It’s just repeating the same things back and forth. FWIW legacies, 16% of the class with a parent who went there, are a bit higher in SAT scores currently.
“The average SAT score reported by legacy respondents was 2296, compared to a 2237 average for non-legacy students” to be precise for the class of 2018.
What happens when an elite school has admission standards based principally on academic merit is CalTech.
Two things happen at Harvard:
A sincere effort to racially balance. Racially balance. What students look like, and what race group they identify with.
A near-complete lack of transparency around the admissions process and the actual quantified data by race.
What Harvard has to do is find a way to matriculate only students who are highly qualified, but still maintain an overall race balance reasonably proportionate to the general population.
Even when corrected for SES opportunity and “other,” asians would so dominate a general ranking of all admissions that no spots would be left for blacks. Therefore a defacto quota is maintained for all groups.
This leaves asians feeling that there is a racial bias, because asians are denied admission while blacks with lesser qualifications are preferentially admitted on a race-alone bias.
The process is complex enough, and soft enough, to make it difficult for any one individual to cry foul. The overall data are deliberately obscured from public transparency in order to prevent external analysis.
In the long run, a straightforward, transparent, race-based AA quota system would avoid all of this hand-wringing, and that’s where we as a society need to go.
Note that this survey was not responded to by 30% of the class, and that the respondents were not broken down.
It seems naive to me to believe that a self-reported SAT score in an institution where such scores are highly prized means much of anything. Every student whose scores are below average is going to be inclined to exaggerate or decline to answer.
I think what Even Sven is trying to say is that Asian students are frequently one dimensional grade grubbers who force themselves to get really good at a few extracurriculars and just happen to do well at standardized tests but the top universities are pretty good at picking out the good Asian students with great academics and extracurriculars from the bad Asian students with great academics and extracurriculars.
What is the benefit of diversity that it supplants the benefit of meritocracy?
I support affirmative action (to a point) as do almost all the Asian groups mentioned in the OP. When Berkeley went race neutral, the numbers of African Americans in the entering class went from 250 to 125, the number of whites in the entering class dropped by many times that amount. And that’s not even counting the effects that legacy preferences (not present at Berkeley AFAICT) have on the admissions process.
Perhaps its just a relic of cultural history but an anonymous standardized test was the primary method of intergenerational social mobility for thousands of years. And in that time, any attempt to make the test more subjective was much more likely inspired by a desire to reduce that social mobility. than a desire to better measure merit.
Monstro, your position seems to assume that others do not have unquantifiable merits. If affirmative action gave you an opportunity and you made a better life for yourself than you would have if you had not had that opportunity I say good for you. None of the Asian groups in the OP are speaking out against affirmative action, the number of spots lost to Asians by virtue of affirmative action pales in comparison to the number of spots Asians lose to white because of an aversion to too many Asians on campus or legacy preferences (Asians can learn to play lacrosse just as easily as they can learn to play violin so athletic preferences only make a difference for a generation or two).
I think the case for affirmative for blacks and American Indians is fairly easy to make (its a bit harder to make for latinos, ion what way are latinos any worse off today than Asians were
Historically legacy preferences were implemented for the much the same reasons that Jim Crow voting laws had a grandfather clause. Except you have to replace blacks with jews.
Perhaps you are right and Harvard is measuring something other than objective academic criteria but no one has ever shown that Asian applicants fall behind their white counterparts along any other vector. Its like there is some inarticulable je ne sais quoi that they are able to sais well enough to admit whites at much higher rates than Asian with otherwise indistinguishable objective characteristics.
I agree that we can only do so much to scrub identifying characteristics. But are you saying that Asians generally write poor essays or are less endowed in some area outside of objective academic and extracurricular criteria that would explain their overwhelming disadvantage in the admissions process?
Good writing ability is pretty important to success. If you can write compellingly about one thing you can write compellingly about many things (its like method acting).