@notjoe: Whoa, I strongly disagree with that statement. My kids attended Stuyvesant High School which is more than 70% Asian. Now granted, it’s Stuy, so maybe this is not the norm, but from what I’ve seen, every Asian student who has top test scores/GPA is ALSO extraordinary at something else, whether it’s playing an instrument at a professional level, being an intel finalist, a debate team championship winner, robotics / comp sic geek etc. If you read Amy Chua’s “The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” I think she would also disagree with you as well. Harvard simply does not want their campus to look like Stuy, which admits students based upon scores from an SAT-like test, or like any of the California State Public Colleges which no longer are allowed to consider race as part of their Admissions criteria.
You’re essentially making my point. Thank you. 
You’re saying that the SAT doesn’t, by itself, pick the best candidates (however one may define them).
But if Asians who are the “best candidates” regularly score much higher than non-Asians who are the best candidates, then there is a systemic flaw in the test. The SAT overpredicts the best candidates who are Asians.
If Harvard argues that in court, it will be entertaining to watch, as essentially, they will need to present some sort of theory as to why that is, and it will be difficult to do that without falling into wildly politically incorrect stereotypes about Asians.
Please note that my sentence is a conditional statement. The second half of the statement is only true if the first half of the statement is true. I don’t actually believe the second half of the statement. I believe that Harvard knowingly discriminates against Asians, in order to achieve perceived racial balance.
In fact, Harvard may wind up stipulating that at trial, if it proceeds that far. I don’t know. I don’t know why they would bother to deny it. Harvard’s defense will be that in order to achieve the needed diversity, they must use race-aware admissions methods. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that this is constitutionally acceptable, if it is very narrowly done, and there is no other alternative.
I know that the plaintiffs will present an argument showing that one can achieve diversity without the use of race-aware methodologies.
We’ll see if the court buys it. If they do, then there is a good likelihood that schools will be forced to have race-blind admissions practices.
Joe, you’re back to scores. If it’s simply about playing with stat theory, go for it. But admissions doesn’t fit neatly into theory. As-Ams who are the best candidates- by Harvard’s standards, as reviewed by Harvard, in consideration of many needs of the Harvard community (in and out of class,) and weighed against many, many other great kids, will likely get the fat envelope. You can’t run that through a computer program.
Thanks for the clarification.
I’M not back to scores. The LAWSUIT is back to scores. And Harvard will have to answer about them in court, if the case goes to trial. Usually, this sort of disparity between acceptance rates and objective measure scores is interpreted as prima facie evidence of discrimination.
Imagine a town that gives an exam to become a firefighter. And then conducts a thorough interview, requires an in-depth application that asks about educational background, etc., and includes background check. In the end, it turns out that African American test takers who are hired scored on average 90 our of 100, but white test takers on average 75 out of 100. Pretty much everyone would take that as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. The town might argue that there’s more to the hiring process than the test. But if they decide to administer the test, they’re going to have to prove that the differential results aren’t discriminatory.
So it will be with this case.
The SAT is either an objective measure of - something - or it’s not. And that something is important. If it’s not, then why does Harvard use it?
If it is, then if Harvard is taking the best folks, then there is something about the SAT that varies from actual reality, in the measurement of Asians.
You’ve more or less stated what’s happening:
" As-Ams who are the best candidates- by Harvard’s standards, as reviewed by Harvard, in consideration of many needs of the Harvard community (in and out of class,) …"
I wish I knew how to bold or italicize text. I’d bold “in consideration of many needs of the Harvard community…”
That’s the money quote.
In Harvard’s judgement, Harvard needs racial diversity. Harvard has stated that plainly. The courts have previously accepted the premise on narrow grounds. The way that Harvard does that is to discriminate against Asians, mostly.
The alternative is that somehow, the fat-envelope non-Asian kids and the fat-envelope Asian kids are all, broadly speaking, the best INDIVIDUAL candidates (not groups of candidates), but it just happens to be a coincidence that the fat-envelope Asian kids score, as a group, significantly higher on the SAT than non-Asians. As above, a court may not look kindly on such a “coincidence.”
The PLAINTIFFS actually ACCEPT the premise of the need for diversity. They don’t plan to argue that Harvard shouldn’t try to achieve diversity. They will argue that it can be done without having race-aware admissions.
Generally, racial discrimination in the US is illegal. Private entities have a little more leeway, but entities that receive government privilege (reprieve from various forms of taxation, federal, state, and local, government grants, participation in government funding programs, etc.) cannot generally discriminate on race. If the plaintiffs prove racial discrimination, and Harvard cannot strictly justify it because the plaintiffs make the case that diversity can be achieved without race-awareness in admissions, then I think that admissions in the US will become race-blind.
