Harvard records show discrimination against Asian-Americans
- Thread starter WTTCHMN
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
That unfortunately is the crux of the issue. Harvard had 42,000 applicants. Schools like UCLA are even worse. Of those applying to Harvard, probably north of 40,000 had test scores and class grades that indicate they could handle the curriculum.
Many want the 2400 test score to be admitted before the kid with 2370 or gasp, a 2200 even though the kid with the 2400 has had four if not more years of SAT boot camps to prepare for the test.
Here's a rather simple question which shows greater merit? The kid that did several years of SAT prep camps to prepare and achieve a 2400 after multiple test attempts or the kid that achieved a 2200 or even 2000 taking the SAT once? Without attending multiple prep camps?
Unfortunately, that is NOT the crux of this issue and to state so shows a gross misunderstanding of the case.
The issue at trial is whether Harvard systematically discriminated against Asians.
Yes, Asians in aggregate had higher grades and test scores, but also more extra-curricular activities and leadership roles than other ethnic groups.
Yet, inexplicably, they were uniformly rated lower in "personality" than whites and other ethnicities.
The plantiffs allege that Harvard used this fudge factor to discriminate against Asians and pull down their acceptance rate.
Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
there seems to be an unspoken assumption in this post and other posts that:
1) the only thing that Asian kids have going for them is high grades and test scores
2) the only reason why these high achieving Asian kids have these high test scores is because they went through years of SAT prep classes, giving them an unfair advantage and not a true representation of their abilities.
3) Asian kids come from rich families that are able to give them an unfair leg up with prep classes, tutoring, etc.
Wrong.
1) The Harvard applications of Asian kids have been shown to be higher achieving not only on academics but also extracurricular achievement. And on academics, its not just SAT and other standardized test scores, but other forms of academic achievement. Doing original research, getting published, winning national competitions, etc. It is only through the use of "personality'' scorings that Harvard has managed to dock their applications. Hmm, how much more subjective can you get? Believe me, you would be shocked at the way people talk when it comes time to discuss applicants at alumni interview committee. "this kid is incredible--how can they do it? They must be a robot, or have no social skills, because otherwise where do they find the time to do all this?" Again, lumping all Asians into one monolithic category. It is beyond a doubt that Asian kids are held to a higher standard when we discuss the merits of individual applicants in committee. Sometimes it is very hard for an Asian high achiever to stand out as memorable from all the other superachievers, even from the perspective of an Asian alumni interviewer.
2) Not all Asian kids are privileged and not all of them do years and years of test prep cramming. People here in Orange County have a skewed perception of the Asian population when the news keeps on harping about rich Chinese buying million dollar houses for cash so their kids can attend Irvine schools. But in reality, Asians are not a homogeneous monolithic group and there are plenty from working class families, refugees, etc that are unfairly getting lumped in with the "model minority" and being subjected to the same handicap on their applications due to an assumption of privilege. People sometimes equate "Asian" to East Asian Chinese, Koreans and Japanese, but actually, there's a lot of South East Asians and Pacific islanders that do not fit that stereotype.
I'm for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic factors, not race.
I'm also for dismantling legacy admissions privilege, even though my own kids would benefit from that.
There is no reason why an African American or Latino kid from an upper/upper middle class family should be given a boost over a poor/working class white or Asian kid, unless we are all OK with open and blatant racial quotas.
Interestingly, a significant proportion of the black and Latino kids I knew at Harvard were from educated upper middle class families, or were international students (parents were powerful, well connected business people or politicians in their home countries). So the idea of affirmative action as "pay back" for historical inequities of slavery/discrimination in the United States is not exactly being put to use in the fashion it was designed for. But you better believe that it allowed Harvard to check off their "diversity box" when publishing their statistics on their incoming class.
Anyway, Harvard is over-rated, especially on the West Coast and even more so in SoCal.
I try not to blanket the kids I interview. But due to where I live, they're all Irvine Asian kids. In the decade or so since I've been doing this, most of them are pretty "unremarkable", "unmemorable" and "boring". But every year, I interview one or two Irvine Asian kids that are above and beyond. I can usually tell within minutes of meeting them, and it must also come across loud and clear in their application materials, because they're the ones that always get in.
I suppose the argument here is "would the other dozen or so "unremarkable" kids have gotten in if they weren't asian?". I have no idea, but I wasn't that impressed so I can't see why the application committees would be.
honest question, would these "unremarkable" Asian high achievers be "unremarkable" if they had similar stats and extracurriculars/recommendations but were of a different race? or would your committee be gushing about how much they have achieved and are a clear admit?
to be honest, no one has ever stood out to me as a clear admit in the years that I've been doing this.
I'm beyond my 20th reunion.
