Harvard's odd quota on Asian-Americans

[Anonymous]

Pew has interesting data on this. They were looking at colleges generally (vs elite colleges) and looking at racial makeup of the relevant cohort (e.g. kids who just graduated from HS) and the % of that pop that is white was much lower than PP suggested (59%) but proportionately represented in colleges.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/

Looks like about 53% of recent Harvard admits were white.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pew has interesting data on this. They were looking at colleges generally (vs elite colleges) and looking at racial makeup of the relevant cohort (e.g. kids who just graduated from HS) and the % of that pop that is white was much lower than PP suggested (59%) but proportionately represented in colleges.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/

Looks like about 53% of recent Harvard admits were white.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Proportionate representation? Kind of blows the lid off the argument that caucasians are receiving special or favorable treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pew has interesting data on this. They were looking at colleges generally (vs elite colleges) and looking at racial makeup of the relevant cohort (e.g. kids who just graduated from HS) and the % of that pop that is white was much lower than PP suggested (59%) but proportionately represented in colleges.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/

Looks like about 53% of recent Harvard admits were white.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Proportionate representation? Kind of blows the lid off the argument that caucasians are receiving special or favorable treatment.

Has anyone ever said that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians have a weird obsession with Harvard. Do you know any current Harvard students or recent grads? If so, ask them about it.

I think stanford is probably more popular than Harvard for asians - though not sure why stanford never gets hit suits like H and P do.

It's easiest litmus test of the quota system in effect since the best race-blind school (sans caltech) is in the same region up the bay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pew has interesting data on this. They were looking at colleges generally (vs elite colleges) and looking at racial makeup of the relevant cohort (e.g. kids who just graduated from HS) and the % of that pop that is white was much lower than PP suggested (59%) but proportionately represented in colleges.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/

Looks like about 53% of recent Harvard admits were white.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Proportionate representation? Kind of blows the lid off the argument that caucasians are receiving special or favorable treatment.

Has anyone ever said that?

New to drum, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians have a weird obsession with Harvard. Do you know any current Harvard students or recent grads? If so, ask them about it.

I think stanford is probably more popular than Harvard for asians - though not sure why stanford never gets hit suits like H and P do.

It's easiest litmus test of the quota system in effect since the best race-blind school (sans caltech) is in the same region up the bay.

People really need to stop saying quotas. There are no quotas, the % of each race varies by 3 or 4 percent every year, including for Caltech.

[Anonymous]

The controversy is over whether the goal is race-blind admissions or racially-diverse student bodies.

The bottom line is that, when we're talking about elite private universities that draw nationally or internationally, being a kid who does everything and does it all well doesn't guarantee you admission. The diversity these schools seek isn't just racial -- it's regional, it's economic, it's a balance between public and private school students, between students who can pay full tuition and those whose families need aid, it's diversity among majors and among extracurriculars, etc.

My upper middle class white daughter has great grades and scores. But whether she’ll get in to whatever elite colleges she applies to will depend, in each case, not on her grades or scores or her extracurriculars but on whether the particular school she's applying to decides that, among the overabundant supply of academically high-performing upper middle class private-school educated white girls in its applicant pool, she's one of the ones they want most. And she may not be -- not because someone else has higher grades or scores but because the other girl comes from Alaska rather than from metro DC. Or she may be -- but not because her grades and scores are higher than all the girls that don't get in, but because she's into STEM and most of the other girls in the applicant pool that year are in the humanities. And different elite schools may make different calls because they’re striking different balances, have different applicant pools, etc.

So it's not just about individual attributes, it's about niches, and niches aren't simply racial. They overlap and crosscut. And sometimes you put in a lot of effort and perform quite well and someone else who didn't work as hard or didn't do as well by some measures gets the prize you were striving for and you don't. That sucks and it's demoralizing but it doesn't inherently mean you're a victim of racial or gender discrimination. The flip side, at least in college admissions, is that kids with great grades and scores will get into very good colleges somewhere and if they continue to get great grades in college, then they’re likely to get into very good grad schools.

