NY Times Op Ed: Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
121

@notjoe I did not go there. At all.

Read my questions again.

I asked–when Asian candidates do not get in, is it due to discrimination against them because they are Asian? That means–if they were not identified as Asian–would they get in? Is the only factor keeping them out their race?

Or…Are some Asians not accepted because a range of factors are being considered by schools? In other words, if you don’t know the race of the students, would the results of who they accept be the same? Are factors like test scores, EC’s leadership, talent, recommendations, etc. considered when all applicants are reviewed? So the class would be populated by some students with near 2400 scores regardless of race and other students with other qualifications. Are these factors considered for both Asian and non-Asian students equally?

And by the way–I was not answering the questions I posed. So therefore I have no argument, only questions.

Do I think that it is fair that URM’s get an advantage? Do I think it’s fair that some groups are considered URM’s and not others? I have very mixed feelings, but I do agree that poverty and over-coming disadvantage should be a much more important factor for schools to consider rather than race as an isolated factor.

It still comes down to this, the general argument has been that Asians are not admitted at the rate they should be to ivies despite their test scores being high. The Stuyvesant argument concurs with that. People are paralleling the two situations all throughout this thread and pointing to the outcomes based on the two different models.

Based on what you are saying, the students in the suit are going to have to dig up lots of Asian applicants with incredible resumes filled with great EC’s, work experience, talent and recommendations to prove discrimination from holistic schools. I’m not saying they don’t exist…but pointing to students with just high test scores won’t win the suit.

122

@Hunt said

The observation that the percentage of asian american students at harvard has remained flat for the last 25 years, despite the fact that asians as a percentage of US population has doubled, means 2 things: either asian american applicants have gotten dumber in the last 25 years, or harvard is imposing racial quotas.

More likely it’s the 2nd reason: racial quotas. Harvard has target percentages and is in essence making applicants compete within their own racial pools-- i.e. a track meet w separate 100m dash races for black candidates, hispanic candidates, white candidates, asian candidates.

123

@uskoolfish,

Yeah, you did. But I understand if you don’t want to own it.

What you’re saying is that Asians may score high but are inferior in other parts of the application process. Thus, the differential in test scores is justified.

Well, another way of saying the same thing is: Asians’ applications are inferior to non-Asians with similar SAT scores.

“And by the way–I was not answering the questions I posed. So therefore I have no argument, only questions.”

No, you didn’t. Here you state declaratively:

“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.”

No questions there. Just a statement that, essentially, Asian parents are concentrating on the wrong things to get their kids into the top schools. Again:

“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.”

So, you’ve declaratively reiterated your [stereotyped] narrative, and adding insult to injury by pointing out (in your mind) that these students would be more savvy in preparing for admission to top schools if they weren’t first generation - an attribute which FOR EVERYONE ELSE is a “hook,” something that gives a boost. EXCEPT FOR ASIANS. But don’t worry, you imply, the Asians will eventually figure it out and “focus on EC’s and leadership as a means of getting into college.”

Wow!

“Based on what you are saying, the students in the suit are going to have to dig up lots of Asian applicants with incredible resumes filled with great EC’s,…”

From what I’ve seen, I think they’ll find plenty of folks who match the other credentials of non-Asians with lower test scores who got in.

“…but I do agree that poverty and over-coming disadvantage should be a much more important factor for schools to consider rather than race as an isolated factor.”

So why don’t Asians who come from poor, immigrant backgrounds, whose families have accomplished at least the exemplary secondary education of their children, children who are often first generation to go to college, why aren’t these folks getting an advantage?

"I’m not saying they don’t exist…but pointing to students with just high test scores won’t win the suit. "

You keep on attacking that strawman. The plaintiffs specifically state this isn’t about just test scores, and specifically endorse holistic admissions. I’ve repeated this any number of times. Are you reading this far? If so, maybe you might affirm that you just read the previous couple of sentences and now understand, THE LAWSUIT IS NOT SUGGESTING ADMISSIONS SHOULD BE ONLY ON TEST SCORES.

124

@GMTplus7‌.

Don’t you know that it’s because Asians participate in ECs at half the rate they did 25 years ago???

125

No one except harvard knows whether this is the case. Just wait till the admissions records get subpoenaed, and then we’ll know.

126

High Asian SAT Scores are likely over inflated! Here’s Why 1) I know of no metric that extrapolates Foreign Asian Scores from Domestic Asian scores, so higher Asian scores are likely a byproduct of foreign influence, which has been proven to be corrupt. 2)Domestic Asian scores are likely inflated due to multiple test taking from the same high scoring candidates, who mistakenly believe a perfect score matters. Long story short, the Foreign Asians are cheating, the Domestic Asians are taking the test over and over, all resulting in inflated scores. BTW there’s an enormous amount of very smart Asians. Why? Because there’s an enormous amount of Asians! It’s a population thing, not an IQ thing.

127

@SamRam‌,
Dude, thanks for clearing this up for all of us, since we know white people don’t take the SAT multiple times.

128

“High Asian SAT Scores are likely…”

When talking about Asians, we’re discussing Asian Americans, not folks from other countries.

