Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

Applying to College
641

<p>This is a very interesting thread with lots of very thoughtful posts. </p>

<p>I’m also for race-blind, merit based admissions. This does not mean I support an admission policy based solely on test scores and transcripts. College provides, in general, the last opportunity for students to receive “holistic” education prior to specialization. I would like my children to be surrounded by peers who excel in different types of pursuit, academic or otherwise. </p>

<p>Ideally, “merit” should be determined in the context of available resources/opportunities and external forces/influences – what did you do with what you had? But, it is an impossible task to realize this ideal, let alone doing it in 15 minutes of folder reading. In addition, “merit” may also include what the student can bring to the school and his/her peers – this opens the door for development admits and celebrities.</p>

<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> Asian students with higher SATs than whites were being discriminated against. Actually, I would say that the latter is shown, at least to the extent of about 4 percent of the difference in Asians’ share.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the policy is based solely on SAT, then the above is correct because 4% is statistically significant. However, even after excluding special consideration for URM’s (therefore race-blind), there are still other “hooks” – athletes, legacies, developmental admits, celebrities. My guess is that at least a part of the 4% delta is due to more whites having other “hooks”. However, it would be hard to brush aside discrimination claim if not all 4% can be explained this way.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is interesting, but it really doesn’t tell us much unless we know the algorithm used in the simulation and how closely it matches the admissions policy. It could mean there is some sort of random factor in the decision process, e.g., readers with different bias. It could mean decisions are impacted by the random ordering of apps, e.g, we only need 1 oboe player, and we just admitted one, so too bad this app came in later. It could mean anything.</p>

642

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you’re missing a cynical but extremely important point: people fear being called anti-Semitic. No one will ask whether it is possible to be “Too Jewish?” because the ACLU and ADL will instantly be there to tear one’s throat out. By contrast, witness how a few pages back, one user openly stated that it is permissible for colleges to “control” Asian enrollment, thus acknowledging his belief that it is possible and indeed undesirable to be “too Asian.”</p>

643

<p>

I’m pretty cynical, but I think you’re being too cynical here. I don’t think that elite schools have any desire to control the number of Jews any more. Jews are distributed quite liberally through the leadership and faculty at these places. I am old enough to tell you that current anti-Asian sentiment is nothing like the virulent anti-Semitism that once was quite common. (I’m not saying it’s entirely gone, but the prevalence is much, much less.)</p>

644

<p>Maybe it is time for WASP/Cs to step into the fray. They make up about 67% of the U.S. population, and only about 10-15% of students at the elites, if you compare collegeboard and Hillel numbers. (assuming Hillel numbers are accurate).</p>

645

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course the elite schools don’t have any desire to control Jewish enrollment anymore. Anti-Semitism is considered to be a mark of ignorance, what an irony it’d be for people (at least nominally) in the education business to profess ignorance!</p>

<p>I stand by my point, however. I don’t think fear should play a role, but it does. People fear being called racist against blacks, and people fear being called anti-Semites. Some users here did not feel any dissonance in making comments that suggested that it is possible for an American college to be “too Asian.” I challenged these users to ask if an American college could be “too black.” None of those users accepted my challenge. Why? I think you know the answer.</p>

<p>As the [Inside</a> Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian]Inside”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian) article I linked to argues, “too Asian?” is a racist question.</p>

646

<p>

</p>

<p>What is the answer, fab? I don’t think there is anything wrong or intimidating about answering that question. In general, people of every race like to be around others who are of like-race. That is a fact. That was the entire basis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld using race as a factor in admissions: Universities ought to be able to craft a class that includes a “critical mass” of racial minorities, so that all benefit and feel comfortable.</p>

647

<p>Too black for what? I think that historically black colleges are indeed too black for a lot of white students. fab, your comments suggest that the WASP overlords would really like to keep the numbers of Jews, blacks and Asians down, but are afraid to do so with respect to Jews and blacks. I won’t say that this isn’t true anywhere, but is not at all likely to be the attitude of the liberal types that inhabit admissions offices at elite colleges. I think a lot of those people DO believe in an ideal of diversity, which is one reason they try to get the number of URMs up, as well as people from Iowa. It is this that makes me continue to be skeptical that these colleges are deliberately trying to limit the number of Asians to prevent there being too many Asians. What, exactly, is their motivation for doing so? You really think it’s anti-Asian racism?</p>

