Asian-American Students Sue Harvard Over Alleged Admissions Bias
June 16, 2018 6:03 AM Subscribe
Who knew there was a Harvard personality type? It's not what you know; it's what you're like: "Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like 'positive personality,' likability, courage, kindness and being 'widely respected,' according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university."
"Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found."
"The documents came out as part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend."
/ / /
"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."
"University officials did concede that its 2013 internal review found that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent from the actual 19 percent. After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31 percent. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26 percent."
"What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18 percent, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans. The plaintiffs said this meant there was a penalty for being Asian-American."
" 'Further details (especially around the personal rating) may provide further insight,' Harvard’s internal report said."
"But, the plaintiffs said in their motion Friday, there was no further insight, because, 'Harvard killed the study and quietly buried the reports.' "
"Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found."
"The documents came out as part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend."
/ / /
"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."
"University officials did concede that its 2013 internal review found that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent from the actual 19 percent. After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31 percent. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26 percent."
"What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18 percent, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans. The plaintiffs said this meant there was a penalty for being Asian-American."
" 'Further details (especially around the personal rating) may provide further insight,' Harvard’s internal report said."
"But, the plaintiffs said in their motion Friday, there was no further insight, because, 'Harvard killed the study and quietly buried the reports.' "
I love to see Harvard squirm, and they surely deserve whatever fallout comes their way from this case. But there's some context here worth keeping in mind: this lawsuit is part of a sustained campaign by neocon perpetual litigant Edward Blum to kill affirmative action. He is the same guy behind Fisher v. University of Texas (previously), which claimed that a white applicant was the victim of "reverse racism." Whatever the merits and facts of Harvard's specific treatment of Asian-American applicants, Blum will be seeking the broadest possible ruling against race-based admissions policies across the board.
posted by enn at 8:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [79 favorites]
posted by enn at 8:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [79 favorites]
I'm not sure what's dumber: marking Asian-American applicants as not widely respected, or using that as a criterion for admission in the first place.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 8:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
I have a bad feeling about this.
posted by quaking fajita at 8:20 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by quaking fajita at 8:20 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Tyler Cowen’s (speculative) explanation:
“Harvard is risk-averse with respect to the stream of future donations, as are many other schools. Asian-American admissions don’t have the same donating track record as the white students traditionally cultivated by Harvard and other top universities. ... Furthermore, there is a common fear — repugnant to me I should add — that if a student body becomes “too Asian,” many white students will be less interested in going there.”
(There’s no citation for the claim that “Asian-American admissions don’t have the same donating track record as the white students“.)
posted by HoraceH at 8:23 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
“Harvard is risk-averse with respect to the stream of future donations, as are many other schools. Asian-American admissions don’t have the same donating track record as the white students traditionally cultivated by Harvard and other top universities. ... Furthermore, there is a common fear — repugnant to me I should add — that if a student body becomes “too Asian,” many white students will be less interested in going there.”
(There’s no citation for the claim that “Asian-American admissions don’t have the same donating track record as the white students“.)
posted by HoraceH at 8:23 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
This seems like a covert challenge to Harvard's implementation of affirmative action, which also seems to blatantly assume Harvard's obligation to serve the highest test scores. A favorable ruling will essentially correlate IQ tests for admission, which is the reigning fallacy about education and leadership cultivation in the technological era.
posted by Brian B. at 8:25 AM on June 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 8:25 AM on June 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure what's dumber: marking Asian-American applicants as not widely respected, or using that as a criterion for admission in the first place.
The role of these "personality-based" criteria in admissions over academic standing were initially added to keep the Jews out. So, y'know, nothing problematic there.
posted by suetanvil at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2018 [27 favorites]
The role of these "personality-based" criteria in admissions over academic standing were initially added to keep the Jews out. So, y'know, nothing problematic there.
posted by suetanvil at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2018 [27 favorites]
What enn said. It is NOT Asian-American students suing Harvard. It's a white guy from Maine who has been fighting affirmative action for decades, and it's a bit surprising the Times kind of buried that, if understandable given that everybody (well, speaking as a Boston resident here) loves to hate on Harvard. The Boston Globe has more on Blum's background.
posted by adamg at 8:39 AM on June 16, 2018 [35 favorites]
posted by adamg at 8:39 AM on June 16, 2018 [35 favorites]
As the article points out, the plaintiff's case excluded 20% of applicants because of legacy or athletic status - that's a huge portion of applicants. I also strongly dislike that we continue to aggregate Asian Americans together as a group - it's a huge grouping of students, and lumping them all together has a lot of problems from an educational standpoint.
posted by WedgedPiano at 8:48 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by WedgedPiano at 8:48 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
I really wish there was a different space to discuss the ways that subjective measures
disadvantage Asian-American applicants. Because I really think that's a big problem, but I also think that this particular lawsuit is not really about that, and it's impossible to discuss it responsibly in this context. And boy howdy, is it toxic and dangerous to pit Asian-Americans against black and Latino Americans, which is the basic strategy here. And I'm seeing a fair number of people who should know better taking the bait, which is disappointing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:59 AM on June 16, 2018 [46 favorites]
disadvantage Asian-American applicants. Because I really think that's a big problem, but I also think that this particular lawsuit is not really about that, and it's impossible to discuss it responsibly in this context. And boy howdy, is it toxic and dangerous to pit Asian-Americans against black and Latino Americans, which is the basic strategy here. And I'm seeing a fair number of people who should know better taking the bait, which is disappointing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:59 AM on June 16, 2018 [46 favorites]
If you're going to include "race" as a factor in your admissions then there's a strong argument for greater granularity within all the existing categories of "race". Koreans and Hmong don't have the same educational outcomes, but nor do the various flavours of "white": Ashkenazi Jews, Anglo-Saxons, Greeks, whatever.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 9:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 9:02 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
but nor do the various flavours of "white": Ashkenazi Jews, Anglo-Saxons, Greeks, whatever.Ooof. You realize that the specter of the old anti-Jewish quotas hovers over this whole debate, right?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:04 AM on June 16, 2018 [10 favorites]
the various flavours of
Let's not with this kind of language.