Repeated re-testing doesn’t ordinarily result in much of an increase, especially for higher scores.

129

Dude-You’re welcome.

130

Notjoe, you’ll get more traction on the Race in College Admissions thread, where so many feel as you do. It’s really the one place one is supposed to go on at length about the certainty all is unfair. There, they tend to think they have the recipe for the secret sauce.

Many things to tackle in reviewing. You can’t take every great kid who wants that overpopulated major. In fact, as we know, H is currently keeping an eye open for more great humanities kids. Nor can they take every super kid from CA or NY or certain other areas, or all those great kids from TJ, and remain fair to the rest of N Va. And more. Nothing says As-Am kids are boring or inferior. But nothing says they ace the app process, either.

Despite the number of As-Am applicants going up, the number of seats at Harvard has remained the same. In fact, the number of all apps had essentially doubled in ten years- but no increase in slots.

And joe, no matter how you protest or make nice, this isn’t all about stats. (“Asians’ applications are inferior to non-Asians with similar SAT scores.”) Scores to get through first cut are not as high as you think or many on CC think. There is no lean toward 2400 and then on down.

ps."…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…"

It’s not the “many.” It’s what they are, how they are valued by adcoms, their relevance, and how they kid conveys them. And the balance.

131

@lookingforward,

I’m not looking for traction. I’m just trying to fairly present the actual lawsuit, rather than the caricatures i see here.

As to whether this is a permissible topic, I suppose that it is, since there were many posts before I joined this thread, and it’d been around for a while.

Like I said, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not Asian. I’m not a URM. I’m not poor. My kids live in an intact family. My kids have no hooks. And they’re both at HARVARD, so I can’t exactly complain that “I been done wrong.”

Thus, all I’m doing is my best to explicate the case as I understand it. Statistics are part of that case. I never said differently. But it’s not just about statistics. The plaintiffs aren’t arguing that the only criterion that should be considered is test scores. They’re not arguing against holistic admissions. At all. In fact, the plaintiffs are not saying that ANYTHING shouldn’t be considered.

Except race.

You wanna prefer athletes? Have a blast! Poor people? Go for it! Folks from single parent families? Sure, why not? You name it, they’re for it.

Except race.

Their contention is that if you take race into consideration, then you are discriminating on the basis of race. And that seems to hurt Asians more than others. And the INITIAL EVIDENCE of that is the disparity in test scores. The disparity is a symptom, not a cause. I haven’t seen a single persuasive explanation for it here tonight, so the explanation that it is the result of discrimination currently has no compelling competitors.

From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot of evidence they’ll need to present, but I suspect that they’ve already done their preliminary research, and suspect that they’ll make a strong case. I’ve been watching them put together this case for a couple of years. They were advertising for members of the class back when my older son was applying to college. He’s class of 16, so that’s about three years ago.

Harvard has a lot of really smart lawyers. I’d bet that they’re smart enough to take this case more seriously than many folks around here.

In the meanwhile, it’s fun to watch.

132

Wow. @notjoe‌

For the record, I do believe that many Asian parents stress the importance of doing well in school, preparing for tests and doing what it takes to get their children into good schools. Forgive me. I hope that is the worse racial stereo-typing I do in life.

I never stated that Asian students have poor EC’s or inferior applications. Maybe you assumed I meant that because I emphasized that Asian parents stressed strong scores and grades.

I did say that holistic admissions will allow more students to be admitted to schools who do not have top scores. I did not say that this policy automatically excludes Asians. As a matter of fact, I believe you did. You seem to believe that holistic admissions were put in place to specifically exclude Asians. I disputed that by saying it had been put in place to exclude Jews in the 1920’s.

I did say that Jews who were the first generation to go to college in the 1920’s tried to ace tests to get into ivies. But the game changed and admission was based on more than test scores in an effort to keep them out. I also said that holistic admissions changed over time and became more inclusive. It also aligned with a change in society that tried to open up higher education to a wider range of students including minorities. I agreed with you that I thought socioeconomic factors were more important than race if schools wanted more diversity.

And yes, I did say that there would be a shift among Asian parents to place more stress on additional factors like EC’s and leadership (rather than only test scores and grades.) Is that not true? Any one (of any race) who wants to play the college acceptance game is advised that their child should do community service, start a company, fund raise millions and cure a disease or two.

And finally, and this apparently really rubbed you the wrong way, I said that the students in this lawsuit would need to find Asians with great test scores across a wide range of varying EC’s to prove that Harvard discriminated against them for just being Asian. Again, are you disagreeing with me?

So I’m done @notjoe‌ You want to assume I’m racist, well I think my words speak the truth and you are seeing them through your own prism.

133

This is indeed the tactic the lawsuit is taking. It is not a class action suit.

Blum carefully screened asian american plaintiffs, choosing only those w killer ECs in addition to killer stats-- no middling abigail fishers in the pack. News article I read (I’ll link it when I find it again) said the plaintiff selection rate was lower than harvard’s admit rate.

134

Last summer my son interned at a tech giant, which will remain nameless for privacy reasons, but everyone would immediately know their name.