Correction:
This: “We’ll see if the court buys it. If they do, then there is a good likelihood that schools will be forced to have race-blind admissions practices.”
Should be this: “We’ll see if the court buys it. If they do, then there is a good likelihood that schools will be forced to forgo race-blind admissions practices.”
Guess I don’t get how you keep returning to the word “scores” and don’t mean to refer to scores.
Harvard wants diversity as much as any competitive private college does. That doesn’t equate to discriminating against As-Ams because, omg, some As-Ams have terrific scores. Doesn’t mean desperately dipping down into some “less qualified” pool of URMs. You give the same argument many on CC state. “But their scores.” It’s not all about stats.
But that does NOT mean, it’s all about racial preference. There is a lot of ground between the two extremes. You need to see what these so-called less qualified kids are producing. Consider the variety of categories on the Common App and in Supps that adcoms look at, to find the various attributes they need. Maybe get involved IRL, as some other posters are. Not assume, based on…scores. Nor should a lawsuit.
That’s all I have to say, for the moment. Dig deeper. Forget stereotypes.
“Guess I don’t get how you keep returning to the word “scores” and don’t mean to refer to scores.”
I said, it’s not about scores for ME, but it is about scores for the LAWSUIT. And the lawsuit lays out a prima facie case of racial discrimination by using the differential in scores. I’m just an entertained observer.
" That doesn’t equate to discriminating against As-Ams because, omg, some As-Ams have terrific scores."
That’s the point. oyg, Asians often DO have terrific scores. They score lots of points on these tests. And it seems that they need all the points they can get, because having the same number of points as non-Asians doesn’t cut it.
“But that does NOT mean, it’s all about racial preference.”
I didn’t say it was. But it is PARTLY about racial preference. And that’s racial discrimination, and the courts generally frown upon that.
An exception has been carved out for institutions like Harvard, but the plaintiffs are now challenging that exception based on the criteria the courts previously have laid out.
“You need to see what these so-called less qualified kids are producing.”
Please where I said anyone is “less qualified.” That may be the argument of the plaintiffs (although I don’t think they mean to make that argument), but it certainly isn’t mine.
“Maybe get involved IRL,…”
You make assumptions that may not be warranted.
As with many of the threads on this topic, this one fails to distinguish sufficiently between two issues:
- Whether Harvard should consider as a positive factor for admission membership in an underrepresented racial group. There is no doubt, I believe, that Harvard does this. It has its justifications for doing it, and it does not appear to be illegal, in the absence of set quotas, at least. There are many arguments pro and con about whether it’s a good idea to do this or not, who exactly should get the benefit, etc.
- Whether Harvard is, in fact, discriminating against Asian applicants in favor of white applicants. It is not proven that Harvard is doing this, and I’m pretty sure Harvard denies that it does so. What Harvard says it does is holistically consider a whole bunch of factors, including scores, grades, ECs, achievements, geographical location, etc. It claims that it considers URM status, but not racial status as between white and Asian students. It also does not consider ability to pay, and several other things.
The first question is a policy one. It’s pretty much a waste of time at this point to discuss.
The second question is primarily a question of interpretation of evidence. As far as I can tell, the only evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asians is the fact that, in theory, that if Harvard considered only SAT scores, there would be more admitted Asians than there are now. That’s pretty much it. There has never been a “smoking gun” document from Harvard or anyplace else that I know of showing that there is a quota for Asians. There hasn’t been a whistleblower. The studies people rely on often don’t show what people think they do, they apply only to a few schools, and they are old. Is it possible that Harvard is biased against Asians, either deliberately or unconsciously? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s pretty hard to prove that, and there are some pretty good explanations for the disparity that don’t require any racial bias at all.
" There is no doubt, I believe, that Harvard does this. It has its justifications for doing it, and it does not appear to be illegal,…"
Under previous court decisions, that’s the case, as I’ve made clear in my own posts. If there is no other way to achieve the needed diversity, race may be one factor considered. However, the plaintiffs believe that they can show that there are race-blind methods of achieving this goal.
“The first question is a policy one. It’s pretty much a waste of time at this point to discuss.”
The folks bringing the suit don’t agree.
How do y’all feel when students file lawsuits against these elite schools when they get rejected?
It bothers me. Because I feel like you are almost saying that you only got rejected because of your ethnicity when that is really unfair.
@CallCash,
The folks at Harvard are big boys and girls. I hear they even have some good lawyers over there. They’ll be able to take care of themselves.
Harvard guarantees nothing to anyone through the process. No one owes Harvard anything in return. If folks believe they’ve been treated unfairly to the point of a legally-impermissible action, that’s why we have courts of law.
