<p>dstark It depends on how many non-Asians are taken from the 50 states. There are many exceptional students in each state of all ethnicity. However, if there is a minimum quota from each state, then that might have a direct impact on Asians. Not many people let alone Asians in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana etc. But my general feeling is no. I don’t think international students affect domestic enrollment so I think it’s a “no” on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard doesn’t claim that ethnicity has no effect on admission.</p>
<p>So are you saying that ethnicity has an impact on admissions? If so how much of an impact? And when does it become a discriminatory impact?</p>
<p>There are Asians in every State, and not just a few here or there. We are talking about thousands of Asians in Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, etc.</p>
<p>Montana is an interesting case. As more and more Asians have moved into that State, the State cutoff for National Merit Semifinalist scores have increased every year. Could the score increases in Montana be due to chance alone? That all-of-a-sudden, Montana students were scoring 10 points higher on the PSAT and 100 points higher on the SAT?</p>
<p>I agree with you mavant. My comment had to do with actual students who apply to Harvard. Obviously not everyone applies to Harvard from Montana or otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Of course it does, Harvard has not only not denied this but vigorously defended it. Page 7 of their CDS: race is “considered”: <a href=“http://oir.harvard.edu/files/huoir/files/harvard_cds_2011-2012.pdf”>http://oir.harvard.edu/files/huoir/files/harvard_cds_2011-2012.pdf</a></p>
<p>Harvard’s amicus brief in Fisher: <a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/08/harvard-files-amicus-brief”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/08/harvard-files-amicus-brief</a></p>
<p>“Harvard and its partners argue the “profound importance of assembling a diverse student body—including racial diversity—for their educational missions.””</p>
<p>Also from the amicus: </p>
<p>“Because race continues to play a role in society—the brief notes the “persistence of segregated schools and communities”—some students are inevitably affected or even shaped by it, note the authors. Given that, the brief argues, “If an applicant thinks his or her race or ethnicity is relevant to a holistic evaluation—which would hardly be surprising given that race remains a salient social factor—it is difficult to see how a university could blind itself to that factor while also gaining insight into each applicant and building a class that is more than the sum of its parts…In view of that reality…it would be extraordinary to conclude at this time that race is the single characteristic that universities may not consider in composing a student body that is diverse and excellent in many dimensions, not just academically.””</p>
<p>This is clearly what Harvard wants. Not all the 2400s. Not all the high-grades-in-STEM. If you can’t believe Harvard’s own words whose can you believe?</p>
<p>OHMom you didnt answer my questions about when it becomes discriminatory to Asians? You do realize that the Whites are still the largest etnicity at Harvard even though Asians are higher achievers.</p>
<p>Harvard openly claims not to discriminate based on race but does utilize racial preferences. This delicate difference in wording allows them to continuously claim preference but not discrimination. So when does preference cross the line into discrimination? When quotas are used. Hence, the current lawsuit is about Harvard’s quotas in which Asians are kept at the 17% rate despite shifts in demographics and the overwhelmingly large percentage of Asians in the qualified applicant pool.</p>
<p>That’s the mantra Harvard would like everyone to believe: preference is not discrimination when applied to URMs.</p>
<p>Is having a racial preference de facto discrimination? It usually is when it is the case of Whites getting preferential treatment ahead of Blacks. When the tables are turned, it seems, the argument is that it is not discrimination and that diversity is a justified benefit. When Asians are concerned, though a minority group, discrimination is never officially acknowledged and has been rigorously denied. </p>
<p>Really…the fluff courses are for the URM students, mostly athletes? You do know that the AI doesn’t allow dummies to get into Harvard? Oh but that’s right, only STEM kids are smart. Good lord, some people are clueless.</p>
<p>GAmom You seem to have a problem with the data analysis. Please provide a logical explanation for your comments. rather than a sound bite of indignation. Why would schools like UNC create courses where you don’t have to attend and your grade is dependent upon a written paper that is not read by the instructor of the course and the average grade given out are “A’s”.</p>