posted by TwoStride at 9:10 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
Let's not with this kind of language.
posted by TwoStride at 9:10 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
As an Asian American, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that I want just as much chance to be admitted into Harvard as anybody else, ethnicity aside. On the other hand, this lawsuit is clearly being brought in at least questionable faith, so I'm not quite sure how I ought to feel. The "personality," admissions criteria seem to be worthy of scorn. I would never personally want to go to Harvard, "model minority" or not.
posted by Alensin at 9:20 AM on June 16, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Alensin at 9:20 AM on June 16, 2018 [6 favorites]
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Harvard does evaluate and rank applicants on qualities such as having a positive personality, being widely respected, having courage and kindness and perhaps other factors that are still hidden the black box that is Harvard's admissions process.
What this means is that the competition for a place in Harvard's class of 20XX is not just about academic aptitude and achievement and trophy athletics and extracurriculars.
Bringing "personal ratings" into the mix opens a socio-cultural can of worms. Of course, some elements of the personal rating might have more to do with innate qualities than with one's social environment. However, my concern is that there may be a correlation between an applicant's socioeconomic background, culture, ethnicity, race, sex, gender identity and other sociological factors that are beyond the applicants' control and the personal rating he or she receives in Harvard's admissions process.
This further discredits the notion of a meritocracy at elite universities. It gives the admissions process a distinctly clubby connotation, more like getting into a prize co-op than demonstrating you're an extraordinarily brilliant, accomplished and promising individual at the tender age of 17. Of course, you have to be all that, but now it seems that Harvard also asks: "Are you one of us? "
If an applicant doesn't come from a social background that is likely to instill the personal qualities Harvard seeks, how can an applicant possibly be competitive? Will the dreadful college-admission coaching industry now expand into grade school and middle school so that that parents can start molding their children's personalities in time to catch up with the people who were born into the Ivy League culture?
Also, in some widely respected fields that require a degree from an elite university, having a "positive personality" could be a drawback instead of an asset.
In a perfect world, two things would happen. Some of today's billionaires would use part of their fortunes to found and endow new elite schools much as Leland Stanford did. Secondly, all the admissions criteria would be made public.
posted by A. Davey at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
What this means is that the competition for a place in Harvard's class of 20XX is not just about academic aptitude and achievement and trophy athletics and extracurriculars.
Bringing "personal ratings" into the mix opens a socio-cultural can of worms. Of course, some elements of the personal rating might have more to do with innate qualities than with one's social environment. However, my concern is that there may be a correlation between an applicant's socioeconomic background, culture, ethnicity, race, sex, gender identity and other sociological factors that are beyond the applicants' control and the personal rating he or she receives in Harvard's admissions process.
This further discredits the notion of a meritocracy at elite universities. It gives the admissions process a distinctly clubby connotation, more like getting into a prize co-op than demonstrating you're an extraordinarily brilliant, accomplished and promising individual at the tender age of 17. Of course, you have to be all that, but now it seems that Harvard also asks: "Are you one of us? "
If an applicant doesn't come from a social background that is likely to instill the personal qualities Harvard seeks, how can an applicant possibly be competitive? Will the dreadful college-admission coaching industry now expand into grade school and middle school so that that parents can start molding their children's personalities in time to catch up with the people who were born into the Ivy League culture?
Also, in some widely respected fields that require a degree from an elite university, having a "positive personality" could be a drawback instead of an asset.
In a perfect world, two things would happen. Some of today's billionaires would use part of their fortunes to found and endow new elite schools much as Leland Stanford did. Secondly, all the admissions criteria would be made public.
posted by A. Davey at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Speaking as the parent of two very privileged Asian-American children, this lawsuit seems designed to cause major conflicted feelings for yrs truly. On the one hand, it makes me mental that my kids might not get a fair shake because of racism. Of course.
On the other hand, I'm very cognizant of the many, many advantages my children have compared to, frankly, the vast majority of American children of any race. I do think they should probably be held to a higher standard of admissions than a poor black kid. They have every advantage you can imagine, and by the time they're teenagers I'm sure it will be obvious by talking to them that tremendous economic, academic, emotional, etc resources have gone into producing these particular human beings. What does that mean about whether Harvard should admit them compared to a remarkable but much more self-made child? What should it mean?
I'm not of Asian descent myself, so these questions were always abstract to me until I had kids. I don't feel I'm any closer to knowing the answers, but I care a lot more about the questions. I'll be watching this lawsuit with interest, but I honestly can't say I know what I hope the outcome is.
posted by potrzebie at 9:46 AM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
On the other hand, I'm very cognizant of the many, many advantages my children have compared to, frankly, the vast majority of American children of any race. I do think they should probably be held to a higher standard of admissions than a poor black kid. They have every advantage you can imagine, and by the time they're teenagers I'm sure it will be obvious by talking to them that tremendous economic, academic, emotional, etc resources have gone into producing these particular human beings. What does that mean about whether Harvard should admit them compared to a remarkable but much more self-made child? What should it mean?
I'm not of Asian descent myself, so these questions were always abstract to me until I had kids. I don't feel I'm any closer to knowing the answers, but I care a lot more about the questions. I'll be watching this lawsuit with interest, but I honestly can't say I know what I hope the outcome is.
posted by potrzebie at 9:46 AM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
There are three factors detailed here, and two out of three blatantly privilege white applicants, not only on a hypothetical level but as borne out by the numbers. The "athletes and legacy applicants" factor also creates the biggest discrepancy, even before you add on the ridiculous "personality and extracurriculars" bit.
The guy bringing the suit might be doing so in bad faith, but it seems like those two factors not only:
1) have the biggest impact on unfairly excluding Asian-American applicants, but also
2) unambiguously favor wealthy white applicants.
