Why is it OK to screw with Asians?

[Mr. Deez]

Looks like Harvard is getting sued for discriminating against Asians as part of its affirmative action policy. Link.

For whatever reason, it has become acceptable to cheat Asians on college admissions. If a college was using an arbitrary factor (especially race or ethnicity) that disproportionately kept blacks or Hispanics out, people would lose their minds, but do it to Asians, and it's all good. Looks like we need an Asian Al Sharpton.

Sad.

 

[mchammer]

I came up with a number of responses, but deleted them all as they could be misconstrued as mean or indifferent. Let's just say in identity politics, some are more equal than others.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think the article might require a subscription now, but here's my favorite quote:

"How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT—lower than last year’s Harvard average—an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in."

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Why the hell does anybody still want to attend Harvard in the first place?

 

[nashhorn]

So as I understand this, dictated by quota of affirmative action the Asians performance as a group discriminates against their own group, as in their SAT scores vs general student enrollment scores. That is, as a whole they do so well that any quota established (by school I presume) is met by enough Asians at high level SAT score they exceed the average score - significantly.
Sure does not seem a prob at UT. Walking through school grounds it is quite obvious there is a huge Asian population of students. Judging by the Asian friends my kids had in High School, they probably all did well on test scores also.

 

[Clean]

There shouldn' t be ANY race based admissions.

Too bad that Abigail Fisher's law suit against UT was watered down to the point that colleges can skirt around it.

 

[Dionysus]

There shouldn' t be ANY race based admissions.

+1

 

[Larry T Spider]

Why the hell does anybody still want to attend Harvard in the first place?

I could think of a few reasons....

 

[NJlonghorn]

"How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT—lower than last year’s Harvard average—an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in."

I can't see the entire article because I'm not a subscriber, but I'd like to know whether there was any attempt to control for extra-curricular activities. The top schools all say they strive to balance out the class with kids who are into as many different things as possible. At my son's school, which is around 10% Asian, the high-achieving Asian kids disproportionately participate in the same few activities -- orchestra/band and math/science/robotics competitions. Thus, they are competing against each other for a limited number of admissions slots in those areas. In contrast, the Asian kids who focus their activities in other areas (debate, theater, athletics, etc.) do very well in the admissions game.

There shouldn't be ANY race based admissions.

That sounds nice in theory, but it is a recipe for transforming our socioeconomic race gap from "deep rooted" to "permanent".

Why the hell does anybody still want to attend Harvard in the first place?

HYPS are still the best thing going in the college world. In addition to excellent classroom instruction and unrivaled research opportunities, those four universities are packed with students who are incredibly smart and who worked their asses off to get there. Living in such an intellectual, motivated environment generates a spectacular education, and opens doors to just about everything. It isn't for everyone (definitely not for me -- I'm neither smart enough nor motivated enough), but it is easy to see the attraction.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Because Asians don't complain.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I can't see the entire article because I'm not a subscriber, but I'd like to know whether there was any attempt to control for extra-curricular activities. The top schools all say they strive to balance out the class with kids who are into as many different things as possible. At my son's school, which is around 10% Asian, the high-achieving Asian kids disproportionately participate in the same few activities -- orchestra/band and math/science/robotics competitions. Thus, they are competing against each other for a limited number of admissions slots in those areas. In contrast, the Asian kids who focus their activities in other areas (debate, theater, athletics, etc.) do very well in the admissions game.

NJ, it says "all else bring equal," so I assume the study accounts for extracurricular activities. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty messed up if extracurricular activities make that big of a difference that one would have to score that much better on the SAT to balance it out. Extracurricular activities should tip the scales between two otherwise equally qualified applicants. It shouldn't be the dominant factor.

I also think the activities Asians stereotypically choose should be major advantages. It's a lot tougher to be the concert master violinist in an orchestra than to be in the checkers club.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I think it's pretty messed up if extracurricular activities make that big of a difference that one would have to score that much better on the SAT to balance it out. Extracurricular activities should tip the scales between two otherwise equally qualified applicants. It shouldn't be the dominant factor.

