"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
1161

<p>

</p>

<p>Out of courtesy, I will respond. </p>

<p>Your post is a perfect example of the “dialogues” that have adorned our site and this thread for years. People claim ambiguity where none exists. Let address your point about the correction I made to the statement presented as facts by the writers of the lawsuit.</p>

<p>The suit alleges that Asians comprise 46 percent of the qualified pool and offers data to support such claim. The observers who write on CC repeat that as qualified statement and do it nauseam. Responders, such as myself, accept that the plaintiffs rely on their findings but do NOT necessarily agree with the definition of what constitutes a qualified applicant as the data relies on a narrow definition based on the range of test scores of enrolled students at Harvard. </p>

<p>Contrary to what you present when you write “What this statement implies is that Asians must have deficient characteristics of the type described above without a smidgen of evidence or any data to confirm this view that Asians lack everything other than test scores and GPA” I wrote NO such thing nor implied it. You simply presented a typical strawmen based on your incorrect inferences. What I DO write is that the definition of qualified students based on standardized test scores is narrow and … self-serving and what I DO intimate is that a comprehensive definition of a Harvard qualified is much vaster and that the 46 percent is a misleading number. </p>

<p>As far as being cryptic or ambibuous, where is the ambiguity in my stating that it serves NO purpose whatsoever to recite Fabrizio “narrative” as it represents the kind of exchange that is both futile and sterile. The fact that I could it easily does not mean I should or would. My point was NOT a proposal to condense our mutual viewpoints for posterity but to SHOW that it is would NOT help at all. What is ambiguous about that? I have stated over and over that THIS thread has NOT helped anyone. I have stated that Fabrizio should devote the massive energy devoted to this crusade in a way that is concrete and tangible. What is ambiguous about that? For the record, I have written about what offering tangible help is and how different it is from preaching from atop a little soapbox in a small corner of CC. What does Fabrizio have in terms of helping … Asians that is NOT dwarfed by the thousands of students I have helped over the past decade, with the overwhelming majority being Asians! I write what I mean and mean what I write. And have always done this on CC, within the limits of the applicable TOS! </p>

<p>In the end this is utterly silly. ALL that people such as Fabrizio and perhaps yourself want is to vent and engage others in endless arguments based on misquoting and misrepresenting what people write to ensure more replies. Fabrizio is an expert at this type of “engagement” and you seem quite adept at it! What is almost always missing is recognizing the real spirit and context of a post.</p>

<p>I make no apologies for my harpooning of Fabrizio and for my singling him out as a non-contributor in the problems facing Asians. I make no apologies for pointing out that all these discussions have served no purpose, and that real actions are needed. Ten years ago, I claimed that Asians needed more lawyers, more positive activists, and a lot more unselfishness to obtain redress from might be an injustice. The fact that It took the money from someone such as Blum to have a claim with some teeth filed speaks volume about the lack of concerns from … people who did “make it” at HYPS. </p>

<p>The bottom line? I posted my opinion on the lawsuit in a honest and direct way. If you have trouble understand whay my OP in the PF was, there is not much I can do. I stated that I welcomed increased scrutinity and heightened disclosures by the schools. I DO hope that the lawsuit survives the first round as the discovery might lift the curtains on what appears to be a nebulous process. And I will happy to accept findings that are contrary to my current educated opinion on the subject. </p>

<p>I think you will find few people who are more interested in the truth than I am in terms of college applications and justice in the system. The problem remains that some here are not happy with the truth. Nor are they interested in justice and equality. </p>

<p>Think about it! </p>

1162

<p>xiggi When you say “What I DO write is that the definition of qualified students based on standardized test scores is narrow and … self-serving and what I DO intimate is that a comprehensive definition of a Harvard qualified is much vaster and that the 46 percent is a misleading number.”</p>

<p>So what other data would be needed to have a “comprehensive definition of a Harvard qualified” that is other than test scores and grades? Would you agree that it is all the other factors I mentioned in prior postings. If so, what is your assumption about the quality of the “other factors” with respect to Asians? </p>

