Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

That could potentially bring Harvard down to NYU, NW, WashU, USC, BU, Duke, Rice, Vandy...

It would certainly bring down their average SAT scores.

It really makes laugh that some people denigrate Asian American students for studying too hard, taking prep classes, which all help increase SAT scores, but then these same people like to tout how high their school's test scores are. Newsflash: your test scores wouldn't be as high without those "robotic, test-prepping" Asian American students.

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

This is very interesting to me. Do the other Ivy league schools, esp. Yale and Princeton use different selection methods and have a higher percentage of Asians in the undergrad student body?

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

That could potentially bring Harvard down to NYU, NW, WashU, USC, BU, Duke, Rice, Vandy...

Does this study look at all at the majors applicants have expressed an interest in, with a racial breakdown?

It might shed some light to know whether the numbers of applicants interested in various majors when broken down into racial categories is the same across the board or if it varies greatly.

What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no communications major at Harvard.

There are always mickey-mouse majors at Harvard. That's why a mickey-mouse Harvard degree doesn't carry the weight of an engineering or a STEM degree from a state university.

Ha. Maybe if you're applying to Microsoft, but any major bank or consulting firm will feel differently.

Anonymous wrote:From the Plaintiff's filing

A study of Stuyvesant High School in New York is illustrative. Stuyvesant is considered one of the top high schools in the country. What makes Stuyvesant especially
relevant here, however, is that over 70% of its students are Asian American and it is considered a Harvard feeder school, routinely sending over ten students per year to Harvard—but generally less than half of whom are Asian American. Therefore, the fact that Stuyvesant’s white students have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard than their Asian-American peers, is deeply troubling.

When shown these data in her deposition, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling broke down in tears. To her, this looks “like there’s discrimination, and I love these kids and I know how hard they work. So these just look like numbers to all of you guys, but I see their faces.” And she firmly rejected the notion that “the Asian kids are less well rounded than the white kid.” Ultimately, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling agreed that “it’s hard to think of anything other than discrimination that could account for this.”.

+1

From the Plaintiff's filing

A study of Stuyvesant High School in New York is illustrative. Stuyvesant is considered one of the top high schools in the country. What makes Stuyvesant especially
relevant here, however, is that over 70% of its students are Asian American and it is considered a Harvard feeder school, routinely sending over ten students per year to Harvard—but generally less than half of whom are Asian American. Therefore, the fact that Stuyvesant’s white students have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard than their Asian-American peers, is deeply troubling.

When shown these data in her deposition, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling broke down in tears. To her, this looks “like there’s discrimination, and I love these kids and I know how hard they work. So these just look like numbers to all of you guys, but I see their faces.” And she firmly rejected the notion that “the Asian kids are less well rounded than the white kid.” Ultimately, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling agreed that “it’s hard to think of anything other than discrimination that could account for this.”.

Yeah, the “control group” here shouldn’t be alumni interviewers (who interact with the applicant for an hour max), but teacher recs. If the admissions people are assigning lower personality scores to Asian applicants than the are to white kids with essentially identical recs, then there’s a smoking gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

Anonymous wrote:There is no communications major at Harvard.

There are always mickey-mouse majors at Harvard. That's why a mickey-mouse Harvard degree doesn't carry the weight of an engineering or a STEM degree from a state university.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CalTech and MIT are strictly merit. They are no-nonsense schools and are perceived as such. Harvard, on the other hand, weighs irrelevant factors such as legacy, URM, etc. It's considered "soft" - and not considered on par with CalTech or MIT.

This. You take any CalTech or MIT student and you know you have someone special who is intellectually capable. There are so many backdoors to Harvard, you can't say the same for its students. Harvard is screwing itself by placing stumbling blocks in front of capable Asian students.

+1 in total agreement