The holistic practice of admission at Harvard started as a way of keeping out Jews who would have had to be admitted in record numbers if testing was the only criteria used. This happened back in the 1920’s. In an attempt to keep the number of Jews at Harvard to an acceptable quota, admission could no longer be based on admissions tests, since Jews were scoring so high. So other “holistic” criteria was used that were geared towards the established male Protestant “country club” set.
Brandeis University was chartered in reaction to these quotas and its mission was to level the playing field by not discriminating in terms of race, religion and background.
Over time, holistic admissions criteria became more accessible to more people and there was more acceptance of Jews in academia. Plus a 'holistic approach" aligned with the philosophy of allowing minorities and students from poor backgrounds to get a foothold into good schools.
While it may seem like the current system was put in place to close the door to Asians, that is not the case historically. The current system was not designed to keep the numbers of Asians down by considering more than just scores.
I do see merit, though, in building a class based on diversity–not just in terms of ethnicity or religion–but based on strengths and talents across a wide spectrum. And I do believe that a test scores should not be the only criteria used for admittance.
Many Asian students who are applying are first generation. Their families have focused on the importance of grades and have made sacrifices to assure that their students attain them if possible. That is exactly how it was for first generation Jews. Personally, I would not like to go back to pure meritocracy since I believe people are so much more than their grades. In time, there will probably be a shift among Asian students applying to schools. There will be more focus on EC’s and leadership as a means of getting into college.
It really is a complex issue. On one hand, if you admit all the qualified Asians, they may be taking spots away from students of other races who might’ve scored lower on the SAT, but still might have intangible characteristics that make them good applicants. On the other hand, it really sucks for Asian students (like myself) that my 2300 means less than the 2300 of an African American student.
@uskoolfish,
I find your post a little confusing. You start out by pointing out that “holistic admissions” were used to tamp down the number of Jews coming to Harvard. I briefly mentioned that earlier. You initially seem to view that in a negative light. From my own perspective, I’ve always thought of it as a very negative thing, a deep, dark stain on Harvard’s history.
But later, you seem to suggest that perhaps that’s a good thing, when you say:
“Many Asian students who are applying are first generation. Their families have focused on the importance of grades and have made sacrifices to assure that their students attain them if possible. That is exactly how it was for first generation Jews.”
Which is it? Was holistic admission to keep the Jews down a good or bad thing? In that it now has the same effect on Asians, is that a good or a bad thing?
By the way, may I politely suggest that the words that I quote from you represent the precise sort of stereotyping about Asians that I suspect Harvard might engage in, as a form of institutional self-justification for discriminating against Asians? It is also ironic that it appears that the first-generation status generally held up as a “hook” for other folks becomes one more club against Asians.
Also, having read a few articles about the lawsuit, I’m pretty sure that the plaintiffs will be able to respond to these stereotypes.
As well, the plaintiffs are not suggesting that students should be admitted solely on test scores. The plaintiffs are not arguing against holistic admissions. They are only saying that race-aware admissions policies should no longer be permitted. However, they will hold Harvard’s feet to the fire to explain some sort of objective criteria for evaluating other attributes of students, including their extracurriculars, their outside activities, etc. Just saying, “Well, this non-Asian showed more [vague attribute] than the Asian student” may not cut it.
By the way, @gibby’s post at #100 is particularly instructive. It helps dispel the myth that Asians are often deficient in things other than test scores. My own experience is similar to gibby’s.
He gives the real reason why Harvard uses holistic admissions against Asians, and it’s the same as when they used them against Jews:
“Harvard simply does not want their campus to look like Stuy, which admits students based upon scores from an SAT-like test, or like any of the California State Public Colleges which no longer are allowed to consider race as part of their Admissions criteria.”
@notjoe I think it is a bad thing to change an admissions policy to keep out people. That was the original purpose of the change in admission’s criteria in the 1920’s that kept out Jews.
But in the 90+ years that have passed since then, what is used as “holistic” criteria has changed. In the 1920’s, what was considered as “holistic” were activities that Jews were not a part of. So it was all about membership in clubs, sitting on boards, participating in sports offered in boarding schools, alumni recommendations, etc. It was purposely put into place as a way of proving that someone with a lower score, could still be a viable candidate over someone with top scores only.
But times have changed. And the definition of "holistic admissions’ has evolved. It changed from being exclusive to being more inclusive.
Women attend Harvard. Lower socio-economic students are given scholarships to boarding schools and private universities have tried to attract a diverse class in terms of race and religion. Some of that diversity is from international students who are full pay, but some is purposefully from unrepresented minorities. These changes began to take place prior to Asian Americans applying to private universities. The original intent of “holistic admissions” was to keep others out. But I personally do believe that the purpose of “holistic admissions” for the last 30 or 40 years has been to allow more students in, students who add to a campus in different ways.