The first day on the job, the company gathered all the interns together and said, “We are not going to tell you what to do, we want you to come up with a project that helps benefit our company. You have the next 3 days to think about it and make your proposal.”

My son had no idea what he wanted to do, but looked around at the people working there and was stunned to see so few women. His estimate was that the ratio of men to women was about 90/10 percent. Even though more men than women are going into tech, he thought the gender imbalance seemed odd. So, his project became diversity in their hiring practices.

With the cooperation of Human Resources, all the resumes the company received were sent to my son, who blacked out their name and any inference that could be made as to whether the individual was a man or women. My son tracked each resume in a separate spreadsheet and then passed them on to HR, who then looked at them and decided who they wanted to interview. Eight weeks into the summer, the company found they were interviewing and hiring 30% more women by simply ignoring gender on resumes and instead just looking at the quality of the applicant and their credentials.

If Harvard, and all admissions offices, did the same with regards to race — with applicants being identified by gender and a ID number (no names, parent names, or ethnicity questions), I wonder what would happen. Would African American and Latino enrollment go down? Would white American enrollment go down? Would Asian American enrollment go up?

Looking at California State Public Colleges, which no longer allow race to be a factor in admissions, I would think all those things would happen.

135

@gibby Just curious, why would you even have them identified by gender? Especially based on your son’s experience, I would omit that too.

But in reality, it would be hard to scrub clean each application of each student’s background. If you were active in your church or synagogue, you will be labeled by your religion. If you name your town or city in an activity, you have shown where you live and assumptions can be made about your socioeconomic background.

136

Because it’s nice to have a campus which has an even split of men and women.

137

Oh, so you don’t come to this with an assumption women are less qualified, that gender bias works in their favor? You would allow a look at gender, to make sure you get close to balance? But that’s not saying they need the push? And if some men had better scores, it’s not discrimination based on their gender? And hey, we have close enough to an even split male/female in the country, so making this balance in the class makes sense?

But URMs, that’s another matter entirely? Their scores have been historically lower as a group (this is changing rapidly,) so it must be something else at work…racial prefs? Not as okay as gender prefs?

You need to find someone who is on the inside and learn from them. Not try to look at matric stats. Not by looking at some hs kids with presumed “killer ECs.” I doubt Blum knows what killer ECs are and how a whole picture is viewed.

Blum is out for Blum.

138

I hate to harp on this, but once again several posters are mixing up two very separate issues: 1. Preference for URMs and 2. Discrimination against Asians on the basis of race.

As to the second point, it’s my opinion that there are structural elements of Harvard’s admission approach, as well as differing cultural norms between Asian and white applicants (on average, of course), that can explain some of the apparent disparity between high scores of Asian applicants and their admit rate. Here are some of them. You can think about whether how valid they are:

  1. Recruited athletes are much less likely to be Asians. I doubt if this has changed much over time. The same is true of legacy admissions, although that presumably is gradually changing.
  2. Harvard and its peers seek geographical diversity. If you come from a group that is unevenly distributed across the United States, this may work against you.
  3. It is possible that admissions staffs are discounting high scores if they suspect intensive prep. While it may be stereotyping to suggest that intensive prep is more common among Asian students, there may be other ways to identify kids with intensive prep–such as weakness in ECs.
  4. My observations suggest that Asian students are much more likely to identify STEM major interest in their applications than are white students. If this is true, it will have a number of impacts. First, Harvard is seeking to fill many non-STEM majors, and it will admit students who appear likely to major in them. Second, it’s my (unproven) opinion that persons, white or Asian, who are interested in STEM are likely to be the highest-scoring applicants on standardized tests.
  5. The belief that high-scoring Asian applicants are likely to have ECs and other achievements that are just as good as comparable white students is contrary to my observations at a highly selective magnet high school. In my opinion, this is not because the students are in any way inferior to white students, but for cultural reasons. These include being pressured by parents to focus almost entirely on classwork and test prep, as well as being pushed to participate in a very narrow range of ECs. The violin and tennis playing, math-studying, engineering or medicine aspiring Asian student is not just a stereotype–it’s a cultural norm. Denying this is simply arguing that the world is not as it is, but as you’d prefer it to be.
139

Hunt, not so much an issue with intensive prep, ime/imo. Great scores are great scores and seeking help isn’t, in itself, a problem. (More of a problem is the assumption top scores = top candidate, but we’ve covered that here. It’s different from the question of how much a consultant tailored an app.)

I’ll skip some examples of what’s looked at, but it’s annoying when people assume all URMs offer is flat diversity. “Oh, it’s because he’s Black.” These kids get in on their own merits, their own assets, their own real achievements. Or if they can’t cut it, they don’t get in. It’s demeaning to them to assume- and so are the stereotypes of As-Am kids. One needs to see these apps and what comes across. Or not. That goes for all kids, from all strata, all regions, and all identities.

140

Two of son’s best friends at Princeton (which isn’t Harvard, of course, but the metrics are similar) were ORMs who, if “chanced” on CC, would have been told that acceptance was extremely unlikely: unhooked Asian American females from over-represented states with 2100-2200 SAT scores. Go figure.