<p>Hunt - If Asian students are objectively better clarinetists, say, then theoretically they should be extremely overrepresented in the clarinet section as well. I don’t know whether this is true, but it would be interesting to see. I agree, the issue is complex; the point of divergence is that the gap, to me, looks too big to be accounted for by self-selection.</p>
<p>Bay - I am assuming that the Duke adcoms at least partially accounted for variety of ECs in rating. So, for instance, participation in state rodeo might be a point higher than participation in All-State Orchestra on violin, because the former is more desirable. This wouldn’t remove all self-selection bias, but it makes sense from the adcom POV–why rate highly All-State violinist #9653?</p>
<p>Again, the Duke mismatch data does not prove Asian discrimination; rather, it proves that Asians are not lacking in essay-writing finesse or EC participation or “people” skills.</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa, I am not suggesting or advocating that “Asians must…deserve…to be selected for admission” because on average at Duke they scored higher than other groups in certain quantified categories. Let’s be clear on this. I’m in favor of race-blind admissions, and I would be in favor of this even if it turned out that it resulted in fewer Asians admitted to top schools.</p>
<p>Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the study, but I’m under the impression that anyone who is a national champion of a large competition or a world champion in anything ought to rank fairly highly on subjective criteria. “Fairly” might even be an understatement if you’re a world champion…</p>
<p>That’s my interpretation as well. It’s common for many users here to suggest that Asians’ potentially lacking “essay-writing finesse, EC participation, or ‘people’ skills” could explain Dr. Espenshade’s findings. The Duke study answers this claim by demonstrating that it is highly unlikely that Asians on average are deficient in these areas.</p>
<p>Hunt-- Okay, I’ll give you a couple points. There are many Asians out there who play Tennis or swim. And to me, I explain this phenomenon because Asian parents see the sports of “tennis” or “swimming” as an individual sport, one that through many lessons and repetition, almost “guarantee” success. Unlike team sports of basketball and football, where one must really have a love of the game to build good chemistry with teammates and play well. (Yet, this is another discussion entirely)</p>
<p>BUT…getting back on point, I am AA. I played basketball. I played saxophone. I’ve NEVER touched a violin. I’ve THRICE touched a tennis racket (well probably more). My point: that these stereotypes don’t always prove to be true, at least from my perspective.</p>
<p>Now…dealing with your quote… Yes, I understand Harvard wants “well-rounded” students. But the question remains: WHY? All arguments aside and let’s just assume that AA are EC challenged but they were absolutely skilled in academics. If they are good at what they do, and are ultimately smarter others who are applying, why should they be discriminated against?</p>
<p>And here’s something a little more interesting, (although I’m expecting a lot of negative comments). If some people believe it’s ethical for universities to Affirmative Action for academics, then why shouldn’t it be fair for universities to Affirmative Action for sports as well? I mean really, is it fair that the 5’ 9" Asian point guard who has all the ball-handling skills never gets a chance to play competitive basketball after high school because he simply can’t match up against a bigger and more physical 6’ 3" African American point guard?</p>
<p>I mean to me, from one perspective, it really is the same situation here. If universities are letting African Americans being admitted with statistically substantially lower test scores, then why shouldn’t they be letting Asians play on sports team who have obviously less physical talent?</p>
<p>simple. Because education is knowledge needed to function in everyday life. Sports is simply an extra. sports teams are looking to pick the best people for their team to make the most money. Educators are looking not necessarily for just academic accomplishments but different mindsets and worldviews /passion- to change the world.</p>
<p>Basically, if a college was run like a basketball team colleges would pick the richest students to generate the most profit.The analogy is not particularly apt.</p>
<p>Regarding the supposed similarity of Asian-American ECs:</p>
<p>First of all, this argument assumes a stereotype that probably exists at a mere superficial level. Plus, if there were truly a plethora of Asian-American applicants with stereotypical ECs, next to none in that group would get in to Harvard. They aren’t looking for basic ECs, stereotypical or not; in that sense, I cannot buy the notion that the upper echelon of Asian applicants pertain to this description.</p>
<p>Secondly, how can we assume that the ECs of other ethnici groups are inherently more varied? If you wish to apply stereotypical “knowledge” into the situation here, you also have to make similarly unjustified assumptions regarding other ethnic groups to maintain a level playing field. Nevertheless the whole argument falters because, once again, the kids getting into the elite schools generally have ECs that are extraordinary, stereotypical or not. And hence the only true data we have to judge EC quality with is the data from the Duke mismatch study unless someone has a viable alternative (or another counterargument).</p>
