Harvard is presumably good at it's objective of assembling a class of students who will function well together during school years and achieve afterwards in ways that bring distinction and funds to Harvard. Harvard has succeeded at this for nearly 400 years - and more importantly, has successfully adapted to major changes over the years in demographics, culture, wealth, and politics in the U.S. There are currently (and likely have always been) significant differences between the make up of the general population and Harvard's class - e.g. Jews reportedly make up more than 20% of the Harvard class and approximately 2% of the general poplulation - Asians are reported as 17% of Harvard's class and 6% of the general population (this is not to argue definitions of ethnicity, religion, regional distinctions among Asians etc.). So Harvard's "secret sauce" is NOT to utilize some simple algorithm to select a class that largely represents the larger society or success on standardized tests (or even in particular school activities). This is the basis for the lawsuit.

Why are we concerned with this? Does Harvard serve the larger society by assembling a class that encourages and inspires successful leaders, innovators, researchers, teachers etc.? Would Harvard remain as successful if the admissions criteria were changed? Why do we believe that a judge can determine the appropriate way to assemble a class when Harvard has proven successful for hundreds of years? If a new process is imposed and Harvard's reputation suffers than the alumnae and the larger society will be harmed. Harvard is a private institution and would likely give up any federal funds it receives if required to adhere to some regulated admissions process that threatened to undermine its standing. And why is it of concern that Asian-Americans are "under" represented and others "over" represented? There are schools that assemble classes on no more than simple test scores (e.g. CalTech) and great state schools that must admit on basic criteria that are largely disclosed, and many other opportunities for bright students to study - so rejection from Harvard imposes no significant harm on the ambitious student.

What is the point of threatening one of our pre-eminent educational institutions?

Anonymous wrote:Then why don’t they admit the Asians with lower test scores and well-rounded qualities that everyone assumes is unique to white kids.

These qualities are not mutually exclusive. Yet when it comes to Asians , we assume their scores must have been earned by studying in sweat shops. It’s a fallacy. Amy Chua raised two kids. She didn’t riase every Asian in this country.

Moreover, the whole process is hypocritical. We applaud athletes. How many hours a day did they put into their sport? Students competing at the collegiate level are playing sports like it’s a full-time job. Does that fit well with the the whole-child philosophy?

Harvard doesn’t accept well-rounded, well balanced happy little children. They admit world-class talent- Kids who have spent an unhealthy amount of time dedicated to a few things. They want the Intel Science winners. They want the world-class violinists. They strive to find a well-rounded class, but they are not looking for well-rounded kids. So it’s simply a bunch of crock when they score Asians lower on personality. There is nothing holistic about how these kids obtain these amazing achievements. It doesn’t matter if you are Asian, white or black. They all got there more or less the same way. That’s why their admissions is racist and bias.

It’s not as if Harvard is excluding Asian students. They are an over-represented minority. No one in this thread has offered *principled* explanations of why <22% represents discrimination and/or what % would be considered indicative of a non-racist admissions policy. As the Princeton data indicates, 9 out of 10 kids with perfect test scores and 9 out of 10 kids with a 3.9+ get rejected. This is not an admissions process in which those stats determine who gets in.

And no, the trade-off isn’t between well-rounded kids vs. world class talent. It’s among kids who stand out in different ways. And Harvard is trying to put together a class that is diverse in various ways (including racially). Diversity is a different value than well-roundedness or representativeness. There are various kinds of non-racial balancing going on — e.g. gender and geographic— in a not-always-successful attempt to create a class in which no one demographic or POV feels hegemonic (or completely marginalized).

