"Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term ‘bonus’ to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race confers. She points to the first column.
African-Americans received a ‘bonus’ of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
‘Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.’
The last column draws gasps.
Asian-Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission." …
As it always has been son and will continue to be (as this effectively restricts the number of asian-american alum who can voice for a change). Not to mention that the asian American alum prob wouldn’t care about a change as they can get their kids in through legacy anyhow.
As I’ve written many times, Asian SAT scores are likely inflated because of foreign Asian scores and the same Asian top scorers retaking the test multiple times in a phantom race with themselves to reach 2400. However for the sake of argument, let’s say the results are not skewed, so a 240 point difference is 80 points per section, which is how many more questions correct, per section, at the top range of scores, maybe 4-5? A score difference of 4-5 questions (per section) in not a reliable indicator of ability. Again it is not a race to 2400, however I would concede that its a race to 2100-2200, then it’s a race to become an outstanding musician or athlete or playright, then its a race of leadership and proven ingenuity, and then it is a race… Admissions is a pentathlon, so being a little better (arguably) at one event is not enough.
Asian students I have worked with have had remarkably similar ECs, academic strengths, and career goals. It has to hurt admissions chances to have a common profile. This may be more at work than blunt discrimination.
I don’t see how this is a “changing” landscape. If you told me that LACs are now discounting Asian student scores, I would consider that a change. They have not historically been an over-represented minority there. But this has likely been true at Ivies and top research colleges for quite a few years. And will be as long as there is a lemming-like race to those colleges by Asian students (often pushed by their parents).
Correlation does not mean causation. As it has been said many times before Asian families make a lot more than black families. I believe it is twice as much. Also factor in educational level of parents. How about the number of times someone takes the SAT? If you take it 4 or 5 times that makes difference. Also in many states Asians do worse than whites on AP tests so how does that factor in? So if you come from a wealthy family by average standards and you take the SAT multiple times and your family is very educated yes I would suspect that you would do better than the Average black or Hispanic family. That is why there is holistic admissions. Any bets on how long before some one attacks me personally?
"I've heard that college counselors in the San Gabriel Valley are recommending a changing of the last name of the kids before they start HS."
Ouch is right.
@SamRam is right by saying that the SAT score range is inflated due to the flood of internationals competing to come over to the US. Even though they’re a minority, they’re not really underrepresented anymore. The Asian presence on college campuses is rapidly growing and changing. This plus the prevalence of high Asian test scores leads us to the “smart Asian” stereotype with a free tiger mom. Two for one deal.
@florida26 I’m sure there are plenty rich white families that pay for the fancy prep class and their kid walks out of the room with a 1900 and the Hispanic or black kid may get a 200 on the PSAT.
Hispanic or black kid “MAY” get 200? Now that is an interesting approach! They might get a lot more if on average they had wealthy educated parents and an environment that fostered repeat test taking and the hiring of elite college counselors to prep them for the test.
And who said they don’t? Everyone always thinks of the URM in the ghetto with no guidance. I personally know a Hispanic kid that is going to a great school and will have superb guidance as he enters his junior year. I don’t know how many times Kwasi Enin took the SAT but he got a 2250, a perfectly respectable score. I understand that there are plenty of people in the situation you describe, but like everything else, there are exceptions to the “stereotype.”
The reason why Asians are “penalized” is because their profiles often look remarkably alike. How many 2400, 4.0, Violin-playing, Mandarin-speaking premeds does one college class need? Not many. Sorry if this comes off as abrasive, but it’s the truth. Too many kids have their real interests squashed by their parents that force them into SAT prep and piano lessons at an absurdly young age, preventing them from cultivating real interests. The sad reality is this hurts them in the college admissions long run.
As a former high school teacher this thread makes me sad. I loved my students. I appreciate diversity. To judge individuals based on racial stereotypes, no matter what one’s personal experiences may have been, is a disservice to society.
People seem quick to judge others, yet become angered if the tables are turned. Think before posting insensitive comments. What you view to be the truth is simply your bias. Don’t perpetuate labels.
@florida26 you seem to assume that all people are equally intelligent, and upbringing determines test scores. There are plenty of URMs with high scores in spite of less than ideal home situations and there are many wealthy students who have had every advantage yet still have low scores. Not everyone is smart.
No I assume that all races are equally intelligent and there are deviations within each race I dont believe any race is genetically superior I havent heard anybody claim this yet. LKj do you agree that all races are equally intelligent
So Lee is recycling Espenshade, who warned not to make much of his limited study? It dates back about ten years and I believe relates to data collected for apps to 3 colleges in the fall of 1983, 1993, and 1997. He cautions they didn’t look at applications or LoRs. This fuss will go on as long as we indulge it.
I’m suspicious of univariate explanations of stuff like this. I’m not up on the research on university admissions, but I know there’s a pretty robust scholarly literature on it—anyone know if there’s anything that works on teasing out potential confounds in this sort of analysis? It’d be rather helpful.
