Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

Keilexandra · November 8, 2009, 5:08pm

This is my understanding of how you believe admissions is conducted. Please feel free to correct me. --Basic objective qualifications such as GPA, test scores, extracurriculars are used to weed out those students who are not qualified for the school, i.e. questionable academic potential or are an outrageously bad fit (real-life example: applying to Amherst as a prospective business–not econ–major). Out of those students who are deemed to be “qualified,” all URMs and other “hooked” applicants are admitted (I gather this from “the committee comes to the final round with an excess of riches…after determining <a href=“among%20non-URM’s”>b</a>** who is objectively the most viable”). Afterward, the “best” unhooked students are admitted until the seats are filled–naturally leaving some students to disappointment. Some URMs are also rejected, of course, if they do not meet the school’s academic/extracurricular standards. This is not a “subjectivity-first” standard; rather, it is a “subjectivity-first” standard after filtering for objective standards. However, under the approach I just described, URMs are held to a different subjective standard than non-URMs. It is my belief that Asian students, specifically, are held to a different subjective standard than white students; but that is a different subtopic of discussion.

My contention: there are NOT “so many objective ties and virtual ties among the finalists.” I contend that admissions offices have the ability to distinguish far more deeply than simply a “qualified” minimum–that the same standard of “best-qualified” should be applied to students of all races. For example, the issuing of likely letters indicates that admissions offices are able to identify “definite” admits early on before viewing the entire applicant pool. At the most selective institutions, these admits are not based only on objective qualifications; the subjective qualifications are equally as important.

Please note that “qualified” is NOT a reference to purely objective qualifications. If I meant that, I would have added the adjective. I define “qualified” as a holistic view of the applicant, taking into account both objective and subjective qualifications, as I believe the admissions offices do. However, I believe that legally protected attributes such as race should not be considered as a factor in “subjective” qualifications.

Hold up! Can you quote exactly where I implied this, so that I can correct myself? Because I have NEVER intended this interpretation of my position. I don’t particularly care about admitting “every objectively qualified” applicant of ANY race. I care about admitting the “BEST-qualified” applicants, also of ANY race.

Current decisions are OF COURSE based on qualifications, both objective and subjective; however, the “subjective” factors include race, and I believe in the existence of “negative action,” i.e. that Asian students are treated differently from white students, in addition to both groups being treated differently from URM students.

I don’t quite understand your calling the rejection of some “objectively qualified” students a “cap,” since not all objectively qualified students necessarily deserve to be admitted in the first place.

Bay · November 8, 2009, 5:47pm

Why do you assume that colleges must, or even want to admit the “best” qualified applicants as defined by some formulaic method? After assembling a pool of candidates who are qualified to attend and graduate, perhaps adcoms simply pick and choose the admits based on what each individual offers that is different from the others.

For example, consider these two candidates:

A: 4.0/2350, student body president, state science award winner
B: 3.9/2300, student body president, Miss North Carolina

Is there a correct or incorrect choice here? If so, please explain.

epiphany · November 8, 2009, 6:12pm

Post 1161:

There is not a predictability to the admissions process. That post implies there is. That post also posits contentions as facts, and grossly misunderstands what is meant by virtual ties, which include both actual (statistical)ties and trade-offs (resulting in qualitative ties). You imagine a lot, which is a product of your limited world experience and how you idealize what “should” be. Whether or not your “shoulds” are the “shoulds” that the committees operate under, is a different matter entirely. I’m just speaking here of your misunderstanding of how it does work. From your cumulative posts, it’s clear that you think there are far fewer highly qualified students from a number of backgrounds than there are in actual fact. Worse, there you go again with your likely letters distraction. Likely letters represent a tiny fraction of the applicant pool to Ivies & other Elites. They hardly represent the sum total of the actual and virtual ties that the committee sees. This thread is not about likely letters.

Keilexandra · November 8, 2009, 7:13pm

Bay: Why do you assume that the “best”-qualified applicants are “defined by some formulaic method”? At the fringes, one person who is “best”-qualified one day might not have been, if s/he had been evaluated the next day. I doubt that adcoms subjectively pick and choose from “a pool of candidates who are qualified to attend and graduate”–I think that pool is only the borderline admits (representing those students actually discussed in committee; for many colleges, two separate readers coming to the same recommendation means that the file skips committee).

