Stating a legacy preference may also help with attracting donations from alumni. There was a thread a while back about whether alumni who donate would stop or reduce donations if their kids were rejected when applying to the same college.
Of course, it has the side effect (whether intended or unintended) of pulling the student demographic in the direction of being slightly more like that of a generation ago than it otherwise would be.
This article sounds like it was written by a some CC posters confirming everything they say. Only difference is that the “hooks” are called “tags.” Interesting article if it’s true.
It is probably not an Asian thing so much as it is a “highly educated immigrant” thing. Immigration tends to have strong selection effects. To begin with, immigrants tend to be highly motivated to move to a new country. Then, the US immigration system is set up so that a significant number of immigrants come here as PhD students or skilled workers.
Because immigrants who came as PhD students or skilled workers are a relatively high percentage of the Asian population (but a relatively low percentage of other racial or ethnic groups in the US), the “value of education” attitudes that they bring have, in popular opinion, become associated with race and ethnicity, rather than being seen as the obvious result of immigration selecting for those with the highest levels of educational achievement to begin with.
@ucbalumnus You may have a point. It seems like the one or two AA kids who get into all 8 Ivies are often the children of Nigerian immigrants or so it seems the last couple of years.
My daughter went to school K-12 at NYC public schools that had at least a plurality of kids from immigrant Asian families who were 50th percentile and below (often far below) in income and education. Each kid had his or her own story. Most had parents that pushed them hard but they were hardly automatons and they didn’t have the advantages of family money to spend on extracurriculars or test prep. It troubles me that many of them may have been stereotyped in the college admissions process. I emailed the article to the college office in her high school, which does a pretty good job but hardly has time to carefully craft recommendations for 1300 seniors at a time.
If income is an issue the GC should be encouraging them to apply to Questbridge which is based on income not ethnicity or race.
To all the people saying Asians are only 5% of the population and are over represented. That is simply not the right way to look at it. Asians tend to have a stronger motivation to attend college so while the population is lower the applicant pool will have higher representation and the class should reflect the applicant pool instead of society in general which is seen in the uc’s where Asian population is in mid 40’s at most institutions. If the applicant pool is 40% Asian and 10% Hispanic and black then it is simply not right to give representation to all three minorities according to the general representation across the country.
We have friends who attended college via Questbridge (including one who found out about it via the college office at my daughter’s high school) and there’s no doubt it’s a wonderful program. But it doesn’t have the capacity to help every Asian student for whom income is an issue.
Consider also that Hawaii and its universities are not generally seen as a hotbed of educational hyper-focus or super-achievement that is commonly associated in public opinion with Asian ethnicities, despite the high Asian population there.
I have always had a slightly different take on this issue. Having been an alumni interviewer and been tangentially involved in the admissions process at other schools, I know that when you get a number of students who have similar resumes - be it in math or science or simply having a relatively common high school resume (i.e., peer leader, unremarkable varsity athletic, member of a few clubs and president of one, some community service), it’s hard to stand out - everyone tends to look the same. So that if, for example, there are Asian applicants who focus on math and science and possibly play an instrument, only the highest achieving ones will likely receive an offer from the most competitive schools- the Intel winners, the ones with several published papers etc. I don’t know that it’s bias so much as the fact that when you’re reading thousands of applications, they all tend to blur and only the most impressive non-academic achievements or stories are likely to have an impact. Applicants need to have an advocate in the admissions office and it’s hard to get an advocate unless you have something which sets you outside the typical applicant from your school or community.
@midatlmom, that’s pretty much my take on it, too. Just look at the accepted/rejected threads for top schools. So many applicants look basically the same. Unless you are the one who achieves at a ridiculous level, it’s hard to stand out without going off the standard path.
Apologies, but usually, we refer folks to the Race and College Admissions thread, to share their certainty it’s all looped against Asian Americans. Roughly the same cast of characters will say the same things, whether or not they know them to be true.
The Jewish flub at Harvard was lifetimes ago and seems to be brought up too often as some proof things are snarky, today. About 90 years ago- or as I might put it, 90 admissions cycles ago.
We also dissected the notion of transparency on a long UT thread about the Fisher SCOTUS review. Posters kept calling, “Transparency! Transparency!” but no one could answer what they’d actually do- or do differently- with that knowledge. Since there is no fixed rack/stack formula (at the elites) to be scrutinized, people would need to be educated to the values, self image and goals of a college first.(Oh, something you can also learn if you read their danged web sites.)
Everyone wants to think hierarchically- Fred got a higher SAT than Bob, so he’s “better” to those who inspect only stats. Sally thinks Mary’s research was padding. Someone else thinks one EC is tops and community sevice is bogus. Another assumes URMs get false A’s and have no ECs cuz they’re always babysitting their dozen siblings. Someone else, recently, stated a 4.0 record means a kid isn’t stretching.
Round and round it goes.
ps. Harberson is yet another admissions counselor. Oddly, her LinedIn skips any college experience. ? At least, what I saw.