<p>And those people (especially whites and Asians) who don’t get into elite schools have at least one major aspect of their profile that is not extraordinary. If that aspect is “only” the ec aspect, the e.c. is (1) too duplicative in the rest of the applicant pool, or (2) not of exceptional achievement, whether typical or atypical.</p>
Well, the simple answer to this is that Harvard gets to choose whether it prefers well-rounded or laser-focused students, because it’s a private institution. If you think a top school should accept only the “smartest” students, then you can gather up a group of people with money and start a new private university that does just that. The more complicated answer is that Harvard, and a lot of other schools and individuals, think that a university is a more vibrant place if the students have a lot of varied interests. It doesn’t see itself as a high-caliber trade school.</p>
<p>One more point on Asian musicians: my observation is that Asian students tend to be objectively better violin and clarinet players than many non-Asian students because of a cultural difference: they tend to practice much, much more. (Again, this is a tendency, not a universal truth. It isn’t disproved by one Asian kid who doesn’t practice, any more than one Asian kid who plays ice hockey disproves the tendencies about choice of sports.) Presumably, if they chose to play brass, or percussion, or electric guitar, or whatever, they’d also excel if they practiced that much–but they don’t typically choose to play those instruments.</p>
<p>And one last thing: “mindsets” are, in part, based on cultural norms.</p>
<p>The Bush administration and Wall Street are fill with “elite” grads and where did it get us? If the elites are really looking for people to “change the world”, they are too “successful” for my liking. I simply can not afford it anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are doing just that, and they will fight tooth and nail to defend their most valuable assets. For opponents of AA, don’t expect any change anytime soon.</p>
<p>But think about it. We’re talking top-tier universities here right? Top-tier universities, especially HYP do NOT make revenue off sports. Some unversities do: Stanford and Duke in particular. However, if we take Harvard for example, Harvard absolutely does not make revenue off sports. In fact, Harvard’s one billion dollar endownment is based on students getting smart, skilled, and later on rich, and then later on donating to the school.</p>
<p>Put yourselves in the AO’s position! 10 years of Piano, National Honor Society, perfect SAT scores, similar experiences… Let’s be honest, these stereotypes does exist :)</p>
<p>I’m not sure when perfect SAT scores became an undesirable cliche.</p>
<p>In holistic race-blind admissions, Asians with “similar experiences” would be rejected at a proportionally higher number. That’s perfectly fine–the AO is not affected by preconceived notions of racial stereotypes. But I doubt any school would be willing to undertake such an experiment, because I suspect the “similarity” effect is overrated.</p>
That would be an interesting test. But I don’t think the similarity effect is overstated; in fact, I think it’s so pronounced that it would be hard to really do a blind test, because so few non-Asians would fit the profile.</p>
<p>Those are interesting numbers, tokenadult. I noticed that although more girls than boys took the test, you have to go down to 1920 to find the first score where more girls than boys received that score.</p>
<p>Also interesting to note how, despite the number of perfect ACT scorers ballooning over the last few years (I think it’s 600-something now), the number of perfect SAT scorers remains below 300. I recall earlier having briefly touched upon the topic of geographic bias; the more and more I think about it, THIS is the main geographic bias.</p>
<p>Anyhow, the above is only tangentially to this thread; what’s important is that you’re not exactly in bad company if you’re being described as a “perfect-score grind” by your peers. In fact, it almost seems to me as though the shift towards a “holistic” process and the shift towards ethnic stereotyping has been facilitated by the inherent need to find fault as much as anything else. I haven’t read or studied anything in particular about this concept but visit a handful of chance threads and you will know what I am talking about. For the 2200 applicant with a few leadership positions applying to Harvard, responses usually go something like, “Harvard loves leadership and well a 2200 is practically a 2400 anyways (another phenomenon on this board that continues to bewilder me) so I really think you’ll get at least waitlisted; maaaybe that score’s a little low but whatever.” But - Add 200 points to his SAT score, change nothing about his ECs, and you’ll notice that, especially if he’s Asian, the responses will go something like, “Good scores, but your ECs are weak. Harvard isn’t looking for boring students.” This happens all the time, and often to the same people responding, and I don’t think they even realize it.</p>