In your A/B example, there is no one correct choice–that’s an example of a borderline case. But consider these two candidates:

A: 4.0/2350, student body president, Physics Olympiad semifinalist, full-pay
B: 3.7/2150, student body president, [URM], full-pay

Which student would you admit with/without the “URM” designation?

epiphany - Which contentions do I posit as facts? I believe I specifically introduced my statements as contentions several times. On what evidence do you believe that there is such an overwhelming number of virtual ties? (Yes, I include “trade-off” qualitative ties.) I, personally, believe that the pool of borderline candidates–which is where any virtual ties would occur–is perhaps 60% of the applicant pool. ~20% are “auto-admits” as Hernandez describes them (perhaps not that exact term, I don’t have the book handy) and 20% are auto-rejects. My numbers may be off, so I invite you to give evidence as to what you believe the actual %s are.

Within the remaining 60%, however, some qualitative distinctions are still made–they HAVE to be made, or else the process would not be any different from a lottery. So an adcom, one day, decides that the class could better use a Miss North Carolina than a state science award winner; maybe the year before, it would have been the other way around. So, in year 1 Candidate B is “best”–in this case, “better”–qualified; in year 2 Candidate A is the same. The “standardized method” I speak of is the same in both cases, though the conclusion is different: consider academics (here, Hunt’s Candidates A and B have effectively the same academic credentials), consider extracurricular achievements, consider a “well-rounded class.” But should a URM candidate with lesser (still qualified, but not “better”-qualified) standing be admitted, when a similar non-URM candidate (qualified but not “better”-qualified) is not? Substitute white/Asian for those respective racial classifications, and pretend that the student in question is a science nerd: what would you decide?

My contention is that the decision may be different for an Asian state science award winner and a white (or a black) state science award winner–and that would be racial discrimination. I won’t attempt to substantiate this contention with statistics, since it’s more of a subjective observation, which has been partly reinforced by the racial stereotypes in this very thread–hence, “contention.”

Wrt likely letters–yes, they represent a tiny fraction of the applicant pool, but they also represent a not-insignificant fraction of the admitted pool. These are the top admits–not only qualified but amazingly-qualified. I believe that the standardized method of making this distinction is then applied to the middle of the pool, albeit with much less predictability–but the method, described two paragraphs up, remains the same. My belief is supported by what I know about the Telluride Association’s process for selecting TASP admittees; the first round winnows 1000+ applicants to approximately 140. In the second round, the 140 finalists are interviewed and winnowed down to 70 admits + 10 waitlisted. I suspect these admits are chosen in much the same way as elite admits–pick top 10 outstanding, then shape each program for maximum diversity–but IIRC, the Telluride Association gives each of those 140 finalists an exact rank, wherein the top 70 are admitted and the next 10 (by gender) are waitlisted. ^is hearsay, but what I know for a fact is that the 10-person waitlist is numerically ranked. In such a situation, I think most people would agree with me that every single person on the waitlist is in a “virtual tie,” a borderline candidate; yet Telluride manages to rank them with regard to desirability, without regard for program preference or shape of class.

One last comment: I would greatly appreciate it if you henceforth refrained from making judgments of my or any other poster’s character (“…a product of your limited world experience” and many other condescending declarations), as I have refrained from judging yours or anyone else’s. Certainly I have held back from saying some derisive things that I might have regretted; a similar courtesy would be appreciated. You should feel free, of course, to quote me and point out exactly what I have wrongly idealized. But ad hominem insults are unnecessary.

Protagonist111 · November 8, 2009, 7:26pm

Knowing a lot of Asian people myself I have seen that most Asian students do get those top SAT scores and GPAs but they do not do many extra curriculars. It is mainly their parent’s fault because they parents want their kids to focus mainly on grades and SATs so they do not let their kids play sports or join any clubs. This is going by my personal experience.

Keilexandra · November 8, 2009, 7:28pm

^Interesting. My personal experience is that most Asian students do participate in extracurriculars, primarily because 1) they WANT to, and/or 2) their parents are savvy enough to know that admission to elite schools requires a strong EC profile. I have also observed gravitation toward math/science/academic ECs, but that may be influenced by my attending a math/science magnet school. For instance, I encountered three Asian male English majors visiting Carleton with me. At least one was the son of immigrant parents who didn’t speak English. Carleton is an LAC, of course, but with an exceptional reputation in the sciences.

