Top Colleges Discriminating Against Asian Students:Thoughts?

[Komodo9Joe]

A lawsuit has been filed against Harvard by Asian Americans who point to how the most prestigious colleges in the U.S. engage in anti-Asian applicant practices. Because so many Asians apply to the top colleges with exemplary test scores, GPA, and extracurricular activities, colleges now view Asian applicants with far higher, unequal standards. Take a look at the following passage:

A complaint filed by 64 groups against Harvard University alleges that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants in admissions, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The complaint, filed by a coalition of 64 organizations, says the university has set quotas to keep the numbers of Asian-American students significantly lower than the quality of their applications merits. It cites third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The groups seek a federal investigation into the Harvard admissions process and requests Harvard “immediately cease and desist from using stereotypes, racial biases and other discriminatory means in evaluating Asian-American applicants.”

As the 2015 college acceptance/rejection notification phase has just ended, this article is very timely. What are all of your thoughts on both this lawsuit and this general issue of Asian Americans having their accolades comparatively deflated in regards to all other applicants?

On a side-note: lately, I keep hearing/reading featured stories on the news of African Americans being accepted into a spate of highly regarded institutions with, to be sure, impressive scores, but nothing extraordinary in comparison to the Asian pool of applicants. I always wonder if viewers understand that this is "news" only because it features applicants coming from certain demographics; there are many accomplished students, be it Asian, white, or otherwise, who will never break the news because of how their ethnic background apparently operates against them.

[Borgholio]

I'm not sure what the point of this discrimination would be, if it exists. Surely it would be in the best interest of colleges to be able to boast a large number of highly-graded graduates. This almost sounds like reverse Affirmative Action to me.

[Grumman]

I'm not sure what the point of this discrimination would be, if it exists. Surely it would be in the best interest of colleges to be able to boast a large number of highly-graded graduates. This almost sounds like reverse Affirmative Action to me.

It's not "reverse affirmative action", this is how affirmative action works: by discriminating against better candidates because of their race, so that the position can be given to a worse candidate because of their race. It is racist twice over: once by explicitly giving preferential treatment on the basis of a black candidate's race, and also because it treats people of the same race as interchangeable, as if you can make up for Alan's hardship by making things easier for Bob just because they both identify as being of the same race.

[Kingmaker]

I'm not sure what the point of this discrimination would be, if it exists. Surely it would be in the best interest of colleges to be able to boast a large number of highly-graded graduates. This almost sounds like reverse Affirmative Action to me.

In practical terms, there are a limited number of slots available for new students. Certain demographics (Asians and Jews especially) produce a glut of qualified candidates, and would utterly dominate incoming classes if selection was based on blind merit. Conversely, you'd have very few Black or Latino students. If you want to bring up those groups, someone else has to lose out.

[Gaidin]

Personally I'd find the numbers amusing if the court ordered them to select based on blind merit, and wonder how long before they found themselves right back in there with another group trying to pull them in.

[Borgholio]

It's not "reverse affirmative action", this is how affirmative action works: by discriminating against better candidates because of their race, so that the position can be given to a worse candidate because of their race.

I always thought that affirmative action was where a certain number of slots were left open for minorities so some could get in even if the scores on their entrance exams were worse than those of the majority ethnic groups. I wasn't aware that AA worked by actually limiting other minorities.

It is racist twice over: once by explicitly giving preferential treatment on the basis of a black candidate's race,

I wouldn't call it racist exactly but I'm on the fence about AA mainly because I believe that people should get accepted who are qualified to get in. If you lower the bar to allow less qualified people in, they won't do as well in the school and may end up failing. I understand the idea is to give less fortunate individuals a leg up to help them get farther in life than they otherwise would, but it does seem unfair to restrict people who are genuinely qualified enough to go there to allow someone of lesser talent go in their place. Plus if the minority student ends up failing because the classes are too hard...how is that a benefit to anyone?

[Purple]

I always thought that affirmative action was where a certain number of slots were left open for minorities so some could get in even if the scores on their entrance exams were worse than those of the majority ethnic groups. I wasn't aware that AA worked by actually limiting other minorities.