Honestly? Don't know. But using Harvard as an example, and using Irvine as the case since this is Talk Irvine.... Harvard has a 4.59% admit rate. How many Uni seniors are Harvard material? 25?? So 1.14 get in. Unfortunately, if you happen to be in a graduating class with a freak of nature genius or an academic sports superstar, that one spot may go to that person and not you. Or maybe Harvard takes 2 and you get in too.
But if you (collectively you, not YOU you) are worried, don't worry, Mimi Walters is on your side. Just got a flyer... she's a UCLA grad and a mother of 4 and is OUTRAGED for Asian American students in her district being discriminated against in university admission!!!! OUTRAGED!!!
Harvard calls it "sparse country":
"According to a map projected on screens in the packed courtroom, sparse country includes 20 mainly rural states like Montana, South Dakota, Alabama and West Virginia, where relatively few students, even those with excellent grades, tend to apply to elite universities like Harvard."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-americans.html
Ha ha ? this is too funny . Mimi Walters and her flyers ...
It is a stupid question. No one will know how many times someone tried to take the test. Some could also argue that someone who cared enough to take it multiple times to get a better score is a hard worker whose efforts should be rewarded.
LOL, hey we agree.
Seriously, though, I'm curious what the non-subjective criteria would be?
As for your unremarkable Asian kid in Irvine being remarkable elsewhere, it depends. JIMHO, If they're Whitey in an Irvinesque suburb of Whiteville, no they look pretty unremarkable. If they're Whitey coming out of Podunk USA, then yes, they are. But then again, as Asian in Podunk, they'll be even more remarkable, IMHO.
Harvard or the other Ivies, even the UC system to a lessor extent isn't about the curriculum.
Going back to your prior post
Is this quantity over quality? Are 3 extra-curricular activities 3X as good as 1? Is there a weighting factor on the time commitment, type, accomplishments of the EC? What's the marginal benefit, to Harvard of each extracurricular activity and or additional EC? Does the perceived value of the EC change if the school has several very similar EC groups? Size of the EC? If the EC meets once a month and doesn't really do anything?
What's non-subjective process to sort out reality from resume fluff, passion from application check boxing? For the typical Ivy applicant claiming concert level musician, President of the Student Association, President of the pre-Med club, internship original research, math tutor of the underprivileged and a volunteer at the food bank?
Much like a job interview, once you've gotten the interview, it's not really about your accomplishments and competency, those are just chits to convince the interviewers not that you're the best, but that you're the one to make the team the best. That's what the admit class really is, the Harvard team 20XX.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
freedomcm said:
That unfortunately is the crux of the issue. Harvard had 42,000 applicants. Schools like UCLA are even worse. Of those applying to Harvard, probably north of 40,000 had test scores and class grades that indicate they could handle the curriculum.
Many want the 2400 test score to be admitted before the kid with 2370 or gasp, a 2200 even though the kid with the 2400 has had four if not more years of SAT boot camps to prepare for the test.
Here's a rather simple question which shows greater merit? The kid that did several years of SAT prep camps to prepare and achieve a 2400 after multiple test attempts or the kid that achieved a 2200 or even 2000 taking the SAT once? Without attending multiple prep camps?
nosuchreality said:
Unfortunately, that is NOT the crux of this issue and to state so shows a gross misunderstanding of the case.
The issue at trial is whether Harvard systematically discriminated against Asians.
Yes, Asians in aggregate had higher grades and test scores, but also more extra-curricular activities and leadership roles than other ethnic groups.
Yet, inexplicably, they were uniformly rated lower in "personality" than whites and other ethnicities.
The plantiffs allege that Harvard used this fudge factor to discriminate against Asians and pull down their acceptance rate.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
WTTCHMN said:
Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
nosuchreality said:
there seems to be an unspoken assumption in this post and other posts that:
1) the only thing that Asian kids have going for them is high grades and test scores
2) the only reason why these high achieving Asian kids have these high test scores is because they went through years of SAT prep classes, giving them an unfair advantage and not a true representation of their abilities.
3) Asian kids come from rich families that are able to give them an unfair leg up with prep classes, tutoring, etc.
Wrong.
1) The Harvard applications of Asian kids have been shown to be higher achieving not only on academics but also extracurricular achievement. And on academics, its not just SAT and other standardized test scores, but other forms of academic achievement. Doing original research, getting published, winning national competitions, etc. It is only through the use of "personality'' scorings that Harvard has managed to dock their applications. Hmm, how much more subjective can you get? Believe me, you would be shocked at the way people talk when it comes time to discuss applicants at alumni interview committee. "this kid is incredible--how can they do it? They must be a robot, or have no social skills, because otherwise where do they find the time to do all this?" Again, lumping all Asians into one monolithic category. It is beyond a doubt that Asian kids are held to a higher standard when we discuss the merits of individual applicants in committee. Sometimes it is very hard for an Asian high achiever to stand out as memorable from all the other superachievers, even from the perspective of an Asian alumni interviewer.
