Sorry @amNotarobot you don’t get to tell people how to raise there kids especially if they’re productive members of society. Some cultures value hard work and education, let them do that, nothing wrong with it.
Asian Americans are way overrepresented at Harvard actually.
There were some very striking items in the article:
I think most people tend to stereotype Asians as boringly studious “grinds.” I suspect it’ll surprise some defenders of “holistic admissions” that they had the highest extracurricular ratings.
This is roughly in line with the proportion of Asians at Caltech, which focuses on academic excellence.
That’s a lot of spots for athletes and legacies, to account for a 28% drop in Asians!
Given that Asians had the best extracurriculars (see above), the additional drop here reflects the “personal ratings” (I agree with @lookingforward that this probably mostly is associated with letters of recommendation).
So another 31% drop for Asians (and whites) for affirmative action. That is a lot. One thing I find a bit odd is that Harvards proportion of African Americans (14.6 percent for class of 2021) is actually a couple percentage points higher than the African American population in the U.S. (12.7%). Why the over-compensation?
“The truth is that Asian-American kids don’t need more acceptance slots in the ivy league and other top universities…”
Why? Every Americans, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, and sexual orientation, have the right to pursue the American Dream. If Asian-Americans or Jewish Americans or whatever want to work their butts off to pursue that dream, then they deserve their achievements. If they shoot for their placements in the Ivy League and other top schools as a means toward achieving the American Dream, then why not? As far as I know, Asian-Americans aren’t the only ones clamoring for the Ivy entrance.
^^^ I would be horrified that Harvard were turned into a Saturday Chinese (or any Asian) schools.
I didn’t know not getting into at Ivy prevented them from pursuing the American Dream. Lots of people want to get in, and again, Harvard has its own process and I doubt the court will dictate to Harvard what there admissions policy will be. The Supreme court has already ruled that policies that include affirmative action are legal, which will always be at the expense of someone else.
@amNotarobot - “^^^ I would be horrified that Harvard were turned into a Saturday Chinese (or any Asian) schools.”
That won’t happen, but what’s more interesting is that your expressions, as an Asian-American, seem to reveal a tint of anti-Asian. I can practically imagine you standing at the Ivy gates trying to prevent Asian-American students from entering, LOL.
Just replace the word “Asian-American”/“Chinese (American)” with black or Jewish in the above statements and hear how they sound.
Harvard has been lying for years about its use of race in its admissions and operations. Some people who have been around for a while might remember the scandal in its med school in the 1970s, which included express lowering of standards on metrics needed for licensure of graduates, because certain favored groups could not pass. If they would lie when public health is at stake, they’ll lie about anything.
I really couldn’t care less, in an ideal world. I think any private entity should be entitled to discriminate against anyone, for any reason.
But in our world we do have laws against race discrimination. If restaurants, private employers, apartment owners, etc. must twist themselves into knots trying to prove a negative - that they are not in fact discriminating on the basis of race - well then these elite diversocrats at Harvard damn well better be put to the test.
I say release all the information and let the tools of regression tell the tale. Anyone with a basic understanding of numbers and a little self-honesty already knows the answer.
What, exactly, is the discrimination here? Is it simply basing that all admissions should be based on academics alone? I just don’t see how that is going to fly in court. That would amount to having the court dictate admissions policies which THEY WILL NOT DO. Also examples of discrimination usually involve denying an entire set of people based on race/gender/etc. last I heard is that 18% of students are Asian, so is Harvard only discriminating against some Asians? Anyone who hopes this suit will change anything will be woefully disappointed.
Asian Amercans make up 6% of the total population so technically they are over-represented at Harvard. I don’t understand why having other admissions criteria besides test scores and grades is discrimination? The smart kid from a poor family who had zero assistance with test prep or STEM camps, who had to work part time while going to school brings something unique to Harvard that is not necessarily measurable like a perfect SAT score. Harvard is a private institution that should be able to accept students holistically. As long as a particular group is not totally shut out I don’t see why there is a problem.