I don't see how a reasonable person could single out the affirmative action portion as the primary issue. Of course people are often unreasonable, to be sure.
posted by inconstant at 9:55 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
The guy bringing the suit might be doing so in bad faith, but it seems like those two factors not only:
1) have the biggest impact on unfairly excluding Asian-American applicants, but also
2) unambiguously favor wealthy white applicants.
I don't see how a reasonable person could single out the affirmative action portion as the primary issue. Of course people are often unreasonable, to be sure.
posted by inconstant at 9:55 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
I would hope that we would all be having serious second thoughts about "likability" as a criterion for anything after 2016. Although I would have also hoped that after 2000.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 9:57 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Ralston McTodd at 9:57 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Incidentally, this is something that I have grown up knowing, not necessarily backed up with investigative reports or scholarly studies but just knowledge that my parents and the parents of my friends and classmates shared with us. That we would always be acceptable losses while the white people in power paid lip service to the idea of affirmative action. (It's important to have the actual data; I just want to point out that this isn't shocking news to everyone.)
posted by inconstant at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by inconstant at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2018 [9 favorites]
Yes, +1 that Asian Americans have been sure this was happening for, oh, decades. It's grimly satisfying to have hard numbers, but I always knew my kids would be up against this.
posted by potrzebie at 10:11 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by potrzebie at 10:11 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
In a perfect world, two things would happen. Some of today's billionaires would use part of their fortunes to found and endow new elite schools much as Leland Stanford did. Secondly, all the admissions criteria would be made public.
Which would lead to their being intensely gamed by the applicants with the most resources. It's a really knotty problem.
The guy bringing the suit might be doing so in bad faith, but it seems like those two factors not only:
1) have the biggest impact on unfairly excluding Asian-American applicants, but also
2) unambiguously favor wealthy white applicants.
Actually, my understanding is that "athletes and legacies" favors wealthy white applicants (obvs), but the second factor, statistically, generally works to the advantage of blacks and Hispanics. I can't find a good cite on that at the moment, though, so take it with a grain of salt. The third factor clearly does.
I can't emphasize enough what other people are saying above: this suit is being brought in intensely bad faith by a white guy who likes the idea of pitting the minorities against each other. It's simply another iteration of the "model minority" strategy of oppression. The goal is not to help Asian-Americans overcome oppression, it's to get the black people out of Harvard. Everything coming out of the suit should be understood through that lens.
posted by praemunire at 10:30 AM on June 16, 2018 [12 favorites]
Which would lead to their being intensely gamed by the applicants with the most resources. It's a really knotty problem.
The guy bringing the suit might be doing so in bad faith, but it seems like those two factors not only:
1) have the biggest impact on unfairly excluding Asian-American applicants, but also
2) unambiguously favor wealthy white applicants.
Actually, my understanding is that "athletes and legacies" favors wealthy white applicants (obvs), but the second factor, statistically, generally works to the advantage of blacks and Hispanics. I can't find a good cite on that at the moment, though, so take it with a grain of salt. The third factor clearly does.
I can't emphasize enough what other people are saying above: this suit is being brought in intensely bad faith by a white guy who likes the idea of pitting the minorities against each other. It's simply another iteration of the "model minority" strategy of oppression. The goal is not to help Asian-Americans overcome oppression, it's to get the black people out of Harvard. Everything coming out of the suit should be understood through that lens.
posted by praemunire at 10:30 AM on June 16, 2018 [12 favorites]
The role of these "personality-based" criteria in admissions over academic standing were initially added to keep the Jews out.
I'm reminded of the letter that one of Richard Feynman's mentors had to write to get him admitted to Princeton: "Feynman of course is Jewish but as compared for instance with Kanner and Eisenbud he is more attractive personally by several orders of magnitude...I guarantee you'll like him."
posted by Ralston McTodd at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'm reminded of the letter that one of Richard Feynman's mentors had to write to get him admitted to Princeton: "Feynman of course is Jewish but as compared for instance with Kanner and Eisenbud he is more attractive personally by several orders of magnitude...I guarantee you'll like him."
posted by Ralston McTodd at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
athletes and legacies" favors wealthy white applicants (obvs)
Legacies sure but athletes? The NFL is 60% African-American. Baseball has high Latinx representation, etc.
The goal is not to help Asian-Americans overcome oppression, it's to get the black people out of Harvard.
Exactly. And this press release from the plaintiff -- which is not being clearly identified as such -- is playing on cultural stereotypes of African Americans as "big" personalities vs. Asian Americans as grinding, suppressed wonks, with Whites as the "just right porridge" in this Goldilocks scenario.
posted by msalt at 10:53 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Legacies sure but athletes? The NFL is 60% African-American. Baseball has high Latinx representation, etc.
The goal is not to help Asian-Americans overcome oppression, it's to get the black people out of Harvard.
Exactly. And this press release from the plaintiff -- which is not being clearly identified as such -- is playing on cultural stereotypes of African Americans as "big" personalities vs. Asian Americans as grinding, suppressed wonks, with Whites as the "just right porridge" in this Goldilocks scenario.
posted by msalt at 10:53 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
Legacies sure but athletes?
You're forgetting all of the other sports that make up a far greater proportion of NCAA athletics: crew, lacrosse, swimming, hockey, volleyball, squash, equestrian (I had a friend on a polo scholarship at an Ivy), etc. Outside of football and basketball and maybe track most other sports skew heavily white. (Baseball is only heavily Latinx at the professional level, and much of that is international).
posted by TwoStride at 10:57 AM on June 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
You're forgetting all of the other sports that make up a far greater proportion of NCAA athletics: crew, lacrosse, swimming, hockey, volleyball, squash, equestrian (I had a friend on a polo scholarship at an Ivy), etc. Outside of football and basketball and maybe track most other sports skew heavily white. (Baseball is only heavily Latinx at the professional level, and much of that is international).
posted by TwoStride at 10:57 AM on June 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
Legacies sure but athletes? The NFL is 60% African-American. Baseball has high Latinx representation, etc.
