NY Time article on discrimination lawsuit against Harvard

What's an "Asian"? Asia is a very big place. What does a person from Iraq have in common with a person from Japan?

What they have in common is that they are all discriminated against by American universities. 

Another factor to consider is the number of Asian students who live in Asia but come to the US for their college education.

apple44 said:

Yes, but it's also kind of the point of the lawsuit. Asian population in the Ivies is closer to 20%. The suit against Harvard argues that because selective schools such as UC Berkeley are over 40%, the admissions decisions at places like Harvard (which do take into account race) discriminate against Asians.

Private universities generally argue that as long as their decisions do not rely on race alone, and instead on a variety of factors, and that they make an effort to have diverse student bodies, their decision-making is fair. And to date, the courts have supported them in that.

Given the population demographics in California, I doubt that the breakdown of Asian vs White vs ... of UC Berkley applicants is the same as for Harvard.

Gilgul said:

What they have in common is that they are all discriminated against by American universities. 

The job of college admissions is to discriminate. On all kinds of bases. Without discrimination, every applicant would be accepted.

Gilgul is talking about the bad kind of discrimination. I.e., the one he disagrees with.

shoshannah said:

Gilgul said:

What they have in common is that they are all discriminated against by American universities. 

The job of college admissions is to discriminate. On all kids of bases. Without discrimination, every applicant would be accepted.

Just to add to this, outside of state universities, where there usually is a preference for in-state residents, Ivys and other national universities and colleges take many factors into consideration here that simply aren't mentioned above, including sex (women do better than men academically so if only on merit, men, especially white men would be underrepresented), geographic distribution (making sure the class isn't dominated by only the largest states), special requests from departments for a talented person in that field who most likely otherwise wouldn't get in, athletics (variation on prior listing) and then legacies, those who aren't legacies but who's parents will donate a wing to the college, etc.  It is really making a sausage.  We are only looking at race, income and GPA as if those were the only variables here and there are many more.  

The criteria for being admitted to my College when I applied was to be a resident of the geographic area and have an 85% GPA. If one had under an 85% GPA then his or her SAT scores would be factored in. No other criteria!

Essays and recommendations are the two big, hidden factors, invisible to people like us trying to pass judgment on the system. The student who, from the outside, seems like a shoo-in might, in fact, have luke-warm references. 

Just to be clear the stats I quoted for Berkeley do not include International students. 

joan_crystal said:

Another factor to consider is the number of Asian students who live in Asia but come to the US for their college education.

Asian is broken down as Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean,South Asian. Not Iraq but I'm guessing you knew that.

LOST said:

What's an "Asian"? Asia is a very big place. What does a person from Iraq have in common with a person from Japan?

anyone who has had their children applying to college knows that there is a tremendous arbitrariness to the process. 

ml1 said:

anyone who has had their children applying to college knows that there is a tremendous arbitrariness to the process. 

RE: my personal experience, I said in the original post, that the actual GMAT cut-off for Asians (primarily Chinese and Indian students) was 740 and the cut-off for certain other groups was 510, what arbitrariness are we talking about here?

Trust me, other than GMAT and high GPAs, they all had great resumes (again, this is specifically for admission to B-School). 

Here is a brief interview that touches on similar topics: harvard-race-admissions-vijay-jojo-chokal-ingam

My position (a bit unlike that espoused by the interviewee in that video) is that while it is OK to have some bias towards economically disadvantaged kids, it is not OK to have a bias towards economically advantaged kids with lower GPAs / SAT scores (some prep-school Caucasian kids) against economically advantaged kids with higher GPAs (particularly, Asian-Americans) just because, well, kids of 'that' race generally get good GPAs / SAT scores. From what I know (from our local towns), the only area these kids are severely under-represented (as a group) are certain school sports (like football). They have above average representation in areas like debate teams, robotics teams, competition math teams & music & some reasonable representation in sports like tennis. Their English is not bad either - I don't know statistics, but a large proportion of national spelling-bee winners are not Caucasian (though, that does not entirely define good English, of course).

I was motivated to open this thread after I met a couple of super-smart AA kids from Millburn about 8 months ago. They were fantastic, articulate speakers with very well-defined post-college ambitions and one of them had already invented something. So, I was shocked to hear from them that their chances of getting into Harvard or Stanford (their preferred destinations) was next to zero because, well, (according to them) at the most, those schools shall take max 1 Asian American from this school district (ie: AA quota). 

the last point you made about the kids from Millburn suggests an arbitrary process. How do they choose the one kid from a particular HS when they all have great credentials? Possibly a coin flip?

When the vast % of the  applications to any selective school are perfectly well qualified, the process is naturally going to be arbitrary.

ml1 said:

the last point you made about the kids from Millburn suggests an arbitrary process. How do they choose the one kid from a particular HS when they all have great credentials? Possibly a coin flip?

