Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans?

[hsl]

NYT Op-Ed

Please follow the link for the full column. I've quoted key segments to mull over:

NEARLY a century ago, Harvard had a big problem: Too many Jews. By 1922, Jews accounted for 21.5 percent of freshmen, up from 7 percent in 1900 and vastly more than at Yale or Princeton. In the Ivy League, only Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania had a greater proportion of Jews.

Harvard’s president, A. Lawrence Lowell, warned that the “Jewish invasion” would “ruin the college.” He wanted a cap: 15 percent. When faculty members balked, he stacked the admissions process to achieve the same result. Bolstered by the nativism of the time, which led to sharp immigration restrictions, Harvard’s admissions committee began using the euphemistic criteria of “character and fitness” to limit Jewish enrollment. As the sociologist Jerome Karabel has documented, these practices worked for the next three decades to suppress the number of Jewish students.

A similar injustice is at work today, against Asian-Americans. To get into the top schools, they need SAT scores that are about 140 points higher than those of their white peers. In 2008, over half of all applicants to Harvard with exceptionally high SAT scores were Asian, yet they made up only 17 percent of the entering class (now 20 percent). Asians are the fastest-growing racial group in America, but their proportion of Harvard undergraduates has been flat for two decades.

A new lawsuit filed on behalf of Asian-American applicants offers strong evidence that Harvard engages in racial “balancing.”

It’s perfectly fair to consider extracurriculars as an important factor in admissions. But the current system is so opaque that it is easy to conceal discrimination behind vague criteria like “intangible qualities” or the desire for a “well-rounded class.” These criteria were used to exclude an overachieving minority in the days of Lowell, and they serve the same purpose today. For reasons both legal and moral, the onus is on the schools to make their admissions criteria more transparent — not to use them as fig leaves for excluding some students simply because they happen to be Asian.

For your interest, another article further detailing the rationale behind the lawsuit:

The Brutal Application Process to (Sue) Harvard

 

[hsl]

The misleading lawsuit accusing Harvard of bias against Asian Americans

This author, Asian American herself, argues that this lawsuit is deeply misleading (Please follow above link for the full column)

The narrative that underlies the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit — that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores to get into elite schools — is powerful. But it is also deeply misleading. It feeds the myth that elite universities have required scores for applicants and that meeting these requirements should guarantee acceptance. In reality, in elite admissions, a high SAT score is generally a necessary but insufficient condition.

I am deeply concerned that, with the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit, Asian American concerns about admissions are being exploited in an attempt to undermine the legality of race-conscious admissions. Despite the stories of disgruntled Asian Americans documented in the Harvard lawsuit, polling data indicate that the majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Numerous studies also document that Asian American college students benefit from engaging with racial diversity during the college years, which prepares Asian American — and all — college students to compete in a global economy. These stories are heard less in the affirmative action battle, but they are no less important.

Some of the most liked comments to this article are also revealing:

Your comments about "scores and grades" feeds the stereotypes that Asian Americans are just good test takers, and grade mongers, without being "well rounded." Your belief in the stereotype is so ingrained that you don't even realize it. You might as well have just said "get good grades, and play the violin."

Using vague standards to discriminate against people of certain race and ethnicity is an old and transparent trick.

Where do you stand on this issue?

 

[panamaican]

I'll keep my opinion relatively short (relative to my entire opinion on the subject, not relative to my other posts).

No university is obligated to admit students based exclusively on a meritocratic criteria. For every university's freshman class there will be a percentage of students denied admission who exceed the average qualifications of those admitted. I don't think that means discrimination.

I'm more inclined to think that it means significant overlap in terms of student activities. You only want so many members of their hs chess clubs or computer clubs or swim teams or basketball teams. And students with high gpa's and SAT scores are likely to have more overlapping extracurriculars than you would imagine.

For instance, I play piano. I played for well over a decade before applying to college. The thing is when I got to college, it seemed like almost everyone played something (piano, violin, trombone, guitar). It just wasn't that unique or interesting.