I taught at an ivy league university. The worst students--consistently--were the beefy white football or baseball players. None of them were going to play in the pros. But what these career B+ students could do is play well enough for a university whose sports teams are never competitive while not dragging down the standards too much. Then use their networks to make shittons of money on wall street.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:58 AM on June 16, 2018 [8 favorites]
I taught at an ivy league university. The worst students--consistently--were the beefy white football or baseball players. None of them were going to play in the pros. But what these career B+ students could do is play well enough for a university whose sports teams are never competitive while not dragging down the standards too much. Then use their networks to make shittons of money on wall street.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:58 AM on June 16, 2018 [8 favorites]
Legacies sure but athletes? The NFL is 60% African-American. Baseball has high Latinx representation, etc.Right, but athletes at elite universities aren't just football or baseball players. Harvard has teams in rowing, sailing, squash, skiing, golf, lacrosse, fencing, and waterpolo.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:59 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
NCAA Race and Gender Demographics Database
(If I read it right, in AY 16-17, for example, there were ~28,000 white baseball players and ~2,000 Hispanic ones)
posted by TwoStride at 11:01 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
(If I read it right, in AY 16-17, for example, there were ~28,000 white baseball players and ~2,000 Hispanic ones)
posted by TwoStride at 11:01 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
I had a friend on a polo scholarship at an Ivy
Are you sure? Because I've long heard that Ivies don't allow athletic scholarships, and this official website seems to confirm that.
Are you sure? Because I've long heard that Ivies don't allow athletic scholarships, and this official website seems to confirm that.
Ivy League schools provide financial aid to students, including athletes, only on the basis of financial need as determined by each institution’s Financial Aid Office. There are no academic or athletic scholarships in the Ivy League.posted by msalt at 11:14 AM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
vies don't allow athletic scholarships
Ok, I misspoke: they were recruited because of their polo prowess and then given financial aid which made it possible to attend.
posted by TwoStride at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
Ok, I misspoke: they were recruited because of their polo prowess and then given financial aid which made it possible to attend.
posted by TwoStride at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
Yes, I get that this lawsuit is not being brought up because the dude loves Asian folks. But I feel like this is something we can discuss and something that is problematic. As an Asian-American, I grew up knowing that I had to massively outscore other people to get the same shot, and I guess I was OK with that because that's how things were back then. I just don't think it's super fair to judge my half-Asian daughters on that same scale.
And I say that as somebody who has seen previous comments on metafilter which were basically 'I grew up with some Asian people, looked deep into their souls, and can reliably inform you that they were humorless min/maxers with no personalities."
posted by Comrade_robot at 11:18 AM on June 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
And I say that as somebody who has seen previous comments on metafilter which were basically 'I grew up with some Asian people, looked deep into their souls, and can reliably inform you that they were humorless min/maxers with no personalities."
posted by Comrade_robot at 11:18 AM on June 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
(And while polo is very clearly a rich person's sport there's always the odd poor kid or two who gets by thanks to working as a groom to offset the expenses, etc)
posted by TwoStride at 11:19 AM on June 16, 2018
posted by TwoStride at 11:19 AM on June 16, 2018
I feel like this is something we can discuss and something that is problematic.
I do agree. I just think it's important to be conscious of how this is being framed. A "study" by a litigant always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, and, in this case, a fair bit more.
posted by praemunire at 11:23 AM on June 16, 2018
I do agree. I just think it's important to be conscious of how this is being framed. A "study" by a litigant always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, and, in this case, a fair bit more.
posted by praemunire at 11:23 AM on June 16, 2018
Unless all groups are absolutely identical in every respect, then any criteria that is used to pick admissions is going to disproportionately favor certain groups over others. Raw SAT scores will favor certain groups. "Personality" will favor certain groups. Historical disadvantage will favor certain groups. And favoring certain groups means disfavoring others. That's the part we don't like to look too hard at, that making things fairer for certain groups, to phrase it in the best possible terms, is certain to lessen the chances for other groups. That's going to be the case regardless, whether the optics of it look grossly unfair -- as in rating personalities -- or whether the criteria are hidden behind more opaque and and dispassionate-sounding jargon. Even if schools use a thorough and reasonable mix of criteria, as Harvard claims to be doing, second order analysis will be able to suss out discrepancies that can be weaponized by a guy like Ed Blum to cast doubt on the fairness of the whole exercise.
Maybe we need to think more closely about why many believe it's unfair to use "positive personality" as a selection criteria but believe it's perfectly fair to use standardized test scores. Is it unfair because "personality" seems arcane and subjective? What if Harvard gave some kind of standardized personality test? Then we'd be back to the wealthy and connected being able to game the system in their favor by prepping for the exam. Is it unfair because it seems targeted to exclude Asians based on a stereotype of Asian behavior? Well, yes, it is, that's the point, to make room for less advantaged minorities, and the only way to do that is by holding others back. And even if we call it something else besides "personality" and use other ostensible measures, then if they achieve the same result then it's functionally identical to a personality score. But maybe that's okay, as long as the goal of fairness is achieved, maybe we don't need to know in detail how the sausages are made.
posted by xigxag at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Maybe we need to think more closely about why many believe it's unfair to use "positive personality" as a selection criteria but believe it's perfectly fair to use standardized test scores. Is it unfair because "personality" seems arcane and subjective? What if Harvard gave some kind of standardized personality test? Then we'd be back to the wealthy and connected being able to game the system in their favor by prepping for the exam. Is it unfair because it seems targeted to exclude Asians based on a stereotype of Asian behavior? Well, yes, it is, that's the point, to make room for less advantaged minorities, and the only way to do that is by holding others back. And even if we call it something else besides "personality" and use other ostensible measures, then if they achieve the same result then it's functionally identical to a personality score. But maybe that's okay, as long as the goal of fairness is achieved, maybe we don't need to know in detail how the sausages are made.
posted by xigxag at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Maybe we need to think more closely about why many believe it's unfair to use "positive personality" as a selection criteria but believe it's perfectly fair to use standardized test scores.