Out of curiosity, just what is the difference? As Grumman said, the point of AA is to discriminate against a group that would otherwise get disproportionately represented in favor of one that wouldn't. So does it really matter why said group is represented disproportionately? Is there anything inherently better or worse in discriminating against a group or the other based on the criteria you pick for discrimination? I really don't see it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wouldn't call it racist exactly but I'm on the fence about AA mainly because I believe that people should get accepted who are qualified to get in. If you lower the bar to allow less qualified people in, they won't do as well in the school and may end up failing. I understand the idea is to give less fortunate individuals a leg up to help them get farther in life than they otherwise would, but it does seem unfair to restrict people who are genuinely qualified enough to go there to allow someone of lesser talent go in their place. Plus if the minority student ends up failing because the classes are too hard...how is that a benefit to anyone?

Here is what is going on.

Initial Problem: Blacks and Hispanics dont get into Harvard, even though they are qualified, because there is systemic bias against them on the part of university administration, and in fact their grading in high school. This has been experimentally demonstrated. Fun little test that researchers can do on the cheap. Send essays to teachers (you have to tell them you are doing something else for it to work), or job applications, or college applications. Use two groups. One set with white names (Steve etc), one set with black names (Jamal etc). Otherwise identical. You can even vary male and female names if you want. Use math tests too, those are fun. You can also use performance evaluations. Have the person score them (or in the case of applications, the binary condition of accept/reject)

Black people and women do worse. Every time. And the results are additive. Black women do worse than white women, who do worse than white men.

Now, imagine a black student. Their grades are lower. Irrespective of their actual performance their grades are lower, because they are black. Their SAT scores are lower irrespective of their performance because they are black. Their admissions essays are judged to be worse, because they are black.

Then, they have to compete against white students. And we all know how that would go if left to its own devices.

AA comes in at the last stage. The student has to actually be qualified to get in, after getting through all those hurdles, at which point if there is a choice to be made between two "identically qualified" students, one white the other black, the black person gets preference. It is usually based on a point system. After basic admissions criteria are met and those applications that are not good enough to pass muster in the first place are chucked. SAT scores within a certain range, so many points, GPA so many points, extra-curriculars, so many points etc. Then, race becomes a factor, with being a member of a disadvantaged racial group worth so many points. Then candidates are ranked.

Now, all of the above, we know from experiment (and because I have basically lived in universities for 10 years, and know how they work pretty well). But just SAT scores, or any standardized test, really, does not really say a great deal about whether or not there is any kind of discrimination in the admissions system. There is just too much other stuff that goes into admissions.

[Purple]

If that kind of bias really is the problem would a better solution not be to just not use names? As in, issue every test taker a number and have him sign the paper with said number. That way whilst there is a database of which student belongs to which paper the actual person grading it would only know he is grading paper number XYZ. And when the results come out the student only need come to the college with his number and pick up his score. This is especially easy to do with tests such as math that involve zero things that relate to the individual. Seems to me like something far easier and better than discriminatory quota systems.

[Patroklos]

I am pretty sure SAT graders never see names.

[Pelranius]

Well, it'd be pretty hard to bias a SAT test since a lot of it is multiple choice (or was when I took it).

[Ralin]

Which does somewhat miss the point that there's a whole lot leading up to the SAT, including years of being discouraged from developing the test and study habits that let you do well on the SAT because of the aforementioned racism in school.

As an aside this is why I have trouble caring about cries of unfairness when it comes to college admissions. Yes you graduated from an American high school with a perfect GPA and high SAT score. La dee da, you think that's an accomplishment? College admissions in the US are already arbitrary as hell outside of certain parameters


Anyway, this is an inevitable consequence of how affirmative action (which I support!) works. And I'm mostly okay with that. I'd say the issue is more with lumping Asians (do that even separate South and East Asian descent?) together without regard to national origin or ethnicity. Filipino or Hmong-American college applicants are in a whole different boat from the kids of Vietnamese or Chinese immigrants who were already educated and middle class or better back I the old country

[Komodo9Joe]

Which does somewhat miss the point that there's a whole lot leading up to the SAT, including years of being discouraged from developing the test and study habits that let you do well on the SAT because of the aforementioned racism in school.

Clarify this last point for me. Where does aforementioned racism come into play?

As an aside this is why I have trouble caring about cries of unfairness when it comes to college admissions. Yes you graduated from an American high school with a perfect GPA and high SAT score. La dee da, you think that's an accomplishment? College admissions in the US are already arbitrary as hell outside of certain parameters.