Canuckguy · November 9, 2009, 6:47am

Here is that thread again:

<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/554353-ioc-investigation-age-cheating-chinese-gymmasts-17.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/554353-ioc-investigation-age-cheating-chinese-gymmasts-17.html</a>

To make it easier to others to read, would it be helpful if I say your contributions are made between Page 10 and Page 17? I do agree with you that context is important.

Look, I am sorry if your feelings are hurt, but there is no getting around the fact that you set very different standards in the two threads. I was probing for some other hypothesis and could not find any that makes sense. Why do you think I waited until page 70 before I challenge what I see as the double standard?

If you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it. I am no more happy with my working hypothesis than you, but failing to come up with an alternative, I have to accept Sherlock Holmes’ admonishment of Dr. Watson:

*How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? *

Hunt · November 9, 2009, 10:10am

The only one I can see is that you prefer to interpret disagreement with your position as anti-Asian bias. In both threads, I took the position that the data available called for more investigation. In the Chinese gymnasts’ case, there was documentary evidence that they were underage; I thought that should be investigated, and I certainly thought that the Chinese government was capable of falsifying IDs. You, and several others, were inexplicably offended by this position, as stated by a number of people. In this thread, I have repeatedly said that it could be, based on the evidence, that selective colleges are deliberately limiting the number of Asians. I then asked whether there might be other explanations for some of the difference. Again, some people, including you, seem offended by the question. This led you to choose an ad hominem attack on me, questioning my motives.

Look in the mirror, Canuckguy.

epiphany · November 9, 2009, 11:33am

But, Kei, that is an AA/URM discussion, not the discussion of why thousands of excellent Asian applications and thousands of excellent white applications do not result in higher percentages for Asians. (There are not thousands of URM’s accepted into each Elite U each year; not enough of them apply, and not enough of them make the grade when they do apply.) Both Asians and whites are affected by AA – & Asians not “more than” whites because scores alone (which is a higher metric for Asians overall, than whites, overall) are not the determining features of competition among already excellent students. (Which I know you know!) The competition for acceptance between URM’s and Asians is a minor factor given the entire competitive field. Now, it might not be a minor factor to those in opposition to AA as a policy (yourself included), and I understand that. What some of you say is that if even one student in a different category of qualification than the “truly” competitive or highly competitive gets admitted, it’s discrimination. On the surface, you may argue that, but try to understand (and I’m sure that you will run across this history as you read more in life) that courts factor in motivation of an institution which results in an artificial inclusion of particular groups. The reason, again historically, is that motivation was at the heart of the opposite (all-encompassing) exclusion of particular racial and ethnic groups by many private institutions of all kinds (you name it – country clubs, whatever). Key elements in determining whether the technical legal term of discrimination applies are whether the policies/behaviors are consistent for the class in question (all/virtually all/ most) are not admitted; and/or whether the action is arbitrary (the candidate in question meets all the standards applied to all other classes but is not admittted); and/or whether the exclusion can be shown to be deliberate and engineered for that particular class (“systematic”) vs. for others. If many, many others from that same “class” have been admitted, and if the elements of consideration for admission are varied and complex (dynamic), it’s difficult legally to sustain a charge of discrimination based on personal origin.

An obvious example: if membership in a country club requires merely fees, or fees + residency, than anyone who supplies those requirements should be admitted. If (as with many country clubs, swim clubs, and similar private clubs) there is a maximum total capacity on membership, a waiting list results. No other attributes are required except technical compliance, and people may be removed from the waiting list eventually because there is no deadline for enrollment.

The situation in the quote from you I pasted above may or may not be discrimination (in your definition) – i.e., measurably and holistically different qualification levels. The reason I say that is that often URM’s who manage to be awarded in science competitions are actually competitive on many other levels as well (grades, scores, and qualitative academic considerations). Just be careful of assuming that every URM accepted to an Elite is less objectively qualified than every Asian applying to an Elite. And I’m including American-born URM’s as well. You may personally see no evidence of that, but I’ve seen a lot of that in my field. :)

Keilexandra · November 9, 2009, 11:55am

epiphany - I added the parenthetical “(or a black)” to indicate that I consider the situation racial discrimination regardless of which two races are being compared. But if you like, keep it to an Asian/white comparison. I agree, few URMs are accepted to the elite schools because “not enough of them apply, and not enough of them make the grade when they do apply”–that is, after all, one reason why they are underrepresented.

