Asian American groups accuse Harvard of racial bias in admissions

Great Debates
381

Can’t speak for Haberdash other than as posted but the point made was the same … “the specifics around each population render those data very manipulatable” with Haberdash taking that further, as posted, to conclusions of “genetic racial intelligence are garbage.”

But again that point is a huge digression for the subject of this thread and has been beaten into the ground in other threads previously. The other point made is also one that the two of you seem to mostly agree about and is centered regarding the concepts of selecting for “diversity” (and what is meant by “diversity” in that context) and to what degree the goal is to affirmatively make up for past injustices.

You do seem though to have a habit as claiming things as facts that are merely claims you make. No, most Asian applicants are not star athletes. No, Asian applicants do not have all of 2250 or greater on the SAT (99th percentile), straight-A average, 11 advanced-placement courses, excellence in music, athletics, and leadership, and a beautiful common app essay … applicants like that in any group, even the Nigerian origin one, are not a dime a dozen. (And athletic accomplishments, especially in *team *sports, gets a big positive credit in the application process.) No, the lack of details provided about admissions by race and other aspects that go into the process is not evidence let alone proof that the selection process is “a pure, race-based bias.”

382

I have seen this in my line of work. I’m often tasked with reviewing the work of contractors. I’ll be in all-day meetings with my colleagues, listening to the contractors present progress reports of their work. It always seems like it is a lot easier for me, the only black person in the room, to give honest feedback and criticism. Meanwhile, my colleagues will just say “This is good work, Bob!” and crack jokes.

I think it’s because these folks frequently have social relationships with each other that I don’t share. Some went to school together. They may have mutual friends. If they aren’t friends, they can certainly see themselves as being each others friends. They all white. The majority of them are guys.

It’s not like I turn into Angry Black Woman. Indeed, I really do try to soften my harsh edges so as not to fulfill that stereotype. But being friends with folks isn’t on my agenda when we’re supposed to be reviewing work we’ve shelled out millions of (tax) dollars for. I don’t want to talk about weekend plans when I’m staring at errors that could get us in trouble with the Feds or with the public at large.

And to their credit, these folks actually do seem to listen to me. They may wince when I’m about to open my mouth, but I think they appreciate the role I play in the organization. In fact, even though my boss comes across as a gray-haired frat boy, he’s always the first to cosign whatever I have to say. I think he realizes there’s value in having one person on the team who is not afraid to be the hard-ass. It keeps him from having to do that job.

HOWEVER, I could totally see myself caring more about not hurting feelings if I were in a room of black people. Especially a room full of black women.

383

California is trying to find a way to increase college enrollment and matriculation rates of certain underrepresented Asian groups

The programs that already exist and the new ones being proposed sound very much like the same AA initiatives that benefit blacks and Hispanics.

384

And I am just as much against that as the other “AA initiatives”. Just adding more racial discrimination to the system.

385

Taking this line of reasoning as a given, there’s no reason that West African immigrants or rich black people should be disfavored. Especially with the immigrants, that’s TWO additional perspectives (black + immigrant) broadening the horizons of the poor insular whites.

It also sounds a lot more positive when we’re “increasing diversity” by making sure all-white study groups are broken up by more blacks and Hispanics, than when you apply such logic to what is actually going on and say “you Asians are such a hivemind, you need more rich white people injected into your circles so you can think better.”

386

Seems like a pretty clear divide between Asian cultures that were strongly influenced by the Confucian emphasis on education and those that were not, although I’d put the Vietnamese the former category and certainly the Vietnamese were very well represented in my high school among academically excellent students.

387

The average self-reported score for matriculated asians is 2300 at Harvard, about 200 points higher than the average self-reported score for blacks.
I can assure you no asian was accepted who did not have some significant “other” because highe SAT scores are not enough to distinguish these asians. If you think the black students were somehow on average much higher for “other,” I have a bridge to sell you.

The lack of transparency provided by Harvard admissions may not strike you as sufficient evidence, and that’s your choice of what to believe. But as an insider, I can tell you the race-based de facto standard is there. And where that is not sufficient evidence either, I’d ask you to put on your skeptical cap. Why would any data other than incriminating data be withheld?

There is a pure, race-based quota for all groups, by which Harvard keeps an equilibrium of race-based cosmetic diversity. In my humble opinion, believing anything else is very naive.

If this complaint manages to tease out the actual data for matriculants, we can come back and visit this. I have not the foggiest worry I am incorrect here. A stellar, full-ride, automatically-admitted black applicant is a dime a dozen asian applicant.

388

Yep. Underperforming asian groups are basically toast in the admissions process, unfortunately.

As with any other self-identified group, the sub-groups have difficulty if they don’t perform up to the large group standard. So Hmongs, for instance, get grouped with “asians” and basically are just not able to be competitive with the average for that group.

389

(bolding mine)

Considering how few Hmong actually “self identify” as “Asians” you’re bolded comment is really dumb.

