“Do we know how many kids applying to H have quantitatively perfect scores of all races? I would presume it is higher than the number of admits x2. So who is to say who should have been admitted.”
Duke has already said that they have enough valedictorian applicants that if they were to throw out all others, they still could fill their class twice over.
Many of the elites say that about being able to fill their classes multiple times over with vals, sals and/or students with perfect test scores.
Tthe Duke “table” is for admitted applicants only, and for those who responded, about 64%. Here is the table in short so everyone can see what is being regencies. Hope the spacing works using races “W B H and A”
SAT:
1416 W
1275 B
1347 H
1457 A
Achievement: not sure if this is thier own weighting of GPA
4.26 W
3.68 B
4.03 H
4.57 A
Curriculum:
4.65 W
4.30 B
4.70 H
4.86 A
Essay:
3.43 W
3.14 B
3.24 H
3.47 A
Personal Qualities: I guess this is the warm and fuzzy factor?
3.47 W
3.27 B
3.25 H
3.42 A
Recommendations:
3.8 W
3.47 B
3.25 H
3.9 A
A table in the beginning shows college GPA progression over 8 semesters:
3.38 to 3.58 W
2.88 to 3.42 B
3.18 to 3.32 H
3.42 to 3.43 A
I’m guessing "qualities " is more targeted and the real warm and fuzzy falls between the cracks. After all, it’s an attempt to quantify. But really, people need to read the first 6 pages, up to Table 1. This study is about GPA. And includes various measures of the kids, eg, parental education.
^agree, this is just one data point of their study group. It is more about the improvement of GPA over time within these groups when certain elements are eliminated from the equation.
Thank you, Multiverse7. Your honesty and authenticity come through in your posts. As you have seen, many of the grown ups cannot shake your honesty and authenticity without resorting to ad hominem attacks and referring to straw men. Ignore their condescending, dismissive posts and continue being true to yourself. All the best to you.
Late to the party, but I’m completely on board with focusing more on economic diversity at this point than racial. I know plenty of both Asian-Americans and European whites from my HS who came from lots of money and spent it on SAT prep courses, college advisors, all that jazz. While the adcoms talk of not wanting robots- wanting interesting EC’s, volunteer work, etc.- most of the kids in this circle had their parents and college advisor pushing them to participate in certain EC’s, even if they didn’t want to. And the competition for leadership positions was crazy, not because these kids were passionate about them, because they wanted to get into school. It’s hard to measure how hard the parents push their children or can give them extra help, but the closest thing is economic diversity.
Alternatively, my roommate freshman year was black (don’t have many examples of black students in my HS because my area is crazily white). She was on a full-tuition scholarship, and definitely did well in high school to merit such. However, at college, she skipped class often, participated in absolutely zero EC’s, nothing. She also came from money- she revealed to me at one point that her EFC was $125,000/year. Similarly, down the hall, another black kid who lived in NYC and was well-off was on a full-tuition scholarship and also skipped class off and participated in nothing. While these two are just two data points, I met a number of other hard working black students and often they came from poorer backgrounds (a few of whom were also full-tuition students). I have been forced to think that the former two students were likely pushed very hard by their parents in HS and had a lot of opportunities given to them, who now are just bums at college when nobody is there pushing them. Including economic diversity would help a lot, imo. This happens to white students, too, I just didn’t have as compelling of an example.
Long story short: personally, I believe economic diversity is more important than racial at this point. If 3 wealthy students all came from a similar encouragement from their parents to do well, all took the same AP classes, and same SAT prep course- they should all be reaching the same benchmarks regardless of race. It’s just not fair to penalize Asian students against their peers who had the same opportunities.
It seems to me if colleges and universities are going to ask for the racial or ethnic background of applicants, and subsequently report on the total number of each group enrolled, then they could easily report what percentage of those who applied from each group were accepted. Why don’t they? Does anybody know? Is it just because the government doesn’t require it? Or do they collect that data only for reporting purposes later and not take it into consideration when reviewing actual applicants?