And now we simply return to Hunt’s pet topic of race-neutral “tip” factors, which we have already established is unresolvable without further information. Espenshade’s study shows a disparity in scores, and the Duke mismatch study (by A-something) shows that objective “soft” factors (e.g. not NC residency preference, in Duke’s case) do not counter this disparity.

Of course it’s difficult to sustain a legal charge. Schools can just hide behind holistic admission–true whether or not they actually ARE discriminating.

And I know lots of elite-level URMs who would have been admitted regardless. But that group is probably a minority of the admitted group, or else AA would be unnecessary.

fabrizio · November 9, 2009, 12:38pm

Of course such an assumption is wrought with problems, but that’s because your wording of the assumption is loaded (ie. every…is less…than every…).

Many selective schools seek a so-called “critical mass” of “underrepresented” minorities. Yet, according to the [url=<a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html]JBHE[/url”>The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test]JBHE[/url</a>], in 2005, there were only 1,132 black students who scored 700 or higher on the math section and only 1,205 who scored 700 or higher on the verbal section. The article didn’t say how many scored 700 or higher on both sections, but for sake of argument, let’s assume it was 1,132, which is the most it could be. Combine the top 20 national universities and the top 20 LACs as ranked by USNWR to get 40 schools. If you divide 1,132 by 40, you get 28.3, which we’ll round up to 29 for illustration.

I doubt any of the pro-racial preference people here think that twenty-nine is a “sufficient” number to create the mythical “critical mass.” In fact, as 1,132 is quite possibly an overestimate, and the number of excellent schools in our country far exceeds forty, the true quotient could be FAR less than twenty-nine. And, that’s precisely my point: on average, “underrepresented” minorities do have weaker objective qualifications than their “overrepresented” minority and white peers. That is simply fact, not an assumption, and there is nothing loaded about the statement (c.f. your every / every wording).

Under my reasoning, if your objective criteria do not make you as strong as the other candidates, then you must have some serious subjective criteria backing up your application. But is this really true for all of these “underrepresented” minorities in question? I don’t deny that it’s true for some, but all is my question.

epiphany · November 9, 2009, 12:48pm

fab,

I don’t know why you waste so much breath/keystrokes. Supporters of racial AA (i.e., elite U’s) do not claim that all URM’s are objectively competitively qualified with all non-URMs. They state that they simply “can do the work,” and it has been proven that overwhelmingly, like other admitted students, they can do the work.

But those URMs who do not meet the same competitive bar as the Asians and whites applying and admitted, do not number in the thousands (for each school) unlike the Asians and whites who are competitive with each other but are denied admission. Requiring competitive admission on both objective and holistic measures for URM’s will decrease their enrollment and slightly increase enrollment both for Asians and for whites. It will not result in some kind of fictional enrollment justice, because those objectively + holistically qualified will still vastly exceed the number of available openings.

Bay · November 9, 2009, 12:57pm

But your reasoning may be faulty. Its possible that many elites deem achieving a 630, for example, as a perfectly acceptable indication that a student will do fine. Thus, so long as you score 630/630/630 or higher, they stop caring about your score and look at everything else. If this is the case, a 630/630/630 URM doesn’t need to show some “serious subjective criteria” that out-impresses them over the 800/800/800 Asian or White kid. They are all considered the same, so the URM gets the tip.

Do you have any data that show they would be wrong in making this assumption?