If you want to use 'positive personality' as a selection criteria, by all means, be my guest, but then don't go ahead and decide that every person with an Asian last name has negative personality traits. You kind of seem to be saying something like "as long it keeps those people out, I don't understand why you're upset by the exact criteria". Is that accurate? I mean Harvard more or less tries to play itself off as a meritocracy.
posted by Comrade_robot at 11:35 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
If you want to use 'positive personality' as a selection criteria, by all means, be my guest, but then don't go ahead and decide that every person with an Asian last name has negative personality traits. You kind of seem to be saying something like "as long it keeps those people out, I don't understand why you're upset by the exact criteria". Is that accurate? I mean Harvard more or less tries to play itself off as a meritocracy.
posted by Comrade_robot at 11:35 AM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Right, but athletes at elite universities aren't just football or baseball players. Harvard has teams in rowing, sailing, squash, skiing, golf, lacrosse, fencing, and waterpolo.
Good point, but at the same time you can't assume that stereotypically pale sports have all-white rosters. Just glancing through team photos and based on appearance, a quarter of lacrosse players are of color, and one of the 8 women on the polo team. The women's golf team appears to be majority Asian. The most diverse sports -- again, looking at photos -- are also by far the largest rosters: soccer, football and basketball.
posted by msalt at 11:39 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
Good point, but at the same time you can't assume that stereotypically pale sports have all-white rosters. Just glancing through team photos and based on appearance, a quarter of lacrosse players are of color, and one of the 8 women on the polo team. The women's golf team appears to be majority Asian. The most diverse sports -- again, looking at photos -- are also by far the largest rosters: soccer, football and basketball.
posted by msalt at 11:39 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
I mean, if you have a system of elite schools that has to be selective by definition, and if you have a society where membership in certain classes is a predictor of achievement according to an arbitrary set of standards, then no amount of jiggling of the admissions process is going to make it "fair." There will always be over- and under-representation based on whatever arbitrary classes we assign people to.
Which is to say, maybe the notion of selective elite schools is shitty to begin with and this is a problem without a solution so long as they endure.
And no, based on my grades, I never would have gotten into Harvard or any other elite school.
posted by klanawa at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
Which is to say, maybe the notion of selective elite schools is shitty to begin with and this is a problem without a solution so long as they endure.
And no, based on my grades, I never would have gotten into Harvard or any other elite school.
posted by klanawa at 11:43 AM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
It frustrates me that people in this thread are literally turning it into a minority vs minority thing when the text of the post itself clearly states
posted by inconstant at 11:49 AM on June 16, 2018 [17 favorites]
After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31 percent. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26 percent."oh well it's always gonna favor one group or another" well how about we stop favoring white people, who already take up a grossly disproportionate share of power not only at "Harvard" or "elite institutions" but also this entire country and also kind of the entire world, how's that for a start
posted by inconstant at 11:49 AM on June 16, 2018 [17 favorites]
(I just want to make it clear that I'm not supporting the status quo here. I'm saying that the system is designed to enforce a status quo that privileges some groups over others.)
posted by klanawa at 11:53 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by klanawa at 11:53 AM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
You kind of seem to be saying something like "as long it keeps those people out, I don't understand why you're upset by the exact criteria". Is that accurate? I mean Harvard more or less tries to play itself off as a meritocracy
I'm saying, if it's already been decided to sacrifice Asians for other minorities, which appears to be the goal of certain elite universities, then getting in a huff over the exact method of such exclusion seems a bit pointless. It's never going to sound fair, no matter how they dress it up.
posted by xigxag at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2018
I'm saying, if it's already been decided to sacrifice Asians for other minorities, which appears to be the goal of certain elite universities, then getting in a huff over the exact method of such exclusion seems a bit pointless. It's never going to sound fair, no matter how they dress it up.
posted by xigxag at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2018
What enn said. It is NOT Asian-American students suing Harvard. It's a white guy from Maine who has been fighting affirmative action for decades
That's a pretty big mistake in the headline. Should the headline be changed?
posted by clawsoon at 12:55 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
That's a pretty big mistake in the headline. Should the headline be changed?
posted by clawsoon at 12:55 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
It frustrates me that people in this thread are literally turning it into a minority vs minority thing when the text of the post itself clearly states
Read up on who's funding this. It very much is minorities being pitted against one another.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:11 PM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Read up on who's funding this. It very much is minorities being pitted against one another.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:11 PM on June 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Being (1) an Asian American, who (2) got wait-listed from Harvard and instead went to Stanford for undergrad, and (3) now does statistical modeling like it's my job, I think this case is kinda weird.
A friend pointed me to some important context in these threads (including links to the actual briefs themselves; in the links you can also find the methodology of Arcidiciano and Card, the professors called as expert witnesses by either side):
https://twitter.com/dynarski/status/1007624830622031872
https://twitter.com/JLeeSoc/status/1007770438942900224
Everyone feeling satisfied that their preconceptions are being confirmed should take a closer look at the actual data / hard numbers. It's a complicated topic, but the briefs are relatively easy to follow.
Hot takes:
- From the Twitter threads: So! Harvard is apparently engaged in discrimination ONLY against the subpopulation defined as male Asians who are not from California or legacies or athletes or children of Harvard faculty/staff.
This part makes me feel a little skeptical about the plaintiffs' claims? It feels a little like p-hacking (or, as Andrew Gelman calls it, "the garden of forking paths" [pdf link, but very readable]). With so many optional ways to restrict the hypothesis, you can keep testing slight variations of the hypothesis until you find one that's statistically significant.
- They're calling it a "personality" metric but it's not literally just rating applicants personalities; that's their term for a metric that includes a lot of non-grades-and-test-scores factors. (I think this is dumb; why not just call it a "non-academic" metric?)
