Isn't the fact that Asians need to score a couple hundred points higher on SAT score just to get admitted enough evidence that there is bias?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at Berkeley where Race is not considered in admissions, Asians comprise like 50% of the student body. I'm pretty sure you'd see similar numbers at all the elite universities if race wasn't an issue.
Schools like Harvard and Princeton look both for well-rounded students ("future leaders" they call them), as well as diversity in their student body. This means they won't accept, for example, 100 top violin players in the same class, no matter how impressive their individual applications are. Instead, they want a complete and balanced orchestra, for example.
So if, hypothetically, Asians tended to disproportionately cluster in the same extracurricular activities, or have less extracurricular activities, then there would be a very valid non-race-based explanation for the SAT gap.
I agree that SAT scores shouldn't be the only factor, I disagree though if you are saying race can and should be factor. Where it's legal and appropriate to discriminate on say what instrument you play it is illegal (and most would agree immoral) to discriminate on race. Proving racial discrimination may be tricky in this case though.
It is actually not illegal to discriminate based on race in educational admissions -- you just need to meet certain criteria (serve a "compelling interest" and not use quotas) to be able to do so.
This is relevant taken in light of the reputed homogeneity among asian applicants.
The remedy is nothing you haven't heard before, either. Stand out. Take up falconry instead of piano. There aren't many falconers.
You have no way of knowing how true that is.
Distribution of talents (as you mention) among the applicants, and luck (a larger factor every year that the US population grows but the firstyear class doesn't) are the main factors.
You're begging the question of whether or not Asian students are well-rounded. You just assume that, for the most part, they are not, and that it makes perfect sense to throw most of them out because they're all the same.
Go up a couple of posts, and the question was whether a gap in average test scores is sufficient to determine that there is bias. If there are other non-quantitative criteria such as being "well-rounded", then the answer is no -- we can't make any sort of statement about bias from test scores alone.
Whether the subset of Asian students that applies to a particular school is more or less rounded and displays a more or less diverse array of talents than the subset of students of another ethnicity that applies to that school is an empirical question that I don't think any of us should hazard any guesses on without seeing some actual data. If there is data available on the topic, I would love to be able to review it.
You kindly asked for a correction, so I will provide one.
http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.j...
The current figures for first-year students at University of California: Berkeley, based on student self-reports according to the federal category definitions, are
1% American Indian or Alaska Native
40% Asian
3% Black or African American
10% Hispanic/Latino
28% White
11% Non-Resident Alien
The total is less than 100 percent both because of rounding and because some students exercise their right under federal regulations not to self-report race or ethnicity. People of "Hispanic" ethnicity can be of any race, but are reported as part of the Hispanic ethnicity category and not otherwise counted twice.
I'm pretty sure you'd see similar numbers at all the elite universities if race wasn't an issue.
I'm pretty sure one would not see Berkeley's numbers at all other elite universities (we don't see such numbers at those universities now), in large part because California in general, and the Bay Area in particular, has a much higher percentage of Asian residents than most parts of the United States. In-state subsidized tuition entices a lot of Californians to apply to Berkeley.
And as for Berkeley's 50% student body, 1/3 of all Asian-Americans live in California (they make up 13% of the Californian population), so a much-higher population at a California school is hardly a surprise.
I think it's likely there is some anti-AA biasing in the admissions process. The alternate explanation, that higher scores on tests are more than cancelled out by lower merit in other all other categories on average, seems really unlikely.
The real question is how much of a problem you think that is. This probably depends on your personal system of ethics or morality. Or, more likely, under which of the two alternatives (pure academic merit, or some form of race-based admissions) you personally stand to benefit.