They say that they don't discriminate, but it's an absolute lie.
For the record I hate affirmative action, but I also hate the notion of having some elite 10 schools everyone strives to get into. You can do just fine going to a state school, and you'll probably have a much more relaxed experienced.
You can also do what I did and hit 100k no degree at all. With all this talk of student loan forgiveness, maybe we need to rethink the role of college.
It doesn't need to be an automatic first step into adulthood, you can learn a great deal working for a few years beforehand.
Sadly, I can't imagine it being much use when she's old enough to go to university. Most of the (African) black people in Australia come from recent migrant backgrounds, are fairly religious/conservative and believe strongly in education. I suspect they'd run into similar problems to Asians if we had the same affirmative action policies down here in Aus.
There are no elite schools that systematically discriminate against Asians.
Zero.
None.
Let me add a few points that counter some folks who think that schools do discriminate against Asians:
- Some schools do give preferential treatment to Black and Latino/an applicants. This is not a particularly good look for the schools, imho, but it’s the reality. This is not the same as discrimination against Asians. Not declaring a race or declaring white does not help with this. Note that schools give preferential treatment to many groups (e.g., recruited athletes), and race is just one of them.
- I see many folks arguing a case for discrimination based on differences in test scores and grades between different races. If those were the only criteria for admission, then I would agree with them. Like it or not, those are not the only admissions criteria that are used at elite schools. Just because the system isn’t what these folks think it is (or possibly should be), that doesn’t make it racist.
- The cases of Stuyvesant and Berkeley having an increase in Asian admissions once rules/laws were changed are accurate. The part that they leave out is that the systems changed (almost) purely to some combination of grades and test scores. So I wouldn’t call this necessarily an improvement in fairness, but it definitely was in increase in transparency and move to a system that seems to be (at least currently) more favorable for Asian applicants.
- Note that the lawsuit against Harvard was sponsored by a folks who are anti-affirmative action. This wasn’t some charity move towards Asians. Imho, it was an attempt to use one minority group as a weapon to strike against other minority groups. Note that I think that affirmative action has its flaws, but it’s not the villain many folks make it out to be.
- Imho, and this is just my opinion based on many anecdotes, I think that the narrative of “elite schools discriminate against Asians” is often used in Asian American communities by folks who don’t understand or just can’t accept that their kids are not strong applicants in the elite school applicant pool. The argument I most often hear is “… but perfect grades and SAT scores”, and this shows me that they really don’t understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant (e.g., recruited athlete, having done something of impact at a national or international level, etc.). I strongly encourage you not to feed this narrative, especially to your children. There is enough real discrimination against Asians in the US — we don’t need to make up additional sources that aren’t real. Note that this phenomenon is not unique to Asian-Americans — I’ve heard equally incorrect narratives from White folks in the NE corridor that (imho) serve an equivalent function.
- To help your kids, familiarize yourself and them with what is evaluated in admissions at the schools they are interested in. As a simple example, Harvard rates applicants on athletics even if they are not a recruited athlete. Also note that 15% of Harvard undergrads are varsity athletes; and something like 35% of white undergrads are varsity athletes (not all recruited, but probably rate 1 or 2 in athletics). Not to push athletics, but I think that a lot of people are surprised by these numbers, and it provides some insight into why some seemingly less qualified students are accepted over “perfect grades and SAT” folks.
- The article below provides some good insights into Harvard admissions. I honestly don’t think that they go far enough in explaining how impressive the folks who get 1s in any category actually are. That said, these types it things are good for college applicants and their parents to know, and many don’t.
https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/type...
- Lastly, note that some schools actually don’t get enough high quality Asian applicants, and they not only get favorable admissions treatment as an underrepresented minority group, but these schools will also throw scholarship money at them like there is no tomorrow. I know of one specific very good (R1) large state school in the Midwest that does this, and I imagine that there are many more.
Best of luck to you and your kids. I’m sure they will be fine.
Don’t stress about the race issue. Focus on things that actually matter (e.g., location, access to desired major, social fit, etc.).
Please don’t put words into my mouth that I did not say (and certainly don’t think).
Note that I had a positive experience living in Asia for 9 years, and I am currently active in Asian communities in Asia as well as the Asian-American community. If I felt for one second that there has been any actual systemic discrimination happening, I would be all over it, and I would speak out loudly against it.
Clearly I haven’t found any plausible systemic discrimination.
Regarding the “Asians being weaker” in some areas argument, i think there are two sides of this argument.
First, using Harvard as an example, 25-28% or so of the entering class is Asian. Given that Asians-Americans are about 6% of the US, this hardly smacks of systemic racism. Something doesn’t add up with this argument.