- In addition to arguing that the admissions system is biased against Asian American applicants, Arcidiciano explicitly argues that the system is biased towards "African American and Hispanic" applicants. He argues that there's an explicit quota ("floor") for African American applicants based on a 3-year run of admission rates, but, as Card points out, this isn't statistically meaningful once you account for all of the many possible ways to do this analysis. I'm inclined to agree with Card here; it's another garden of forking paths.
- Someone can correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but it looks like the gist is as follows:
If you predict (male, not-from-California, non-athlete, etc...) Asian American applicants' acceptance rates, based on the set of variables that Arcidiciano uses (mostly academic, ignoring the "personal"/nonacademic variables), you'd predict higher rates than they get irl.
But if you predict their acceptance rates based on a different set of variables that Card uses (including the nonacademic variables), you find no statistically significant effect, or find that Asian Americans actually benefit overall.
Arcidiciano argues that Asian Americans' relative underperformance in Card's model with nonacademic variables is due to bias, but that their relative overperformance in his own model with mostly academic variables is ground truth and due to intrinsic unobservable factors.
- Note that the nonacademic variables (intended career, high school and neighborhood characteristics, parents' occupations, etc), are inevitably going to be correlated with race and socioeconomic status. Like, some of them are going to almost end up being proxy variables for race/SES. But also, like, even the academic scores are going to be inevitably correlated with race and SES, too! Not because of intrinsic RPG-style racial bonuses to academics, but because of systemic racism in the educational system and society at large.
- I think it's entirely possible that there is anti-Asian bias in the nonacademic rating. I'm not sure that the evidence here shows that it was explicit, or that quotas exist. And that's the weird thing! That that's the scope of this lawsuit! We're trying to be in this zone where race-conscious admissions are okay, but quotas are bad? And giving undue weight to race is also bad.
- So all of this feels a little circular to me. Assigning any particular set of weights to standardized tests, high school GPA, extracurriculars, etc. in the admissions process, is necessarily going to produce one kind of distribution of race/SES in the student body, and not another. It'd be pretty damn hard to point to one of those distributions and say, ah yes, this one here is the correct meritocratic one.
So the fight is fundamentally about competing visions of what we want the student body at an elite school to look like, but nobody wants to talk about it that way; everyone wants to pretend that the process can be objective.
- As my (Asian American, Harvard grad, stats-professor) best friend mentioned when we were discussing this: one of the reasons that affirmative action (without quotas) was upheld by the Supreme Court was the argument that diversity is a good thing in and of itself.
I think this is a good argument (and Harvard's brief devotes many sections to this argument, which the plaintiffs never really address). We want a diverse student body at elite schools because of the tangible benefits it provides to students, and to society. So it makes sense for the admissions to try to achieve a diverse student body. Honestly, in a context where universities are choosing from a huge pool of immensely overqualified candidates in the first place, it's hard for me to find the mental energy to be personally bothered by literal quotas. Any other race-conscious system is essentially just going to try to approximate literal quotas, and then hide that goal under a layer of proxy variables and PR.
enn: this lawsuit is part of a sustained campaign by neocon perpetual litigant Edward Blum to kill affirmative action
Yup.
Brian B.: This seems like a covert challenge to Harvard's implementation of affirmative action, which also seems to blatantly assume Harvard's obligation to serve the highest test scores.
It's not even particularly covert, tbh?
ArbitraryAndCapricious: And boy howdy, is it toxic and dangerous to pit Asian-Americans against black and Latino Americans, which is the basic strategy here.
Yeah, debates over affirmative action are just one of many situations where the Asian American "model-minority" mythos gets used in service of anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, and I encourage other Asian Americans to resist being used as tools for this agenda. Our proximity to whiteness will not protect us. Our ancestors never enjoyed it, and it will not save our children. In solidarity with other minorities, we can use the privilege we have to dismantle the systems that oppress the most vulnerable among us.
On multiple occasions in my life, white people irl have complained to me about how affirmative action disadvantages Asian Americans, clearly expecting me to agree. I think this demonstrates a profound and/or willful ignorance of history? Racism against Asian Americans definitely exists -- but anti-Asian racism looks very different from anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, it has different historical roots, and it has had different historical impacts. In some contexts, Asian Americans get the privileges associated with proximity to whiteness, and in other contexts, they don't.
I think the educational system leading up to elite universities and white-collar professional fields is one context where Asian American and white people generally get profound advantages.
Like, in response to:
Comrade_robot: As an Asian-American, I grew up knowing that I had to massively outscore other people to get the same shot
This seems like a weird way to frame the situation, to me. As a (cis, male, mostly-heterosexual, with fairish skin) Asian American, I grew up knowing that teachers would expect me to be smart and worth investing time into, that I'd be encouraged and supported in academic endeavors instead of dismissed, that I had role models in STEM fields (both in history and in my family-and-friends network), that my ideas would be taken seriously if I wanted to enter a white-collar professional job, that I could feel safe and comfortable in my work environment, that my white classmates and colleagues would usually view me as "one of them".
I definitely know not every Asian American kid had the same privileges (Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, people from East Asia get treated differently from people from Southeast Asia, the model-minority myth is harmful to us in many other ways, and so on). I've been extremely lucky. But I also know that many more Black and Latinx kids unequivocally do not have the same privileges, and that, if they got the same score as me on a standardized test (as if that were a purely meritocratic measure), they had to overcome a lot more bullshit to get there and would have to overcome a lot more bullshit in the future to stay there.
That is why Black and Latinx students are underrepresented in universities, and that is the problem affirmative action is trying to address.
inconstant: It frustrates me that people in this thread are literally turning it into a minority vs minority thing
I think the plaintiffs were trying to make it a minority-vs-minority thing from the beginning; that's literally Blum's goal. If you read the actual briefs, the plaintiffs also explicitly argue that African American and Hispanic applicants are being advantaged at the expense of Asian American applicants. (Granted, this part of it wasn't covered as deeply in the news articles.)
