Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a bunch of super-motivated Americans started immigrating en masse to a tropical island, where people tend to be laid back and unambitious, the natives would probably be alarmed when the Americans started aggressively out-competing and out-working them. It's a bit of nativist fear and provincialism from upper-middle class white people.

Impressive post -- manages to unself-consciously deploy an incredibly racist trope to accuse others of racism.

Racist against who? Asians or white people?

I too was impressed. First PP also glosses casually over a lot of important issues. For example. Is this about who is working harder, or about who is working harder on different priorities? We're talking about kids here, so this begs another question, is the aggressive drive actually coming from the kids themselves, or is coming from their pushy parents? Good job combining racism and fuzzy/blurred assertions, first PP!

Anonymous wrote:
I think that is mainly the problem. Asians bring it during the school years but they have difficulty actually doing anything after schooling is over. AA are killing Asians in the creation of businesses. All those great test scores are meaningless. Harvard wants students who will become somebody that is a "connection" so their student have and edge in the work place. Asians are not able to do that.

TPMS mom here, and I think there's a lot to this. I wouldn't phrase it as "difficulty in doing anything after schooling" but instead I'd say that straight As, just on their own, are not a good indicator of potential to be a famous innovator, CEO, business leader, or philanthropist. Let's face it, Harvard wants its grads to do great things so that you continue to read about Harvard grads doing great things.

This potential is not necessarily demonstrated by an ability to chain yourself to your desk between ages 10 and 17, especially if there's a suspicion (perhaps unfair, because the Tiger Mom thing may be overblown) that your parents are the ones who did the chaining. It can be difficult to discern the motivation and drive behind those straight As. I don't have time to read the rest of this thread, so I don't know if this has been discussed already, but I think I can speak to this because my older kid is at a university that like Harvard accepts 6-7% of applicants (younger kid hasn't applied yet), and I've seen a lot of kids get accepted and rejected. Straight As may be (or may not be) a sign of a great future scientist or lab worker, but on their own, straight As are not a clear signal of a budding tech innovator or CEO.

Harvard is just as likely to be interested in the kid who got straight As (a given for most applicants) while also starting a business at home, raising major funds for a cause, showing resiliency (a key trait in success) in the face of big life challenges, or demonstrating exceptional leadership skills. Straight As and high SATs are basically a threshold for applying to Harvard--that's all. Any competitive applicant for Harvard already has straight As, high SATs, and 8-12 AP scores of mostly 5s, and I'm guessing that 20,000 out of Harvard's 33,000 annual applicants already have these stats. But here's the kicker. After you rack up your straight As, then you need to do something additional to stand out from the 20,000 other straight A applicants. This other accomplishments make your (de riguer) straight As look easy, something you did well while you were also saving the world or building that nuclear reactor in your basement. It's a huge burden on aspiring Harvard applicants, but these are the kids Harvard wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a bunch of super-motivated Americans started immigrating en masse to a tropical island, where people tend to be laid back and unambitious, the natives would probably be alarmed when the Americans started aggressively out-competing and out-working them. It's a bit of nativist fear and provincialism from upper-middle class white people.

Impressive post -- manages to unself-consciously deploy an incredibly racist trope to accuse others of racism.

Racist against who? Asians or white people?

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.

No one is "entitled" to go to Harvard no matter what their academic records and extra curriculars are. Is it a bummer when an outstanding student doesn't get in? Certainly, as I'm sure the hundreds, if not thousands who get rejected every admissions cycle will attest. I can't imagine a worse environment than a school full of kids who feel Harvard is their right, regardless of their racial background. Maybe that's part of the reason this lawsuit bothers me. I'm more from the success is the best revenge school of thinking.

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.

That's BS - do you know how I can prove it? If you opened up Wharton's admissions #'s at the UG level (@ Penn you apply to schools instead of the overall university) or even B-school admissions at M7 schools you would find similar soft quotas being practiced.

Wharton is very popular in the asian/indian student community in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus H Christ, Asians are overwhelmingly overrepresented in elite schools compared to their share of the population! There is certainly no conspiracy to keep them out and claiming such just makes you look ridiculous.

If you want to argue that affirmative action is unfair and admissions should be race blind, go ahead, but please take off your tinfoil hat.

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.

I think that is mainly the problem. Asians bring it during the school years but they have difficulty actually doing anything after schooling is over. AA are killing Asians in the creation of businesses. All those great test scores are meaningless. Harvard wants students who will become somebody that is a "connection" so their student have and edge in the work place. Asians are not able to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

If a bunch of super-motivated Americans started immigrating en masse to a tropical island, where people tend to be laid back and unambitious, the natives would probably be alarmed when the Americans started aggressively out-competing and out-working them. It's a bit of nativist fear and provincialism from upper-middle class white people.

Impressive post -- manages to unself-consciously deploy an incredibly racist trope to accuse others of racism.

Anonymous wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and attacking something I didn't say. It certainly is not okay that Asians are under-represented in certain fields but that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

+1

You're putting words in my mouth and attacking something I didn't say. It certainly is not okay that Asians are under-represented in certain fields but that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus H Christ, Asians are overwhelmingly overrepresented in elite schools compared to their share of the population! There is certainly no conspiracy to keep them out and claiming such just makes you look ridiculous.

If you want to argue that affirmative action is unfair and admissions should be race blind, go ahead, but please take off your tinfoil hat.

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.

Jesus H Christ, Asians are overwhelmingly overrepresented in elite schools compared to their share of the population! There is certainly no conspiracy to keep them out and claiming such just makes you look ridiculous.

If you want to argue that affirmative action is unfair and admissions should be race blind, go ahead, but please take off your tinfoil hat.

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.

I don't know either, but I think major factor is that the predominantly white admissions folks feel threatened (whether or not they consciously realize it) by what they regard as an unpleasantly competitive culture.

If a bunch of super-motivated Americans started immigrating en masse to a tropical island, where people tend to be laid back and unambitious, the natives would probably be alarmed when the Americans started aggressively out-competing and out-working them. It's a bit of nativist fear and provincialism from upper-middle class white people.

Well, if I got such a letter, I suspect I'd be least likely to answer Brad Anderson's inquiry. (Depending on mood or workload, there's a good chance I might not answer any of them). But if they were students in my class, I'd respond to every one. What happened next would depend on individual interactions -- not race or gender.

Basically, when you have no obligations to people, they approach you in a clueless manner, and you know nothing about them except their names, you're more likely to make arbitrary decisions or decisions based on stereotypes.

Anonymous wrote:

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

These aren't post-admissions letters. They were the equivalent of cold calls. 'I admire your work; can we meet? Doesn't excuse the differential rates of response, but also doesn't indicate how professors will deal with the students they're actually responsible for. Basically all the letter gave the addressee to work with was a name -- no affiliation, no comment on the substance of the work, etc.

So do you really think that the study does not suggest that these professors would probably treat their Asian students differently?

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

These aren't post-admissions letters. They were the equivalent of cold calls. 'I admire your work; can we meet? Doesn't excuse the differential rates of response, but also doesn't indicate how professors will deal with the students they're actually responsible for. Basically all the letter gave the addressee to work with was a name -- no affiliation, no comment on the substance of the work, etc.