2) Not all Asian kids are privileged and not all of them do years and years of test prep cramming. People here in Orange County have a skewed perception of the Asian population when the news keeps on harping about rich Chinese buying million dollar houses for cash so their kids can attend Irvine schools. But in reality, Asians are not a homogeneous monolithic group and there are plenty from working class families, refugees, etc that are unfairly getting lumped in with the "model minority" and being subjected to the same handicap on their applications due to an assumption of privilege. People sometimes equate "Asian" to East Asian Chinese, Koreans and Japanese, but actually, there's a lot of South East Asians and Pacific islanders that do not fit that stereotype.
I'm for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic factors, not race.
I'm also for dismantling legacy admissions privilege, even though my own kids would benefit from that.
There is no reason why an African American or Latino kid from an upper/upper middle class family should be given a boost over a poor/working class white or Asian kid, unless we are all OK with open and blatant racial quotas.
Interestingly, a significant proportion of the black and Latino kids I knew at Harvard were from educated upper middle class families, or were international students (parents were powerful, well connected business people or politicians in their home countries). So the idea of affirmative action as "pay back" for historical inequities of slavery/discrimination in the United States is not exactly being put to use in the fashion it was designed for. But you better believe that it allowed Harvard to check off their "diversity box" when publishing their statistics on their incoming class.
Anyway, Harvard is over-rated, especially on the West Coast and even more so in SoCal.
nosuchreality said:Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
I try not to blanket the kids I interview. But due to where I live, they're all Irvine Asian kids. In the decade or so since I've been doing this, most of them are pretty "unremarkable", "unmemorable" and "boring". But every year, I interview one or two Irvine Asian kids that are above and beyond. I can usually tell within minutes of meeting them, and it must also come across loud and clear in their application materials, because they're the ones that always get in.
I suppose the argument here is "would the other dozen or so "unremarkable" kids have gotten in if they weren't asian?". I have no idea, but I wasn't that impressed so I can't see why the application committees would be.
bones said:nosuchreality said:Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
I try not to blanket the kids I interview. But due to where I live, they're all Irvine Asian kids. In the decade or so since I've been doing this, most of them are pretty "unremarkable", "unmemorable" and "boring". But every year, I interview one or two Irvine Asian kids that are above and beyond. I can usually tell within minutes of meeting them, and it must also come across loud and clear in their application materials, because they're the ones that always get in.
I suppose the argument here is "would the other dozen or so "unremarkable" kids have gotten in if they weren't asian?". I have no idea, but I wasn't that impressed so I can't see why the application committees would be.
honest question, would these "unremarkable" Asian high achievers be "unremarkable" if they had similar stats and extracurriculars/recommendations but were of a different race? or would your committee be gushing about how much they have achieved and are a clear admit?
to be honest, no one has ever stood out to me as a clear admit in the years that I've been doing this.
I'm beyond my 20th reunion.
misme said:bones said:nosuchreality said:Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
I try not to blanket the kids I interview. But due to where I live, they're all Irvine Asian kids. In the decade or so since I've been doing this, most of them are pretty "unremarkable", "unmemorable" and "boring". But every year, I interview one or two Irvine Asian kids that are above and beyond. I can usually tell within minutes of meeting them, and it must also come across loud and clear in their application materials, because they're the ones that always get in.
I suppose the argument here is "would the other dozen or so "unremarkable" kids have gotten in if they weren't asian?". I have no idea, but I wasn't that impressed so I can't see why the application committees would be.
honest question, would these "unremarkable" Asian high achievers be "unremarkable" if they had similar stats and extracurriculars/recommendations but were of a different race? or would your committee be gushing about how much they have achieved and are a clear admit?
to be honest, no one has ever stood out to me as a clear admit in the years that I've been doing this.
I'm beyond my 20th reunion.
Honestly? Don't know. But using Harvard as an example, and using Irvine as the case since this is Talk Irvine.... Harvard has a 4.59% admit rate. How many Uni seniors are Harvard material? 25?? So 1.14 get in. Unfortunately, if you happen to be in a graduating class with a freak of nature genius or an academic sports superstar, that one spot may go to that person and not you. Or maybe Harvard takes 2 and you get in too.
But if you (collectively you, not YOU you) are worried, don't worry, Mimi Walters is on your side. Just got a flyer... she's a UCLA grad and a mother of 4 and is OUTRAGED for Asian American students in her district being discriminated against in university admission!!!! OUTRAGED!!!