Of course, if there is legitimate evidence that Harvard is denying Asians admittance because they're Asian and not because there's a whole host of other things they value highly then that's wrong. However, given that the Asian student population at the school is much greater than their representation in the population, I think it's an uphill argument.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

Of course the education system is unfair to Asians, they're a highly successful group that focuses on progressive credentialism and that's the MO of education in America. So when everyone who speaks 4 languages, plays 2 instruments, lettered in Tennis, Golf, or cross country, etc. all stand in line they're going to be mostly Asian. So the schools have to follow racial quotas for 'equality'.

 

[Zankou]

It's a difficult subject -- how a society deals with elite minority groups -- but generally my feeling is that when your group is succeeding at an extraordinarily greater level than the average, statistically, the discrimination claim becomes much weaker against the opposing values of greater diversity + more representative of the general population. In other words, I appreciate the problem with 'quotas' that makes it almost impossible for your group to achieve something -- this problem crops up with firefighter hiring policies, for example, which many cities had stacked so heavily against non-minority candidates that it was almost impossible for them to succeed. The courts rightly overturned that use of 'blocking' quotas. On the other hand, the argument that your already greatly disproportionate representation in a particular group *should be even more disproportionate* is not terribly compelling to me, prima facie, particularly when you consider what the alternative is (with college admissions, a slightly less prestigious college).

I have looked at some of these academic studies about Asian American admissions, and they make a compelling case that Asian Americans require significantly higher SAT scores than the 'average student.' However the issue is more complex than that, because SAT scores are not the only variable. Princeton likewise has about a 140-150 SAT gap between its 'average' and Asian American students. However if you control for just two additional factors -- athletic preference and legacy preferences -- that Princeton gap drops to about 40 or 50 SAT points, which IMO is relatively negligible in the grand scheme of an overall application and the American system more broadly. In other words, these two factors play the biggest role in the SAT score disparity between successful Asian and non-Asian admittees.

I have no doubt that the admissions process at elite universities include non-academic variables that are specifically chosen for their disparate impact against Asians, in large part retained because they were historically used in the same way against Jews (nowadays, of course, legacies probably benefit Jews against everybody else). So even though the discrimination is accomplished through these objectively non-discriminatory measures (like athletics), I think anybody familiar with the process knows that such 'non-academic' criteria are intentionally being used to moderately suppress Asian and Jewish percentages. Not in a chortling 'look at this guy's name, let's downgrade him' way, but rather in a way where the overall system is structured to make the typical Asian American application less over-competitive -- disparate impact, in the phrase used in discrimination law. In other words, even if all the Asian applicants changed their names and marked a different ethnicity box (or no box), you would expect nearly the same amount of disparate impact against them (for example, Asians as a group would still get hammered on athletic preferences, even if their name was entered as code). Also, in 10-20 years, I would expect the legacy admissions discrimination to begin statistically working in favor of Asian Americans (as it currently does for Jews), rather than against them.

So ultimately the fact that you might be relegated to Dartmouth (a trade school) rather than Harvard is probably not a severe injustice, given the competitive advantage that East Asians have as a group. As with affirmative action for underrepresented minorities, I think the goals of the program are probably acceptable as long as it isn't too extreme a barrier for the over-achieving groups. But that is a pragmatic criterion, not a bright-line absolute, and it remains a worrisome/difficult social and political problem when society increasingly stratifies into groups with differing levels of competitiveness.

 

[Stoic1]

Strange how some minorities have flourished and others have remained at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata. Flourished so much that their successes are actually a hindrance in this case.

 

[faustian]

Institutional racism

 

[Rod1]

Strange how some minorities have flourished and others have remained at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata. Flourished so much that their successes are actually a hindrance in this case.

Immigrant minorities are more succesful, it requires brains, entrepeneurship and balls to leave a country, cross an ocean and start in a completely different culture.

 

[kuromusha]

Strange how some minorities have flourished and others have remained at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata. Flourished so much that their successes are actually a hindrance in this case.