It is quite an accomplishment. Maintaining high grades and scoring exceptionally on the SAT requires a lot of focus and dedication. I should know: I did both.

That last statement you made--"college admissions in the US are already arbitrary as hell outside of certain parameter"--isn't really a point on why unequal assessment of certain college applicants is acceptable. Matter of fact, if you're arguing that so much of the process is arbitrary, then it becomes a bigger issue if the very little which can be used as tangible criteria, such as scores and GPA, are unfairly watered down in a case where an applicant comes from a certain demographic (such as from East/South Asia).

Anyways, arbitrariness emerges in all fields beyond "certain parameters," so the point doesn't really hold any value: you're just restating a common fact, rather than expressing why you're brushing off this form of discrimination in the college selection process.

Anyway, this is an inevitable consequence of how affirmative action (which I support!) works. And I'm mostly okay with that.

Why?

[Thanas]

Why do US universities place so much emphasis on extracurricular activities anyway? If I would be looking for a good classicist, why should I care that he plays the piano or the guitar?

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure you get that(classicist) out of their entry application really. Hell, students don't get that out of their entry into college. For instance, all I knew going in was engineering. But I think I hopped between 4 engineering majors before I settled on one. God knows what you get out of the students that are going between actual Colleges if the University guarantees admission into said Colleges on admission into the University. If they're trying to pin them down that specifically before the first year even starts there might be quite a bit of disappointment when the student hasn't even started what I'll just go ahead and call soul searching.

[Elheru Aran]

American colleges are a bit of a mess compared to European, or colleges anywhere else really. The first couple of years of a undergraduate degree aren't much better than a few years more of high school. The whole process of higher education needs some serious fine-tuning and fat-cutting. 'Classicist' would probably fall under a Liberal Arts degree here-- history or literature, so having an interest in other liberal arts can be related, such as music.

[Komodo9Joe]

Why do US universities place so much emphasis on extracurricular activities anyway? If I would be looking for a good classicist, why should I care that he plays the piano or the guitar?

In terms of the more competitive colleges, I believe it is to further narrow down college applicants. Nowadays, there are simply far too many accomplished students who are simply stellar in an abundance of subjects. Because admissions officers are presented with many qualified students, to weed out the application pool further, they turn to extracurricular activities in order to further gauge the quality of an applicant. I suppose that they infer that a student who is a good classicist, to use your example, but is also superb at playing a musical instrument or a specific sport, is even more talented or possesses even more remarkable traits than a student who is only good in schoolwork alone.

[Thanas]

American colleges are a bit of a mess compared to European, or colleges anywhere else really. The first couple of years of a undergraduate degree aren't much better than a few years more of high school. The whole process of higher education needs some serious fine-tuning and fat-cutting. 'Classicist' would probably fall under a Liberal Arts degree here-- history or literature, so having an interest in other liberal arts can be related, such as music.

Can we talk about for a minute how utterly ridiculous the whole idea of college is? You are expected to be educated in high school, not be "somewhat educated" and then attend a different kind of "super high school". This liberal arts college etc. seems just a waste of time. The qualified people should be seeded right into subjects at the university levels. Note: I am aware that other colleges provide more of a lower-tier and lower-quality education (like community colleges) that is necessary to land people in jobs like business etc. Keep those, I am not talking about those.

I'm not sure you get that(classicist) out of their entry application really. Hell, students don't get that out of their entry into college. For instance, all I knew going in was engineering. But I think I hopped between 4 engineering majors before I settled on one. God knows what you get out of the students that are going between actual Colleges if the University guarantees admission into said Colleges on admission into the University. If they're trying to pin them down that specifically before the first year even starts there might be quite a bit of disappointment when the student hasn't even started what I'll just go ahead and call soul searching.

Meh. I far more prefer the continental European system to that - you study a specific subject. If it turns out it is not for you, then abandon that and switch over to another subject. The idea of a "general program" seems utterly wasteful. As for soul searching, fine, do it, but why waste the universities' time with it? You're an adult at 18. By then one should be expected to have a general idea - and if not, one can always switch later on.

Why do US universities place so much emphasis on extracurricular activities anyway? If I would be looking for a good classicist, why should I care that he plays the piano or the guitar?