A final note to think about, from @samswey:
Reminder: Harvard admits more white students with legacy preferences than all black students combined.
posted by omnomnOMINOUS at 1:27 PM on June 16, 2018 [80 favorites]
A friend pointed me to some important context in these threads (including links to the actual briefs themselves; in the links you can also find the methodology of Arcidiciano and Card, the professors called as expert witnesses by either side):
https://twitter.com/dynarski/status/1007624830622031872
https://twitter.com/JLeeSoc/status/1007770438942900224
Everyone feeling satisfied that their preconceptions are being confirmed should take a closer look at the actual data / hard numbers. It's a complicated topic, but the briefs are relatively easy to follow.
Hot takes:
- From the Twitter threads: So! Harvard is apparently engaged in discrimination ONLY against the subpopulation defined as male Asians who are not from California or legacies or athletes or children of Harvard faculty/staff.
This part makes me feel a little skeptical about the plaintiffs' claims? It feels a little like p-hacking (or, as Andrew Gelman calls it, "the garden of forking paths" [pdf link, but very readable]). With so many optional ways to restrict the hypothesis, you can keep testing slight variations of the hypothesis until you find one that's statistically significant.
- They're calling it a "personality" metric but it's not literally just rating applicants personalities; that's their term for a metric that includes a lot of non-grades-and-test-scores factors. (I think this is dumb; why not just call it a "non-academic" metric?)
- In addition to arguing that the admissions system is biased against Asian American applicants, Arcidiciano explicitly argues that the system is biased towards "African American and Hispanic" applicants. He argues that there's an explicit quota ("floor") for African American applicants based on a 3-year run of admission rates, but, as Card points out, this isn't statistically meaningful once you account for all of the many possible ways to do this analysis. I'm inclined to agree with Card here; it's another garden of forking paths.
- Someone can correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but it looks like the gist is as follows:
If you predict (male, not-from-California, non-athlete, etc...) Asian American applicants' acceptance rates, based on the set of variables that Arcidiciano uses (mostly academic, ignoring the "personal"/nonacademic variables), you'd predict higher rates than they get irl.
But if you predict their acceptance rates based on a different set of variables that Card uses (including the nonacademic variables), you find no statistically significant effect, or find that Asian Americans actually benefit overall.
Arcidiciano argues that Asian Americans' relative underperformance in Card's model with nonacademic variables is due to bias, but that their relative overperformance in his own model with mostly academic variables is ground truth and due to intrinsic unobservable factors.
- Note that the nonacademic variables (intended career, high school and neighborhood characteristics, parents' occupations, etc), are inevitably going to be correlated with race and socioeconomic status. Like, some of them are going to almost end up being proxy variables for race/SES. But also, like, even the academic scores are going to be inevitably correlated with race and SES, too! Not because of intrinsic RPG-style racial bonuses to academics, but because of systemic racism in the educational system and society at large.
- I think it's entirely possible that there is anti-Asian bias in the nonacademic rating. I'm not sure that the evidence here shows that it was explicit, or that quotas exist. And that's the weird thing! That that's the scope of this lawsuit! We're trying to be in this zone where race-conscious admissions are okay, but quotas are bad? And giving undue weight to race is also bad.
- So all of this feels a little circular to me. Assigning any particular set of weights to standardized tests, high school GPA, extracurriculars, etc. in the admissions process, is necessarily going to produce one kind of distribution of race/SES in the student body, and not another. It'd be pretty damn hard to point to one of those distributions and say, ah yes, this one here is the correct meritocratic one.
So the fight is fundamentally about competing visions of what we want the student body at an elite school to look like, but nobody wants to talk about it that way; everyone wants to pretend that the process can be objective.
- As my (Asian American, Harvard grad, stats-professor) best friend mentioned when we were discussing this: one of the reasons that affirmative action (without quotas) was upheld by the Supreme Court was the argument that diversity is a good thing in and of itself.
I think this is a good argument (and Harvard's brief devotes many sections to this argument, which the plaintiffs never really address). We want a diverse student body at elite schools because of the tangible benefits it provides to students, and to society. So it makes sense for the admissions to try to achieve a diverse student body. Honestly, in a context where universities are choosing from a huge pool of immensely overqualified candidates in the first place, it's hard for me to find the mental energy to be personally bothered by literal quotas. Any other race-conscious system is essentially just going to try to approximate literal quotas, and then hide that goal under a layer of proxy variables and PR.
enn: this lawsuit is part of a sustained campaign by neocon perpetual litigant Edward Blum to kill affirmative action
Yup.
Brian B.: This seems like a covert challenge to Harvard's implementation of affirmative action, which also seems to blatantly assume Harvard's obligation to serve the highest test scores.
It's not even particularly covert, tbh?
ArbitraryAndCapricious: And boy howdy, is it toxic and dangerous to pit Asian-Americans against black and Latino Americans, which is the basic strategy here.
Yeah, debates over affirmative action are just one of many situations where the Asian American "model-minority" mythos gets used in service of anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, and I encourage other Asian Americans to resist being used as tools for this agenda. Our proximity to whiteness will not protect us. Our ancestors never enjoyed it, and it will not save our children. In solidarity with other minorities, we can use the privilege we have to dismantle the systems that oppress the most vulnerable among us.
On multiple occasions in my life, white people irl have complained to me about how affirmative action disadvantages Asian Americans, clearly expecting me to agree. I think this demonstrates a profound and/or willful ignorance of history? Racism against Asian Americans definitely exists -- but anti-Asian racism looks very different from anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, it has different historical roots, and it has had different historical impacts. In some contexts, Asian Americans get the privileges associated with proximity to whiteness, and in other contexts, they don't.
I think the educational system leading up to elite universities and white-collar professional fields is one context where Asian American and white people generally get profound advantages.