A little additional transparency would end a lot of the speculation. Let the public know what the acceptance rate is for kids from New England, for example, or the specific ethnic categories the university is already asking about. As long as they conceal those figures, folks are going to wonder and make bold, if unfounded, accusations. I mean look at what Harvard reports here in the following link. It raises as many questions as it answers: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
Being Jewish is not a race (as we define “race” today), but it isn’t just a religion or culture either. It is a distinct ethnic group, and one can be of a different religion (or no religion at all) and still be an ethnic Jew. There are genetic diseases (Tay-Sachs, as one example) that are more common among ethnic Jews than the general population. And non-practicing Jews have historically been discriminated against, regardless of any efforts to assimilate. Certainly Adolf Hitler did’t care if you were now a practicing Lutheran if both your parents were ethnic Jews:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394663#10
Well. Maybe. I hesitate to make this point, because it’s always unpopular with some posters, but I think it’s true that some subsets of applicants show less diversity in their interests/activities/intended majors than do other subsets of applicants, and that this probably has a significant impact on admissions.
I’ve gone through lengthy discussions of this elsewhere, but I’m pretty well persuaded that on average, Asian applicants to the most selective US universities are much more likely to identify STEM majors than are white applicants. (The fact that you know some counterexamples isn’t really germane.) If this is true, it is likely to result in reduced admissions overall for Asian applicants, because they will not be competing for all the available seats–and there are seats for Classics, English, Art, History, Sociology, foreign language, and other majors. Also (and this is just my guess) it may be that white applicants who are potential STEM majors may have higher than average stats.
So, in a sense, you can be “penalized” for playing violin if your goal is to get into the orchestra–if there are lots and lots of violin players, the person playing bass, or percussion, or a wind instrument, will have an easier time getting in. That’s not unfair at all. You can’t have an orchestra of all violinists. And if the really best white musicians play violin (which I also think is kind of true, on average) then the competition is even tougher.
So should an Asian who wants to go to Harvard move to Idaho, learn the accordion, and identify as a potential Classics major? No. You should do what genuinely interests you even if it makes it harder to get into Harvard.
It’s hard to resist resorting to the “inauthentic black” whipping boy (or, in the above example - girl) for very long. Apparently, in this case, the student was expected to join the African-American students association or some such action as would demonstrate her worthiness to the community. I can think of a thousand reasons why a college would want to attract as many black applicants from the very top economic brackets as they can lay their hands on - beginning with their relative rarity within the black community.
@LucieTheLakie : not the point I was making about Jews not being a race. (But I appreciate the Hitler lesson. I’ll be sure to have my 2 (nonreligious) Jewish kids study it too… 
The point is, it is not a race. Today Jews are measured with the various “races”, not separately. Back when the tactics were being used, there was no “racial” issue, as only whites were generally admitted!
To no one in particular: If you look at the GPA study, the Black and Hispanic kids seem to improve and thrive with study at Duke. So it is not like they were unqualified and went down in flames!!
But to emphasize @Hunt point, the study does point out that the Black and Hispanic kids are more likely to do Humanities. So you may be right about there being little “direct” competition.
@HRSMom, what you wrote was that “being Jewish … is a religion or a culture.”
I’m not disagreeing with you, just clarifying that it can ALSO be a distinct ethnic identity as well. If you’re Jewish, you of course know that. But lots of folks who read here may not. And also there are still plenty of places in this country where it doesn’t matter how fair-skinned you are. If you are not Christian, you are Other.
I agree, however, that it’s likely not an issue in college admissions today. And thank God for that. 
@lookingforward Post #140 is spot-on.