In terms of the more competitive colleges, I believe it is to further narrow down college applicants. Nowadays, there are simply far too many accomplished students who are simply stellar in an abundance of subjects. Because admissions officers are presented with many qualified students, to weed out the application pool further, they turn to extracurricular activities in order to further gauge the quality of an applicant. I suppose that they infer that a student who is a good classicist, to use your example, but is also superb at playing a musical instrument or a specific sport, is even more talented or possesses even more remarkable traits than a student who is only good in schoolwork alone.

That's just disgustingly stupid and punished people with more occult hobbies. All that should matter for a university to make a decision are:
1. The quality of your highschool education
2. Your GPA
Everything else is just bullshit. For fucks sake, one of the most brilliant guys I know has no hobbies whatsoever besides drinking beer and watching football. If a university wants to weed out students application, just administer a general test and then take the ones who perform best on the test.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Can we talk about for a minute how utterly ridiculous the whole idea of college is? You are expected to be educated in high school, not be "somewhat educated" and then attend a different kind of "super high school". This liberal arts college etc. seems just a waste of time. The qualified people should be seeded right into subjects at the university levels. Note: I am aware that other colleges provide more of a lower-tier and lower-quality education (like community colleges) that is necessary to land people in jobs like business etc. Keep those, I am not talking about those.

American high school education is a mess. Attempts to reform it have been met with resistance from parents fearful their children cannot pass standardized tests. Attempts to fund it have been met with resistance because either states do not have cash, or states rights, or whatever excuse people can think of here.

In short, a lot of people do go to university completely unprepared for the vigour expected of them.

That's just disgustingly stupid and punished people with more occult hobbies. All that should matter for a university to make a decision are:
1. The quality of your highschool education
2. Your GPA
Everything else is just bullshit. For fucks sake, one of the most brilliant guys I know has no hobbies whatsoever besides drinking beer and watching football. If a university wants to weed out students application, just administer a general test and then take the ones who perform best on the test.

Also, I have long suspected American universities view the application process as an opportunity to earn some cash really...

[Komodo9Joe]

Why do US universities place so much emphasis on extracurricular activities anyway? If I would be looking for a good classicist, why should I care that he plays the piano or the guitar?

In terms of the more competitive colleges, I believe it is to further narrow down college applicants. Nowadays, there are simply far too many accomplished students who are simply stellar in an abundance of subjects. Because admissions officers are presented with many qualified students, to weed out the application pool further, they turn to extracurricular activities in order to further gauge the quality of an applicant. I suppose that they infer that a student who is a good classicist, to use your example, but is also superb at playing a musical instrument or a specific sport, is even more talented or possesses even more remarkable traits than a student who is only good in schoolwork alone.

That's just disgustingly stupid and punished people with more occult hobbies. All that should matter for a university to make a decision are:
1. The quality of your highschool education
2. Your GPA
Everything else is just bullshit. For fucks sake, one of the most brilliant guys I know has no hobbies whatsoever besides drinking beer and watching football. If a university wants to weed out students application, just administer a general test and then take the ones who perform best on the test.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I strongly believe that is what occurs. I'm sure that in the committees of the top colleges, when a vote is held by the 8 or 9 admission committee members on whether to accept, reject, or wait list one of two applicants who have applied under the same field (let's again use your classicist example), the one who has shown that he/she has proven himself/herself in other areas, such as music or sports, will get the nod while the other student's application will be tossed into the nearby trash bin.

[Ralin]

Why do US universities place so much emphasis on extracurricular activities anyway? If I would be looking for a good classicist, why should I care that he plays the piano or the guitar?

Limited enrollment slots and way, way too many applicants with otherwise identical 4.0 GPAs from more or less equally reputable high schools. Without a national system deciding who can study where and in what major like the Gaokao in China (I'm not very familiar with the European system) they have to do something to narrow them down. Playing the guitar or whatever shows the applicant might have somewhat more initiative than his peers who may have just coasted through.

And before you say this is stupid and a stopgap for something that needs to be handled systematically yes, it is.

Will respond to other stuff later

[Gaidin]

Meh. I far more prefer the continental European system to that - you study a specific subject. If it turns out it is not for you, then abandon that and switch over to another subject. The idea of a "general program" seems utterly wasteful. As for soul searching, fine, do it, but why waste the universities' time with it? You're an adult at 18. By then one should be expected to have a general idea - and if not, one can always switch later on.