I agree that the best potential evidence of discrimination here appears to be personality scores, but two things stand out. First, having interviewed for an HYPS, I know our input doesn’t really matter (unless, perhaps, the candidate does something egregiously awful and there’s something else in the file that lends credibility to the interviewer’s account). Personality is assessed primarily through things like letters of rec and essays. Also, the most detailed account I’ve seen (Yang’s NYT op-ed) leads me to think that the disproportionately low personality scores get assigned to Asian applicants who aren’t in the running for admission anyway. Asian kids in the top decile academically are given high personality scores 20+% of the time. The difference is that whites, blacks, and Hispanics in other academic deciles get similar personality scores. It’s a weird stat (and one formulated by the plaintiff’s expert witness), so maybe there’s something more or better that I haven’t seen and I’d be happy to have it pointed out to me.

What I’d love to see is a negotiated settlement involving an experiment in which applications are sufficiently anonymized that applicants are in control of whether colleges know their race and/or gender. (I believe URMs should be recognized as adding diversity to the class, so race can be treated as a positive attribute). How/would that change Harvard College’s demographics?

Anonymous wrote:Then why don’t they admit the Asians with lower test scores and well-rounded qualities that everyone assumes is unique to white kids.

These qualities are not mutually exclusive. Yet when it comes to Asians , we assume their scores must have been earned by studying in sweat shops. It’s a fallacy. Amy Chua raised two kids. She didn’t riase every Asian in this country.

Moreover, the whole process is hypocritical. We applaud athletes. How many hours a day did they put into their sport? Students competing at the collegiate level are playing sports like it’s a full-time job. Does that fit well with the the whole-child philosophy?

Harvard doesn’t accept well-rounded, well balanced happy little children. They admit world-class talent- Kids who have spent an unhealthy amount of time dedicated to a few things. They want the Intel Science winners. They want the world-class violinists. They strive to find a well-rounded class, but they are not looking for well-rounded kids. So it’s simply a bunch of crock when they score Asians lower on personality. There is nothing holistic about how these kids obtain these amazing achievements. It doesn’t matter if you are Asian, white or black. They all got there more or less the same way. That’s why their admissions is racist and bias.

+ a million.

Not only that, but alumni interviewers seem to give Asian students pretty much the same personality scores as kids from other groups.

It's the Harvard administrators who are playing God and kicking them out and just looking for excuses.

I hope the lawsuit goes all the way through.

Then why don’t they admit the Asians with lower test scores and well-rounded qualities that everyone assumes is unique to white kids.

These qualities are not mutually exclusive. Yet when it comes to Asians , we assume their scores must have been earned by studying in sweat shops. It’s a fallacy. Amy Chua raised two kids. She didn’t riase every Asian in this country.

Moreover, the whole process is hypocritical. We applaud athletes. How many hours a day did they put into their sport? Students competing at the collegiate level are playing sports like it’s a full-time job. Does that fit well with the the whole-child philosophy?

Harvard doesn’t accept well-rounded, well balanced happy little children. They admit world-class talent- Kids who have spent an unhealthy amount of time dedicated to a few things. They want the Intel Science winners. They want the world-class violinists. They strive to find a well-rounded class, but they are not looking for well-rounded kids. So it’s simply a bunch of crock when they score Asians lower on personality. There is nothing holistic about how these kids obtain these amazing achievements. It doesn’t matter if you are Asian, white or black. They all got there more or less the same way. That’s why their admissions is racist and bias.

Anonymous wrote:What about Princeton?

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics

Anonymous wrote:ITA. I really miss the days when kids had time to read and think and wonder. And as a prof, I’ve seen so many students whose aspiration seems to be to make sure they are “not wrong.” Which often leads to very trite or superficial reasoning. The standardized testing industry’s dominance (along with the low status of teaching as a profession) has really gutted K-12 education in the US.

I’m all for hard work, but I’d like to see us encourage our kids to focus their effort on things that are more intellectually rewarding and that make them better thinkers, problem-solvers, or interpreters. The shelf life of multiple choice test taking as a useful skill is pretty shortlived!

Not a professor but an employer (and a parent). I agree 100%. I keep tellingly DS that the one thing he will not have to do in the workplace is take a standardized test.

What about Princeton?