You might wish to learn more about the people you’re talking about if you want to continue pontificating on the intellectual capabilities of the different so-callled “racial groups”.

390

So your claim, CP is that Hmong students are more college ready than Black or Hispanic students and perhaps than the average White student but just not competitive compared to other Asians? Any data to back that claim up or is just another one of your series of unsubstantiated claims?

In fact Hmong students have particular challenges: poverty; often no English spoken in the home and consequently poor parental school involvement and ability to help with schoolwork; poor level of parental education; relatively high gang membership rate; and poor test scores as “**eing Laotian/ Cambodian, however, does not increase scores on the standardized test of math, and results in 12 percentiles less on reading.” (compared to the average SES matched American student.)

As to

I can assure that no one was accepted to Harvard without some significant, and likely more often, multiple significant, other accomplishments. Do highest level very competitive Asian applicants more often have similar other factors? I can assure you that Jeremy Lin could have gotten into Harvard with a lower GPA and SAT than another Asian student who was in orchestra, played piano and/or violin and/or flute, maybe played tennis well, and won some science and/or math and/or come computer awards. Or the Jewish kid with the same resume. In fact Lin’s SAT was quite good, but at 2061 it was lower than what you state is the average score for matriculating Blacks at Harvard and more than 200 points below the average for other Asians.

There are lots of reasons that I would be hesitant to share all the details of the process if I was Harvard … if it is the case it won’t go over well to point out that the lion’s share of the Asian applicants are cookie cutter and how much they weight team sports participation may not be good PR either. Again lack of evidence is not evidence of guilt.

Don’t get me wrong -

I believe that Harvard wants 1) A class that pretty much all are in the top few percent of ability and performance. 2) A class that includes a sizable number of students whose families will donate generously in the future and whose families can give other students good positions after graduation 3) A class diverse in interests and talents, inclusive of some number of musicians and some number of team sports athletes, of STEM focused students and those whose focus will be anthropology or the classics. 4) A class diverse in background. AND 5) A class diverse in appearance and listed category.

1 and 2 are probably in order, 3 likely is, 4 and 5? Not sure. 2 through 4 will likely result in an appearance of group bias without an explicit one being present. The degree to which 5 plays in is the magnitude to which a de facto quota may exist, and I believe that it likely does play some role. My believing that is not however evidence that it is true. The convincing evidence is not there.

391

LOL. :slight_smile:

When they see the categories provided by OMB, which box should they be checking? Here are the choices, after finding out if you are Hispanic or Latino:

White
Black or African American
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Some additional reading about how race grouping actually works in the real world might help you before you get your dander too elevated about how you think it should work. :wink:

In practice, this drives Hmong identification with “asian,” and the “self-identified” part is a reference to the idea that the person, and not someone external, decides which box to check…

392

Yes, this is more or less my claim, and no, I have no data to back this up (other than the general fact that Hmong representation is so low…) If you want to live in a fantasy world that the Pedant just creates his own reality, feel free to do so. Or take the time to evaluate the broad patterns that result, which cannot be hidden behind exceptions and behind-the-curtain processes.

Perhaps this complaint, and others, will begin to tease out the sort of data you demand. I rather doubt it; Harvard lawyers were not born yesterday nor given a marginal education. :wink:

You are exactly correct about the challenges all of the underperforming groups face in terms of overall SES background and the other factors you mention. We’ve been through why that is elsewhere, and why some groups succeed while others always seem to occupy the same position on the SES tier.

As I said earlier, they why does not matter for the sake of this discussion.

But what happens for a Hmong student is that the box they have to check is “asian,” and therefore the peer group with which they compete is “asian.” The talent level–academic and “other”–required to be accepted as an asian is its own category. Because the general, overall defacto quota is by broad race groups (the ones listed out here, Hmongs compete with asians; not with blacks or whites, on average.

A stellar black student from a low SES background will get evaluated against other black applicants. A stellar Hmong student from a low SES background will get evaluated against other asian applicants, where the bar for the group is much higher.

The institution is only going to get credit for the OMB groups should they be audited, so to speak (formally or informally).

You are right that an applicant within a given group who has high standout skills not typically associated with that group also has a leg up. Any mechanism to stand out in this highly competitive process is a leg up. Black football athlete? Very common; need scores. Black SAT scores of 2250? Come on down! Asian perfect SAT? Very common; need “other.” Asian basketball star? Come on down! Asian high-scoring; violinist? Hmm…we’ve already admitted quite a few of those…etc etc etc

This is how the admissions process works, DSeid. Each application is considered seriously; when it comes to actually offering admission, a defacto race quota is maintained so that the class does not become cosmetically lopsided by race.

What this ends up meaning is that each applicant is compared with their race peer group.

And that is the asian complaint. Asians are compared only with other asians, and the asian standard is much much higher. Therefore this is a bias against asians.