Those who have not gone to college- I don’t think it matters if you are white or Asian, if your ECs are those things available to most applicants (tennis, violin, etc.), then you better be at least one of the top 10 or 20 individuals in the country. If you are just the best in your region or state or your school, it won’t hurt you but for Harvard, it might not help. Its great that you have the work ethic, social skills, discipline, [insert whatever other attribute ECs demonstrate] to do tennis, model UN, president of a club your school offers, etc…but you didn’t find a particularly unique or innovative way to demonstrate these attributes. If this is you, then you better hope that you are at least better at creative self-expression though writing than all the other Harvard applicants. As a scientist who doesn’t have any amazing talent in this area, I feel for you.
What is interesting and impressive is if you did something that no one around you is doing, no one expects of you, and that you had to fight tooth and nail (against your parents, against society, against peers, whatever) to do. Harvard probably does not want someone who does what everyone around them is doing (just better), but someone who doesn’t care what everyone around them is doing or even fights against it…and creates/does something totally unique. These are the innovators who will possibly change the world.
Nothing in the arguments presented demonstrates an understanding of what elite schools are looking for, so how can anyone know if they are discriminating. Or maybe they do understand and don’t agree or want something more beneficial (a single test). If that system identified the best and the brightest, then Harvard would have failed long ago.
If its admission system sucks, then its going to be a self-correcting problem.
How is someones EFC more than the COA?
Secondly lets be honest Harvard is Harvard because of the student body. Its not the UCs, Caltech etc. Its an education and think tank. Different people make this experience necessary. If you despise it save your money and dont apply. If only Asians got in or say 40 percent the other 60 would complain and make compeition worse.
If you think things like job hiring is pure merit, then fine.
EFC is just a formula, and the dollar amount can exceed the COA. Ours did. So did some of my clients’.
"Alternatively, my roommate freshman year was black (don’t have many examples of black students in my HS because my area is crazily white). She was on a full-tuition scholarship, and definitely did well in high school to merit such. However, at college, she skipped class often, participated in absolutely zero EC’s, "
Do white girls who skip class reflect on all white girls? Or is it just black girls who skip class reflecting on all blsck girls?
“Just like how Asian-Americans make up over 70% of Stuyvesant”
No college wants to be like Stuyvesant.
It’s “an education and think tank”? What exactly does that mean?
And I hate to break it to you, but as great as Harvard students are, the university is a lot more than that. Imagine all those undergrads gathered together without access to everything Harvard’s $36B endowment (which is bigger than half the world’s economies) provides.
“It’s “an education and think tank”? What exactly does that mean?”
Students that go there are particularly bright and curious?
My take is that Harvard first gives people an access to an education, just as we would expect from most colleges student’s apply to. But there is also a unique interaction between students, faculty, and community (as with other elite schools) that impacts the students. In other words, Harvard strives to achieve intellectual experimentation by attracting distinctly different people. In this sense, the college tries to seek diversity–both racial, SES, EC, political leanings, etc.
Schools like MIT and Caltech are decidedly more research driven than Harvard. Since Harvard historically is a more political and social policy bent school, I don’t see any particular argument why the school should admit best on solely stats. Whereas, MIT and Caltech would do that more since technical research isn’t grounded as much on qualitative characteristics–a person could be quite introverted or extroverted and still do good research. As far as I’m concerned stat do indicate a level of intelligence, but fundamentally they are just a signal.
Essentially, I think a person’s argument is based that the way in which you view schools like Harvard, and will impact your assessment of the student body and Harvard’s admissions strategy.
Also something else I have been thinking about is bias. Perhaps, others, view Asian applicants as being pushed more by their parents, or at least supported academically. I think for other races, baring people like legacy applicants, people see those kids as being more intrinsically motivated to succeed. Let’s say some white guy excels at math because he loves it and we see that kids as being the typically nerdy math genius. But when an Asian is good at math it’s interpreted more as he parents forced him to go to math camp since first grade. Now, of course this is a harsh and horrible generalization because there are pushy parents everywhere, but could a form of bias be that people see Asian motivation as less genuine because of their tiger moms, or whatever?
@LucieTheLakie Oh trust me, I know. I’m more than excited to join my Harvard classmates this fall.