When the vast % of the  applications to any selective school are perfectly well qualified, the process is naturally going to be arbitrary.

ml1: what they implied was that it would be easier if the two of them were not AA. It does not mean necessarily that there were more successful AA kids at their school (in terms of grades only) than non-AA. BTW: the coursework at good colleges (like MIT & Harvard) is quite challenging in certain programs - not all kids from Millburn HS would thrive in that environment. 

My personal dilemma: my oldest kid has now started showing interest in certain colleges (she shall be entering high school next year) for getting into a computer science program (her choice - both parents are in finance). She zeroed in on a particular non-Ivy but good college (having visited her friends' sister there). We had preliminary talks with 2 admissions 'consultants' to learn about the general process of applying. They said, that: (1) that college won't talk to us unless she gets a 3.8 - 4.0 GPA, and (2) that starting number would be around 3.6 - 3.7 if she were Caucasian. Of course, this is not concrete data (just opinions of 2 counselors) but still, I know next to nothing about this process and I'm now a bit alarmed.

So, now, after I let her know what they said, she's asking me why she is under extra pressure to get to 3.9 when most of her classmates don't have that same pressure. I don't know what to tell her.

Perhaps, it is because that the US is so good at not having a bias in the work environment relative to all other countries (just look at the number of high ranking AA professionals in Silicon Valley or even in Wall St or look at doctors in our hospitals) that we are spoiled and incorrectly have our expectations a bit higher?

ml1 said:

the last point you made about the kids from Millburn suggests an arbitrary process. How do they choose the one kid from a particular HS when they all have great credentials? Possibly a coin flip?

When the vast % of the  applications to any selective school are perfectly well qualified, the process is naturally going to be arbitrary.

I'm not sure about Millburn, but my friend from college who went to Bronx Science in the City said that the college counselors there would direct kids to certain schools. Bronx Science is a magnet school for kids all over NYC, so there are many smart and high achieving students. My friend was basically told not to apply to Harvard/Princeton/Yale because they were pushing other kids to those schools, but she could apply to Dartmouth and Brown, both of which she got in. 

GWebb said:

It's not about political correctness at all.  It's about the distribution of resources, wealth, and opportunity within a democratic society, where wealth correlates to power.  Lets say you can bench press more than me.  Are you entitled to more land, wives, chickens, food, and houses?  Seems arbitrary.  I score higher on a test then you.  Am I more deserving of the same spoils.  I've heard it say many times, if Cals state school system admitted solely based on test scores, virtually every school would be +80% asian.  Think of all the tax paying white families not gaining access to those fine state run institutions.  The horror.

 

Yes, but if we both work in the same position in the same company and you are a harder worker and smarter than I am, I would be wrong to complain if that entitles you to a promotion, more money, more power in the company, etc relative to me.

If not, then I'd complain why I need to be 6ft5 and have a mean jump shot to get into the NBA. Why do winners like Tom Brady get a better shot at landing the Gisele Bundchens of the world?

Meritocracy in the US society is one of the main reasons why it has risen up over many others (in the Western world) in terms of innovation and economic growth. Let us not hamper what has worked.

I guess, perhaps, where I'm incorrect (if so) would be in assuming that college is the 1st step in preparation of a career in a meritocratic work environment. I understand that a very large number of us view college as mainly a place to get a holistic education - unfortunately, the currently astronomical college fee structure has made that viewpoint untenable for me.

Slevin said:

I guess, perhaps, where I'm incorrect (if so) would be in assuming that college is the 1st step in preparation of a career in a meritocratic work environment.

I once heard or read someone compare college admissions to casting a play. That means it's still a meritocracy. It's just that competition for certain roles can be especially stiff.

And there's a flip side: The qualities that may have made our son just another white North Jersey kid to competitive schools in the East may have given him an edge in California.

Slevin, with him heading out there as a freshman this week, the experience is fresh in our minds. Your approach already sounds a bit different from my family's, but I'll be glad to share details and/or answer specific questions if you want to PM me.

It may be that the kids ethnically identified as "Asian" or it may be that they were graduating from "Millburn High School."  Colleges have been known to limit the number of students they will accept from any one high school, town, or region of the country in the hopes of having a diverse class.  In my case, I graduated from a highly regarded high school with approximately 2,000 students in my graduating class.  We were advised by our guidance counselors to apply to colleges outside of the northeast to have a better chance of college admission.

Slevin said:

I was motivated to open this thread after I met a couple of super-smart AA kids from Millburn about 8 months ago. They were fantastic, articulate speakers with very well-defined post-college ambitions and one of them had already invented something. So, I was shocked to hear from them that their chances of getting into Harvard or Stanford (their preferred destinations) was next to zero because, well, (according to them) at the most, those schools shall take max 1 Asian American from this school district (ie: AA quota). 

Three points:

1. Regarding "max 1 Asian American from this school district" ... Pure B.S. I live in Millburn. If you want, I can send you the names of every senior over the past five years who got into Harvard and Stanford.