If limited to a comparison between Asians and whites, my initial reading suggests that Harvard will win the case. A roughly 16% reduction (from 31 to 26) of the proportion of Asians is associated with a particular dimension (“personal ratings”) which is likely a reflection of elements including letters of recommendation and essays. Unless it can be shown that Harvard deliberately ignored bias they knew existed in those elements, it would seem like the plaintiffs are assuming that equal outcomes for the (aggregate) measure is required. But there is no reason to expect or enforce equal outcomes on the personal ratings any more than any other elements.
One potential avenue for the plaintiffs would be to question one or more of the “disparate impacts” associated with the large advantages given to athletes and legacies. That is, since for example Asians are underrepresented among athletes, fielding a very large number of teams (as Harvard does) has the effect of negatively impacting Asians. However it is debatable whether an otherwise over-represented group (Asians) could be considered under-represented only for this particular analysis…
Finally, there is the question of whether the plaintiffs could question the final “demographic” category. While in Fisher the Supreme Court ruled that achieving “diversity” was sufficient to meet strict scrutiny standards required for the inclusion of race as an admissions criterion, that could still be revisited given the tightness of the ruling.
IMO, diversity is a worthy goal that makes the college experience more educational for everyone at the college. You learn a lot from living with people with different backgrounds, life experiences, and viewpoints.
The challenge is to ensure diversity without having a “quota” of sorts against a particular group. I flinch a little when posters say that Asian Americans are “over”-represented. Jewish Americans and Asian Americans have disproportionately large numbers of children who do well in school and on exams. There are many amazing applicants from these groups. I do not think they should be held at each college to the exact proportion of their percentage in the U.S. population- which, for Jews, would be under two percent!!!
People who say things like this often ignore how many of their “merits” are actually god given gifts that they had no part in acquiring. What did the profoundly gifted child do to “earn” her intelligence? What did the child prodigy do to “earn” his musical ability. Yes, they had to work long hours to hone their talent, but the talent was a gift, luck of the draw. Isn’t it unfair that children who are lucky enough to be born brilliant have an advantage in college admissions? If we are going on merits, then the child who worked ten times as hard to get a 31 should be admitted over the child who did nothing and garnered a 36.
Regardless of how you feel about diversity in admissions, its important to remember that most of us have succeeded based on a combination of effort and things we had no control over.
It’s generally known and uncontroversial that East Asians are culturally conditioned to be more formal and reserved on average. I can certainly see how this can label them less “positive” and “likable”. In fact, I wouldn’t call it discrimination, Harvard just sends a message about the kind of students they prefer - future politicians, business leaders, media darlings. Their strong preference for athletes sends the same message. People who are more like Steve Jobs, Albert Camus or Nikola Tesla - talented but pessimistic, hard to like or just plain weird - would do better to send their applications elsewhere where they’ll be properly appreciated.
It seems very odd to me that Harvard (and so many other schools) would value input like personality traits that are much more likely to be tainted by bias than test scores which are not. These subjective factors inject bias into the system. Really “positive” and “likeable”? Was Alan Turing “positive” or “likeable”? Were other geniuses? Harvard needs to examine why they are negatively stereotyping Asians as not positive or likeable or whether those evaluating the letters and essays are making that evaluation. I see stereotyping. Imagine if African Americans came up short because lots of their recommendations mentioned some stereotypical slur.
And many here are using the wrong demographics percentages for evaluating the fairness of admissions. It’s not the percentage across the entire American population. It’s the percentage of acceptances from the numbers of qualified applicants. If Asians that meet a basic Harvard qualification are rejected in much higher numbers than other groups, then yes, there is discrimination.
If denying top applicants is hurting Harvard and it’s reputation, then they would not do it.
Harvard (Yale, Stanford, Duke…) does what’s best for Harvard.
It’s not the only game in town.
If applicants don’t like their admissions policies, they are free to apply elsewhere.
Caltech, UC’s…they are more stats based-apply there…Harvard’s loss.
People want to go to Harvard because of the number of people they deny-and it’s history.
Are these folks saying they want to change that?
Then it won’t be Harvard and thus won’t be as desirable…
That’s not the point. Harvard had a good reputation when it limited the number of Jews too. Doesn’t make it right.
Most schools limit the number of women…for gender balance.
Not fair.
Agreed. Legacies are also not fair.