And the Duke study often linked is not a proof of discrimination. The one on the last (now closed) AA thread was titled, “Racial Difference in GPA and Major.”
There is an entirely different study people mean to refer to- one its own author dismissed as incomplete, limited, and not to be assumed representative.
Isn’t that what we encourage all students to do? We tell New Englanders to apply to schools in the midwest instead of the same NE LACs everyone else in their school is applying to; we tell women they should consider women’s colleges because their odds of being admitted are higher than at co-ed schools of similar quality or that if they apply to a technical major they’ll have a better chance than their male counterparts; we suggest places like Sarah Lawrence, Skidmore, or Vassar to men if they want to boost their chances.
I don’t see any reasons not to counsel students to apply where they have the least competition from whatever demographic group(s) they belong to.
I haven’t seen any white students say this, have you? I certainly don’t see Caucasian students fleeing from UC Berkeley or Stanford. I do see kids countering the “Asians get the short end of the stick” argument by noting that Asians make up a far greater proportion of students at elite universities than they represent in the US population.
The trouble with holistic admission, whatever the rationale, is that it is all fuzzy logic, too much subjectivity. It puts too much power and control in the hands of a few admissions officers and leaves most applicants feeling completely powerless. Most people don’t like to feel powerless and not in control of their destiny, no matter how hard they work. If the schools do not become more transparent in their process, they will always face this kind of discrimination suits, and these suits will not go away, they will only intensify.
What is the purpose of HA anyway? If it’s to lift the status of URMs, then why not make HYPSM 100% URM until their average income reach parity with whites? If the purpose is for diversity, then diversity and transparency need not be mutually exclusive. Simply declare that their goal is to have a diverse campus full of people with varying interests and talents, plus legacies and development for the bottom line, then admit based on those criteria, e.g.:
10% athletic
5% music
10% math
10% science
20% social studies
10% English
10% foreign language
5% art and design
15% legacy
5% development
Each applicant indicates which pool s/he would like to compete in, maximum 2 pools. Each pool has its own published criteria, e.g. how musicians are judged, in combination with GPA and test scores, with faculty involvement in the admission process.
This will give applicants a lot more transparency and control over their destiny. It will also do away with the one unintended consequence of HA which is turning our top students into a bunch of jack of all trades, expert of nothing. This admission method will ensure that students pursue those fields they are most interested/talented in and excel in them without having to waste time on all those meaningless ECs done just for show; it’ll save them from running around like a chicken without a head, leave them with more time to think, create and excel in what actually interests them.
@ucbalumnus Huh?
The only reason someone would think this is if they believe they are entitled to a spot at one of the Ivy Leagues or other elite colleges. They aren’t. And there are a bunch of colleges that don’t take race/ethnicity into account (like the UCs), so if they don’t want to feel “powerless” they can just apply to one of those.
I saw the following article on the subject and want to point out that things aren’t always as they appear.
It saddens me to read a post like @BatesParent2019 wrote:
Wow. I didn’t notice a lot of whining or complaining by Asians in the OP’s article. I think it is a disservice to characterize Asians in this manner.
Read the Reuters article. It seems there may be other forces at work here. Some points I found interesting in the Reuters article:
Edward Blum, a “conservative advocate”, sounds like he has an agenda…race blind admissions…not because he is or is necessarily representing upset Asians.
The original lawsuit against Harvard was not initiated by Asians and names none in its 120 pages.
Blum’s case could possibly overturn U of California v. Bakke, “which forbade quotas but permitted colleges to use race as one criterion among many to obtain a diverse class.”
Blum created Students for Fair Admissions. He has created websites to recruit Asians for his lawsuits.
I suggest people read up on Edward Blum.
Race blind admissions can only exist as a fair option in a race blind society which we certainly are not.
A number of you can only view this in terms of stats. Even if you see that a Harvard can only accept 2000 of 40,000, and knowing it is holistic (and that it has to end with balance across majors and in interests and strengths,) you assume all those high stats kids are offering perfect apps. After all, you know these kids’…stats. But you don’t know what those apps look like, beyond the transcript and activities (if you DO know these things.) Hmm. All you know is stats and maybe a few ECs- and yet you want to tell a college’s adcoms how to build their class.
And, you don’t know the pool.
Of course, “control [is] in the hands of a few admissions officers.” No, it’s not in the hands of some high school kids. Nor are the major scholarship competitions in the hands of hs kids, nor other contests.
The kids don’t need to feel powerless. In fact, what they need is to get empowered, by learning up what these colleges are actually about. And by forming a reasoned presentation. They need to be able to approach this strategically, not recycle the same old misinfo and emotions.
I see some supporters of HA here who continue to dismiss any claims of bias, but at the same time are opposed to greater transparency. Seems if there were no bias, Harvard wouldn’t hesitate to show us the data. The fact that they wouldnt give the impression they are hiding bias, that perhaps it’s as bad if not worse than what many already thought. Can’t have it both ways.