Second, I hear people say something like “ah, when you control for grades and test scores, Asians are accepted less frequently”. This is pretty much true at every elite school whose data I have seen.
So is this racism? Maybe, but I’m guessing not. Two courts who basically did a full body cavity search on Harvard also did not find any discrimination (note that if the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, it will be based on labeling affirmative action policies as being actively discriminatory against Asians and Whites, not actual direct discrimination against Asian applicants).
What I will say, based on hundreds of data points, is that Asian parents of kids who apply to elite schools (esp. those who don’t get in) routinely emphasize grades and SAT scores over all else. As I mentioned in my original reply, this is just living in denial about what the actual application process is. It’s much more than grades and SATs.
Check out the article I linked to above - applicants really want one or more 1s (and these 1s are tougher to get than this article makes it out to be) or pretty much all 2s with nothing below 3. The people who complain loudest about elite school admissions are typically scoring 5 or 6 in one or more categories while not getting a 1 in any. I have no idea why they are surprised that they were denied.
Some additional comments:
- The most likely discrimination that an applicant will face is at their own high school. High school counselors and teachers can be petty tyrants, and ambitious students can be screwed by high school counselors and teachers if they do not play their cards right. It can be a very political process.
- For folks who think that they were “almost there” and didn’t get in due to being Asian, I ask them this — were they waitlisted? If not, they were not even close.
- If someone is a strong applicant to elite schools, they will get into at least one. There are some weird things like rough quotas from certain high schools that may make it seem arbitrary for a specific school, but generally this is a known issue if it’s an issue. There is plenty of room at the bottom of each entering class for strong applicants, so these schools aren’t randomly turning away highly qualified applicants for meaningless reasons like race.
- I have an open offer to people who think Asians are discriminated against in admissions. Show me their application (or give me a lot of details), and I will tell you where things went south. 100% of the time people have done this, there was a glaring gap in their application. In the event that I somehow don’t find a gap, my next inquiry would be about their references (one bad one can ruin an applications, and some applicants get blindsided). If you have any examples, please post here. I will be happy to comment.
There's a larger percentage than the whole population of the US, but a smaller percentage than the percentage who apply and have similar qualifications to accepted students who aren't Asian.
What you're seeing is that Asian-Americans are better qualified, but not enough of them are accepted as one would expect from being better qualified.
Please reread my entire comment.
I covered your thesis, and I am fairly certain that it is an inappropriate characterization of the reality.
Specifically, every study I have seen that makes this claim determines that Asians are “more qualified” based exclusively on a comparison of SAT scores and/or grades.
Grades and SAT scores are only one factor of many that are used in admissions decisions.
As I have said before, some folks may not like that more than grades and SATs are used in admissions decisions, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Let me give you an example of a profile I see a lot:
- 800 math 780 verbal on SAT.
- Top 5 in class taking a strong academic curriculum. Not valedictorian because of a few differences of a + or - here and there attached to their straight As.
- Played instrument in band and marching band for 4 years.
- Wrote articles and took photos for school newspaper and yearbook.
- Volunteer in school volunteer group that actually did some decent work.
Using the guidelines in the link below, how would you rate this applicant?
https://veritasessays.org/college-admissions-blog/posts/type...
1. Academics — solid 2. Definitely not 1, since there is no indication of “genuine scholar” like published research or a Westinghouse award or something similar.
2. ECs - Squarely 3. Did some stuff, but no leadership or substantial impact.
3. PQ — Let’s say 2, but this could be a 3 if their school does not know how to write good recommendations for elite schools and/or if the applicant did not impress the right people. Note that there is nothing about low SES or other challenging conditions that might make them a solid 2 or even a 1. Frankly, in our case, it doesn’t matter.
4. Athletics — Marching band is basically a sport. Let’s say 3. If they were just in band, that would probably fall under ECs, and this might be a 5. Note that there is no expressed desire to be in the Harvard band, and there is no quality measure (like winning a competition) that suggests that they could be good enough, so 1 and 2 are out of the question.
So… is this person an admit?
Probably not. This is almost a perfect “standard strong” — nothing wrong with them, but nothing stands out. Note that their grades and scores only got them a 2 in academics, and there are a lot of other 2s out there in the applicant pool.
They probably won’t get in unless they have some other highly desirable trait like geographic diversity, racial diversity, recruited athlete, director’s list, or child of faculty.
Anyway, I hope that people stop perpetuating the myth that “better qualified Asians” are not being accepted. A more accurate statement is “asians with higher grades and SAT scores are not being accepted because they are not excelling in other areas that are explicitly mentioned as part of the evaluation process”.
Note that those folks (Asians and otherwise) who have good grades and good SAT scores as well as excel in other areas are much more likely to be accepted.
