Do you have to be really brilliant to go to HARVARD?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
81

<p>I'll paraphrase.</p>

<p>The author argues (and does a good job backing up his argument) that blacks--specifically those well-qualified and capable of succeeding at good schools--are affected by the idea that they perhaps aren't as smart or qualified as their white classmates. (Other races aren't mentioned.) They try to defy this stereotype by working harder to do better, but end up doing worse. When this pressure to prove the sterotype is relieved, they do AS WELL AS their white classmates.</p>

<p>Understand that in the black culture, there's a stigma attached to being smart and doing well that knows no economic bounds (meaning that rich blacks are subjected to it, as well.) So in addition to being considered less intelligent by the rest of America, smart black students are also criticized by their own. Ultimately, much of it may even have to do with pressure NOT to do well. And I'm not sure if this is something that occurs in the white or asian cultures.</p>

82

<p>"First of all--who said asians don't have to work hard?"</p>

<p>And if Asians are required to work hard too, why discriminate against them in the app. process? They don't work as hard? No.</p>

<p>"Second--no, I wouldn't get mad at you if you said that African Americans are better at sports than asians--but I would think you were awfully silly. Do me a favor; expand your definition of sports to mean MORE than just basketball and football, where blacks are highly represented, and see if you feel the same way."</p>

<p>Yes, Asians are good at Ping Pong, but those high-profile sports like track, basketball, baseball, football, soccer... blah blah, the list goes on, are all dominated by African Americans. </p>

<p>"But back to the topic. I think we are all ignoring the history of education in this country. Yes, poverty is everywhere. But consider how recently URMs (and even women!) were given the opportunity to participate in institutions of higher learning, compared to how long ago these institutions were formed. Of COURSE these schools have more white students; look at how many years' head-start."</p>

<p>Thats the same with Asians, bad excuse.</p>

<p>"
The difference is that comments like "Yes, some afs, hispanics and all are as brilliant as whites, but most aren't" and "African Americans, Hispanics, Native Amercans and such have to be LESS brilliant that Asians and whites" aren't normally directed at asian-americans. If what the Atlantic Monthly article (see above) says is true--and I believe it is--then this has a lot to do with it."</p>

<p>I agree, that is true. However, if you cannot overcome a simple obstacle like that, how can you expect to suceed in life? I was told that I was not intelligent when I was young, because I was slow at speaking(spoke chinese at home), but I proved the schools wrong by scoring in the 99%ile in every standardized test I took - including English. The sign of a true winner is someone who keeps fighting, not someone who backs down or blames others. Anyways, affirmative action simply reinforces the above statements. </p>

<p>"As far as political correctness--</p>

<p>Nothing is wrong with being politically incorrect if you can back it up. (And this comment is not aimed at HH05). But you, who was so offended by "the idea that being asian means you have to 'work less'," can hardly criticize anyone for being so "politically correct." After all, as you so eloquently put it, "That's life.""</p>

<p>What does Asians having to work just as hard have anything to do with political correctness? I don't quite follow where you seem to be going with this.</p>

<p>You seem to have missed my whole point. As I said above, I believe that everyone is equally capable of achieving greatness. That being said, everyone has their strengths. Its how you utilise these strengths that distinguishes you. Schools should not be biased towards entire races. Everyone is different, but can still achieve regardless of race. </p>

<p>Edit: Please address my issue on affirmative action. More specifically why do you feel that URMs deserve a leg up from all other races? Including poor people that fit in those categories?</p>

83

<p>you should also read "ain't no makin it"...its pretty good..about the white hallway hangers and the black brothers in the school..</p>

<p>another reason smart black students might receive a lot of pressure from their other black friends..in the case that they were growing up in a bad community, the friends would be like that one particular smart friend thinks he's better than us so he can leave us and start lasing out..or like that one particular student might feel like he has an obligation to his friends and like say screw his intelligence..because friends stick together in these areas..and come to think of it..this isnt a black or white..this is more an economic issue...anyway..u should watch the last dance..theres a little of that in the movie..hehe</p>

84

<p>Giving into peer pressure/social factors is a sign of serious weakness in personality. Lots of people at my school smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, and do naughty things like that :-p. However, some people at my school are still geniunely interested in learning, and this has no effect on them. If you are dedicated about something, the opinions of others should not matter.</p>

85

<p>i dont think it should be urm status that should have a leg up..i think the admins should look at what backgrounds the applicants come from..economically wise..the society they live in..and how they grew from that..Race has nothing to do with it..</p>