I suggest that all parents who own a house in Irvine for the sake of their kids' schooling should immediately sell and move to Montana, or Compton, or the Central Valley. Or move abroad and educate your kids in the expat/international school system. If you want to game the system for college admissions that is.
Also, preferably have your kid do an obscure sport and get really good at it.
Male synchronized swimming anybody?
Alpine yodeling and goat herding?
Anything to stand out...
Also, preferably have your kid do an obscure sport and get really good at it.
Male synchronized swimming anybody?
Alpine yodeling and goat herding?
Anything to stand out...
misme said:
Harvard calls it "sparse country":
"According to a map projected on screens in the packed courtroom, sparse country includes 20 mainly rural states like Montana, South Dakota, Alabama and West Virginia, where relatively few students, even those with excellent grades, tend to apply to elite universities like Harvard."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-americans.html
bones said:misme said:bones said:nosuchreality said:Formulaic is not personality. Following a checklist is neither original nor personality.
Seriously, look at Uni high and all the resume padding clubs. That's what they really are, resume padding clubs.
Unfortunately, that means the people coming to interview the kids at Uni or the other area schools see a bunch of high achieving grinders that look very similar.
Seriously, how many of the kids that graduated from Uni last year had the chops to actually do the curriculum at Harvard? Each of them is a unique and precious California flower.
I try not to blanket the kids I interview. But due to where I live, they're all Irvine Asian kids. In the decade or so since I've been doing this, most of them are pretty "unremarkable", "unmemorable" and "boring". But every year, I interview one or two Irvine Asian kids that are above and beyond. I can usually tell within minutes of meeting them, and it must also come across loud and clear in their application materials, because they're the ones that always get in.
I suppose the argument here is "would the other dozen or so "unremarkable" kids have gotten in if they weren't asian?". I have no idea, but I wasn't that impressed so I can't see why the application committees would be.
honest question, would these "unremarkable" Asian high achievers be "unremarkable" if they had similar stats and extracurriculars/recommendations but were of a different race? or would your committee be gushing about how much they have achieved and are a clear admit?
to be honest, no one has ever stood out to me as a clear admit in the years that I've been doing this.
I'm beyond my 20th reunion.
Honestly? Don't know. But using Harvard as an example, and using Irvine as the case since this is Talk Irvine.... Harvard has a 4.59% admit rate. How many Uni seniors are Harvard material? 25?? So 1.14 get in. Unfortunately, if you happen to be in a graduating class with a freak of nature genius or an academic sports superstar, that one spot may go to that person and not you. Or maybe Harvard takes 2 and you get in too.
But if you (collectively you, not YOU you) are worried, don't worry, Mimi Walters is on your side. Just got a flyer... she's a UCLA grad and a mother of 4 and is OUTRAGED for Asian American students in her district being discriminated against in university admission!!!! OUTRAGED!!!
Ha ha ? this is too funny . Mimi Walters and her flyers ...
Irvine Dream
New member
nosuchreality said:
It is a stupid question. No one will know how many times someone tried to take the test. Some could also argue that someone who cared enough to take it multiple times to get a better score is a hard worker whose efforts should be rewarded.
Irvine Dream
New member
Oh Shit, no women (Asian or otherwise) can get in then. Bones should thank her lucky stars she got in prior to this criteriaHappiness said:
nosuchreality
Well-known member
misme said:
LOL, hey we agree.
Seriously, though, I'm curious what the non-subjective criteria would be?
As for your unremarkable Asian kid in Irvine being remarkable elsewhere, it depends. JIMHO, If they're Whitey in an Irvinesque suburb of Whiteville, no they look pretty unremarkable. If they're Whitey coming out of Podunk USA, then yes, they are. But then again, as Asian in Podunk, they'll be even more remarkable, IMHO.
Harvard or the other Ivies, even the UC system to a lessor extent isn't about the curriculum.
Going back to your prior post
Is this quantity over quality? Are 3 extra-curricular activities 3X as good as 1? Is there a weighting factor on the time commitment, type, accomplishments of the EC? What's the marginal benefit, to Harvard of each extracurricular activity and or additional EC? Does the perceived value of the EC change if the school has several very similar EC groups? Size of the EC? If the EC meets once a month and doesn't really do anything?
What's non-subjective process to sort out reality from resume fluff, passion from application check boxing? For the typical Ivy applicant claiming concert level musician, President of the Student Association, President of the pre-Med club, internship original research, math tutor of the underprivileged and a volunteer at the food bank?
Much like a job interview, once you've gotten the interview, it's not really about your accomplishments and competency, those are just chits to convince the interviewers not that you're the best, but that you're the one to make the team the best. That's what the admit class really is, the Harvard team 20XX.