Not really. Even if these Asians did not get into the school of their choice, they more than likely had a high enough GPA and/or SAT score to get accepted into a slightly lower-ranked university. It is hardly going to affect their chances at obtaining gainful employment after graduation. I'm sure there are more employers who would rather employ an Asian from UPenn than a Black person from Harvard (since some would believe he was an AA student and therefore, did not "earn" his place at the school).

They also have no grounds to sue on, right? I mean Harvard can accept anybody they want. There is no obligation for them to admit someone based on performance alone. That's why legacy admissions are so controversial.

 

[MaxFR]

Of course the education system is unfair to Asians, they're a highly successful group that focuses on progressive credentialism and that's the MO of education in America.

Muahahaha. My Sri Lankan neighbor is the biggest welfare queen I've ever met. And don't forget that colleges are private companies, they do what they want, they can offer a scholarship to an illegal student if they want to.

Life is not fair but the Indian-American or Chinese-American students who won't get a Harvard spot despite besting the competition will not end up at a party school. Their salaries and careers won't be too severely impacted.

The problem is that their group is screwed over by two policies: AA which favor middle-class Black and Hispanic students and Legacy Admissions which favor rich white students. It's a lot to overcome but if they want to be part of this country, they need to embrace its history. And these policies stem from historical events that drove colleges to change their standards.

It's not just Harvard, and at the end of the day, if a board wants to mould the composition of a freshmen class and cram it with rich kids who didn't deserve to be admitted but their daddies bankrolled a new building or take in a lot black students to get a great basketball team, it's their prerogative. They do what they want with admissions & scholarships.

I'll write it one more time: private companies do what they want.

 

[hsl]

No university is obligated to admit students based exclusively on a meritocratic criteria. For every university's freshman class there will be a percentage of students denied admission who exceed the average qualifications of those admitted. I don't think that means discrimination.

Whether universities are "obligated" to admit students based exclusively on merit is a separate issue from whether there is active discrimination going on. But bear in mind that many private schools receive tax breaks, public student loans, and grant.

I believe admission to academic institutions should be based exclusively on merit. Not exactly a crazy idea, since we pursue higher education to learn and enhance our knowledge of the world, rather than to showcase our athletic prowess.

I'm more inclined to think that it means significant overlap in terms of student activities. You only want so many members of their hs chess clubs or computer clubs or swim teams or basketball teams. And students with high gpa's and SAT scores are likely to have more overlapping extracurriculars than you would imagine.

For instance, I play piano. I played for well over a decade before applying to college. The thing is when I got to college, it seemed like almost everyone played something (piano, violin, trombone, guitar). It just wasn't that unique or interesting.

I have a hunch that this is the case, as opposed to the admission committee actively discriminating against Asian-Americans. But then again, I don't know for sure because of the lack of transparency in the admission process.

Of course, if there is legitimate evidence that Harvard is denying Asians admittance because they're Asian and not because there's a whole host of other things they value highly then that's wrong. However, given that the Asian student population at the school is much greater than their representation in the population, I think it's an uphill argument.

This isn't legitimate evidence that Harvard is denying Asians admittance because they're Asian. But it's jarring what happens to the composition of a school when affirmative action is banned.

Compare Berkeley, where affirmative action is banned, with Harvard, where it is used. Berkeley's entering class is 39.6% Asian (http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data), while Harvard's is only 20% (https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics).

 

[panamaican]

I have looked at some of these academic studies about Asian American admissions, and they make a compelling case that Asian Americans require significantly higher SAT scores than the 'average student.' However the issue is more complex than that, because SAT scores are not the only variable. Princeton likewise has about a 140-150 SAT gap between its 'average' and Asian American students. However if you control for just two additional factors -- athletic preference and legacy preferences -- that Princeton gap drops to about 40 or 50 SAT points, which IMO is relatively negligible in the grand scheme of an overall application and the American system more broadly. In other words, these two factors play the biggest role in the SAT score disparity between successful Asian and non-Asian admittees.

That was also the conclusion of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education when this exact complaint was brought up many years ago.