648

<p>I like how there is no actual answer in #646, and the supposed answer in #647 is based on HBCUs, which we hithertho have not been talking about. The answer is obvious: “too black?” is a racist question, just like “too Asian?” That’s why none of the users who made comments suggesting their beliefs that it is possible to be “too Asian?” answered my challenge.</p>

<p>“Critical mass” theory is one of the stupidest things the Supreme Court has ever legitimized. How does it make sense that x blacks are necessary to achieve “critical mass” but for native Americans, the appropriate figure is y, where y is way, way less than x? If x number of [insert racial classification here] is necessary to achieve the so-called “critical mass,” why isn’t that the minimum for every racial classification? I really admire the lawyer that managed to convince Justice O’Connor that “critical mass” isn’t stupid and isn’t a quota-in-disguise. That lawyer probably isn’t as famous as Clarence Darrow, but she should be.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve already answered this question. I agree with [Malcolm</a> Gladwell](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker)'s analysis. Their motivation is simple: they want to preserve their brand image. I believe that they are more than free to craft their image however they want to. All I ask in return is that they forfeit their access to federal funding if discrimination is necessary to achieve their desired images.</p>

<p>Edit</p>

<p>Basically, my response to the common-but-incorrect “they can do whatever they want to” argument is, if they really think it’s that valuable, let them do it out of their own pocket.</p>

649

<p>

Do you think “too white” is also a racist observation? I think in terms of people wanting to attend a college, they might think it is too black, Jewish, Asian, Mormon, or what have you, if that group was a strong majority and dominated the culture of the school. (Those who think a school is “too white” are probably using a different scale, in which they are hoping to have at least some number of people from a similar background as themselves.)
But when you talk about “too Asian,” we’re imagining that somebody would be concerned and turned off from Harvard if it were 38% Asian. Maybe it’s true, but it’s quite different from thinking that Brandeis is “too Jewish” or BYU is “too Mormon.” Or even that Howard is “too black” for some particular applicant. I can tell you that I would not have wanted to attend BYU or Howard, in part because I wouldn’t want to go to a school dominated by a culture that is significantly different from mine. (See how tough it is to be a URM?)</p>

<p>I will just add that the worst thing, at least by CC standards, is for a college to be too Greek.</p>

650

<p>

</p>

<p>Sometimes educational institutions have to demonstrate generous diversity in enrollments in order to keep or acquire federal funding. Not sure if this is the case for the U’s in question, just that it has indeed happened in the recent past at other places.</p>

651

<p>

</p>

<p>That is funny! I have noticed a heavy anti-Greek, anti-football, anti-party/drinking bias on CC, which could be interpreted as code language for “too-White.”</p>

652

<p>Two choices, in my mind:

  1. Either have affirmative action, and do it correctly with everyone identifying with their primary national/cultural ancestry. This means breaking up the “white” group into the appropriate subsections. WASP/Irish Catholic/Italian/German/Jewish (they’d be hurt big time). Virtually all other white groups would benefit in elite college admissions.
  2. Completely do away with all race-based forms of identification to the student body.</p>
653

<p>Took a break from this thread, but in response to epiphany post #585–</p>

<p>I agree with you in interpreting Espenshade, et al as statistical studies that reveal correlative score discrepancies that provide some basis for further investigation of the issue. However, combine these score discrepancies with the subjective ratings that Asian students were given in the Duke study–we have two separate trends, both showing that Asian students excel in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of holistic review (minus factors like athletic recruitment–Hunt’s argument is valid, I simply disagree with him regarding the significance of its impact).</p>

<p>I heard from a Middlebury admissions officer last week, an interesting analogy of how a selective LAC builds its class; think of the academic record as a keystone in an arch of many different stones. The college’s goal is to have a variety of different arches, with different stones–diversity. The larger the stone, the better; so someone from Arizona has a larger geographic stone than someone from Connecticut. Similarly, someone with an unusual EC like circus performer has a larger stone than someone who excels in piano–at least for Middlebury, the subjective rating of ECs includes rarity/unusualness as well as level of achievement.</p>

