Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a widespread perception, which may be unfair, that Asian-Americans have an unhealthy fixation with going to prestigious colleges and are are spending an inordinate amount of time and resources prepping their children for standardized tests, doing excessively large numbers of extra curriculars, not for enjoyment or personal growth, but for the purpose of impressing admissions, resulting in unrealistically high entrances stats.

Again, this is the perception, not necessarily the reality, but this has created a situation where admissions are skeptical of scores coming from Asian-Americans.

DC attended the Takoma Park middle school magnet and some of the kids were starting SAT prep in 8th grade. Usually the kids were a little embarassed and would say something along the lines of, "I'm doing this because I'm not a great test taker," which sounds humble and diminishes the role of obsessive parents.

While the SAT scores may reflect extensive prepping, the great grades reflect sheer hard work. Clearly these kids push themselves for 17 years before applying. I don't know where I come out on whether years of hard work (vs. great ECs, different life perspective, et cetera) should entitle one to Harvard.

This is the chicken or the egg question. As admissions standard for Asian Americans appear to rise higher and higher at top schools, more perceived need to meet such standards. Not too many high school students (including Asian Americans) enjoy studying for hours everyday believe it or not.

Anonymous wrote:There is a widespread perception, which may be unfair, that Asian-Americans have an unhealthy fixation with going to prestigious colleges and are are spending an inordinate amount of time and resources prepping their children for standardized tests, doing excessively large numbers of extra curriculars, not for enjoyment or personal growth, but for the purpose of impressing admissions, resulting in unrealistically high entrances stats.

Again, this is the perception, not necessarily the reality, but this has created a situation where admissions are skeptical of scores coming from Asian-Americans.

DC attended the Takoma Park middle school magnet and some of the kids were starting SAT prep in 8th grade. Usually the kids were a little embarassed and would say something along the lines of, "I'm doing this because I'm not a great test taker," which sounds humble and diminishes the role of obsessive parents.

While the SAT scores may reflect extensive prepping, the great grades reflect sheer hard work. Clearly these kids push themselves for 17 years before applying. I don't know where I come out on whether years of hard work (vs. great ECs, different life perspective, et cetera) should entitle one to Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the discrimination might not end once a student is admitted to a university.
Here is a NPR story from last year about a Wharton study which documents that students with Asian names are the least likely to receive a response from a faculty member upon receipt of a letter asking for a meeting. 6500 letters were mailed to faculty all over the country. The letters were identical except for the name of the student.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305814367/evidence-of-racial-gender-biases-found-in-faculty-mentoring

They did a similar study of job applicants with African American sounding names who had identical resumes with Caucasian sounding names Guess who was more likely to get the interview?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2014/06/13/have-a-foreign-sounding-name-change-it-to-get-a-job/

It sounds like the discrimination might not end once a student is admitted to a university.
Here is a NPR story from last year about a Wharton study which documents that students with Asian names are the least likely to receive a response from a faculty member upon receipt of a letter asking for a meeting. 6500 letters were mailed to faculty all over the country. The letters were identical except for the name of the student.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305814367/evidence-of-racial-gender-biases-found-in-faculty-mentoring

Anonymous wrote:A simple explanation of the admission rate differences is the fact that the vast majority of Asian American applicants (nearly 90%) to elite schools are STEM oriented. As a group, STEM SAT scores and GPAs are higher than non-STEM students. So any kind of numerical target for the number of STEM students will increase the competitive pressure on STEM students and appear to function like a cap on Asians, since they almost all fall in the same STEM bucket. The fact that STEM schools without strong arts, humanities and social science programs (MIT, CalTech) do not have the same admissions patterns as the Ivies.

If the Ivies were as anti-Asian as alleged, there would be a lot more they could do to discourage Asian attendance than just capping the admissions rate at 10x the general population. Instead, you see tons of institutional support for Asian-American affinity and cultural groups, travel educational opportunities in Asia, and plenty of Asian tenured faculty and senior administrators.

Percentage of Asian Americans majoring in STEM at elite schools is not 90%. Many Asian American girls do not major in STEM although good portion of them major in biological science. Many Asian Americans major in business, accounting, finance, economics to go to Business School or Law School.