<p>Do you believe that Asians are not “qualified” with respect to these other factors? If so why you believe this? </p>

<p>If you believe Asians are equally qualified as URMs and Whites of these non test score and GPA factors then why is defining “qualified” based upon GPA and test scores narrowing? If Asians are equal to the task of having quality non test scores and GPA, then how is the fact that only 17% of “qualified” Asians get accepted to Harvard when 46% of Asians make up the “qualified” applicant pool not disturbing and smack at racial discrimination?</p>

<p>The only way you can conclude that the definition of “qualified applicant” provided in the lawsuit is not a valid assessment is by ASSUMING that Asians as a whole do not possess the other non test score and GPA factors as URM and Whites which you and many on CC are willing to do without a shred of evidence. In fact, GMTplus7 provided data from Duke that rebuts this claim that Asians do not do well on Essays and ECs on its face.</p>

<p>So I call you out on your statement of trying to be a reasonable voice because you are NOT? </p>

1163

<p>

</p>

<p>xiggi, have the decency to not keep bluffing when it’s been called. You cannot “recite” my argument, so instead, you choose one or more of the following escape routes you gave yourself:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You claim that there’s no need to “copy and paste” from my posting history. Except I didn’t “copy and paste” from your posting history; I expressed your position using my own words.</p></li>
<li><p>You hilariously try to say that if I want dialogue, I should “revise my conversational style.” You know full well that I am certainly not going to revise it when you refuse to do the same, thus, you can avoid proving that you can’t “recite” my position.</p></li>
<li><p>You tell others to read what you wrote previously, apparently believing that they will misinterpret the bluff you stated in that particular post as an answer to my question.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>I hope this discussion is instructive to the few who read this thread who are still undecided on the issue. Look at xiggi’s posts and compare them to mine. We’re both vain, arrogant, prideful, and self-righteous, but there is a huge difference between us: I can summarize his positions; he can’t summarize mine.</p>

<p>Why? xiggi HAS NEVER bothered to actually try to understand my positions. Rather, he dismisses them entirely and creates a grostesquely distorted straw man from which he can proceed to easily knock down. He acts as if only he and people who agree with him care about “justice and equality.” Is it any surprise, then, that when this issue has been put to a vote, with one exception, voters have voted it down every time since 1996?</p>

1164

<p>There is no hope! </p>

1165

<p>Indeed, there is no hope for racial preferences.</p>

1166

<p>xiggi More evidence of ambiguity? Are you answering Fabrizio or my post? I don’t see a response to how you come to the conclusion that the data provided in the lawsuit is does not tend to show discrimination against Asians given all that was stated about your assumptions of Asians beyond just the test scores and grades.</p>

<p>Please define what “comprehensive definition of a Harvard qualified” if you believe I am mistaken and how Asians do not meet whatever standard you define it to be. </p>

1167

<p>VoR, there is a problem with that since even that lends itself to subjectivity. I graduated from an Ivy despite AA working against me and even in my day, if you didn’t profess to support AA, you weren’t hired as an orientation counselor, supervising orientation counselor, resident advisor or junior admissions officer. Having an adcom predominantly comprised of pro-AA supporters, you will always get some nebulous justification of why grades and SATs aren’t that important (and there must be some other factors including ECs) when applied to Asians but for everyone else, elite schools have no problems stating bluntly that grades (including strength of curriculum) and test scores are the most important and most heavily weighted portion of the application.</p>

1168

<p>

</p>

<p>OK, I will play and let’s use one simple element that seems to generate contention. Let’s talk about THE 46% and, before jumping into a debate of what the number should mean, can we simply try to evaluate what it is and where it comes from? It is too much to ask to ascertain the origin of a quoted number. </p>