As I’ve said in a previous post, I think that the lawsuit was worth filing but I’m not sure Harvard should lose. If high-performing Asian kids (in a specific applicant pool) are disproportionately clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities, and if the Asian kids who don’t get admitted lose out to classmates with higher grades or scores and similar ECs (and/or additional hooks), then it’s not clear that there’s a racial quota. It could be a TJ quota, for example. Absent proof of animus (which might be found during litigation -- I’m certainly not discounting that possibility), it’s hard to make a successful racial discrimination claim when, demographically speaking, the group in question is actually overrepresented in US colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The controversy is over whether the goal is race-blind admissions or racially-diverse student bodies.

The bottom line is that, when we're talking about elite private universities that draw nationally or internationally, being a kid who does everything and does it all well doesn't guarantee you admission. The diversity these schools seek isn't just racial -- it's regional, it's economic, it's a balance between public and private school students, between students who can pay full tuition and those whose families need aid, it's diversity among majors and among extracurriculars, etc.

My upper middle class white daughter has great grades and scores. But whether she’ll get in to whatever elite colleges she applies to will depend, in each case, not on her grades or scores or her extracurriculars but on whether the particular school she's applying to decides that, among the overabundant supply of academically high-performing upper middle class private-school educated white girls in its applicant pool, she's one of the ones they want most. And she may not be -- not because someone else has higher grades or scores but because the other girl comes from Alaska rather than from metro DC. Or she may be -- but not because her grades and scores are higher than all the girls that don't get in, but because she's into STEM and most of the other girls in the applicant pool that year are in the humanities. And different elite schools may make different calls because they’re striking different balances, have different applicant pools, etc.

So it's not just about individual attributes, it's about niches, and niches aren't simply racial. They overlap and crosscut. And sometimes you put in a lot of effort and perform quite well and someone else who didn't work as hard or didn't do as well by some measures gets the prize you were striving for and you don't. That sucks and it's demoralizing but it doesn't inherently mean you're a victim of racial or gender discrimination. The flip side, at least in college admissions, is that kids with great grades and scores will get into very good colleges somewhere and if they continue to get great grades in college, then they’re likely to get into very good grad schools.

As I’ve said in a previous post, I think that the lawsuit was worth filing but I’m not sure Harvard should lose. If high-performing Asian kids (in a specific applicant pool) are disproportionately clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities, and if the Asian kids who don’t get admitted lose out to classmates with higher grades or scores and similar ECs (and/or additional hooks), then it’s not clear that there’s a racial quota. It could be a TJ quota, for example. Absent proof of animus (which might be found during litigation -- I’m certainly not discounting that possibility), it’s hard to make a successful racial discrimination claim when, demographically speaking, the group in question is actually overrepresented in US colleges.

You make some good points but please remember that the points you raised (for example, being clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities) apply to AA and Hispanics as well. They do not explain the significant differences in admission standards, acceptance rates by groups etc.

In addition, we should not be discussing how it is ok for Asian Americans to be discriminated against in admissions since they are "over-represented" because this whole notion of under-represented/over-represented is what is causing the discrimination on the basis of race in the first place. Once we begin discussing the issue of "under-represented/over-represented", Asian Americans can point to many areas where they are severely under-represented (e.g. less than 6% of politics, media, entertainment, law enforcement, academia, private company upper management, sport, IB, biglaw etc.) Basically all significant areas of the society. Asian Americans are known as the "Invisible Minority".

The conclusion may be then Asian Americans are severely "under-represented" in many areas and that is fine but they may never be "over-represented" in any areas. That is inconsistent to say the least.

[Anonymous]

So if my upper middle class daughter doesn't get into Harvard and guys with lower grades and scores do is she a victim of sexist admissions practices? I don't think so. She's a victim of a particular market -- supply exceeds demand for her kind of student at this particular school. Now if the university's demand for women students was significantly lower than the percentage of women in her college-eligible cohort, I'd look at it differently. But it isn't. So I don't think Harvard is trying to keep women out. I just think they're looking for gender balance. Just as I think they're looking for racial diversity. And that both are legitimate goals.

I'm certainly not saying that Asians aren't under-represented in other contexts in American society. Just not in elite universities. Again, there are parallels to gender -- cf. the glass ceiling. But the question is where do you intervene and how. Dismantling affirmative action for underrepresented minorities in the context of college admissions seems like an approach that will lead to a less -- not more -- diverse elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The controversy is over whether the goal is race-blind admissions or racially-diverse student bodies.