The goal of a top university (I'm focusing on the legendary HYPS, but the same is true of any top-tier school) is not simply to provide the best possible book-education to those students who are best able to absorb a book-education. Instead, the goal is to take kids who are positioned to be future innovators, leaders, thinkers, etc., and give them the tools then need to achieve greatness in whatever venture they may ultimately pursue

If it wanted to, Harvard could fill its freshman classes many times over with students who have 4.0 GPAs and 2400 SATs. Instead, they choose to look deeply at other factors, admitting kids who have demonstrated exceptional leadership, initiative, creativity, or whatever, while simultaneously showing that they have enough smarts to handle the curriculum. Many brilliant kids get turned down in favor of less-smart (but still plenty smart) kids who did something impressive in high school. In my book, that makes sense, both for Harvard and for the nation as a whole.

I also think the activities Asians stereotypically choose should be major advantages. It's a lot tougher to be the concert master violinist in an orchestra than to be in the checkers club.

Being concert master should (and does) count for more -- way more -- than being in the checkers club. Not surprisingly, a huge percentage of students at HYPS play classical instruments. But those schools don't want to become music schools. They want a body of students with a variety of backgrounds, interests and experiences. Kids who compete nationally in debate, captain an athletics team, start a small business, or volunteer time as a firefighter, all while simultaneously maintaining a good academic record, deserve a shot over yet another violinist.

 

[UTChE96]

That sounds nice in theory, but it is a recipe for transforming our socioeconomic race gap from "deep rooted" to "permanent".

Somewhat of ironic post. Asians have never benefited from institutionalized advantages that so many in the African-American community are always complaining about. Yet Asians seem to be prospering just fine in America without all the advantages of affirmative action. I wonder why that is.......

 

[Mr. Deez]

The goal of a top university (I'm focusing on the legendary HYPS, but the same is true of any top-tier school) is not simply to provide the best possible book-education to those students who are best able to absorb a book-education. Instead, the goal is to take kids who are positioned to be future innovators, leaders, thinkers, etc., and give them the tools then need to achieve greatness in whatever venture they may ultimately pursue

If it wanted to, Harvard could fill its freshman classes many times over with students who have 4.0 GPAs and 2400 SATs. Instead, they choose to look deeply at other factors, admitting kids who have demonstrated exceptional leadership, initiative, creativity, or whatever, while simultaneously showing that they have enough smarts to handle the curriculum. Many brilliant kids get turned down in favor of less-smart (but still plenty smart) kids who did something impressive in high school. In my book, that makes sense, both for Harvard and for the nation as a whole.

Being concert master should (and does) count for more -- way more -- than being in the checkers club. Not surprisingly, a huge percentage of students at HYPS play classical instruments. But those schools don't want to become music schools. They want a body of students with a variety of backgrounds, interests and experiences. Kids who compete nationally in debate, captain an athletics team, start a small business, or volunteer time as a firefighter, all while simultaneously maintaining a good academic record, deserve a shot over yet another violinist.

NJ, I understand where you're coming from, and you make good sense. My point isn't necessarily that admissions should be based on per se academic rules. I recognize that there's a valid interest beyond just "book smartedeness" when it comes to admissions. However, we teach children that their academic performance will be the predominant factor when it comes to college admissions, and it should be that way. The extracurricular activities should be tipping the scales. They shouldn't be driving them. Nevertheless, respectfully, this is a bit of a side issue. The fight isn't over extracurricular activities harming the Asians in admissions. It's over race discrimination harming them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Somewhat of ironic post. Asians have never benefited from institutionalized advantages that so many in the African-American community are always complaining about. Yet Asians seem to be prospering just fine in America without all the advantages of affirmative action. I wonder why that is.......

Asians didn't need the institutionalized advantages because their circumstances are different. Because of our immigration laws, a disproportionate number of Asian immigrants to the United States are intelligent and well-educated. That rubs off, both genetically and environmentally.

Kids born into certain cultures often lack these advantages. Their situation is possible to overcome, but only with supreme effort. I don't think there is anything wrong with recognizing that they face tougher odds than others, and making up some of the difference by giving them advantages in college admissions. Even with these advantages, they will still have to work harder than you and I do if they want to succeed. If you don't believe that, you are kidding yourself.

For what it's worth, I'm not comfortable with basing the leg-up on race. I'd prefer that it be based on factors that are more directly relevant, such as parental education level, neighborhood economics, or family income. Cliff Huxtable's kids don't need an edge in admissions.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Nevertheless, respectfully, this is a bit of a side issue. The fight isn't over extracurricular activities harming the Asians in admissions. It's over race discrimination harming them.