<p>Is it fair to use the actual document?
<a href=“http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf”>http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think so, and thus we might look at what the documents says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, the reported figure of 46 percent is subject to elevated descriptions as the document progresses. First it is “46 percent of domestic Harvard score-senders with SAT scores above 2200” and “46 percent of applicants with academic credentials in the range from which Harvard admits the overwhelming majority of students” and in its conclusions, it becomes “Asian Americans represent roughly 46 percent of the highly qualified portion of Harvard’s applicant pool”</p>

<p>Perhaps, the writers, who exhibited a rather interesting lack on attention to details (as in calling the early admission at Harvard binding) might have meant to use the data to illustrate 436 but got confused about the data.</p>

<p>Accordingly, why don’t we go look at the origin of the study, as I suppose we can call it a study for all intents and purposes. So let’s look where Dr. Sander and the statistiscal expert Uppala published their findings? Although it will be up to the parties involved in this lawsuit to debate the accuracy of the citations, we might, as amateurs, find it interesting to read the original sources. Unfortunately, unless I missed it, there is NO mention of this study in the academic CV of Dr Sander and nothing on the MS page of Medha Uppala. I will assume that this might explain the rather unexpected absence of citation in this lawsuit and the apparent confusion with a brief or an article. But again, it is not up to any of us to judge the quality of the document. </p>

<p>However, if the 46 percent is THAT relevant to the case, and obviously a lot more than the reported 27% of applications by AA, we ought to know what it refers to! It is MY interpretation that it ONLY refers to the number of students who submitted SAT above 2200. Hence, my conclusion that this definition IS narrow. As far as I can see, there is NOTHING that supports the claim that “Asian Americans represent roughly 46 percent of the highly qualified portion of Harvard’s applicant pool” unless that claim is SOLELY based on the test scores. </p>

<p>Now, I am waiting to read YOUR interpretation of THAT precise point. In so many words, what is the 46 percent? I am not interested in debating what is implied or inferred (as you did in the rebuttal) but will gladly explore ways to discover what the debunked debunker of UCLA meant to demonstrate, and how his findings might survive the mildest of the the standard peer reviews. I think that most people who are familiar with the prior research on AA in law schools by Dr Sander will not be overly optimistic. </p>

<p>But I digress, and to avoid the risk of ambiguity, let’s stick to that notorious … 46 percent. And nothing else! In your court! </p>

1169

<p>mavant I agree with you. The point I was raising is the belief that whatever the additional factors may be, that one shouldn’t conclude that Asians do not possess those traits without data suggesting otherwise. For some reason, when data is used to show Asians have the highest test scores and GPA but the lowest acceptance rate, people flock to rebut this by saying grades and test scores aren’t everything in determining qualification to be admitted to Harvard or any top school that uses holistic admissions. Even though we all know that grades and test scores are as you put it “most heavily weighted portion of the application.” I dare say that grades and test scores are much more than 50% of the weight of any application. </p>

<p>User51969 asserts grades and test scores are about 75% of the weight at Harvard which I would tend to agree. So if the other factors comprise of about 25% of the weight, how badly must Asian do on those other factors to see their acceptance rates drop so precipitously from their overwhelming dominance in test scores and grades? I doubt that the difference would or could be that great to yield the lopsided admission rate data at Harvard and other top schools especially Washington and Lee.</p>

<p>My issue with xiggi is that he seems to get great joy from causing confusion and planting the seed of misinformation. I haven’t been on CC for long, but from what I glimpse from his posts is that he infuses good insightful comments, only to confuse others with his word play. </p>

<p>For instance, when I discussed the issue of STEM graduation rates at Harvard and how students who had relatively lower academic qualifications were not obtaining STEM degrees at nearly the rate that those who were at the top end of qualifications, he turned that around and stated that Harvard had a super high graduation rate to discredit my concerns about STEM graduation rates. This then turned into how I wanted everyone to be STEM majors like Asians and that anything other than a STEM degree was meaningless which was not what I have ever stated or ever would state. </p>