The bottom line is that, when we're talking about elite private universities that draw nationally or internationally, being a kid who does everything and does it all well doesn't guarantee you admission. The diversity these schools seek isn't just racial -- it's regional, it's economic, it's a balance between public and private school students, between students who can pay full tuition and those whose families need aid, it's diversity among majors and among extracurriculars, etc.

My upper middle class white daughter has great grades and scores. But whether she’ll get in to whatever elite colleges she applies to will depend, in each case, not on her grades or scores or her extracurriculars but on whether the particular school she's applying to decides that, among the overabundant supply of academically high-performing upper middle class private-school educated white girls in its applicant pool, she's one of the ones they want most. And she may not be -- not because someone else has higher grades or scores but because the other girl comes from Alaska rather than from metro DC. Or she may be -- but not because her grades and scores are higher than all the girls that don't get in, but because she's into STEM and most of the other girls in the applicant pool that year are in the humanities. And different elite schools may make different calls because they’re striking different balances, have different applicant pools, etc.

So it's not just about individual attributes, it's about niches, and niches aren't simply racial. They overlap and crosscut. And sometimes you put in a lot of effort and perform quite well and someone else who didn't work as hard or didn't do as well by some measures gets the prize you were striving for and you don't. That sucks and it's demoralizing but it doesn't inherently mean you're a victim of racial or gender discrimination. The flip side, at least in college admissions, is that kids with great grades and scores will get into very good colleges somewhere and if they continue to get great grades in college, then they’re likely to get into very good grad schools.

As I’ve said in a previous post, I think that the lawsuit was worth filing but I’m not sure Harvard should lose. If high-performing Asian kids (in a specific applicant pool) are disproportionately clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities, and if the Asian kids who don’t get admitted lose out to classmates with higher grades or scores and similar ECs (and/or additional hooks), then it’s not clear that there’s a racial quota. It could be a TJ quota, for example. Absent proof of animus (which might be found during litigation -- I’m certainly not discounting that possibility), it’s hard to make a successful racial discrimination claim when, demographically speaking, the group in question is actually overrepresented in US colleges.

You make some good points but please remember that the points you raised (for example, being clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities) apply to AA and Hispanics as well. They do not explain the significant differences in admission standards, acceptance rates by groups etc.

In addition, we should not be discussing how it is ok for Asian Americans to be discriminated against in admissions since they are "over-represented" because this whole notion of under-represented/over-represented is what is causing the discrimination on the basis of race in the first place. Once we begin discussing the issue of "under-represented/over-represented", Asian Americans can point to many areas where they are severely under-represented (e.g. less than 6% of politics, media, entertainment, law enforcement, academia, private company upper management, sport, IB, biglaw etc.) Basically all significant areas of the society. Asian Americans are known as the "Invisible Minority".

The conclusion may be then Asian Americans are severely "under-represented" in many areas and that is fine but they may never be "over-represented" in any areas. That is inconsistent to say the least.

Re: differences in admissions standards - a post has already addressed it and everyone ignored it for some reason.

Black/Hispanic scores are lower, as a group, than Asian scores. After the first cut, where everyone deemed "not academically qualified" are rejected, SAT scores are not considered in making admissions decisions. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just say that anyone whose SAT is below 2100 is rejected at this point, but the determination of academic qualification is probably more complicated and less clear cut.

Now the distribution of scores for everyone who is left looks quite different. For the Asians, the scores likely skew higher than the scores for Blacks, simply because a 2100 is a 99th percentile score for Blacks as a whole. For Asians, a 2100 is only around the 90th percentile, with 2400 being the 99th percentile score.

Selection after this point appears random with respect to SAT scores because they are based on non-quantifiable factors, but, as expected, the accepted Asians have a much higher SAT score than the accepted Blacks. It has nothing to do with Black applicants being given a boost.

Re: differences in acceptance rates - the only data we have suggests the same acceptance rate for each race as the % admitted of each race mirrors almost exactly the % applied

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/6/admissions-applications-2019-record-high/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/1/regular-admissions-class-2019/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The controversy is over whether the goal is race-blind admissions or racially-diverse student bodies.

The bottom line is that, when we're talking about elite private universities that draw nationally or internationally, being a kid who does everything and does it all well doesn't guarantee you admission. The diversity these schools seek isn't just racial -- it's regional, it's economic, it's a balance between public and private school students, between students who can pay full tuition and those whose families need aid, it's diversity among majors and among extracurriculars, etc.

