Asian-Americans are the United States’ most successful minority, but they are complaining ever more vigorously about discrimination, especially in academia.
**
MICHAEL WANG, a young Californian, came second in his class of 1,002 students; his ACT score was 36, the maximum possible; he sang at Barack Obama’s inauguration; he got third place in a national piano contest; he was in the top 150 of a national maths competition; he was in several national debating-competition finals. But when it came to his university application he faced a serious disappointment for the first time in his glittering career. He was rejected by six of the seven Ivy League colleges to which he applied.
“I saw people less qualified than me get better offers,” says Mr Wang. “At first I was just angry. Then I decided to turn that anger to productive use.” He wrote to the universities concerned. “I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race, or what was it based on?” He got vague responses—or none. So he complained to the Department of Education. Nothing came of it. “The department said they needed a smoking gun.”
The Ivy’s have been discriminating since the 1920’s when they decided that they were admitting too many Jews. Why should we expect things to change 100 years later? Asians need to develop far more political power before much will change.
While I am not disputing the overall argument that Asians face discrimination (I honestly don’t work with Asian-heritage Americans in most of my work because they were systematically barred from the US in the time period that I work), I take issue with the idea that high scores and GPAs should automatically mean admission to top Unis. The Ivy schools and similar could fill, or almost fill, their entire population with perfect ACT/SAT and Val individuals but they don’t.
The idea of holistic admissions is fundamentally different from the models used for admission in much (most?) of the rest of the world. Not saying it’s right or wrong but merely that it is and it’s important to keep in mind.
If the Asian-Americans (and whites and men and everyone else who thinks they face unfair discrimination in the admissions game) in the article continue to work hard and achieve, they will do well regardless of where they go. Harvard is not the be-all, end-all.
ETA: Oh and as for the continued domination of whites in the workplace, that has nothing to do with discrimination against Asian Americans specifically. It is merely a byproduct of the white supremacist society that we live in. And, I think Asian Americans have done a much better job historically of breaking into that privilege than other minority ethnic groups. Why? That’s for other Historians and Sociologists to figure out… (and I do know there is a body of work done on it, I’m just unfamiliar with it)
This is a tired rant. As the cliche goes, Harvard and other elite colleges could admit and fill their freshman class with the highest scoring and high GPA applicants; but there would still be thousands of kids with similar marks whom would be left out. No room at the inn.
“I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college?"
He could have been born a wealthy WASP legacy whose family regularly gives $$ to said Ivy. That would have probably done the trick. [Shrugging shoulders.]
However, the example student in the article also supposedly had national level extracurricular achievements in music, math, and debate to go along with top end GPA/rank and test scores.
Perhaps the super-selective schools are so selective now that national level extracurricular achievements along with top end academics merely just get you into a low-chance game. (Meaning that most applicants, regardless of race or ethnicity, should not bother applying.)
Regarding the claims in the article…
The answer is probably really something mentioned in the previous paragraph:
(and 28% of all Americans have a bachelor’s degree)
It should not be surprising that when immigration selects for highly educated people among immigrants from Asia, their kids, whether by nature or nurture, tend to be high achieving in educational pursuits.
The SAT/GPA issue aside, Asian American candidates also have high leadership experience & ECs. But everyone knows they’re “inauthentic” and have no passion. Unlike other races, Asians only do it to pad their CV.
It’s troubling to see the notion over and over that these world renown academic institutions as all the Ivy League colleges are take Asian students’ academic achievement and more so for granted. Who is tiger parenting or encouraging tiger parenting really? By “uninamously” rejecting someone like this kid in the article, these schools are repeatedly sending the message - Your high scores, your A’s, your effort and achievement in ECs? Not good enough. Try harder!
So Wang applied to 7 ivy colleges and got into 1 but “others” got better offers than him? How many elite college spots was he entitled to and to what end?
^This. My Ivy admits tons of Asian to this day. Whose fault is it that tons of Asians also apply and are rejected? There’s no shortage of rejected Asians who apply to my college – about 95% of them. Is it any wonder it’s easy to find lots of ppl who feel they’ve been wronged to interview for articles like this?
Asians make up around 5% of the U.S. population. And on average, they’re represented at about 20% of the undergraduate population at the Ivies. Why this “low” number? Apparently because there’s widespread discrimination in higher education. It’s not because, you know, the Ivies reject over 90% of their applicants.
Citing UCs or the Caltech as examples of discrimination isn’t really comparable. the former is a public university system located in a state with a lot of Asians; and the latter is specialty private university also located in a state with a lot of Asians.
I really have little sympathy for these arguments for a number of reasons. Asians tend to do very well as a group, both academically and professionally. So you didn’t get into Harvard and have to attend shudder Cornell. That’s just life sometimes. I’m sorry if this means you won’t become some high level investment banker or a justice for the SCOTUS. (even though it totally doesn’t mean that.)
I’m also very skeptical of groups trying to legally alter universities’ admissions policies. But Asian Americans, like any other group, are free to lobby for whatever causes they wish for. And if they want to get into politics to try to address these issues, they are free to do that as well.
@GMTplus7, I’m not sure what that graph you linked to is meant to show. Cal Tech is a tech school located in a part of the country with high Asian population. Why would that be comparable to the Ivies? They aren’t tech schools. Show me a graph comparing Asians in STEM majors at Ivies with Asians in STEM majors at Caltech, please.
My goodness, Caltech is 66% male while the Ivies are roughly 50% male. There must be a conspiracy involving all Ivies to discriminate against men!
For the same reason that if you look at the percentage of AA sprinters in the US Olympic team, the question “why this high number” has an obvious answer - because they were the best, and nobody felt it necessary to make it “diverse” so that the US team will look better. 2) Because when race was dropped as a measure, typically the Asian population has increased.
I see a lot of people wanting to have it both ways - if Asians complain they are being discriminated against, they reject it as untrue and they weren’t excluded based on their race. But then if a school does go race-blind, or there’s a measure put to make it race-blind, the same folks argue that it will cause more Asians to get admitted at the expense of others.
The gender balance purposefully maintained by the Ivies is not a conspiracy but a stated policy. Would it be outrageous if they came out and said yes we do try to keep a cap for Asian to maintain some degree of racial balance? Idk.
@panpacific, really? Harvard “Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 said in March that the College had admitted more men than women for the Class of 2018.” “Achieving an equal access admissions policy for men and women was a highlight of the early 1970s Radcliffe-Harvard relationship. With a then ratio of four men to one woman, in 1972 Harvard allowed “that the number of women admitted would be increased by 150 each year for four years until a ratio of 2.5:1 was reached.” In 1973 Harvard President Derek Bok and Radcliffe President Matina Horner charged a committee chaired by Karl Strauch to study and make recommendations concerning admissions, the needs of coeducation, and administrative arrangements. In 1975 quotas were abolished and the Harvard and Radcliffe admissions offices were merged.”
"Yale… says that gender holds no weight in the admissions process. "
"What Colleges Are Saying
Yale University:
“We make no explicit effort of any kind, whether before, during or at the close of the selection process to influence or adjust the overall gender ratio of the students we admit.”
Dean of Admissions Jeff Brenzel, written statement quoted in the Yale Daily News
Brown University:
“There’s no expectation were going to have a quota or balanced gender in the college. No one has ever said to me … ‘we need to be fifty-fifty.’”
– Dean of Admissions James Miller, in the Brown Spectator"