<p>My concern was that students who in all respects were top students who at Harvard were academically at the bottom of Harvard’s class but had aspirations to become STEM graduates transferred out of STEM to non-STEM majors at a rate substantially higher than those who were at the top end of the Harvard class. As the statistical data was shows it that many URMs that were not following through with their desired STEM majors as compared to their higher achieving Asian and White students. This is of concern because the highest paying majors tend to be in STEM for those who venture out to make their way in life. When getting a STEM degree means having a better shot at starting life with a good paying job its a difference that makes a difference. Especially to URMs who generally come from lower SES backgrounds and education is a first step to improving their lives.</p>

1170

<p>

</p>

<p>VOR, I find no joy in causing confusion. I have been here for a very long time, and I doubt that many people find me erring on the side of not sharing what I think very directly, and perhaps abruptly. The problem, however, is that I get tired to answer to strawmen arguments and to comments that are constantly moving the goalposts into different directions. I have little patience with the “gotcha” gamers and the cut/paste artists. </p>

<p>I will make sure to start my posts with your name when I direct a post at you. HTH </p>

1171

<p>

</p>

<p>That goes with the territory of moving conversations. For all I know, I answered to one of your comments as I did not see the STEM relation. My recollection is that I addressed “mismatched” students and a point (as I perceived) that Harvard might accept lesser qualified students. For the record, this might stem (no pun intended) from the fact that I do NOT consider Harvard a STEM school per se. AFAIK, I did not address a single STEM comment in that long thread. I also try to quote the direct part of a post when I address it. Again, I did not focus on the STEM part. </p>

<p>I checked my post 318 and THIS is what I answered to:</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Since I do not believe that Harvard accepts students for precise departments, I addressed it in general.</p>

1172

<p>Harvard’s available undergrad majors listed below.</p>

<p>The ones that aren’t math or science are completely worthless and how dare Harvard accept students who plan to major in any of them or - worse - accept students who indicate that they might want to major in one of them but later change their minds and switch to a worthless major.</p>

<p>Please ignore their very high graduation rate; it is not relevant to the point being made. </p>

<p>Loser majors that URMs seem to wind up in because their SAT scores are under 2200 and they never should have been admitted in the first place: </p>

<p>African and African American Studies<br>
Anthropology<br>
Linguistics
Astrophysics<br>
Literature
Music
Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
Classics<br>
Philosophy
East Asian Studies<br>
Economics<br>
Psychology
Religion, Comparative Study of
English<br>
Romance Languages and Literatures
Environmental Science and Public Policy<br>
Sanskrit and Indian Studies
Folklore and Mythology<br>
Slavic Languages and Literatures
Germanic Languages and Literatures<br>
Social Studies
Government<br>
Sociology
History<br>
Special Concentrations
History and Literature<br>
History and Science<br>
Visual and Environmental Studies
History of Art and Architecture<br>
Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Studies of</p>

<p>Majors for smart non-URMs who are being rejected in droves:</p>

<p>Applied Mathematics<br>
Biomedical Engineering<br>
Mathematics
Chemical and Physical Biology<br>
Chemistry
Chemistry and Physics<br>
Computer Science<br>
Physics
Engineering Sciences<br>
Statistics</p>

<p>…and what are these doing under “STEM” anyway? Totally worthless unless you are pre-med:</p>

<p>Human Evolutionary Biology
Human Developmental and Regenerative Biology
Molecular and Cellular Biology
Neurobiology
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
Earth and Planetary Sciences </p>

1173

<p>VoR, yeah that 75% weighting sounds more like a guess to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if weighting assignments were apportioned differently by race so that colleges can’t be accused of racism but still utilize racial preferences. For example, for Asians, grades and test scores may be weighted only 30%, ECs another 10% and something undefined as 60% thus to compensate, they need high grades/test scores and Olympian caliber ECs. For URMs, grades and test scores may be 90% and thus you hear of some 2200’s being accepted to all 8 Ivies while a mere 2200 is almost an auto-reject for most Asians. The numbers, still, could be different for Whites. And when it’s all averaged out, the aggregate number may indeed be 75%.</p>