<p>So epiphany–what qualities “make up” for the holistic gap leading to score discrepancies? Since Asian students clearly lead on quantitative factors, they must be lagging on some other qualitative factor in order for them to be ultimately admitted under different standards (a higher “cut off,” so to speak).</p>

<p>I disagree that a difference in admissions standards sends any message other than, “You would not be admitted if you didn’t fall into a special category.” That is, the college values you enough to be admitted solely because you have [fill in hook here]; without [hook], many of you (all those who fall between the lower and higher standards) would not be valued enough to be admitted.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=Hunt]

URMs might still be admitted in a race-blind holistic admissions process IF low socioeconomic status was a major factor. Would those opposed to race-baced decisions prefer that?

[/quote]

Absolutely! If low socioeconomic status was a major factor, students of any race would be eligible for the special consideration. If this then leads to a disproportionate aiding of URMs, so much for the better. I am not against special categories per se–while I don’t like it, I understand the need for athletic recruitment and developmental admits–but I am against discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, or disability.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=Hunt]

I think a lot of those people DO believe in an ideal of diversity, which is one reason they try to get the number of URMs up, as well as people from Iowa. It is this that makes me continue to be skeptical that these colleges are deliberately trying to limit the number of Asians to prevent there being too many Asians. What, exactly, is their motivation for doing so? You really think it’s anti-Asian racism?

[/quote]

Your questions were addressed to fab, but I find them interesting. If admissions officers truly believe in “an ideal of diversity”–which is plausible, even likely–then they do have motivation for unconscious anti-Asian racism. The liberal American ideal of diversity involves a balanced group of many different racial groups, and it is not in the college’s best interest to have “too many” of any one group. The definition of “too many” seems to be guided by the national distribution of racial groups, i.e. a majority of white students is considered positive, for several reasons relating to both proportional representation and insidious institutional racism (white privilege).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=Hunt]

I can tell you that I would not have wanted to attend BYU or Howard, in part because I wouldn’t want to go to a school dominated by a culture that is significantly different from mine. (See how tough it is to be a URM?)

[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that elite universities are anywhere near dominated by Asian culture. Nor, as a “URM-like” applicant to rural Midwestern LACs (and I’ve looked at some that have Asian as the lowest represented group, ~2-3%), do I think it is particularly “tough” to attend such a school. HBCUs represent a specific type of black culture, one that is not attractive to many black students. Likewise, BYU represents a specific type of religious culture, and many devout (but liberal) Christians would not wish to attend.</p>

654

<p>^^^^^ Heard of MIT and Caltech? 25% of accepted and attending are Asian.</p>

655

<p>

</p>

<p>That is why I came up with a “Jewish filter”. I agree with much of #640 except the part about Jews having “diversified”. What I think is happening is that Jews have now reached the highest level in government, industry, and the arts. As a result, their children are part of the scions of the rich and famous. This “hook” is probably the major difference between the fortune of Jewish applicants vs. Asian applicants. As I said before, I do not see any reason for the large number of Jewish students at the elites based on the baseball rosters and Harvard’s undergrad orchestra.</p>

<p>I do think fabrizio has a point. If I have to offend one of the three groups (remember this is a sum-zero game), I too would pick on the Asians any day. As far as what will happen to Asians 40 years from now, I am not as optimistic as you are. Jews are white and can easily blend in. I don’t think Asian are this fortunate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I did not know that. What I know is that both Bill Gates (Harvard dropout) and Hu Jintao (Tsinghua- hydraulic engineering) are table tennis fans. The article helps me to understand why. </p>

<p>While still on this topic, I checked out the Chinese gold medalists from last year’s Olympic games, from the Cantonese weightlifter (1st gold) to the Mongolian boxer (51st), out of pure curiosity. It became quite obvious that they are dominion in certain sports but weak in others. I know they put a lot of effort and money into track and field, swimming, and rowing because a lot of medals are awarded in those disciplines but with little to show for it. On the other hand, their domination in men’s gymnastics, weightlifting, diving, table tennis, badminton etc. causes some sporting federations to implement what I call " the Chinese rule". Interesting.</p>

