http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/4/10/thousands-pages-to-become-public/
@thinkon what if inst
@USCWolverine “did you really just make analogy between human beings applying to selective colleges and animals in a zoo? Really?”
Totally yes. And actually, many times I respect more for animals than lots of humans. Animals kill for food, but humans would kill for fun. Animals don’t destroy environment, but humans do… want anymore reasons? Any who put these poor animals in the zoos just for humans’ enjoyment, anyway. I already feel bad for the animals in the zoo as by responding to you. 
“And that analogy is supposed to make race-based quotas (yes, I know, they’re not called that anymore) somehow more acceptable and less racist to me? Really?”
As an immigrant long ago from an Asian country, I am fully aware that even this nation has immigrant quota (more or less based on race/nationality), so what’s wrong with selective colleges want to do the same. If it is good for the nation, the overall education system, and the society as a whole, I am all for it. Beat the 100% score-based education system I grew up with.
@gallentjill I think you may be referencing the question I posed earlier. Apologies if you believe I attributed some statement or position to you (which I really could not have since I am not privy to such position), but I honestly was just throwing out a rhetorical question, and naively hoping the answer would be “no”…but knowing it’s much more complicated than that.
I’m not blind to think that ORMs have an equal shot…that would truly be ignorant on my part.
RE: "the results speak for themselves. I see a lot of contorted rationalizations to try to explain why Asians need to score 140 points higher than whites…
yet if the same Asian student were another race with the same stats (white etc) they have a greater chance to get in."
So, selecting the Asian student with the 140 point higher stat adds just what to the class? The answer: A cliche Asian kid with higher stats, plays violin, no doubt browbeaten and raised in the cliche academic culturally focused Asian family by the intolerant Tiger Mom. Since the application pool is awash in Asians with this identical profile, it stands to reason that Harvard chooses to admit only some of them. Non-Asians, with lower stats (“the horror; the horror!”), are admitted because they fulfill some other need or reflect some other NON-STATS and NON-ACADEMIC profile desired by Harvard. It’s just that simple. Asians are about the stats; colleges aren’t. US college admissions are not Chinese or Japanese college admissions, where its ONLY about scores and nothing else. In Harvard’s defense, I say Harvard discriminates on the basis of PROFILE, and it only happens that Asians have far more of that profile than others. For example, if the college received applications from 50,000 blacks, it would still not admit all of them in spite of the affirmative action programs that advantage them by PROFILE. In such case they would be indeed “discriminating” against blacks, but only because they simply have to chose among them for the few seats available. It the PROFILE that matters here, and Harvard simply doesn’t want to over-admit from that PROFILE.
This is encouraging (from the linked Crimson article):
I hope the budding lawyers on the Crimson staff got this right! The more that is released, the better.
Aside from public disclosure issues, the in camera review of the complete Harvard files is going to show all sorts of race-based shenanigans.
As long as its clearly acknowledged that not all Asian kids fit the PROFILE of the “cliche Asian kid” you have just described above. Which I completely disagree with by the way as I know plenty of Asian-American kids who do not fit this profile.
It would be interesting to see how Asian kids are treated in non-stem majors. Do they have to score 140 points higher when applying to theater, English Lit, Classics, etc. That might shed some light on whether it is racial discrimination or profile.
lols… the Princeton prof has a horse in the game… he is part of the system. the stats show systematic bias against Asians in admissions and his is not the only study that shows it. A study of admissions for U of Wisconsin showed the same bias against Asians vs white counterparts.
as far as athletics it’s merit based for the most part.
what if the NBA had a quota system for racial groups?
If college admissions were merit based there would be a lot more Asians than there are now.
[QUOTE=""]
Asians are about the stats…
That’s a pretty broad generalization. Let’s see the data. We can then determine how many top students are being rejected even with exceptional non-academic achievements.
[/QUOTE]
phrases like “cliche Asian” are part of the problem and highlight an attitude and systematic bias that I suspect is inherent in college admissions.
how about the “intolerant tiger mom” who raises a child in a " cliche academic culturally focused Asian family" “plays violin”, “higher stats” yet the child happens to be Native American?
what sort of cliche would that be?
“If college admissions were merit based there would be a lot more Asians than there are now.”
I guess stereotypes are only bad if they don’t benefit your narrative.
I would also posit that the systemic bias is what they are trying to upend so that minorities are no longer underrepresented. The systemic bias against black, Native American and Hispanic people still requires a conscious counterweight is all.
I never advocated stats-only admissions anywhere, @Iamnotarobot. Please re-read my posts.
I don’t view the world the same as you, and I certainly don’t find the analogy between individuals of different backgrounds and animals in a zoo as appropriate. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don’t believe an applicant’s racial/ethnic background should have any bearing whatsoever on his or her chances of admission. I believe people should be judged as individuals, without regards to their race. That’s just how I was raised.
Just because outcomes are not equal does not mean there is any systematic bias. In fact, if you look at representation of black Americans in the public sector, by this logic one would have to concede not bias, but huge preference. See, for instance, here, and the official sources cited therein: http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2007/001_blacksFY2006.htm
The source above states that “racial quotas” were exceeded…so not sure this helps the case that “just because outcomes are not equal does not mean there is any systematic bias”.
One of my children applied to Harvard. I am not onboard with releasing any of their application in public. The essays were private, only to be shared with the admissions committee. Sorry but no one should have access. Judge maybe but that is it. Even if you take out the name, many can be tied back to individuals with limited effort given hometown and awards will be left in. Where is their privacy and rights in this matter? Who is protecting these kids admitted or not? It is an application like any other even for a credit card. You assume there is some privacy protections during completion and even years after.
“In fact, if you look at representation of black Americans in the public sector, by this logic one would have to concede not bias, but huge preference.”
If you’re talking federal jobs,one would have to concede no such thing as preference. Given that many, many federal jobs are in DC and given the makeup of the DC population, one would imagine they receive many applications from African Americans for those positions. “Huge preference” is not proven from the info shared. Not that your post has anything to do with Asians and Harvard…
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Not sure why this thread wasn’t shut down awhile back, but I’m doing so now. Please restrict discussion of race in admissions to the ONE thread in the College Admissions forum.