<p>plus i think you guys are arguing for no reason whatsoever because you both are saying the same thing..int he world of academics..theres more representation from asians..soo they seem smarter etc (plus lets face it asian parents are different..!)..in the world of sports..representation of AA's are greater soo they look better but that doesnt mean all Asian are great in academics and all AA's are great in Sports..whats the point of your argument?..</p>

<p>btw..parents have a huge influence on your life..</p>

86

<p>sentient..not those social pressures..its a pressure of sticking together and protecting each other..from "evil people" like the cops..what kind of community did you grow up in?..because you might not understand what im saying..weed..its so abundant..its not even the issue im talking about right now..bcuz ppl i ivys do weed too..im talking about security and brotherhood and if you wanna go somewhere else higher above than your friends..then your admitting they're low lives..or that you're better..im not saying i agree with that..but thats how they look at it</p>

87

<p>oh yeh btw..this professor at harvard wrote this book about how it would've been better if "separate but equal" still existed and the brown v. ed decision was different..its pretty interesting..btw the professor is african american</p>

88

<p>"Thats the same with Asians, bad excuse."</p>

<p>If that's how you feel, you've missed MY entire point. It's not an excuse so much as an explanation for why affirmative action exists.</p>

<p>But I'm not even sure how "affirmative action" and Harvard correlate, really. A school like Harvard isn't going so sacrifice intelligence for the sake of diversity; for money, maybe, but that's another issue.</p>

<p>"As I said above, I believe that everyone is equally capable of achieving greatness. That being said, everyone has their strengths. Its how you utilise these strengths that distinguishes you."</p>

<p>I think it's important to keep in mind that, yes, success can be a matter of working hard; but does everyone who works hard gain success? Did everyone who gained success have to work hard to get it? We are all equally capable--that may be true. But are we all given the opportunity to utilize that capability? </p>

<p>No, and no. Really, the whole "utilizing one's strength's" thing is misleading. Success can't be guaranteed, no matter HOW smart you are or HOW hard you work--so I don't think it's at all unfair to look at two applicants who are similar numbers-wise but different as far as obstacles go a little differently.</p>

<p>I actually don't believe affirmative action at Harvard has as much to do with race as it does with, perhaps, hardship and adversity. In that sense, it isn't racial at all.</p>

<p>I don't think schools like HYPSMitEtc. are biased towards entire races--rather, entire groups of similar individuals who are smart, dedicated and interesting. </p>

<p>(And my political correctness comment was just a reference to your being offended by that comment, which makes you just as politically correct as those you are criticizing.)</p>

89

<p>"why do you feel that URMs deserve a leg up from all other races? Including poor people that fit in those categories?"</p>

<p>Regarding poor people: It's not a matter of "deserving" it so much as it isn't unfair for the adcoms to consider it. Perspective on one's personal situation really helps the adcom determine who has the will to persevere and do well despite any social/economic hardships. And the chance to give this perspective is a chance that EVERY applicant gets--so what is the problem?</p>

<p>Regarding race: I don't necessarily feel that way. I just don't want anyone saying that URMs don't have to be as brilliant to get in--because it is not true. Brilliance isn't limited to book-smarts. It really can't be measured by tests.</p>

90

<p>"sentient..not those social pressures..its a pressure of sticking together and protecting each other..from "evil people" like the cops..what kind of community did you grow up in?..because you might not understand what im saying..weed..its so abundant..its not even the issue im talking about right now..bcuz ppl i ivys do weed too..im talking about security and brotherhood and if you wanna go somewhere else higher above than your friends..then your admitting they're low lives..or that you're better..im not saying i agree with that..but thats how they look at it"</p>

<p>Friends who try to bring you down are the same as enemies. As the saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies? Friends are for you to look out for and they are supposed to do the same for you, not bring you down. Enemies are supposed to try to bring you down. It doesn't matter if they're trying to get "closer" to you or feel equal, they're still harming you.</p>

<p>Edit: I'm coming off as incredibly cold in this post, but my whole point is that friends are supposed to be there for each other, they aren't supposed to try to hold back their friends or harm them.</p>

91

<p>"Regarding poor people: It's not a matter of "deserving" it so much as it isn't unfair for the adcoms to consider it. Perspective on one's personal situation really helps the adcom determine who has the will to persevere and do well despite any social/economic hardships. And the chance to give this perspective is a chance that EVERY applicant gets--so what is the problem?</p>