Perhaps, but I'm not 100% convinced of that. The fact that Asian admits have better SAT/GPA stats than white admits may be due to discrimination against them, or it may be because the universities value different things in the admissions process than you do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Perhaps, but I'm not 100% convinced of that. The fact that Asian admits have better SAT/GPA stats than white admits may be due to discrimination against them, or it may be because the universities value different things in the admissions process than you do.

I'm not necessarily convinced of it either, but that's what's at issue in the lawsuit. We'll just see how it shakes out.

 

[theiioftx]

NJ - spoken like a true liberal. Always blame someone other than the person responsible.

 

[NJlonghorn]

NJ - spoken like a true liberal. Always blame someone other than the person responsible.

When I see a poor kid with an absentee dad and a mom who works three jobs, and that kid manages to overcome the odds by getting a 3.6 GPA and a 2000 on his SAT despite putting in 20 hours a week doing community service for his church, I am open-minded enough to see that he deserves a slot at Harvard -- even if that means turning down other kids who, with the full support (financial and personal) of two parents, get a 4.0 and a 2400 while excelling in the orchestra.

I don't think I'm blaming anyone for anything. To the contrary, I'm looking to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Mr. Deez]

When I see a poor kid with an absentee dad and a mom who works three jobs, and that kid manages to overcome the odds by getting a 3.6 GPA and a 2000 on his SAT despite putting in 20 hours a week doing community service for his church, I am open-minded enough to see that he deserves a slot at Harvard -- even if that means turning down other kids who, with the full support (financial and personal) of two parents, get a 4.0 and a 2400 while excelling in the orchestra.

I don't think I'm blaming anyone for anything. To the contrary, I'm looking to give credit where credit is due.

NJ, I understand where you're coming from, and frankly, I feel weird taking issue with you. I rarely think you get something wrong or even as in this case, not 100 percent right. But really think about this. First, you don't have to bring race into the equation to serve the interest you're advocating. I'm not saying that you are, but Harvard at least allegedly did.

Second, depart from the conventional trend of group and identity politics for a moment, and look at this from the individual level. In other words, put yourself into the Asian kid's shoes. It's not his fault that his parents are around or even that they had money. Why should that be a disadvantage for him, especially to the tune of 450 SAT points? What did he do or fail to do that warrants such a disadvantage? (And again, keep in mind that no one has established that the Asians at issue were from good families, had money, or came from less diverse extracurricular activities, nor has anyone established that black, Hispanic, and white kids at issue came from worse backgrounds. We're speculating that they did, even though the article itself said the disadvantage was present when all other factors were equal. We're taking a leap that's in conflict with what the article actually says.)

Third, it isn't as though the kid in your scenario is without options if he doesn't go to Harvard and is going to be stuck in the ghetto. He's not going to get stuck a junior college. He's not going to have to settle for a crappy school like UT-Dallas where I went to college. He's going to get into someplace good and probably on a full ride, and that will happen without shoving aside the Asian kid who had the audacity to be born into a family with two parents and got good grades. That just doesn't seem fair.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Deez,

I share your discomfort with going "head to head" because more often than not we either agree or mostly agree. That said, I find your arguments more challenging and thought provoking than others', so I appreciate the dialog when we do disagree.

First, you don't have to bring race into the equation to serve the interest you're advocating. I'm not saying that you are, but Harvard at least allegedly did.

I agree with you on this. As I said above, "For what it's worth, I'm not comfortable with basing the leg-up on race. I'd prefer that it be based on factors that are more directly relevant, such as parental education level, neighborhood economics, or family income. Cliff Huxtable's kids don't need an edge in admissions." If it truly is the case that being Asian, on its own, is counted as a demerit in an application, I have a problem with that. I just am not convinced that that is what is happening here. I think there is a large degree to which Asian kids' applications resemble one another so closely that it forces HYPS to look elsewhere to avoid overly homogenous classes. This is an inherently subjective analysis, so it is hard to imagine how a study could be controlled.