ITA. I really miss the days when kids had time to read and think and wonder. And as a prof, I’ve seen so many students whose aspiration seems to be to make sure they are “not wrong.” Which often leads to very trite or superficial reasoning. The standardized testing industry’s dominance (along with the low status of teaching as a profession) has really gutted K-12 education in the US.

I’m all for hard work, but I’d like to see us encourage our kids to focus their effort on things that are more intellectually rewarding and that make them better thinkers, problem-solvers, or interpreters. The shelf life of multiple choice test taking as a useful skill is pretty shortlived!

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/22/lawsuit-docs-redacted/

Provides examples of the level of detail Harvard has provided wrt its admissions process. One interesting tidbit. Perfect grades and scores doesn’t put anyone in the top category for academics.

When I see a kid spending all of their weekends and evenings at test centers and tutoring sessions, I fully expect them to have perfect grades and test scores. That's doesn't impress me when it comes to making a decision on a potential student.

Liberals will virtue signal about Affirmative action only as long as it does not affect them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/opinion/trump-racism-liberals-suburbs.html

The Harvard Administration Liberals will abandon all the racial profiling, the minute you prevent legacy admissions and outlaw preferences for their kids to get into Harvard.

That is when all this hypocritical virtue signaling will stop, just as it stopped on immigration when they were exposed to "Latinos" in their neighborhoods.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/22/lawsuit-docs-redacted/

Provides examples of the level of detail Harvard has provided wrt its admissions process. One interesting tidbit. Perfect grades and scores doesn’t put anyone in the top category for academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:low personality scores? That's gotta be one of the most racist factors, ever. Yet, somehow it's OK to tolerate this-- Asians are the victims of discrimination the same way Catholics are bashed on this site. Not acceptable. I'm not Asian.

Personality scores are determined through the interview. That's why students are interviewed. I think it's a fair metric. You can't just go by test scores to admit an entire class. Life is based on personal interaction...not a number.

Appears that the interview scores are higher than what admissions used,so not personal interaction at all. These are kids that will be successful anyway, but, the racial markdown is not at all OK.

The personality score is based on recommendations, essays, and interviews. The interviews are the lowest weighted part. There is no evidence of a racial markdown, just that on average, Asian-Americans had lower scores. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Asian-Americans as a group had higher extracurricular scores exclusively because they were more likely to participate in math/science clubs and playing musical instruments -- they were less likely to participate in everything else. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate leadership, empathy, and the other traits the personality score is trying to capture.

Damn what a fantastic analysis. Lets do this for Blacks

There is no evidence of a racial discrimination, just that on average, Blacks tend to commit more crimes. And averages tell you nothing about individuals. Blacks as a group had higher participation in crimes because they were more likely to value gangsterism-- they were less likely to participate in everything else like education. These aren't activities that give opportunity to demonstrate good citizenship, empathy, and the other traits that upright individuals possess.

I think your comment makes your biases perfectly clear and disqualifying.

Huh? I am sure that was a sarcastic comment, to show how racist the earlier post was when it came to Asians, which apparently many here don't realize because they keep making group characteristic comments on all Asians

There is no parallel. The first poster specifically referenced average differences among Harvard applicants based on the actual subjects and data from the lawsuit. The second poster decide to use ugly stereotypes about African-Americans.

DP... those ugly "stereotypes" about Blacks are based on statistics. But obviously, it's ok to have negative stereotypes of Asian Americans, but not Blacks.

Blacks in this country have historically been discriminated against, including in education. So have Asian Americans, even today, apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are free to be as opaque as they want if they give up all federal funds remotely associated with the university.

Just like defense contractors, right?

yes defense contractors shouldn't be discriminating against anyone either.

But your claim was that any private corporation that takes federal funds must be completely transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are free to be as opaque as they want if they give up all federal funds remotely associated with the university.

Just like defense contractors, right?

yes defense contractors shouldn't be discriminating against anyone either.

Anonymous wrote:They are free to be as opaque as they want if they give up all federal funds remotely associated with the university.

Just like defense contractors, right?