<p>Regarding race: I don't necessarily feel that way. I just don't want anyone saying that URMs don't have to be as brilliant to get in--because it is not true. Brilliance isn't limited to book-smarts. It really can't be measured by tests."</p>

<p>Okay so in your words, why should adcoms "consider" poor URMs to be at a disadvantage, while considering poor Asians and whites just as they are? </p>

<p>Yes, I agree that its true that smarts cannot be simply measured by tests, but how would you propose of an universal, non-biased, viable way of doing this? In a system like this, how heavily would academics and background be weighted? As of right now, with our current technology, I feel that test scores are the most feasible way of measuring ability. Maybe we should just draw sticks to see who gets into Harvard?</p>

<p>By the way. Politcal correctness is defined as:
"avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."</p>

<p>I am not offended by people who are politically incorrect but correct. However, I AM offended by people who are politically incorrect and completely wrong.</p>

92

<p>"Okay so in your words, why should adcoms "consider" poor URMs to be at a disadvantage, while considering poor Asians and whites just as they are?"</p>

<p>That's not what I said. Key words: Regarding poor people. I absolutely believe that poor Asian and whites should be considered at an economic disadvantage; and I never said otherwise.</p>

<p>"Yes, I agree that its true that smarts cannot be simply measured by tests, but how would you propose of an universal, non-biased, viable way of doing this?"</p>

<p>Universal, non-biased, viable way of doing it: eliminating them.</p>

<p>"In a system like this, how heavily would academics and background be weighted?"</p>

<p>They're supposedly already more valuable to the schools than standardized tests. If there were no tests, the difference in how each factor would be weighed wouldn't be so dramatic.</p>

<p>Not only that, eliminating them would mean freeing up the time it takes to study for and take them. Less testing = more time to develop your interests and focus on your academics=more time to be "brilliant" at the things that really matter. As Roger, the Harvard ad. com. member that I spoke to, said, students who focus on the tests too much (and take them too many times) make the adcom. worry--why take it so many times when you could be spending your time doing better things? So I argue--why take them at all? It'd give people (read: us) less to argue about and less to call "unfair."</p>

<p>"I am not offended by people who are politically incorrect but correct. However, I AM offended by people who are politically incorrect and completely wrong."</p>

<p>Finally, we agree on something.</p>

93

<p>I think the whole idea that SAT tests were discounted in the first place (in this thread) was because they could be affected by income (SAT Tutors, rich parents). When HH05 brought up those graphs, it provided a new view of the SAT: one of actually measuring intelligence. So, I think that as long as we are looking at people within similar income groups, SATs can be viewed as a dimension of intelligence. That is, if there is an Asian who earns 70K a year and a black who earns 70K a year, they should be compared equally by SAT scores. Even if one argues that the African American culture retards intellectual pursuits, one can even it out by balancing the factor of income: compare a black with, say, 100K to an Asian with 70K. The Asian still comes out on top.</p>

<p>My point is that one cannot only blame African Americans' test scores on lower incomes. Yes, it is true that many African Americans have lower incomes, so many of them will fall on the left side of the graphs. There are many Asians, though, who will also fall there, and their accomplishments should be viewed with equality.</p>

<p>Moreover, many argue that the SAT is not a result of natural intelligence, but a result of training. I agree, but my point is that personal training will get you into college. Not many sane people think that any race is intrinsically less smarter than another. But, I must say that if an Asian in one income bracket has a higher SAT score than a black in that bracket, the Asian should be regarded as more hard working and should thus get into the college of his choice. College selection isn't based on brilliance, but more on hard work. Many African Americans argue back that they equal out the scales in terms of community service. That is implying that their hard work in community service should get them into college. I agree (as long as that community service overpowers that of the Asian enough to balance out their strength).</p>

<p>I don't think it is racist to say that African Americans at Harvard, as a group, are less academically qualified than Asians are. I base this on the fact that Asians as a whole, show higher test results. Although in the cases of Einstein, high test scores didn't reflect intelligence, most people who come to Harvard are not naturally gifted as Einstein supposedly was. They have to work. As convincingly presented above, if the SAT score w/in income brackets reflects determination in academics, Asians at Harvard hold more academic determination than blacks. </p>

<p>One cannot say that this applies to every person, but we could set these standards to most individuals. An example is in the FDA. Food products from India, during the Clinton administration, were less heavily monitored than food products from Europe (strangely enough). Based on this, many people said that the lenient standards on such products would give them a higher probability of carrying diseases. This turned out to be true. I hope that proves well.</p>