My upper middle class white daughter has great grades and scores. But whether she’ll get in to whatever elite colleges she applies to will depend, in each case, not on her grades or scores or her extracurriculars but on whether the particular school she's applying to decides that, among the overabundant supply of academically high-performing upper middle class private-school educated white girls in its applicant pool, she's one of the ones they want most. And she may not be -- not because someone else has higher grades or scores but because the other girl comes from Alaska rather than from metro DC. Or she may be -- but not because her grades and scores are higher than all the girls that don't get in, but because she's into STEM and most of the other girls in the applicant pool that year are in the humanities. And different elite schools may make different calls because they’re striking different balances, have different applicant pools, etc.

So it's not just about individual attributes, it's about niches, and niches aren't simply racial. They overlap and crosscut. And sometimes you put in a lot of effort and perform quite well and someone else who didn't work as hard or didn't do as well by some measures gets the prize you were striving for and you don't. That sucks and it's demoralizing but it doesn't inherently mean you're a victim of racial or gender discrimination. The flip side, at least in college admissions, is that kids with great grades and scores will get into very good colleges somewhere and if they continue to get great grades in college, then they’re likely to get into very good grad schools.

As I’ve said in a previous post, I think that the lawsuit was worth filing but I’m not sure Harvard should lose. If high-performing Asian kids (in a specific applicant pool) are disproportionately clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities, and if the Asian kids who don’t get admitted lose out to classmates with higher grades or scores and similar ECs (and/or additional hooks), then it’s not clear that there’s a racial quota. It could be a TJ quota, for example. Absent proof of animus (which might be found during litigation -- I’m certainly not discounting that possibility), it’s hard to make a successful racial discrimination claim when, demographically speaking, the group in question is actually overrepresented in US colleges.

You make some good points but please remember that the points you raised (for example, being clumped in particular areas, schools, disciplines or activities) apply to AA and Hispanics as well. They do not explain the significant differences in admission standards, acceptance rates by groups etc.

In addition, we should not be discussing how it is ok for Asian Americans to be discriminated against in admissions since they are "over-represented" because this whole notion of under-represented/over-represented is what is causing the discrimination on the basis of race in the first place. Once we begin discussing the issue of "under-represented/over-represented", Asian Americans can point to many areas where they are severely under-represented (e.g. less than 6% of politics, media, entertainment, law enforcement, academia, private company upper management, sport, IB, biglaw etc.) Basically all significant areas of the society. Asian Americans are known as the "Invisible Minority".

The conclusion may be then Asian Americans are severely "under-represented" in many areas and that is fine but they may never be "over-represented" in any areas. That is inconsistent to say the least.

Re: differences in admissions standards - a post has already addressed it and everyone ignored it for some reason.

Black/Hispanic scores are lower, as a group, than Asian scores. After the first cut, where everyone deemed "not academically qualified" are rejected, SAT scores are not considered in making admissions decisions. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just say that anyone whose SAT is below 2100 is rejected at this point, but the determination of academic qualification is probably more complicated and less clear cut.

Now the distribution of scores for everyone who is left looks quite different. For the Asians, the scores likely skew higher than the scores for Blacks, simply because a 2100 is a 99th percentile score for Blacks as a whole. For Asians, a 2100 is only around the 90th percentile, with 2400 being the 99th percentile score.

Selection after this point appears random with respect to SAT scores because they are based on non-quantifiable factors, but, as expected, the accepted Asians have a much higher SAT score than the accepted Blacks. It has nothing to do with Black applicants being given a boost.

Re: differences in acceptance rates - the only data we have suggests the same acceptance rate for each race as the % admitted of each race mirrors almost exactly the % applied

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/6/admissions-applications-2019-record-high/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/1/regular-admissions-class-2019/

Re: differences in admissions standards - a post has already addressed it and everyone ignored it for some reason.

The 2,100 cutoff is arbitrary and it is your standard. Why shouldn't it be some other number like 2,200, 2,250 or 2,300 or some other number? 2,100 may work for your argument but higher number does not.