Second, depart from the conventional trend of group and identity politics for a moment, and look at this from the individual level. In other words, put yourself into the Asian kid's shoes. It's not his fault that his parents are around or even that they had money. Why should that be a disadvantage for him, especially to the tune of 450 SAT points? What did he do or fail to do that warrants such a disadvantage?

Consider two runners. One runs a 4:20 mile in ratty shoes on a rocky track in the south, with 105 degree temperatures and a stiff breeze off the coast. The other runs a 4:10 mile on a top-quality track with top-quality shoes in the thin atmosphere of Breckenridge (elevation 1.95 miles), with 65 degree temperatures and still air. Who's the better runner, more likely to be recruited by a college track program? You would never just look at the time.

GPAs and SATs are harder to break down, but also very contextual. It is oversimplified to say that the Asian kid has a disadvantage just because he has to get a higher GPA and SAT. When you review the full application, he just may be beaten out by another kid, who has a lower GPA and SAT but who accomplished something more impressive and who is more deserving of a shot. The process is inherently subjective, but you can't fairly compare results without considering circumstances.

For what it's worth, I don't have to put myself in the Asian kid's shoes. My son is a HS senior and recently went through the college application gristmill. If he were black or Hispanic, or came from impoverished or uneducated parents, he would have gotten into his top choice as an early applicant and could have taken the winter and spring off. Instead, he had to sweat out the process. We understood all along that the admissions game is a crapshoot for white middle-classers like us, and we didn't know where he would end up until the very end.

Third, it isn't as though the kid in your scenario is without options if he doesn't go to Harvard and is going to be stuck in the ghetto. He's not going to get stuck a junior college. He's not going to have to settle for a crappy school like UT-Dallas where I went to college. He's going to get into someplace good and probably on a full ride.

True. But UT-Dallas isn't UT-Austin, and UT-Austin isn't Michigan, and Michigan ins't Vanderbilt, and Vanderbilt isn't Duke, and Duke isn't Harvard. There are real differences between those schools in terms of both education and opportunities. The best candidates deserve to get into the best schools. We just disagree about who the best candidates are.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

I'm not familiar with Harvard's admissions requirements, but I doubt they are primarily based on test scores with extracurriculars being the deciding factor among similar high scores. I'd lose some level of respect if it were that narrow minded.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If it truly is the case that being Asian, on its own, is counted as a demerit in an application, I have a problem with that. I just am not convinced that that is what is happening here.

I'm glad we agree that the policies should be race/ethnicity neutral, but I'm not sure why you have a hard time believing that Harvard's might not be. As you're well aware, that very issue has been litigated several times, and institutions use race and ethnicity as factors routinely.

GPAs and SATs are harder to break down, but also very contextual. It is oversimplified to say that the Asian kid has a disadvantage just because he has to get a higher GPA and SAT. When you review the full application, he just may be beaten out by another kid, who has a lower GPA and SAT but who accomplished something more impressive and who is more deserving of a shot. The process is inherently subjective, but you can't fairly compare results without considering circumstances.

I understand your point, and it's well taken, and I'll omit the racial and ethnic references since we have no disagreement there. A kid from a broken family excelling academically and a kid from a solid family excelling academically aren't the same. The kid from the broken home has pulled off a bigger accomplishment. That's a subjective factor (since we can't measure "brokenness"), and I understand why it should be considered. However, I think a line does have to be drawn somewhere to give effect to the objective factors. At some point, the kid from the bad background of whatever race or ethnicity should have to adapt to some objective and academic standard to maintain the integrity of the admissions process and ultimately the academic excellence of the university. Where is that point? I think that's a debatable issue, but I think the point does have to exist.

 

[texas_ex2000]

The goal of a top university (I'm focusing on the legendary HYPS, but the same is true of any top-tier school) is not simply to provide the best possible book-education to those students who are best able to absorb a book-education. Instead, the goal is to take kids who are positioned to be future innovators, leaders, thinkers, etc., and give them the tools then need to achieve greatness in whatever venture they may ultimately pursue

If it wanted to, Harvard could fill its freshman classes many times over with students who have 4.0 GPAs and 2400 SATs. Instead, they choose to look deeply at other factors, admitting kids who have demonstrated exceptional leadership, initiative, creativity, or whatever, while simultaneously showing that they have enough smarts to handle the curriculum. Many brilliant kids get turned down in favor of less-smart (but still plenty smart) kids who did something impressive in high school. In my book, that makes sense, both for Harvard and for the nation as a whole.