<p>If one argues from the standpoint of racism, I would say that affirmative action propagates that. If I am an employer, and I know that many blacks entered colleges with that extra boost (read: lower standards), I would be less inclined to hire them because they had to cross a lower hurdle (given equality in income...and, as noted above, even with equal income, blacks have to cross a lower hurdle). Affirmative Action only looks at the fact that blacks are under-represented...but in letting them in, it implies that blacks can't make it without the boost.</p>

94

<p>"If I am an employer, and I know that many blacks entered colleges with that extra boost (read: lower standards), I would be less inclined to hire them because they had to cross a lower hurdle (given equality in income...and, as noted above, even with equal income, blacks have to cross a lower hurdle)."</p>

<p>If you did that, you'd be assuming that the person checked "African American" on their application--but what if they didn't? What if the college accepted them not knowing what race they were, and they didn't benefit from a boost? How is at all logical to make assumptions like that? </p>

<p>And even if they did check that box--what if they WERE "qualified" by the same standards as a white/asian applicant, and didn't benefit from a racial boost--then what? </p>

<p>Really, how can you make assumptions about a college's reasoning for accepting someone, and then use that against them when considering them for a job? That's silly.</p>

95

<p>What are you talking about...? They would be stupid not to check "African American," for one thing, its lying to the adcoms, and that can get you kicked off the app list, think if an Asian didn't mark Asian. Second, it would show through in an interview. And last of all, I'm sure the vast, vast majority of people would check the box just to take advantage of their status. There is no denying that. So we're narrowing this down to about 1% of applicants for the next one.</p>

<p>URMs will benefit from a racial boost no matter what, its just about how much it helps them. It may not help a perfect 1600 SAT'er much, but it may still help if he has no ECs or a bad GPA. There is no such thing as a "perfect app." URM status will help you get in as long as your app is not perfect.</p>

<p>With the job market as it is. Employers can afford to be picky in many fields. I don't think that would be "silly," its called playing it safe. If there are others who are equally qualified/slightly less qualified and do not have a cloud of doubt hanging over their heads. I'm sure an employer would hire them. I'm not saying its right, but its smart business. </p>

<p>An employee is an investment in a sense. I personally own a small business and I would never dream of hiring someone (even a consultant) that has some type of questionable background or achievements - in the above case it would be because of the lower standards related to getting into college. That's just downright "silly" as you put it. Actually, I would term it as taking a stupidly unnecessary risk. If they are unable to get the job done, I'm left footing the bill for that messed up server and the angry clients, and believe me, I learned that the hard way. That is NOT to say that I would not hire an African American or URM. </p>

<p>In any case, I remember a study done on URMs that were admitted with lower standards. They usually did worse in comparison to others who were admitted with the normal standards. I don't think anything was in their way in grad/law school, most of the kids there were brilliant and I doubt think there was any peer pressure to "act dumb" or anything ridiculous like that.</p>

<p>Sometime or later people are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own actions. Its your decision to not stay up until 12:00 to study, its your decision to go to sleep at 9:00 and fail the calculus test the next day. No one else is forcing you to do it. </p>

<p>You can't say "well, I had to work," many others do too as I mentioned my parents above. You can't say "its my culture and my friends," because if you're a true winner you are capable of ignoring those other factors.</p>

96

<p>"There is no such thing as a "perfect app." "</p>

<p>a perfect app:: </p>

<p>age: 13
gender: female
race: native american
first generation, poor, lesbian
major: physics
gpa: 4.5
sat: 1600
sat ii: 800 X 6 (Physics, Writing, Literature, Latin, US History, Chinese with Listening)
AP National Scholar
RSI Scholar
Davidson Scholar</p>

97

<p>sentient89, I just hope you take some sociology classes in college. </p>

<p>Maybe they you'll get the picture.</p>

98

<p>you wanna hear something crazy mzlover..and i am not kidding..theres this native american/indian girl in my class and shes 12 and shes goin to college next yr...12 in 12th grade..wow..and shes smart too..</p>

99

<p>sexydesi -- I feel sorry for the girl. She may be smart, but she'll be socially crippled. That is pretty amazing, though.</p>

100

<p>shes actually very interestin and mature but at the same time she IS 12..she also fits under one of MZ LOVERS other categories but i rather not say..shes great though!</p>