The depressed number of Asians can’t be explained fully by athletes and legacies. Harvard’s use of “personality” ratings led to many Asians being rejected.
…and many being accepted @bicoastalusa
Legacies alone make almost 30% of the most recent incoming class. Even taking to account that the legacies have a similar percentage of Asian Americans as classes from 25 years ago, it has to have an effect, but no one is trying to change that particular system (I always wonder why). Harvard is 380+ years old and they have never used just grades/standardized test scores/ECs alone to select an incoming class, but have always had “preferences” in the selection of their incoming classes. That does not make it right (Especially if it tilts the playing field too much which it probably has done for most if not all of Harvard’s existence). I do believe most of the posters put too much weight on the standardized test score. Looking at test scores in context, a student with a SAT score of 1350 at a school with an average student score of 850 is probably as impressive as a student with a 1500 at a school with an average student score of 1250, but most come to the the conclusion that the 1500 SAT student should be selected over the 1350 SAT student. Race should not be a factor in that equation, but context of a situation should be allowed.
@ChangeTheGame I think you are saying that the 1500 might not be that much more qualified than the 1350? For a school like Harvard? Is that what you are saying?
“no one is trying to change that particular system (I always wonder why)”
Because legacy and athlete preference - as ridiculous as many of us find them to be - are not illegal. Race preference is.
My kids go to a school where the average SAT is around 1400 (magnet school.) Unfortunately, I know from experience there is a difference in classroom discussion, quality of work, ability to meaningfully contribute to projects between most students with a 1350 and a 1500. Exceptions, sure, but put one kid with a 1350 in a group of 1500s and the 1500s will think the 1350 is “dumb”.
@collegemomjam No I am not saying that… I am saying that the context that produced each of those scores, equalizes the playing field some. If the student with the 1350 went to a well performing school, a 1500+ may have been possible for that student as well. The 2 students could both have the same capacity to learn but one has had more resources (mainly a much better school at a minimum) to achieve such a score. The scores of my own kids (1470 SAT and 35 ACT) would have been highly unlikely to impossible if they went to the low performing schools that I went to where the average ACT score was a 15. That is what I mean by context.
When you lower standards for any reason, you make it less likely that the kid will succeed at Harvard. With the internet, Khan academy and other services, there are opportunities for VERY self motivated kids to self study and get the same grades and scores as others. In addition, the stigma of minorities being less qualified due to racial preferences keeps some highly qualified minority candidates from having their Harvard degrees considered equal to others. That is really unfortunate. People should be judged on things they can control not on things they cannot control.
Will be interesting to see where this goes. I think a large number of people are watching. Whatever side you are on, someone’s going to lose.
@milee30 You are right that there is a difference in a 1350 versus a 1500 when they are in the same classes at the same high performing school. I think that difference is less when a kid has reached that score from a low performing school where they have learned things despite not being taught concepts in the classroom. They just didn’t get the same caliber of instruction or the teacher is hamstrung by the academic capabilities of the rest of the students. This is not a race thing for me but an opportunities deal no matter the race. My kids would have had no more than a 1300 SAT/28 ACT score if they grew up in a terrible school district without all of the advantages that they have had but instead have worthy standardized test scores. But they will never be worthy anyway (AA will be the reason that they got into any elite institution regardless of what they do because they are black).
@Happytimes2001 I don’t think that Harvard is lowering any standard when approximately 80% of Harvard students have a 3.2 GPA or higher and almost 97-98 percent of all students graduate unless there is rampant grade inflation (That is very possible but that means they are lowering the standard for the entire student body). The unfortunate stigma is something that will be there regardless of the final decision rendered in the court case until the standardized test scores for URMs reach the scores of the student body.
However, the level of ability and motivation to achieve to a given level is higher for someone from a low-opportunity environment (common among those from poor families) than for someone from a high-opportunity environment (common among those from rich families).
Now, something like Khan Academy definitely helps some, but what about others who may not have access to internet bandwidth or computing hardware that will play the videos well? Meanwhile, the student from the high-opportunity environment may have easy access to the bandwidth and computing hardware, or be offered in-person test-prep courses for standardized tests, or in-person additional tutoring for any courses where s/he is not earning an A in.
Use of Khan Academy and other similar resources also presupposes that the student in question knows that his/her school’s courses and curricula are inadequate and therefore needs supplementation, which one does not necessarily know. Of course, even if the student does need supplemental instruction, having to use Khan Academy or other supplemental instruction in addition to a day in school means that a student in a low-opportunity environment must spend more time to learn what a student in a high-opportunity environment spends, which leaves less time for extracurriculars, etc…
Meanwhile, the legacies somehow escape such a stigma, despite their relatively large numbers. Or perhaps such an aristocratic inheritance is considered a positive by some of the elitist employers who are most impressed by a Harvard degree?