Re: differences in acceptance rates - the only data we have suggests the same acceptance rate for each race as the % admitted of each race mirrors almost exactly the % applied

No they do not. According to the links:

AA Applied Accepted
10% 12.1%
Hispanics Applied Accepted
12.5% 13.3%
Asian American Applied Accepted
21.1% 19.7

Even though Asian Americans generally and as a group have significantly higher GPAs, SAT/ACT test scores, number of AP courses etc. (and other studies showing more activities, leadership positions, awards/recognition, individual talents, overcoming hardship etc.) they are the only minority group whose acceptance rate declined looking at the percentage of the applicant pool and the percentage of accepted applicants. Therefore, your links actually support the point that Asian Americans experience different admission rate compared to other groups despite higher stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: differences in admissions standards - a post has already addressed it and everyone ignored it for some reason.

Black/Hispanic scores are lower, as a group, than Asian scores. After the first cut, where everyone deemed "not academically qualified" are rejected, SAT scores are not considered in making admissions decisions. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just say that anyone whose SAT is below 2100 is rejected at this point, but the determination of academic qualification is probably more complicated and less clear cut.

Now the distribution of scores for everyone who is left looks quite different. For the Asians, the scores likely skew higher than the scores for Blacks, simply because a 2100 is a 99th percentile score for Blacks as a whole. For Asians, a 2100 is only around the 90th percentile, with 2400 being the 99th percentile score.

Selection after this point appears random with respect to SAT scores because they are based on non-quantifiable factors, but, as expected, the accepted Asians have a much higher SAT score than the accepted Blacks. It has nothing to do with Black applicants being given a boost.

Two reasons, I think. One is that some posters (I know I'm one!) lose track of what's been said where, since this discussion of affirmative action seems to be sprawling across 2-3 different threads simultaneously. I made a similar argument on one of the other threads, saying SATs are used more for a rough sort and for disqualification than for rank-ordering strong candidates. The other is that lots of people either just refuse to believe (and/or think it's wrong) that college admissions doesn't work on the premise that the higher the SAT, the smarter (or better prepared or more deserving) the student. So much time, money, effort and angst is invested in these College Board products that kids/parents lose track of what they are and aren't good (or used) for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/6/admissions-applications-2019-record-high/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/1/regular-admissions-class-2019/

Re: differences in acceptance rates - the only data we have suggests the same acceptance rate for each race as the % admitted of each race mirrors almost exactly the % applied

No they do not.

According to the links:


Asian American Applied Accepted
21.1% 19.7

Even though Asian Americans generally and as a group have significantly higher GPAs, SAT/ACT test scores, number of AP courses etc. (and other studies showing more activities, leadership positions, awards/recognition, individual talents, overcoming hardship etc.) they are the only minority group whose acceptance rate declined looking at the percentage of the applicant pool and the percentage of accepted applicants. Therefore, your links actually support the point that Asian Americans experience different admission rate compared to other groups despite higher stats.

Actually, the article said 21% of the Asian American applicants were accepted -- up from 19.7% the previous year.

[Anonymous]

Oops! I miswrote. I meant 21% of the applicants admitted were Asian Americans (not 21% of Asian American applicants were admitted).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/6/admissions-applications-2019-record-high/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/1/regular-admissions-class-2019/

Re: differences in acceptance rates - the only data we have suggests the same acceptance rate for each race as the % admitted of each race mirrors almost exactly the % applied

No they do not.

According to the links:


Asian American Applied Accepted
21.1% 19.7

Even though Asian Americans generally and as a group have significantly higher GPAs, SAT/ACT test scores, number of AP courses etc. (and other studies showing more activities, leadership positions, awards/recognition, individual talents, overcoming hardship etc.) they are the only minority group whose acceptance rate declined looking at the percentage of the applicant pool and the percentage of accepted applicants. Therefore, your links actually support the point that Asian Americans experience different admission rate compared to other groups despite higher stats.

Actually, the article said 21% of the Asian American applicants were accepted -- up from 19.7% the previous year.

AA Applied Accepted
10% 12.1%
Hispanics Applied Accepted
12.5% 13.3%
Asian American Applied Accepted
21.1% 21% (Corrected)

With the 19.7% corrected to 21%, the previous argument still stands. (Even though Asian Americans generally and as a group have significantly higher GPAs, SAT/ACT test scores, number of AP courses etc. (and other studies showing more activities, leadership positions, awards/recognition, individual talents, overcoming hardship etc.) they are the only minority group whose acceptance rate declined looking at the percentage of the applicant pool and the percentage of accepted applicants. Therefore, your links actually support the point that Asian Americans experience different admission rate compared to other groups despite higher stats.)