2. Indeed the chances of ANYONE getting into Harvard or Stanford is "next to zero." Literally. In 2017, Harvard's acceptance rate was 5.8%; Stanford's was 4.65%. That's next to zero. Just about every single applicant to these schools is " ... super-smart ... fantastic, articulate speakers with very well-defined post-college ambitions and ... had already invented something."  You are kidding yourself if you think the students you met are somehow different from multiple thousands of students across the country who are applying to these schools.

3. Nobody is entitled to go to Harvard or Stanford. In fact, studies show that students who have the qualities you describe will end up in the same place in life regardless of where they go to college. They can go to Rutgers (likely all-expenses-paid) and be just as successful as they would have been as Harvard grads.

eliz said:

Just to be clear the stats I quoted for Berkeley do not include International students. 

joan_crystal said:

Another factor to consider is the number of Asian students who live in Asia but come to the US for their college education.

Asian is broken down as Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean,South Asian. Not Iraq but I'm guessing you knew that.

LOST said:

What's an "Asian"? Asia is a very big place. What does a person from Iraq have in common with a person from Japan?

No. I thought in included Indians and Pakistanies. Not to mention Cambodians, Laotians, Burmese, Thais.

We do need to define our terms.  Asia is a huge continent and there are many countries other than those mentioned above that are located in Asia.  Even if we discount the countries comprising Asia Minor (which we should not), your listing also excludes India and neighboring countries, countries in the northern mountainous regions of the continent, any of the countries in Central Asia (except for Western China), etc.  Even the countries bordering the South China Sea are not fully represented.  Students who trace their ancestry back to any of these countries are considered Asian by the Federal Government for the purpose of tracking racial groups in demographic studies.  This category is not and should not be limited to students who trace their ancestry back to China and South Korea.

this is similar to what I was trying to say above.  

I'd advise parents going through this with their kids is to try and tone down the pressure.  The kids will likely be better off during junior and senior years without crushing stress over college.

There are lots of successful people who didn't go to Harvard.

shoshannah said:

Slevin said:

I was motivated to open this thread after I met a couple of super-smart AA kids from Millburn about 8 months ago. They were fantastic, articulate speakers with very well-defined post-college ambitions and one of them had already invented something. So, I was shocked to hear from them that their chances of getting into Harvard or Stanford (their preferred destinations) was next to zero because, well, (according to them) at the most, those schools shall take max 1 Asian American from this school district (ie: AA quota). 

Three points:

1. Regarding "max 1 Asian American from this school district" ... Pure B.S. I live in Millburn. If you want, I can send you the names of every senior over the past five years who got into Harvard and Stanford.

2. Indeed the chances of ANYONE getting into Harvard or Stanford is "next to zero." Literally. In 2017, Harvard's acceptance rate was 5.8%; Stanford's was 4.65%. That's next to zero. Just about every single applicant to these schools is " ... super-smart ... fantastic, articulate speakers with very well-defined post-college ambitions and ... had already invented something."  You are kidding yourself if you think the students you met are somehow different from multiple thousands of students across the country who are applying to these schools.


3. Nobody is entitled to go to Harvard or Stanford. In fact, studies show that students who have the qualities you describe will end up in the same place in life regardless of where they go to college. They can go to Rutgers (likely all-expenses-paid) and be just as successful as they would have been as Harvard grads.

I included South Asia. South Asia = India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc.

Israel is in Asia. Are we counting Israelis?

JK. Everyone knows that in this context, Asian means east Asian descent (primarily China, Korea, Taiwan).

shoshannah said:

Everyone knows that in this context, Asian means east Asian descent (primarily China, Korea, Taiwan).

Maybe everyone knows. Maybe everyone doesn't. See: your list vs. eliz's reference to the Indian subcontinent.

I don't think that NY News about harvard is right. It is one of the top universities in Massachusetts as well as in the word. Harvard is coming in top table of the world college and university rankings. Typically 32-35 act score is needed to get admission in university to complete your graduation and they can enroll up to 22000 student at a year.

True

ml1 said:



There are lots of successful people who didn't go to Harvard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

shoshannah said:

Essays and recommendations are the two big, hidden factors, invisible to people like us trying to pass judgment on the system. The student who, from the outside, seems like a shoo-in might, in fact, have luke-warm references. 

Recommendations can be biased too, often reflecting stereotypes. We have heard of a teacher saying, "Asians are good but not the best." 

ETA: Couple of other factors also hold back Asians in admissions to elite universities: Asians are considered as a monolith and often people are not aware of the tremendous cultural as well as socio-economic diversity within the group. I think I read recently that Asians have the highest poverty rate in NYC.  

Asians also lack hooks in college admissions: Most are not legacy and often not from families who have the financial capacity to donate a wing. Their political engagement is nascent and so they are not getting letters of rec. from elected officials etc. 

Quoted from Slevin: "So, now, after I let her know what they said, she's asking me why she is under extra pressure to get to 3.9 when most of her classmates don't have that same pressure. I don't know what to tell her." It seems that one of the problems may be that she is at Millburn HS, where it is hard to stand out as a bright Asian American. Have you considered moving to another school/district? I'm sure that wouldn't be your first choice, but we all make trade offs all the time. Good luck!