656

<p>

I think you need to look through your filter from the other side this time. You think Asians with high stats are being artificially limited; are you suggesting that Jewish kids with lower stats are being advantaged? I suspect that research would not bear that out.</p>

657

<p>Some of the comments suggest that diversity is required for federal funding. That is not true. Most of the federal funding for university is strictly merit based. In fact, Caltech, which has the most homogeneous nerds in its campus, is one of the largest recipients of National Science Foundation funding. </p>

<p>As an employer myself, I sometimes have hard time to find competent US graduates to fill positions in my lab. Instead, I am filling my federal funded lab with graduates from foreign countries. People from China, Korea, Japan, India or even Europe seems more dedicated and more likely mathematically competent. Merit based admission (particularly in the top schools) is the way to go, and is compatible with the real world reality. Right now, more than half the faculty members in my department are foreign born. That number will increase further if we screw up our undergraduate education, which may make US education even more irrelevant, we will have to rely on foreign trained scientists to fill the most vital and vigorous research positions.</p>

658

<p>I haven’t gone through the entire thread of discussion here. But is it probable that because Asian applicants are generally leaning more on areas of engineering, science, business, and economics, than the elites may want to support, that some of the perceived bias against Asian applicants canbe explained as a result of resource management? Regardless of how they may publicly claim, it is only a matter of practicality for the admissions offices to assemble incoming student bodies which may efficiently utilize all the resources of the elites, i.e. they also need to support the departments of arts, humanities, and other disciplines unpopular to Asians applicants. Several observations below may imply as such.</p>

<ol>
<li>The percentage of Asian students in those elites stronger in engineering, science, business, and economics, are higher than those in elite LACs, i.e. (a) Asian applicants are self-selective, revealing their more concentrated interests in these areas, and (b) the departments of engineering, science, business, and economics, have the resource to accomodate their more concentrated interests and hence, percentage-wise more Asian students are admitted here than to the elite LACs.</li>
<li>Several UCs with more than 40 % Asian students need to declare “impacted majors”, which are incidentally also the ones popular to Asian students. Resource management is seemingly implemented after admissions here, a demonstration that the elites are indeed concerned in efficient resource utilization.</li>
<li>Regarding the Duke study, where Asian students are more qualified in almost every respect than all other ethnic groups, it should be noted that majors popular to Asian students in the elites are also more competitive and hence, may skew the results.</li>
<li>The apparent effect above for the Duke study, may in part, also apply to the higher SAT scores necessary for Asian students to be admitted at the elites.</li>
</ol>

<p>It would be more revealing if the studies were conducted with differentiated academic disciplines, instead of lumping all admissions together as a whole. But of course, those data aren’t available. Nevertheless, if there were indeed discrimination against Asian students, it is structured in a very clever way that no explicit practice is necessary at all, because as long as diversity is emphasized, in this case also for resources, then the rest will systemically follow as smoothly as auto-pilotting. :-)</p>

659

<p>StillGreen, this is something several of us have also wondered about. I think the question is how much of an effect it has. I agree that it would be interesting to study departments, intended majors, etc. You said:

Could you explain this more? Does this mean that those UCs have to take steps to make sure that they have people for the other majors?</p>

660

<p>““Could you explain this more? Does this mean that those UCs have to take steps to make sure that they have people for the other majors?””</p>

<p>It is both sides of the same coin. When several UCs with more than 40 % Asian students are reluctant to divert enough resources toward many of the disciplines incidentally popular to Asian students, the impacted nature of these majors would force many Asian students to overflow into other majors, in hope of being able to transfer into the impacted majors later. So in the process, more demand from better-qualified students is artificially generated for the less popular disciplines (“better-qualified” in the sense that they are admitted to a UC, instead of having to search in the unadmitted applicant pool). This is a common practice among Asian students as also illustrated from those attending community colleges instead of CSUs, in hope of a better chance to transfer into a UC later.</p>