It's sickeningly doable because for the first two years only about two courses a year, at least in my engineering college, were specific to the major. The rest were University Studies or General Engineering Studies. I lost about zero time because hell every major in that College needs four semesters of Calculus and two semesters of Physics, and etcetera. The only way you majorly lose time here is if you switch out of the college or change engineering majors as a second semester junior or a senior. It was largely the purpose of these first year single courses. Do you like this field? I lost out on three courses, two of which then counted towards a Math Major I decided to add later because hell, to get that I only needed six high level Math Theory course series and an utter boatload of Math Application courses that the Engineering Degree just totally wrapped up in a nice little bow.

[Thanas]

Limited enrollment slots and way, way too many applicants with otherwise identical 4.0 GPAs from more or less equally reputable high schools. Without a national system deciding who can study where and in what major like the Gaokao in China (I'm not very familiar with the European system) they have to do something to narrow them down. Playing the guitar or whatever shows the applicant might have somewhat more initiative than his peers who may have just coasted through.

And before you say this is stupid and a stopgap for something that needs to be handled systematically yes, it is.

Will respond to other stuff later

Then it seems to me one needs to get the curve changed so that fewer students get a 4.0. I mean, I would far more value somebody who has work ethic and is committed to his field of study and doesn't waste his time playing the guitar and some other hobbies than somebody who does.

Meh. I far more prefer the continental European system to that - you study a specific subject. If it turns out it is not for you, then abandon that and switch over to another subject. The idea of a "general program" seems utterly wasteful. As for soul searching, fine, do it, but why waste the universities' time with it? You're an adult at 18. By then one should be expected to have a general idea - and if not, one can always switch later on.

It's sickeningly doable because for the first two years only about two courses a year, at least in my engineering college, were specific to the major. The rest were University Studies or General Engineering Studies. I lost about zero time because hell every major in that College needs four semesters of Calculus and two semesters of Physics, and etcetera. The only way you majorly lose time here is if you switch out of the college or change engineering majors as a second semester junior or a senior. It was largely the purpose of these first year single courses. Do you like this field? I lost out on three courses, two of which then counted towards a Math Major I decided to add later because hell, to get that I only needed six high level Math Theory course series and an utter boatload of Math Application courses that the Engineering Degree just totally wrapped up in a nice little bow.

Seems a bit wasteful to me really (just stick them in a specialized program from the age of 18-21/23) but I can see how it might provide more choices.

[bilateralrope]

That's just disgustingly stupid and punished people with more occult hobbies. All that should matter for a university to make a decision are:
1. The quality of your highschool education
2. Your GPA
Everything else is just bullshit. For fucks sake, one of the most brilliant guys I know has no hobbies whatsoever besides drinking beer and watching football. If a university wants to weed out students application, just administer a general test and then take the ones who perform best on the test.

I agree with you if the university has enough places for everyone. But what do you think a university should do if they do not have enough places and have to choose between people who look identical if you only compare the quality of their highschool and GPA ?

Long term the university should try to increase how many places they have available and/or try to get the grading system changed to distinguish between the top students. But in the short term some of those potential students need to be turned away.

In saying that, I'm only familiar with the New Zealand university system. Where the only course I'm aware of that had a limited number of places was for medical degrees. I didn't do a med degree, so I don't know how they decided who got selected. All I know is that the limit only applied from second year onwards, there were no limits on the number of first year students. I think the first year med students who didn't go onto second year still had a wide range of science degrees that their first year could count towards if they switched.

[Thanas]

That's just disgustingly stupid and punished people with more occult hobbies. All that should matter for a university to make a decision are:
1. The quality of your highschool education
2. Your GPA
Everything else is just bullshit. For fucks sake, one of the most brilliant guys I know has no hobbies whatsoever besides drinking beer and watching football. If a university wants to weed out students application, just administer a general test and then take the ones who perform best on the test.

I agree with you if the university has enough places for everyone. But what do you think a university should do if they do not have enough places and have to choose between people who look identical if you only compare the quality of their highschool and GPA ?

Invite them for a special test (or an interview, but that might not do due to the number of people involved). THen use the special test results to differentiate. This is how German universities do it in some highly competitive fields already.