If you use a metric-based approach, some groups are going to have higher rejection rates than other groups.
If you use a holistic approach, some groups are going to have higher rejection rates than other groups.
Does this mean that both approaches are racially discriminatory?
What’s your basis for saying that the metric-based approach chooses better students than the holitistic approach? If both approaches result in super-intelligent, talented classes, then what’s your basis for saying that one is inferior to the other?
If Harvard says they’ve got research indicating that the holistic approach is superior to the metric-based approach at creating the kind of enriching, dynamic environments that college kids thrive under best, what evidence would you point to to counter this assertion?
If the “holistic approach” is engineered for the purpose of excluding Asians, it’s a problem. There seems to be ample evidence that it is, starting with the fact that the entire notion of “holistic approaches” was invented as a way to implement the Jewish quota without openly acknowledging a Jewish quota and continuing from there to the contemporary practice of “balancing” classes by admitting noticeably few Asians in years after a lot of Asians make it in.
Of course, at many other universities, “balancing” takes the form of an explicit numerical penalty on the admissions formula for being Asian. Is this acceptable too?
A metric-based approach discriminates against people from disadvantage backgrounds–students who through no fault of their own were not able to take a slate of AP courses or SAT prep classes.
Why is it okay to discriminate against these students, but it is bad to discriminate against the eleventy-billion-and-one STEM geek to apply when there are only eleventy-billion slots reserved for STEM geeks?
Shouldn’t Harvard or any other institution have the right to have a quota for STEM geeks? Is it their fault that Asians happen to be disproportionately represented in this category*?
*assuming this is true. If you’ve got data showing that Asians are just as well-rounded in their academic interests as other groups, I’m open to changing my mind.
I should have said, in the previous response, that “the ‘stupid crap’ here is your extraordinarily narrow view of education in general and science in particular that considers science to operate in a vacuum independent of society and the humanity it serves”. There’s more to science than solving equations, and universities aren’t just vocational schools – they also have social responsibilities that should figure in the selection and teaching of society’s future leaders.
I don’t think you’re really understanding the point about the criteria Cambridge is looking at. In a society where an aristocracy still flourishes, they’re saying that individual potential is more important in admissions criteria than ancestry, not that they judge people by sorting their numerical test scores. That’s why interviews are mandatory, personal background is important, and they plainly make the point that “we’re looking for an indication of your ability to think critically and independently, and your willingness to argue logically but to keep an open mind to new ideas. You also need self-discipline, motivation and commitment, and the desire and potential to go beyond what you’ve learned so far.”
The irony of what you seem to think about Cambridge is that both Cambridge and Oxford have long-standing reputations for providing well-rounded, deeply humanist-oriented educations as opposed to the traditionally more career-oriented approach of American universities.
Except it isn’t, as has been amply pointed out here. Universities are a part of society, and when racism was relatively rampant in society, universities were part of that, too. But to suggest that today, the Harvard admissions office is run by a bunch of racist bigots is truly absurd.
“Disadvantaged backgrounds” (which is your term for ‘people who didn’t do anything of academic note in high school’ by the definition you then give) and “STEM geeks” are not races. It’s racist to discriminate against people because of their race, and actually evaluating someone’s qualifications for a position in a matriculating class is not the same thing other than in your constructed world where making any distinctions at all is an interchangeable practice, therefore racism is acceptable.
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it’s quite different.
The notion of IQ or other “innate intelligence” is, in fact, both racist and scientifically unsupportable, and the myth persists only because, when forced to choose, the sort of insecure white liberals who take great pride in their “IQ score” side with racists over the victims of the IQ myth whom they claim to support. No one should use any purported measure of “innate intelligence” for admissions or hiring.
This is an amazing insight into the left-wing mindset.
Only the other side is capable of doing The Bad Thing.
When we engage in it, it can’t possibly be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side.
Even if our reasons for doing it are to exclude a racial minority in favor of more white people, it can’t be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side, and not capable of doing The Bad Thing.
Therefore, it is not racist to penalize Asians for being Asian in order to create more spots for white people at Harvard. In fact, it’s making up for the “discrimination and bias inherent in society today” against rich white Harvard applicants.
The real racists are those Incorrect people on the other side who think that adopting race-blind policies that would result in fewer white people attending Harvard is acceptable! Don’t they know that everything they do and support is The Bad Thing, since they are Incorrect?