I don’t think I am stereotyping at all by saying that Asian parents are concentrating on having their children have strong grades as a way of getting into schools like Harvard. I am a teacher near NYC and many of the Asian students I teach attend additional prep classes even in the elementary grades. Many of their parents do not speak English and they feel this additional tutoring will provide assistance that is beneficial and that they are unable to provide on their own. These are students who are doing exceptionally well in school, especially considering that they come from non-English speaking homes. Their aim is to get their children into good colleges. It is the same American Dream that first generation Jewish students were trying to achieve by acing tests. But today, getting into many schools require more than acing tests. As I stated, this was not done as a means to keep Asian students out, it was a change in admissions that you may or may not agree with, but it was not done as a means of shutting someone out. I don’t believe the “holistic admissions” process that is currently in place needs to change.
The real question in the end is should someone’s race, religion or gender affect whether they are accepted or not. Currently, colleges use racial and economic data to identify needy URM’s in order to give them an added boost in admissions. Asians are not considered in that category. So essentially an Asian candidate needs to meet the same criteria as any other non-URM candidate. And in most schools that means meeting criteria that goes beyond test scores.
To me, once a student isn’t identified as a URM, no group should be held to different standards. So admissions, when building a class, should let in a certain number of students with super high test scores in math and their racial background should not factor into the decision. Great artists, great trumpet players and great actors should be admitted and their religious background should not be identified. Admitted artists or violinists may have lower test scores than the students admitted for their super high verbal scores. Some accepted students will have leadership or community service that puts them on the top, even if they have marginal test scores. A whiz kid in science may get in even though her verbal scores are low.
Are Asian students not admitted because they have been identified as Asian and there is discrimination or quotas? Or are Asians not admitted because they may have top test scores (one criteria), but may not have all the other criteria that is considered in building a class?
Excellent, uskoolfish.
Ime, marginal test scores are always an issue. You want a class that will graduate. (No comment about athletes.)
@uskoofish,
“Are Asian students not admitted because they have been identified as Asian and there is discrimination or quotas? Or are Asians not admitted because they may have top test scores (one criteria), but may not have all the other criteria that is considered in building a class?”
Congratulations! You’re making the argument that Asian applicants, point-for-point, are generally inferior to non-Asian applicants. I figured someone would go there. LOL. I don’t know whether Harvard will follow suit, but we’ll see.
Read @gibby’s post at #100. He was going to give me a [deserved] scolding when he thought I was going to make the same argument. It refutes much of what you wrote. As a former homeschooler whose kids were involved in a lot of extracurricular activities outside the school environment, I can tell you, gibby’s experience matches my own. High academic achievement correlate strongly with high achievement in other areas. I saw it first-hand…
I’ll repeat: the plaintiffs who are bringing this lawsuit are hardly bringing a crude argument that high test scores should equal admissions. I’d be willing to bet that they will show systematically that Asians with similar non-test score/non-grade achievements get in less frequently than non-Asians similarly situated. At least, when using objective criteria.
“Currently, colleges use racial and economic data to identify needy URM’s in order to give them an added boost in admissions. Asians are not considered in that category.”
Why use racial data? My sons’ school is 60% minority. It’s a college prep that draws from the broad spectrum of the student population that should be aiming for college. The median SAT score is about 1700, the median family income is $125K per year, everyone gets into college every year. Who among that crowd needs preferences for their race? The last kid to get into Harvard from their high school before my older son got in was an African American kid with a lawyer mom and an engineer dad who live in a ritzy semi-rural community. Does that kid REALLY need a preference for his race? Although that kid was exceptionally brilliant, capable, and personable, I got a whole SCHOOLful of sharp, advantaged, high-achieving minority kids. Why do they need any preferences based on race?
That’s part of what this lawsuit is about. THERE ARE WAYS OF ACTUALLY ACHIEVING DIVERSITY that don’t require resort to race-awareness. You want to give an extra look to the POOR? To folks from single-parent families? To children of recent immigrants? To the student who does well in spite of a crummy school? Have at it!
You’ll likely achieve a good bit of diversity. Racial, ethnic, socio-economic, geographically, you name it. But apply these advantages on a case-by-case basis, without regard to race or ethnicity. That is the argument of the lawsuit. A poor family is a poor family. A family where the parent or parents speak poor English is such a family, whether that condition is from recent immigration or from a poor education for the parent or parents.
It is especially egregious that something like first generation status is counted as something for which members of some groups should get a boost, but for Asians, it becomes a club, an excuse to stereotype unfairly and then dismiss as a result of the stereotype.