“You are right that there is a difference in a 1350 versus a 1500 when they are in the same classes at the same high performing school. I think that difference is less when a kid has reached that score from a low performing school where they have learned things despite not being taught concepts in the classroom. They just didn’t get the same caliber of instruction or the teacher is hamstrung by the academic capabilities of the rest of the students.”
I totally, completely 100% agree with you on this. And it makes sense to value and understand things in their context.
My concern is that if those types of preferences are only considered for students of different races, you’re not setting up a situation where there will be a melting pot of diversity where the students will interact as equals and all will have a greater understanding. Under the system that it appears Harvard uses, in rough terms they’re requiring the white and Asian nonathletes to have 1500+ SATs while the SAT bar for black students is closer to 1350. Which may make logical sense because those 1350 scores were very meaningful within that context. But the end result is that you end up with classrooms where all the white and Asian kids are at one level and it appears that the black kids are at another, less rigorous level. Instead of promoting diversity, it sets up the student experience to be that the black students aren’t at the same level. Which is the exact opposite of what AA would seek to promote - creating the assumption that black = unqualified. The AA system is what is creating that misperception because of the different academic requirements for different races. It does the most disservice to the qualified, intelligent black kids who would have gotten admitted anyway.
“there is a difference in a 1350 versus a 1500 when they are in the same classes at the same high performing school.”
And that’s the heart of the issue - as soon as they’re all Harvard freshmen, they will be in the same classes. And if Harvard’s average SAT for white and Asian kids is 1500 and the average SAT for black kids is 1350, it’s going to be obvious and create (probably unsaid, but definitely noticed) differences.
If Harvard’s system were set up not along racial lines but instead along socioeconomic lines, this wouldn’t be an issue because the 1350 kids would be of all skin colors, not just one.
@ChangeTheGame Why do you say your kids will never be worthy? I don’t get that. And frankly, a 3.2 GPA isn’t going to cut it at Harvard unless the kid never lifted a finger in high school and suddenly wakes up Freshman year and gets a move on. So, no, the difference between what some think of as perfectly acceptable stats ( top 10% in a high school or SAT and top 1% are very very different). The top of the top are who should be getting in.
@ucbalumnus In the US, nearly every kid has access to the internet and bandwidth via the local library and in school. Schools have done a lot to address this and I would guess you can probably count the numbers who don’t have it on one hand. You made my point, if I kid KNOWs the school isn’t challenging enough and also takes the initiative to do Khan or something similar that is exactly the type of kid Harvard wants. The ability to lower scores a little bit is useful but if they are going down several levels just to get kids in, that doesn’t help anyone.
As Harvard cited in the case, the legacies are, for the most part, kids who are from highly educated parents and have had all of the opportunities one could expect. So they rarely need a leg up. They are in the pool of likely applicants. The days of some dumb kid with little ambition walking in is over ( except if they write a very very big check). I think the only time that happens is for the children of faculty (where the admissions rate is highest). I don’t agree with ANY type of preference for anyone including legacy. A meritocracy means just that. Unfortunately, many/most people want to pick and chose based on how they can gain some advantage over someone else, for example donating cash or checking off some box or a myriad of other things. That’s not a meritocracy either.
There is. As my nephew said about his Yale experience: “It can be hard to get an A, but it is much harder to get a C.”
But apparently only in limited numbers. Far more Harvard students come from opportunity-rich backgrounds where they did not need to show that high level of motivation to achieve what they did, since the opportunities to achieve were right in front of them (instead of having to go to the library whose hours may have been cut by lack of funds).
Harvard has long been an aristocracy with some meritocracy. In the last half century, it has tipped somewhat less aristocratic and somewhat more meritocratic. But it is unlikely that it wants to go completely meritocratic.
@hebegebe That quote is going on my quote wall that I have in my home office.
@Happytimes2001 When I say that my kids will never be worthy, I am just pointing out that regardless of their accomplishments, they will be perceived to have gotten in to any elite school because of their race. It is a frustrating fact that completely turned my daughter off from looking at any top 25 school. My daughter’s best friend (also an African American) is attending a top 3 ranked Ivy and it was frustrating to hear my daughter talk about what their peers thought about the “why” she got in despite being in the top 3%, 1500 SAT, and pretty good ECs. My son doesn’t care about what anyone else thinks, so he will apply to some elites, but the stigma bothers me. I agree that a meritocracy would be have the least amount of holes in any argument, but that will never happen even when race based preferences in admissions is eventually overturned.