Hunt · November 9, 2009, 1:01pm

Again, I think it makes sense to note that there are two different issues being discussed here:

Whether Asians are being disadvantaged vis-a-vis whites in selective college admissions, and if so, what the cause of that disadvantage is. There is certainly enough information to investigate this further. I don’t see a lot of philosophical disagreement about this though, because I don’t really see to many people arguing (on this thread, anyway), that admissions should be based on stats only. The hard question is how to do holistic admissions fairly, and how to tell if it’s being done unfairly.
Whether URMs should get an admissions boost. This, it seems to me, is basically a philosophical dispute. The reasons pro and con have been laid out and everybody understands them pretty well, I think. There are some interesting questions about who is really a URM, and who should get a boost, and how much, and for how long.

fabrizio · November 9, 2009, 1:58pm

Then under your reasoning, a 630/630/630 Asian or White kid doesn’t need to show any “serious subjective criteria” that out-impresses them over their higher scoring peers of identical racial classification?

Or does this only apply to “underrepresented” minorities?

fabrizio · November 9, 2009, 2:01pm

Re 1172

My point was simply to show that you worded your response poorly, as you used loaded language (ie. every / every). You did this again when you used “all / all.”

Where is your evidence of this? If you are describing race-neutral admissions, Espenshade’s presentation in the opening post does not corroborate your statement, as it showed that only Asians see enrollment gains. If you are referencing another study, please list it.

epiphany · November 9, 2009, 3:00pm

As shown by others (not just myself), E&C was using limited data with which to predict (falsely) expected different enrollment numbers. There is no way to predict, since currently plenty of whites & Asians with perfect scores do not get admitted and have not been admitted (over Asians and whites with less perfect scores). Therefore, far more than scores and score ranges are evaluated in college admissions. E&C’s study would be accurate (for a bump in Asian enrollment) if scores were prioritized as admissions factors, which they are not. It’s been probably 40+ years since a score in itself (combined with grades) was considered by itself “a qualification” to an Elite U, and probably 10 years since since they were prioritized (again, for non-URMs). As to studies, a simple look at the CDS’ for the Elites will verify this. Scores (and btw, for all standardized testing, all of it) are one of at least 9 “Very Important” factors for admission. There is no further weighting beyond that column designation.

fabrizio · November 9, 2009, 3:08pm

^

But where’s your evidence? That was just another “Espenshade’s research is bad” post.

epiphany · November 9, 2009, 3:15pm

The evidence is their limited, non-projectible pool of data which they used inappropriately to assume different admissions results, when admissions result are based on far more than the elements they looked at. Second is their methodology: they were looking backwards from results, rather than looking from the starting point (applications), which would have provided full data.

IOW, the evidence is the study ingredients themselves, as well as the process & assumptions on which they based their “conclusions.” Read siserune’s posts again.

Keilexandra · November 9, 2009, 3:38pm

epiphany - I’m glad to see that you, at least, acknowledge the double standard for URMs/non-URMs. (Not all AA supporters do.)

The bolded part of your statement is the part that I don’t understand. Yes, the number of “qualified” applicants will vastly exceed the number of seats; so? To achieve a “fictional enrollment justice,” as you put it, one need only apply the same standard across the board–which doesn’t mean that everyone who is qualified should be admitted. To put it another way: if everyone is rejected on basis of the same standard, everyone is unfairly treated and therefore the process is fair.

Also, I will take the liberty of clarifying fabrizio’s question to you as I perceive it: where is the evidence for your statement that requiring the same “competitive admission” standard for both URMs and non-URMs would result in “slightly [increased] enrollment both for Asians and for whites”? We have established that clearly you are not using Espenshade’s study as evidence; so on what basis do you contend that enrollment would slightly increase for both Asians and whites? (The first part of your statement re: decreased URM enrollment, while also uncorroborated, is to some extent just common sense.)

Bay - Wouldn’t the Ivy Academic Index indicate that 630/630/630 is, in fact, not viewed as equal to 800/800/800? Now, if you’re comparing 750 to 800, I would agree; but the difference between 630 and 800 does indicate a difference in ability, even as flawed as the SAT is.

I agree entirely. (And with the two-point summary that this quote came from, as well.)

Thread		Replies	Views
Asians with money... (misnomer) Chance Me / Match Me!	27	51	April 14, 2021
Being Asian a Disadvantage? Applying to College	68	263	April 16, 2021
Does race really make a huge difference to admissions? Chance Me / Match Me!	64	165	April 14, 2021
asian students aiming at top colleges College Search & Selection	212	983	April 15, 2021
Are Asian American applicants being pushed out by rich kids from China? Applying to College	3	52	April 16, 2021

Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US