STEM SAT scores should not be higher since the SAT consists of Reading, Writing and Math sections. Humanities students should perform better than STEM students in reading and writing sections in general. In addition, some of the Asian students are 1st generation students who may not score extremely high in reading and writing sections.

Affirmative action does not play a significant role in admissions at Caltech as a general policy and it is separate from the fact that whether they have a weak or strong humanities program. MIT does consider race but not to the extent Ivies or other top schools do and thus they have somewhat more Asian American students. Asian Americans would not be complaining so loudly if Ivies used race as MIT does in admissions.

Admission rate for Asian Americans is not 10 times general population. We do not know what the admission rate for Asian Americans is and maybe we will find out. Asian Americans make up approximately 14 to 20% of the acceptances at Ivies.

There has never been "plenty of Asian tenured faculty and senior administrators" at elite schools or even at non-elite schools.

A simple explanation of the admission rate differences is the fact that the vast majority of Asian American applicants (nearly 90%) to elite schools are STEM oriented. As a group, STEM SAT scores and GPAs are higher than non-STEM students. So any kind of numerical target for the number of STEM students will increase the competitive pressure on STEM students and appear to function like a cap on Asians, since they almost all fall in the same STEM bucket. The fact that STEM schools without strong arts, humanities and social science programs (MIT, CalTech) do not have the same admissions patterns as the Ivies.

If the Ivies were as anti-Asian as alleged, there would be a lot more they could do to discourage Asian attendance than just capping the admissions rate at 10x the general population. Instead, you see tons of institutional support for Asian-American affinity and cultural groups, travel educational opportunities in Asia, and plenty of Asian tenured faculty and senior administrators.

Do you have any evidence that it's true? That's meant as a sincere question -- not snark.

I think it's true that poor and working-class Asians and Whites tend to get screwed by affirmative action type programs.

Anonymous wrote:I think that an early post was spot-on.

Asians are being discriminated against due to discomfort (felt by other races) with certain aspects of Asian culture -- specifically stereotypes about Asian students being emotionally damaged by their hyper-competitive "Tiger Moms" telling them that they are a disgrace to their family if they don't get into a prestigious school, and so spending most of their youth locked in an unnatural arms-race, obsessing over test-taking and doing prestigious ECs and thinking about how they will commit suicide if they get a B+ in AP Calculus.

This sort of thing goes on, to an extent, in upper-middle class white families as well, but Asians are perceived as being particularly characteristic of this stereotype.

I know it seems unfair, but most people will get excited about a black guy from the 'hood who got a 1300/1600 on his SATs is extraordinarily talented, while an Asian who gets a 1400/1600 is just "meh." People will just assume that the black guy is somehow more "authentic."

Or because a 1300/1600 for a black guy is a better score compared to other Blacks than a 1400/1600 is compared to other Asians? It's even more impressive if they're from the hood. A poor Asian from the hood scoring a 1300/1600 is a cause for celebration as well, the SAT correlates well with income.

I think that an early post was spot-on.

Asians are being discriminated against due to discomfort (felt by other races) with certain aspects of Asian culture -- specifically stereotypes about Asian students being emotionally damaged by their hyper-competitive "Tiger Moms" telling them that they are a disgrace to their family if they don't get into a prestigious school, and so spending most of their youth locked in an unnatural arms-race, obsessing over test-taking and doing prestigious ECs and thinking about how they will commit suicide if they get a B+ in AP Calculus.

This sort of thing goes on, to an extent, in upper-middle class white families as well, but Asians are perceived as being particularly characteristic of this stereotype.

I know it seems unfair, but most people will get excited about a black guy from the 'hood who got a 1300/1600 on his SATs is extraordinarily talented, while an Asian who gets a 1400/1600 is just "meh." People will just assume that the black guy is somehow more "authentic."

Anonymous wrote:

Asian American admission rates are the same as overall admission rates. That's not evidence of racial discrimination or a quota.

Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the comparative admission rates of kids at a same level of preparedness.

And casting the argument in these terms really suggests that the grievance is not that Asian Americans are kept out of Harvard but that African Americans and Hispanics are let in.

I don't see how. (And I am Hispanic, btw, so please don't try to speak on my behalf). What I see Asian Americans doing now is similar to what Jewish Americans had to do decades ago, this is, to prevent discrimination against them. If they deserve more seats, they should get them.