This is what I typically hear about AA. No obvious discrimination, just sort of a tiebreaker aspect. IOW, my hypothetical kid and the fat, gay, Mexican kid have nearly identical test scores and GPAs. The school needs to find a way to break this tie. They read his story about overcoming adversity and pick him. Not because he is fat, nor gay, nor Mexican, but simply how those particular things built his character, so to speak, it enabling him to succeed despite the pressures he was under.
That’s the theory, but the reality I experienced was much different. During the law school admissions process it was known that schools cared about two things: Undergrad GPA and LSAT score. The school admissions officer would candidly tell you that you were an “auto-admit” at a certain GPA or LSAT score. A different score would get you “waitlisted” for further review, and a certain other score would likely mean you wouldn’t make it. They would also talk about scores that would get you offered scholarships.
Oh, but if you are a “URM” (Under represented minority) those cutoff points were different. (Except for the scholarship limits–those were the same). Drastically different. Scores that would have not even qualified me for the waitlist were auto-admits for a URM. Not a URM with a nice story, but anyone. You could have black candidate who lived like Carlton on the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and a white candidate who suffered from having an alcoholic father who beat him daily; didn’t matter. Are you a URM? These are the numbers.
And as has been said by others critical of AA, you see this resentment in the school. When there is a black student, the initial impression is that he must have gotten in simply because of AA. If he is confused and says something silly in class it seems to confirm it.
In short, I think that this holistic review is simply a back door for quotas. The Supreme Court won’t let them get away with a quota system, so they hide it under the review process which turns out to act just like a quota. The numbers indicate that this whole “we just use race along with a compelling story as a tiebreaker” is simply untrue.
Your point about Harvard having cream of the crop applicants is well taken. They would certainly not admit a C- student no matter how compelling his personal essay. But they would likely take a 3.7 GPA student. That is unfair to another student who has a 4.0 being marked down only because his parents gave him a good 18 years of childhood. It is also completely irrelevant to the University’s mission that a certain student has a compelling story.
Unless we are ready to adopt Chief Pendant’s view that some people are genetically inferior and need this bump, we need to end it. An 18 year old white kid did not play a part in Jim Crow or the other abuses of the past. To punish him today for the actions of his ancestors (who may have actually been freedom riders or abolitionists) serves only to keep the racial fires burning.
Having read the complaint, I do. I am not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs, but the lawsuit is largely based on unsupported allegations and cherry-picked quotes from prior SCOTUS decisions on the use of race as a factor in admissions.
It would be all the more amazing if this got any traction given that the court has already ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that selective admissions criteria that take into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant do not constitute discrimination even if they have racially disparate impact, nor does it constitute a quota system, “thinly veiled” or otherwise. Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying, and contrary to some of the claims being made here.
I’m certainly open to the possibility that modern society discriminates against Asians in such a way that makes it more difficult for them to succeed than white people (or others). But the facts that, according to statistics that I’ve seen, Asians are significantly over-represented among high-scorers, high-achievers, in prestigious universities, in income and other financial indicators, etc., are indications that they are not discriminated against significantly in terms of educational opportunity, from what I understand.
I think its perfectly fine to have racial quotas (ie. Affirmative Action) to get groups that would otherwise be underrepresented into tops schools. At one point in time, these were created because schools were only filled with white people, and white males to be specific. It is good and correct to force schools to accept a percentage of women and minorities.
Now the stereotype has flipped. Asians are the smart ones getting into a lot of the top schools, at least around here in Southern California. Harvard seems to have a lot of Asians enrolled too, more than their percentage of the population. Doubtless, many more would be qualified if there were no racial quotas at all. So after a period of benefiting from affirmative action, now this group of them wants to eliminate it. Its selfish
Anyone can just claim that “getting rid of racial bias” is what they’re trying to do. It apparently takes more sincerity and less bias to acknowledge that superficial racial bias isn’t really what some people want to frame it as, and that there is a lot more history that some would like to suppress. You should not ask the question of why banning racial considerations is racist. That’s a poor paraphrase of what’s actually happening. Instead, I challenge you to ask why it was necessary in the first place and how have those conditions changed to be counter-productive to the original goal of having a racially diverse campus.