 

[MaxFR]

I'm more inclined to think that it means significant overlap in terms of student activities. You only want so many members of their hs chess clubs or computer clubs or swim teams or basketball teams. And students with high gpa's and SAT scores are likely to have more overlapping extracurriculars than you would imagine.

The only thing I can say is that a lot of people "exaggerate" their involvement in certain activities. You cannot fake a great GPA. But again, if they want to discriminate it's within their rights.

 

[Wingslaught]

It's not just Harvard and it's not just Asians. Asians and Whites have to have higher SAT/ACT scores than Hispanics and Blacks in order to gain admission at a LOT of colleges. College admissions are all about racial diversity these days.

 

[Rod1]

It's almost as if there is cognitive differences between the races on Earth, of which all grew up in drastically different regions of the planet and all evolved in completely different ways according to their enviroment.

Racial differences are clinal.

If you want to bring a theory about multirregional origin of man then bring forth the evidence.

 

[panamaican]

Whether universities are "obligated" to admit students based exclusively on merit is a separate issue from whether there is active discrimination going on. But bear in mind that many private schools receive tax breaks, public student loans, and grant.

I believe admission to academic institutions should be based exclusively on merit. Not exactly a crazy idea, since we pursue higher education to learn and enhance our knowledge of the world, rather than to showcase our athletic prowess.

Universities haven't admitted based exclusively on merit for decades - so in some ways it is a crazy idea since it flies in the face of what has become standard admissions criteria and it's something that everyone applying to college should already know.

And since schools aren't obligated to admit based on merit, their failure to do so doesn't tell us anything about whether or not they are also applying discriminatory practices in their admission criteria. If merit was obligated then failure to apply merit would be a great start for identifying discrimination but it isn't.

I have a hunch that this is the case, as opposed to the admission committee actively discriminating against Asian-Americans. But then again, I don't know for sure because of the lack of transparency in the admission process.

Fair enough.

This isn't legitimate evidence that Harvard is denying Asians admittance because they're Asian. But it's jarring what happens to the composition of a school when affirmative action is banned.

Compare Berkeley, where affirmative action is banned, with Harvard, where it is used. Berkeley's entering class is 39.6% Asian (http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data), while Harvard's is only 20% (https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics).

What's often overlooked there is that California has 3x times the Asian representation in their population compared to the national average (14.6% to 5%). Yet Berkeley only has 2x the Asian representation at their university compared to Harvard - not 3x? And that's taking into account that Berkeley is a public school and so the local Asian population has an economic incentive to apply there. Plus their preference for taking the top kids at California high schools over out-of-state applicants.

It's not compelling enough to me to claim racial capping.

 

[goldennirvana]

Yet more evidence that an ethnically mixed society only creates more problems. But pointing that out is racist & evil.

 

[Rod1]

Muahahaha. My Sri Lankan neighbor is the biggest welfare queen I've ever met. And don't forget that colleges are private companies, they do what they want, they can offer a scholarship to an illegal student if they want to.

Life is not fair but the Indian-American or Chinese-American students who won't get a Harvard spot despite besting the competition will not end up at a party school. Their salaries and careers won't be too severely impacted.

The problem is that their group is screwed over by two policies: AA which favor middle-class Black and Hispanic students and Legacy Admissions which favor rich white students. It's a lot to overcome but if they want to be part of this country, they need to embrace its history. And these policies stem from historical events that drove colleges to change their standards.

It's not just Harvard, and at the end of the day, if a board wants to mould the composition of a freshmen class and cram it with rich kids who didn't deserve to be admitted but their daddies bankrolled a new building or take in a lot black students to get a great basketball team, it's their prerogative. They do what they want with admissions & scholarships.

I'll write it one more time: private companies do what they want.

Private companies cant discriminate based on race.

 

[panamaican]

The only thing I can say is that a lot of people "exaggerate" their involvement in certain activities. You cannot fake a great GPA. But again, if they want to discriminate it's within their rights.

Actually you can fake a great GPA. You can't fake great test scores though.

 

[Rod1]

Yet more evidence that an ethnically mixed society only creates more problems. But pointing that out is racist & evil.

And yet America is on high gear while the rest of the world is stuck at second.