Being concert master should (and does) count for more -- way more -- than being in the checkers club. Not surprisingly, a huge percentage of students at HYPS play classical instruments. But those schools don't want to become music schools. They want a body of students with a variety of backgrounds, interests and experiences. Kids who compete nationally in debate, captain an athletics team, start a small business, or volunteer time as a firefighter, all while simultaneously maintaining a good academic record, deserve a shot over yet another violinist.

NJ has it right here. It's not all about test scores. Someone who argues singularly about test scores would make me want to decline them even more because when they say "education" we're not talking about the same thing. HYPS want smart, well rounded, curious, creative, charming, interesting kids who have the charisma to potentially become leaders. While someone with all of those factors could potentially have a perfect GPA and SAT score, it's highly unlikely given the massive amount of time it would take to just master taking a test and achieving perfect grades. I can tell you that Asian families want that Ivy education so bad for their kids, the drilling to create what they perceive to be a perfect applicant hurts the development of the rest of their kid's character.

And it's not even about extracurriculars, tie-breaker or otherwise. An Asian kid that's 1st chair violin - while that's an accomplishment, a lot of kids accomplish things. I want to know is that kid passionate about classical music. What drives them to master their instrument? Who is their favorite composer? Can they articulate how classical music has influenced modern music? Did they have a leadership moment to rally his/her orchestra buddies during a competition? The answer of "I mastered the violin because I needed an extracurricular to get into Yale," is the wrong answer.

Assuming they have the scores and the grades demonstrating the required intelligence to be successful, and there are more applicants than spots for everyone who just has that, I think an applicant's essay is by far the most important part of evaluating a kid. What is their voice? Do they even have one? In an ironic way, Asian parents get that. They want to send their kids to Western schools. But culturally, it's tough because it requires giving your kids freedom to pursue their curiosities which goes against a lot of Asian cultural norms, e.g. the supremacy of parental authority.

Now, to be fair, a lot of 1st and 2nd generation Asian Americans (fast growing demographic) are just as charismatic, well rounded, creative, etc. as any other American kid. But the big threat to these applicants are others/admissions staff getting past what I hate to call stereotypes, but what most Asian kids coming over here were like before their families assimilated to American culture.

 

[NJlonghorn]

NJ has it right here. It's not all about test scores. Someone who argues singularly about test scores would make me want to decline them even more because when they say "education" we're not talking about the same thing. HYPS want smart, well rounded, curious, creative, charming, interesting kids who have the charisma to potentially become leaders. While someone with all of those factors could potentially have a perfect GPA and SAT score, it's highly unlikely given the massive amount of time it would take to just master taking a test and achieving perfect grades. I can tell you that Asian families want that Ivy education so bad for their kids, the drilling to create what they perceive to be a perfect applicant hurts the development of the rest of their kid's character.

And it's not even about extracurriculars, tie-breaker or otherwise. An Asian kid that's 1st chair violin - while that's an accomplishment, a lot of kids accomplish things. I want to know is that kid passionate about classical music. What drives them to master their instrument? Who is their favorite composer? Can they articulate how classical music has influenced modern music? Did they have a leadership moment to rally his/her orchestra buddies during a competition? The answer of "I mastered the violin because I needed an extracurricular to get into Yale," is the wrong answer.

Assuming they have the scores and the grades demonstrating the required intelligence to be successful, and there are more applicants than spots for everyone who just has that, I think an applicant's essay is by far the most important part of evaluating a kid. What is their voice? Do they even have one? In an ironic way, Asian parents get that. They want to send their kids to Western schools. But culturally, it's tough because it requires giving your kids freedom to pursue their curiosities which goes against a lot of Asian cultural norms, e.g. the supremacy of parental authority.

Now, to be fair, a lot of 1st and 2nd generation Asian Americans (fast growing demographic) are just as charismatic, well rounded, creative, etc. as any other American kid. But the big threat to these applicants is breaking past what I hate to call stereotypes, but what most Asian kids coming over here were like before their families assimilated to American culture.

It sounds like you've sat through the same lectures and read the same brochures I have. You nailed it much better than I ever could.