<p>As to your “only STEM kids are smart” comment. No one stated that. Again you write a sound bite in an attempt to lessen the value of STEM degrees and anyone who disagrees since your daughter did not receive a STEM degree its really not that important in what major a student is “forced” to choose. If your daughter decided on getting a Classics degree from the get go, that is great, but if she wanted to obtain a STEM degree but because of the rigor and lack of high grades from competing against other higher achieving students decides to change majors to something else, that is not so great.</p>
<p>Reasoned input is great, sound bites, no so much.</p>
<p>That survey I posted says Asians make up 13 percent of the athletes. Athletes are about 20 percent of the school.</p>
<p>Legacies are about 12 percent of the school. What was the percentage of Asian students at the school 30 years sgo?</p>
<p>The respondents to the survey, 80 percent of freshman responded, said 1/4 are Asians.</p>
<p>This leads to a couple of questions? Is the 20 percent number I see banded about Asian Americans? That would exclude Asians from overseas. Indians are Asians of course. How are they listed by Harvard. Separately?</p>
<p>I read that 14 percents of Harvard students come from families earning $500,000 a year. That is pretty amazing. SAT scores and income have a pretty strong correlation.</p>
<p>I’ll repeat what I said earlier. It is not a problem that black students switch from STEM to non-STEM majors. Sometimes, you find out that it wasn’t what you expected / you don’t like it, or you find that you like another major much more. Totally fine and totally normal.</p>
<p>What is a problem is if black students switch from STEM to non-STEM majors at higher rates than white students. It suggests that black students on average are less prepared for these majors than white students. Indeed, as the Duke researchers found out, once you controlled for SAT scores, black students basically were no more likely to switch than white students.</p>
<p>The good news from this is that racial classification does not matter; preparation matters. The bad news from this for those who support racial preferences is that their talking points are wrong. On average, black students are NOT as qualified as white students; that is why unconditionally (i.e. without controlling for anything), they leave STEM majors at higher rates than white students. But once you control for preparation / qualification, even with something as crude and as reviled as the SAT, you see that black students leave at the same rate as white students.</p>
<p>fabrizio To add on to what you stated, if these same mismatched URM students at Harvard, Duke and other elite schools had gone to a matched school a higher percentage of these URM students would have obtained their STEM degrees and there would be greater number of URM STEM graduates seeking the higher paying STEM related jobs.</p>
<p>To those who continue to argue that we are advocating that ALL kids go into STEM and that STEM is the end all, please stop making false arguments. None of us are saying that. We are only addressing this issue for students who want to major in STEM but do not complete their goal because of possible “Relative Deprivation Theory” and Academic Mismatch Theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most everyone understand that and might even acknowledge it. But since this simple and yet comprehensive appraisal does not fit the thesis of discrimination, one has to rely on minute elements and distort them at will. </p>
<p>The claimants do know that the STEM/URM debate is only a small part of the Harvard realm, but that is about all they can cling to and know that the skethcy :science" behind such claims will not be challended as it is relevant. </p>
<p>The claimants know very well that their definition of qualified applicants is based mostly on test scores, and that the quoted 46 percent is NOT the number that adequately defines the pool the qualified applicants. But that will not stop of repeatong ad nauseam in an endless loop of self-serving argumentation. </p>
<p>All the twisting and churning will result in admitting that Harvard, though its holistic review proces, does account for ethinicity and that coupled with evaluating the application in their appropriate context, a number of preferences are used. For some, racial preferences --as well as legacy and athletic ones-- are a form of disguised discrimination. That is an opinion they are entitled to, and others have a divergent opinion based on clearly espousing the legal definition of discrimination, including understanding the differences between treatment and impact discrimination. But such legal fine lines are well beyond the simpistic exchange of anecdotes, voodoo sciences masqueraring as a study, and tidbits of half truths that is the domain of a public forum. </p>