I do not pretend this is absolute for every individual. Of course a school might recognize the special struggles for an asian who is Hmong, and make an exception. But if you stand back and look at the overall pattern, it is abundantly clear what happens, and why. We need a cosmetically diverse student/workplace body. We are not trying to “correct” past injustices per se; we are trying to smooth out differences that would otherwise become socially untenable were we not considerate of race alone. If you are black, we are not going to hold your wealth and opportunity against you if you are a great applicant, because we need more blacks. If you are Hmong, it may not help you much to have a low SES background because we have plenty of asians.

393

Perhaps we can agree on what sort of data we need to decide this:

  1. Number of applicants by race
  2. Applicants offered admission, by race
  3. SES tiers, with race, for applicants offered admission
  4. Financial packages, with race and SES tier, for applicants offered admission
  5. Standardized scores, with SES tier and race, for applicants offered admission
  6. Elaboration of “other” criteria used beyond standardized scores, by race, for applicants offered admission

That would be a start; I’m just thinking off the top of my head here. If it turns out that only blacks with (relatively) mediocre–half of SAT scores are under 2100-ish–have good enough “other” to overcome those averages, I wonder if you would find that a perfectly reasonable idea, or if that would be “convincing” enough for you to agree the race-alone bias is profound and drives a defacto quota.

Given the currently high volume of wealthy blacks with mediocre scores who are matriculated, I’m thinking you will remain unconvinced that there is a racial bias against asians. It sounds as if you think it’s perfectly likely that asians–and asians alone–are just crummy in the “other” criteria, and that that crumminess is so profound their vastly higher scores do not overcome that deficiency. And it sounds like you think wealthy black applicants have a huge advantage in “other”–enough to overcome relatively crummy scores.

394

I assume you mean, “top few percent of ability and performance” for their race group?

Without the race-based criterion, asians would essentially crowd out all the black applicants. In general, SAT scores of black applicants are low enough such that there are not enough high-scorers to be in the “top few percent” academically.

From here, for example:
*“If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT — a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation’s most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech — we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.”
*

The JBHE eliminates asians from the discussion in this article:
“Once again, if we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the calculations and compare only blacks and whites, we find that 0.2 percent of all black test takers scored 750 or above on the verbal SAT compared to 2.2 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were 11 times as likely as blacks to score 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Overall, there were 49 times as many whites as blacks who scored at or above the 750 level.”

But of course, asians score signficantly higher than whites, so the asian-black disparity is even more profound, and it is not the case that black students matriculated into Harvard are “in the top few percent” of academic performance when all groups are considered. They are, of course, in the top few percent of black applicants.

Admitted asians, OTOH, are in the top few percent of all applicants academically, but substantially under-represented in proportion to the total number of asian applicants with those stratospheric academic qualifications.

395

Their wealth is irrelevant. Those on the bottom, in this case, refer to minority races in Harvard. So yes, we should help them, they are clearly disadvantaged. My point stands. AA should continue to help diversify the races in schools such as Harvard. If that’s Asians, fine. If that’s whites, fine. Whatever the case my be, diversity is a worthy goal. People against that usually have some kind of bigoted agenda

396

“No, YOU’RE the racist!” is always a reliable argument, I suppose.

397

Not really – Republicans have been using the “Democrats are the real racists” for years, with no success beyond their base.

398

I think he meant reliable as in “Always turns up, because people have successfully gotten each other to agree that racism is bad, so the argument is always ‘No, my racist policies are good, and therefore not really racist! You’re the real racist for opposing them!’”.

I do think it would be interesting to take a look at surveys of whether or not people think that you should be judged by college admissions boards based on the color of your skin versus your (academic) character, categorized by self-identified political opinion, over time. I bet that there was a relatively recent sea change, which came about as soon as the left-wing side became confident that no one was actually going to move to treating the racial groups they want to favor like the Jews once were and the Asians are now.

399

Is “taking away things Asians have earned and giving them to undeserving rich white people” a “Democratic” or “Republican” policy, or just a stupid one?

400

No I said “top few” because I meant the top few. I did not mean the top one.

750 in each ends up being well within the top 1%, not the top few, and is only one of the measures used to determine top few percent of ability and performance. (Source.) 2100 is inside the top 4%.

We can agree on a few things. Yes we both agree you state things as true while having no data to back it up (thank you for that honest admission btw). I do not know how what the income levels are of Blacks who have matriculated. Do you have data for that? Or is your statement there yet another statement made as if it is fact without data to back it up?

You are assuming that the first cut is by race. My guess, and it is only a guess in the absence of evidence, is that the first cut is a broad cut based on adequate ability (top few or even several percent on objective measures) and a wider swath for legacies and children of the hyper-rich. Then looking for individuals to fill the niches of team sport athletes, musicians of various sorts, likely STEM majors, likely social science majors, likely humanity majors. Within each of those groups someone who is against cookie cutter stereotype will have a leg up. The Asian team sport star who wants to study classic literature and has won awards for writing will get the nod over the Black one and the Black computer whiz who plays violin and has won at state level chess competitions will get the nod over the Asian one. My guess.