Hacker News Reader

Comment by poster123 | Hacker News Reader

There may be racial differences in personality, but it is implausible that as the proportion of Asians in the high-achieving student population rises, their personalities get just worse enough that the fraction of Asian students at Harvard stays about the same. Harvard admits this when it says that what brings the Asian fraction down to 18% is "demographic".

Elite universities are often accusing the broader society of racism, when in fact they are some of the most blatant perpetrators of racial discrimination.

View on HN

I agree with you up until your last point.

It's important to not confuse accusations made by the student body of a university with accusations made by the administration.

Don't know about racial differences but there are absolutely cultural differences that probably correspond with race.

Look no further than this video.

Hispanic and Black populations in USA are consistently painting themselves as victims. As a result there are many Hispanic and Black organisations focused activism and their membership counts as "personality development" at Harvard.

Asian students on other hand are busy getting successful instead of painting themselves as victims.

How an Indian student faked to be African American and get admission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMzZtU5H7I&t=4s

What you suggest sounds like the model minority myth.

It's hard to determine if this comment is racist or just ignorant. If it wasn't 2018 I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just ignorant.

"Asian students on other hand are busy getting successful"

What does that mean? How do I get successful? It's a thing I can just will into existence? When you so profoundly reduce success to something a person can just "get" you're painting a picture of a level playing field on which everyone plays. There's loads, and loads, and loads.....and loads more of studies, books, theory, film, music, poetry that all very clearly articulate systemic inequalities that make it difficult for a person to just simply "get successful". There are good conversations on HN about this very point. If you truly feel Hispanic and Black populations are painting themselves as victims in a way that doesn't reflect their reality I urge you to spend time talking to people from these groups. Get to know them, ask them their stories, learn about their families, have meals with them and understand them. Read about Hispanic and Black civil rights movements and struggles and see what of your beliefs come out on the other side.

Institutions like Harvard play the same role for the aristocratic elites as Trump does for his base: keep things more or less the same as the good old days.

How is "accounting for a category called 'demographic,'... [pushing] up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans" maintaining the "good old days"? Or are these stodgy elites just incompetent bunglers?

That's just dividing the (small) minority pie between the 'others'. If African American or Hispanic numbers ever threaten to reach those of the Asian horde, you think they'd keep promoting diversity?

OK, first off, from TFA, "Harvard’s class of 2021 is 14.6 percent African-American, 22.2 percent Asian-American, 11.6 percent Hispanic and 2.5 percent Native-American or Pacific Islander, according to Harvard’s website." That leaves you with 49.1-percent white or Jewish, which I don't consider small pie.

Second, I and my maternal ancestors haven't been part of a "horde" since Padishah Babur shacked up in the 16th century.

“Asian horde”? Really?

This was why this holistic admission was introduced in the first place: anti-semitism. Jewish applicants were becoming too good at the existing criteria used for admissions, so these universities switched to more subjective standards that they could use to disqualify these candidates.

Do you have a source for that?

I would have assumed it was to create some diversity in their acceptance pool.

I am thinking the parent was quoting also TFA, who themselves quoted the plaintiffs, whose source I am not sure:

"They [the plaintiffs] compare Harvard’s treatment of Asian-Americans with its well-documented campaign to reduce the growing number of Jews being admitted to Harvard in the 1920s."

> In the 1920's, the Protestant Establishment still dominated business and society. University administrators sensed that if they admitted too many Jews, they would alienate themselves from the power centers around them. So they restricted the number of Jews by shifting their admissions criteria and putting more emphasis on "character," measured by alumni connections, athletic skill and personal letters of recommendation. Applicants were less likely to be admitted if all they demonstrated was academic brilliance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/the-chosen-g...

What always gets lost in this debate though is the fact that grades and SAT scores aren't especially meaningful or important. Given that we've had Asians and Jews freaking out all week and making dogwhistle attacks against blacks/hispanics because of the Stuy admissions issue, the fact that these so-called metrics aren't inherently any better or more fair than a personality test or whatever somehow always gets lost in the mix.

That's not to say that schools should discriminate against Asians, they shouldn't, but people also shouldn't hold up tests and GPA as some sort of beacon of fairness and meritocracy.

Why do you assume that Asians are only good at posting test scores and grades?

Those scores are being talked about because of all the criteria they are the measurable ones, so you can use them as a baseline. Asian Americans do extracurricular activities just like everyone else does.

> Why do you assume that Asians are only good at posting test scores and grades?

Not something I said or implied. I was purely talking about the responses to the NYC admissions thing on Facebook, the NYC subreddit, etc.

> Those scores are being talked about because of all the criteria they are the measurable ones

They're not measurable, they just have numbers attached to them. You can attach numbers to a personality test just as easily.

Two people solving a maths problem draw upon a system of acquired knowledge that is uncorrelated with their gender, age, ethnicity and sexual orientation. If they get identical answers, they are graded identically.

>You can attach numbers to a personality test just as easily.

Please, do propose this novel test. Shouldn't take you too long..

> Asian Americans do extracurricular activities just like everyone else

For instance https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jeremy-lin-1.ht...

Studies have shown grades and test scores are predictive of college graduation rates and grades. Where is the research showing that subjective assessments of personality do so?

> Studies have shown grades and test scores are predictive of college graduation rates and grades.

College grades and graduation rates don't matter either though. Given that society has limited resources, we should be trying to give the best educations to those most likely to do stuff that contributes positively to society, not those who are most likely to spend their four years maximizing their GPA and those most likely to graduate.

How do you identify individuals who are "most likely to do stuff that contributes positively to society"? How do you define "positively to society"?

> How do you identify individuals who are "most likely to do stuff that contributes positively to society"?

I think the basic things to look for are people who have some combination of:

- Basic awareness of what's going on locally, nationally, and around the world, and the problems that society faces.

- Technical skills (e.g. math, science, the active literacies, etc.)

- Interpersonal skills, leadership ability, grit, resourcefulness, and other positive personality traits.

- Passion of certain hobbies, interests, problems, etc.

- Track record of success in one or more areas.

- Culture literacy

In other words, leaving aside the issue of whether or not they're using these criteria as a way to discriminate, what Harvard is ostensibly looking for today.

> How do you define "positively to society"?

That's really up to the school faculty. Each person's definition is going to be different, and you can't really impose something on people from on high.

“Research suggests that the SAT, widely used in college admissions, is primarily a measure of g. A correlation of .82 has been found between g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores. In a study of 165,000 students at 41 U.S. colleges, SAT scores were found to be correlated at .47 with first-year college grade-point average after correcting for range restriction in SAT scores (the correlation rises to .55 when course difficulty is held constant, i.e., if all students attended the same set of classes). [1][2]”

[1] Sackett et al. 2008

[2] Frey & Detterman 2003

> widely used in college admissions

You need to correct for the fact that it's used in college admissions though, otherwise this isn't telling you anything.

E.g. if tree identification were used as the basis for college admissions, within a couple years you'd find that the people who did the best in college were the ones who were the best at identifying trees.

My quote said SAT scores correlate with the g-factor and with GPA, not with admissions. If tree identification also correlated with these in your hypothetical world, why wouldn’t it be a legitimate criterion?

> My quote said SAT scores correlate with the g-factor and with GPA, not with admissions.

My point was that the fact that it's used in admissions changes the correlation with g-factor and GPA. If you want to argue that SAT correlates with these things, then you should only be using SAT scores from countries where the SAT isn't used in college admissions.

What do you mean by “changes the correlation”, and how is that relevant? I don’t know what you’re getting at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com