<p>In the end, the lawsuit might lift the curtains on certain practices of Harvard (et al) and --hopefully-- make people understand a bit better what goes on in a selection process that eliminates 19 out of every 20 candidates. At the risk of repeating myself, the biggest complaint one should have is that all the money of Ed Blum did not yield a better example of discrimination to cornerstone the claim and especially a set of better “data” to rely on. People in general might underestimate the impact of lost opportunity. A better prepared lawsuit would have served everyone much better in the long run. A shoddy one --and this one is particular poor in terms of federal complaints-- might set back the entire dialogue another decade as the impact of a negative opinion or a mere dismissal will create a precedent that cannot be erased by simply looking the other way and cling to the same misleading and self-serving “data.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dstark, since you like open-ended questions and food for thought, here a few ones for you:</p>
<p>Do you think that Asian Americans are essentially wealthier than the average pool of SAT test takers? Do you think that the AsAm applicants at Harvard are in the top quartile or second quartile in terms of SES? </p>
<p>If you happen to believe that AsAm are in fact among the lower SES quartiles on average, how much of a correlation is there with … income. If we are to accept that the AsAm earn the higher scores and that the distribution at the higher levels shows the same skew, could we not wonder how much this “correlation” between income and SAT scores really is? </p>
<p>PS To help somehow, it is good to remember that the “data” about this correlation comes from the unscientific poll on the SAT exams that ask 16 to 18 years old to define their parents’ income. Fwiw, it would be a cinch for The College Board to track this down with bona fide statistics as they could easily match the SAT scores they have with the CSS Profile. And, perhaps closer to home, it would be nice to see a similar correlation between high SAT scores and recipients of Pell grants at the UC system. It does not take much to realize that the income reported on the SAT and the income reported on the FAFSA form are not exactlty the same. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spare us the BS, xiggi. Racial preferences are discrimination, period. That’s not the contention. The contention is whether they are justified discrimination (e.g. “compelling state interest”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should we simply take Harvard’s “own words” at face value? The portion of the amicus you quoted from contains the standard boilerplate nonsense we always hear from defenders of racial preferences. They talk about “segregated schools and communities,” but give me a break, the vast majority of so-called “underrepresented” minorities at Harvard et al. DO NOT COME FROM SUCH BACKGROUNDS.</p>
<p>xiggi writes “The claimants know very well that their definition of qualified applicants is based mostly on test scores, and that the quoted 46 percent is NOT the number that adequately defines the pool the qualified applicants. But that will not stop of repeatong ad nauseam in an endless loop of self-serving argumentation.”</p>
<p>What is then “adequately defines the pool the qualified applicants” if you are arguing that the values cited in the complaint are insufficient? You can’t provide any definition of “adequately qualified applicant” because you have no data from which to start. You clearly are providing the “endless loop of self-serving argumentation” by repeatedly stating this mantra that SAT scores as proxy for qualified is wrong, at least the plaintiffs have tried to establish their claims with data. You provide no data, only conjecture which many here on CC soak up.</p>
<p>The only thing that you are correct about is that SAT in and of themselves is not a proxy for quality applicants, but we all know that in addition to high SAT scores, the Asian students as a group also have the highest GPAs and take the most rigorous courses and excel in ECs, essay writing as well as get great LOR. You well know that the SAT is being used as proxy because those other non-SAT factors that colleges use for admissions, Asians are just as likely to achieve compared to other ethnicity.</p>
<p>The plaintiff has “self-serving data” but you have NO Data from which you can support your claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How long will it take to accept the fact that what I think or the evidence I have has NO impact whatsoever? I am not a party to this lawsuit. On the other hand, anyone has the right to look at the data included in the lawsuit and form an opinion. However, that opinion serves no purpose as the legal process will determine the validity of the claims presented, and evaluate if redress is available. </p>
<p>Again, and again, I am happy to accept the outcome of this case, and I also hope that the eventual disclosures will help all of us understand the issues that are debated a … lot better. One of the points that I have obviously not been able to convey here is that the elements (or data if you want to call it) as our disposal has been sketchy and unscientic and that debating their finer points is an exercise of utter futility and a fool’s errand extraordinaire. </p>