And, those seats could come from multiple sources, from legacy to sports preferences to mainstream admissions to, why not, affirmative action policies.

It is you the one transforming "Asians fighting for their rights" into "Asians attacking blacks."

FWIW, I was responding to a post that listed admissions rates (varying from 5.3 to 6.4%) for four groups: overall, Asian American, Black, and Hispanic. The commenter's claim was that this data showed Asian Americans were being discriminated against. It doesn't. And pointing out that using this particular set of data points makes the grievance look like it is that African Americans and Hispanics are getting too much rather than that Asians are getting too little isn't an attempt to "speak on behalf" of either group but to point out that all the data shows is that Asian Americans admissions are at the norm (5.3% was both the overall and the Asian American admissions rate) while the other two groups are above the norm. The fact that no admissions data on legacies, athletes or other subgroups was presented (and the lawsuits in question don't challenge those bases for preferential admissions) reinforces the perception.

"Asian Americans are more qualified" is a separate argument, one that this data doesn't speak to, and one that is unpersuasive unless it rests on a more robust understanding of what constitutes qualification in this context. As has been pointed out numerous times already, thousands of highly qualified students -- including many white students -- get rejected by Harvard every year. And SAT scores and GPAs aren't the only or best indicator of academic abilities/level of preparation which, in turn, isn't the only consideration in admissions decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Asian American admission rates are the same as overall admission rates. That's not evidence of racial discrimination or a quota.

Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the comparative admission rates of kids at a same level of preparedness.

And casting the argument in these terms really suggests that the grievance is not that Asian Americans are kept out of Harvard but that African Americans and Hispanics are let in.

I don't see how. (And I am Hispanic, btw, so please don't try to speak on my behalf). What I see Asian Americans doing now is similar to what Jewish Americans had to do decades ago, this is, to prevent discrimination against them. If they deserve more seats, they should get them.

And, those seats could come from multiple sources, from legacy to sports preferences to mainstream admissions to, why not, affirmative action policies.

It is you the one transforming "Asians fighting for their rights" into "Asians attacking blacks."

DP, I respectfully disagree. I think this argument has been made throughout this thread repeatedly.

Anonymous wrote:

Asian American admission rates are the same as overall admission rates. That's not evidence of racial discrimination or a quota.

Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the comparative admission rates of kids at a same level of preparedness.

And casting the argument in these terms really suggests that the grievance is not that Asian Americans are kept out of Harvard but that African Americans and Hispanics are let in.

I don't see how. (And I am Hispanic, btw, so please don't try to speak on my behalf). What I see Asian Americans doing now is similar to what Jewish Americans had to do decades ago, this is, to prevent discrimination against them. If they deserve more seats, they should get them.

And, those seats could come from multiple sources, from legacy to sports preferences to mainstream admissions to, why not, affirmative action policies.

It is you the one transforming "Asians fighting for their rights" into "Asians attacking blacks."

Sorry, but the schools are not giving up their golden check books. Athletes bring in millions of dollars of revenue to university systems. Many legacy admits also donate millions of dollars in scholarship, building funds, chairs, etc yearly. Nope, Harvard, UNC, UVA, Yale, and so on and so on will not give up these affirmative action admits. Now PP if you think you or the other complainants can make up the financial difference that these admits provide, that would be a different calculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Asian American admission rates are the same as overall admission rates. That's not evidence of racial discrimination or a quota.

Absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the comparative admission rates of kids at a same level of preparedness.

And casting the argument in these terms really suggests that the grievance is not that Asian Americans are kept out of Harvard but that African Americans and Hispanics are let in.

I don't see how. (And I am Hispanic, btw, so please don't try to speak on my behalf). What I see Asian Americans doing now is similar to what Jewish Americans had to do decades ago, this is, to prevent discrimination against them. If they deserve more seats, they should get them.

And, those seats could come from multiple sources, from legacy to sports preferences to mainstream admissions to, why not, affirmative action policies.

It is you the one transforming "Asians fighting for their rights" into "Asians attacking blacks."

Thank you so much for your comment.

What is your perspective on all this?

Oops, lost in editing -- right wing white guy