@ChangeTheGame You are right. Things aren’t changing in the way that makes it clear everyone belongs based on merit. Like the kid whose parent is a billionaire or the kid who fits into some other box. Will they ever be accepted for who they are? Doubtful.
As it is, Harvard is far worse than anyone thought. One guy decides how it’s going to go and the whole system is now based on holistic admissions which means they have an excuse to accept/reject anyone regardless of merit.
When I think of other nations who take a single test to enter/be denied to the best universities, I used to scoff. But it may come to that in the US. With admissions rates ever falling people are going to get even more disgusted by the system. How long will people accept that the best and brightest are passed over for the legacy and the athlete or some other "holistic"factors.
My kiddo said s/he’ll never apply to the schools my spouse and I went to, as s/he’d never know if s/he got accepted on merit or legacy. I’m happy with that as I don’t believe in legacy at all. But no one will ever look at my kiddo and thinks s/he doesn’t belong. So, I cannot know how others feel in that respect. Even losing one bright mind, is too much. As a nation we need to think long and hard about leaving people out due to race. That’s just wrong.
I’m glad your son will apply to some elites. We definitely need to keep working on getting EVERYONE where they need to go. I’m optimistic that the idea of a meritocracy will revive.
This 1350/1500 debate is proving the point that we will never be able to come up with a fair system. With respect to this, I also completely 100% agree with @ChangeTheGame that the context of getting that score is completely relevant. All things being equal, a 1350 kid from a poorer community might very well get a 1500 with the resources available to the higher SES kid.
And yes, changing AA to be SES vs. race would solve some of the problems, but I personally think it should be OK to consider race as well because just from a cultural standpoint, students from different backgrounds can enrich our college campuses. And I don’t think it’s any different than justifying accepting a student from Kentucky over a student from NJ, all things being equal. If SES is used, we may still have a lot of racial diversity on campus, and maybe it would be the more “derserving” URM’s that get the spots and not the kids that are just “diverse” on paper, but not neighborhood or opportunity.
@ChangeTheGame I am white so I do not have the same perspective as a URM, but I really am not sure I agree with the whole “stigma” thing for the minorities that are getting into Harvard and the like. I feel badly that your daughter felt this way. I don’t think I am alone in saying that I personally don’t think that the minorities at the most elite campuses aren’t deserving…on the contrary, if any stereotyping exists in my mind, it’s usually that I am more impressed with such students and assume many of them got there IN SPITE of being a URM, not because of it.
However, even in the absence of any race based preference, some people will still believe that they exist, resulting in that same perception / stigma.
A few posters have said they think that the kids getting in with the 1350’s will be at a disadvantage and not be able to keep up in the end, anyway. Again, not sure I agree with this either, especially for the kids that weren’t born with silver spoons in their mouth.
I don’t have any articles to post, but when I received my certificate in college counseling, I learned in a class that often these kids, let’s call them 1350 types, might have a harder time at the beginning at a school like Harvard but often PASS their silver spoon-SAT-tutored-to-death peers because they (the 1350s) had not yet reached their full potential/capacity for learning in high school. Many of them are naturally brilliant and once exposed to the academic surroundings of an elite school, they really blossom.
I’m sure there are reports that claim otherwise, but this is something we learned, specifically as it relates to college advising.
@collegmomjam Actually, kids who start out with less of an academic background have to work harder. In some cases, they can make up the gap. In some cases, they cannot through no fault of their own. You cannot do physics without a solid math background for example. You need to have not only the requisite courses but also the teaching done so that you can jump in in college and continue on. You are not going to get that with a 1350 score. So often, kids are further pushed into easier majors. I don’t think that’s a great idea.
Learning how to write well and analyze data and information also can take a year or two. There’s a great disadvantage for kids who don’t have access to good reading materials or those who haven’t been taught to write well. Again, someone with a 600 in English is going to have a rough road.
There were most definitely kids at the Ivy I attended, that who did not enter with the solid background to soar. Could they graduate? Yes, but mainly in certain majors. I hope that has changed. There are also kids who are socio-economically or otherwise at a huge disadvantage and they are so solid academically that they fly ( but these are fewer in number).
What really needs to exist are more programs that prepare underserved kids. Programs that fill in the gaps for kids with big potential who are socio-economically deprived. There are some. But not enough. Filling the gap in the high school years is much better than placing kids in elite colleges who don’t have the support structure to do well and telling them they have aptitude. Aptitude is great. But the proper education is key.