<p>The problem is that we don’t know the the exact numbers and the full extent of the practices and that is why I’d like total transparency. Otherwise, it will always be a moving target for Asians and without widespread relief, the erroneous view that current practices are fair and non-discriminatory.</p>

<p>xiggi is trying to use this, I believe, intentionally confounding use of admissions criteria not released by elite schools as evidence to point out that the facts of the lawsuit’s 46% is flawed. Specifically, that the 2200 SAT number is an inept measure alone. </p>

<p>I find this dichotomy of categorization that people must be EITHER book smart or street smart; that people must be good at classes/tests or be good at ECs; that people must be this or that…it’s inane. Strong students are generally strong everywhere. Students who become doctors could have easily become engineers or lawyers or artists if they wanted to. The corollary to that is weaker students tend to be weak most places and they need to find the place they are least weak and cultivate it to become their lone bastion of hope. The Duke study showed that Asians also had the strongest ECs and essays along with grades and test scores. So grades, test scores, ECs and essays are only meaningful if you’re non-Asian. I find this to be discriminatory but others would argue that this would not meet the legal definition of discrimination and are not only ready and willing to dismiss it, but champion the fairness of it.</p>

1174

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s a moving target for everyone, not just Asians.</p>

1175

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet another strawmen argumentation! I have written several posts on this issue, and contrary to intentionally “confounding” the issue, I sought to clarify the origin and scope of the number used in the claim. Again, what does THAT number stand for and what does it address. It is been used as a cornerstone of the lawsuit and it should be clear. Just as it clear that is quite hard to have to admit that the number is hardly a sufficient qualifier to determine what is a “highly qualified” applicants on its single merit. </p>

<p>It is not a philosophical debate. The 46 percent are either simply expressed as the number of Asians who applied to Harvard with a 2200 over the entire pool of applicants, or it is … something else. From there, it is a simple argument to accept that a SAT over 2200 is the definition of a highly qualified student or not. Just as it should be easy to admit that students who score below the 2200 might be equally qualified but have different attributes valued by Harvard. </p>

<p>I happen to think that both VOR and Mavant are smart enough to recognize that the part of the “study” of Sander used in the lawsuit is based on that SAT, and nothing else. Admitting it is another thing! </p>

1176

<p>xiggi, I hope you aren’t teaching the Reading Comprehension portion. If you think I accused you of confounding the issue…and not the adcoms, well, you’ve just created your strawman and have reflexively sorted to throwing this accusation at the other guy. </p>

1177

<p>Unfortunately Harvard accepts “unqualified” Asians with SAT below 2200 that either have hooks or real outstanding achievements. In the same time they reject most of the “qualified” Asians. Basically Harvard admissions just do not know what they are doing. They deserve this law suit.</p>

1178

<p>^ Indeed. Harvard clearly has no clue what it’s doing, between taking low scoring kids, turning down high scoring ones and maintaining departments like “Folklore and Mythology”. No wonder it’s failing so spectacularly.</p>

1179

<p>

</p>

<p>There were more than one way to read that sentence. </p>

1180

<p>OHMomof2 Your post exemplifies the confusion generated by xiggi’s posts. However, you have taken it to whole another level about my apparent decree of everything non-STEM being a worthless major. I said no such thing. My comment about the bottom portion of Harvard’s class that intended to obtain a STEM degree and having to transfer out to a less difficult major has blow into anything that is not a STEM major is worthless. </p>

<p>I brought this issue up, because many of the bottom portion of Harvard’s class are URM who we want to pursue and work in STEM jobs that in general pay better and will allow URM upward mobility. </p>

<p>Do I think everyone should be majoring in STEM? Of course not, but students who want to obtain a STEM degree may find that if they are coming to Harvard with academic achievements lower than most Harvard students, that their desire to graduate with a STEM degree might not work out. Had these same students gone to a more of a match school, their likelihood of reaching their goal might have be realized. </p>