The other factors were added specifically in order to give universities leeway to massage the demographics of the incoming class. IIRC this kind of holistic admission was invented specifically to be able to reject Jewish applicants who tended to be academically strong but less "well rounded" than WASPs. So ivies effectively put a cap on the Jewish quotient by creating the holistic system.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
The original push for diversity was successfully implemented by Eliot (president before Lowell).
Lowell definitely twisted the implementation and took it in a twisted direction (notable that his beliefs were more widely held than Eliot’s), but all of that was (relatively quickly) undone by Conant (president after Lowell), and a push toward more diversity in the manner of Eliot was continued.
There is no cap on Asian admissions, and there never will be. The Asians that get rejected at the margin have similar profiles to White people who are rejected at the margin. If you think that this is incorrect, then I would love to see some supporting evidence, There is an abundance of available info due to the lawsuit, and none of it seems to have pointed to discrimination against Asians.
Diversity steps were taken by Eliot in the 1800s. Lowell took them in a dark direction, but he wasn’t the originator.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
I’m really saddened that so many people are quick to jump on the “Harvard bad” bandwagon without actually knowing the facts or the history. It an incredible story
The current admissions process at this point is fairly refined, and the evaluation rubrics are public knowledge, and I think they do a fairly good job of getting the school the wide variety of students it needs.
It is, and if it isn't, then it's discrimination based on heritage.
>note that if the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, it will be based on labeling affirmative action policies as being actively discriminatory against Asians and Whites, not actual direct discrimination against Asian applicants
No, it will be that they found affirmative action policies as discrimination against Asians, and that is direct discrimination against Asian applicants. Saying "well you were just a box I ticked the wrong way because you are Asian" does not make it less discriminatory.
I don’t think that the criteria are quite as subjective as you think. Anything on the margin, especially if it will make or break an application, will be discussed and evaluated at a reasonable level.
Most people are getting downgraded because of complete omission of one or more evaluated areas.
For the past few decades, elite schools have been very clear that they are looking for more than good grades (which themselves can be highly subjective) and good SATs in applicants. As mentioned in the article I linked in my first reply, Harvard actually lays out their exact rubric.
If someone, Asian or not, decides not to participate in sports and doesn’t really have a good reason why not (e.g., had to work after school), they shouldn’t be surprised by their low rating in this area, and they better be highly rated (as in, a 1) in one or more other areas to compensate.
The schools don’t maintain these criteria in order to exclude a certain race of people. They maintain these criteria because they think it’s good for the school long term.
As a simple example, so many of the people who disparage athletics as a component of admissions have no idea how important being a varsity athlete can be after graduating — I call it a totally-not-club club because it has such an invisible but significant influence.
Lastly, I will add that it is almost impossible to have an evaluation system that yields an equal outcome for all races that isn’t a pure lottery. I know the lottery idea is popular on HN, but I think that this is overly dismissive of what makes the strong elite school applicants strong both when they apply and after they graduate. Imho, other than 10% or so of each entering class, it’s not that they are brainiacs — it’s that they are smart enough and can get interesting shit done.
I think it's pretty clear that even if they did understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant and refocused their energies on meeting those criteria en masse, these elite schools would change that criteria, because the criteria are a means to an end.
That’s a nice opinion you have.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
The case against Harvard showed us pretty much everything behind the curtain. If there is any systemic bias against any group, that must be the best kept secret in the world.
Check out this article:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
Select quote:
“Don’t be fooled by those using the Jewish quota of the mid-20th century or charges of discrimination against Asian Americans (also despicable when true, but which the lower courts convincingly found was not the case here) as an excuse to limit the inclusion of Black and Latino students at selective universities.”
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."
Imho, this article is an example of how the NYT has gone off the rails with their agenda-based spin on reporting.
The article flat out says the following:
“Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans.”
All of those can influence the personal rating positively.
This lawsuit is an attempt by anti-affirmative action people to end affirmative action. They are using Asians as a figurative cudgel to beat other minorities, and this saddens me.
Fwiw, I think affirmative action is not without flaws and could be improved (e.g., I struggle to see why Asians aren’t given affirmative action status at these universities similar to how Asians have this status with the federal government — there has been and still is oppression and discrimination against Asian Americans), but I think there are large swathes of the country that are still in favor of this policy.
"This lawsuit is an attempt by anti-affirmative action people to end affirmative action"
That's an ad hominem attack that does not address the claims on merit.
I personally think fairly evident that Harvard et al are essentially attempting to address systemic inequalities in access, while also maintaining a large pool of legacy (ie donor) admits. Whether or not this is "fair" or "unfair" is actually not something I have a strong opinion about. What I do find abhorrent is the unwillingness to admit that's what they are doing, choosing instead to claim that asian kids have a harder time getting in because they have worse personalities.