would say many of these high scoring kids (and it seems their boosters) are just a modern version of Ah Q. They lack the ability to see beyond their personal perspective, how they are perceived by others, or understand how others might see things differently. Just because you did well on the SATs you deserve priority to get in to Harvard and damn the consequences for anyone else. And, ignore that others might include different measure of achievement and success than the ones you are good at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

Wrong. Read up on the legal concept of Disparate Impact. Life's such a bitch when this ridiculous theory is now targeted against minority population.

I agree it's ridiculous. But Asians are proportionally represented so under that theory they will lose.

Nope, if any policy that Harvard institutes "such as the way they practice Holistic admissions" disproportionately impacts Asian Americans even if Harvard is not intending to be racist or discriminatory, then that policy would come under the umbrella of "Disparate Impact", because without it Asian Americans would be 40+% of Harvard's class.

who says? Based on what? You'd need to go through all 2,000 admissions decisions to see if holistic admissions practices, the way they are practiced, has a disparate impact on Asians. That's the beauty of "holistic" admissions. Remember all these applicants are very well qualified and any one of them could get in except they can only take 2,000, and they get to choose which ones based on what kind of class they wish to shape.

Now you could argue legacies have a disparate impact. And admitting children of big donors may have disparate impact. But "holistic" admissions, never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read that Harvard rated Asians lower on personality, it sounds like they found them robotic devoid of unique traits, like students who have been trained to study and regurgitate on tests. Harvard wants unicorns, not robots.

Harvard has bent over backwards to increase the number of minority students, so much so that now the the last two classes have been majority-minority. I find it churlish beyond belief to sue them because this group believes it should have more than a 22% share of the class. This does reflect on their judgment and single-minded obsession with getting onto the most prestigious college.

BTW, any data on the percent of Asians at Princeton and Yale? I'm going to assume it's maybe higher at Stanford.

Again, very insensitive to lump all minorities into one pot and saying: "look, we've got so many non-whites!". That's the perspective of a racist white person.

And again, this is a conversation about qualified minority applicants being rejected in favor of LESS qualified applicants, who also happen to be white. This stinks to high heaven whichever way you slice it.

SAYS WHO? Harvard like most privates practices holistic admissions. You're going to have an impossible time proving those admitted were less qualified. They're all highly qualified or they wouldn't be looked at.

Wrong. Read up on the legal concept of Disparate Impact. Life's such a bitch when this ridiculous theory is now targeted against minority population.

I agree it's ridiculous. But Asians are proportionally represented so under that theory they will lose.

Nope, if any policy that Harvard institutes "such as the way they practice Holistic admissions" disproportionately impacts Asian Americans even if Harvard is not intending to be racist or discriminatory, then that policy would come under the umbrella of "Disparate Impact", because without it Asian Americans would be 40+% of Harvard's class.

This is completely wrong. If 22% of the applicants are Asian and 22% of those admitted are Asian there can be no disparate impact, obviously, because they weren't disparately impacted by whatever selection device was used.

If you're arguing that under fair procedures 40% would have been picked, but under the method Harvard used only 22% were selected - that's a disparate treatment argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two young people that got into Harvard are white, both gay, both very self driven, over came obstacles in their lives, unique personalities, very creative but not brilliant though they got very good grades and SAT's, but not at the top of their classes. They are unicorns.

jewish or goys?

One Jewish, one not. Both from families that had been in the US several generations (not new immigrants). Most of the rejected whites are non Jewish, non recent immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To put it in the language of Chinese intellectuals -- Lu Xun would say many of these high scoring kids (and it seems their boosters) are just a modern version of Ah Q. They lack the ability to see beyond their personal perspective, how they are perceived by others, or understand how others might see things differently. Just because you did well on the SATs you deserve priority to get in to Harvard and damn the consequences for anyone else. And, ignore that others might include different measure of achievement and success than the ones you are good at.

Bingo.

Tiger Moms study this message and take it seriously.