Like, in response to:
Comrade_robot: As an Asian-American, I grew up knowing that I had to massively outscore other people to get the same shot
This seems like a weird way to frame the situation, to me. As a (cis, male, mostly-heterosexual, with fairish skin) Asian American, I grew up knowing that teachers would expect me to be smart and worth investing time into, that I'd be encouraged and supported in academic endeavors instead of dismissed, that I had role models in STEM fields (both in history and in my family-and-friends network), that my ideas would be taken seriously if I wanted to enter a white-collar professional job, that I could feel safe and comfortable in my work environment, that my white classmates and colleagues would usually view me as "one of them".
I definitely know not every Asian American kid had the same privileges (Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, people from East Asia get treated differently from people from Southeast Asia, the model-minority myth is harmful to us in many other ways, and so on). I've been extremely lucky. But I also know that many more Black and Latinx kids unequivocally do not have the same privileges, and that, if they got the same score as me on a standardized test (as if that were a purely meritocratic measure), they had to overcome a lot more bullshit to get there and would have to overcome a lot more bullshit in the future to stay there.
That is why Black and Latinx students are underrepresented in universities, and that is the problem affirmative action is trying to address.
inconstant: It frustrates me that people in this thread are literally turning it into a minority vs minority thing
I think the plaintiffs were trying to make it a minority-vs-minority thing from the beginning; that's literally Blum's goal. If you read the actual briefs, the plaintiffs also explicitly argue that African American and Hispanic applicants are being advantaged at the expense of Asian American applicants. (Granted, this part of it wasn't covered as deeply in the news articles.)
A final note to think about, from @samswey:
Reminder: Harvard admits more white students with legacy preferences than all black students combined.
posted by omnomnOMINOUS at 1:27 PM on June 16, 2018 [80 favorites]
Great, this dude has now completely poisoned the well. (And he's been trying to kill the Voting Rights Act too? Holy shit.) Discrimination against Asians in college admissions is literally the only form of racism my conservative Chinese immigrant parents have ever voiced any opposition to. They watch Fox News and complain constantly about political correctness and wonder if it's safe for me to go out at night in DC. I wonder how thoroughly Asian American interests have been coopted in service to white supremacy. There is so little political solidarity between us and other minority groups in this country. I hope our concerns do not become the wedge that destroys affirmative action. We need a stronger voice for our own (diverse, contradictory, complicated) perspectives, instead of having wealthy white men string us along to push their own agendas.
posted by hyperbolic at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by hyperbolic at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2018 [11 favorites]
Read up on who's funding this. It very much is minorities being pitted against one another.I am talking about ignoring the bias toward white applicants and jumping straight to "there is literally nothing we can do and the only possible outcomes are to hurt Asian-American applicants or to hurt other minority applicants".
posted by inconstant at 1:59 PM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
In Ireland, admissions are anonymous and handled through a single body (the Central Admissions Office), you apply for a specific course rather than a college, and whether you get in is simple supply and demand (you study 7 subjects for 2 years, you get 0-100 points for your results in your best 6, if the course has 50 places then they send offers to the 50 students with the highest points who applied). It's brutal and not entirely fair but it's way better than that legacy nonsense you guys have.
posted by kersplunk at 2:28 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by kersplunk at 2:28 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
It's brutal and not entirely fair but it's way better than that legacy nonsense you guys have.
Legacies have almost no causal effect on people getting admitted to a college.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:53 PM on June 16, 2018
Legacies have almost no causal effect on people getting admitted to a college.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:53 PM on June 16, 2018
I'm curious about how this sort of thing works out in other countries. In Canada, it seems to me that school choice is mostly important in terms of specific programs or instructors, but for the most part, there isn't really an upper echelon of schools that -- by name alone -- bestow an insuperable level of cachet. It seems like it's basically similar to the US' state school system with the private and Ivy schools lopped off. It's a small enough country that, when someone says, "I went to U of T" you might say, "yeah, OK, but who was your supervisor?"
Are these problems with selectivity as prevalent in systems like Canada's or is an artifact of the educational caste system in the US?
posted by klanawa at 2:56 PM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
Are these problems with selectivity as prevalent in systems like Canada's or is an artifact of the educational caste system in the US?
posted by klanawa at 2:56 PM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
That is why Black and Latinx students are underrepresented in universities, and that is the problem affirmative action is trying to address.
Can affirmative action really address that, though? It seems to me that one of the biggest issues is disparities in early childhood and elementary/secondary education. Affirmative action at the university level --- especially in a few elite schools --- literally cannot solve that issue.
People don't live in bubbles, though. If someone gets a shot at a good school and makes it work, they take that success back to their families and communities, and they become members of new communities, which has a big effect on their children's chances of success.
posted by klanawa at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
Can affirmative action really address that, though? It seems to me that one of the biggest issues is disparities in early childhood and elementary/secondary education. Affirmative action at the university level --- especially in a few elite schools --- literally cannot solve that issue.
People don't live in bubbles, though. If someone gets a shot at a good school and makes it work, they take that success back to their families and communities, and they become members of new communities, which has a big effect on their children's chances of success.
posted by klanawa at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2018 [5 favorites]
Legacies have almost no causal effect on people getting admitted to a college.Do you have a source for that with respect to schools like Harvard? 29% of Harvard's incoming class last year were legacies. I don't think that anyone at Harvard denies that legacies get significant preference.
In Ireland, admissions are anonymous and handled through a single body (the Central Admissions Office), you apply for a specific course rather than a college, and whether you get in is simple supply and demand (you study 7 subjects for 2 years, you get 0-100 points for your results in your best 6, if the course has 50 places then they send offers to the 50 students with the highest points who applied). It's brutal and not entirely fair but it's way better than that legacy nonsense you guys have.It's really hard even to compare the educational systems. For one thing, this would require a degree of centralization of the high-school curriculum that would never fly in the US. Whoever wrote the tests would determine what got taught in every single high school in the US, and that's just not going to happen.
The US University where I work admits according to a formula, although they make exceptions for athletes. We're also not terribly selective, though, and I would say that if anything, the problem is that the formula is too generous and admits students who can't really handle the work. But we're a very far cry from Harvard.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2018 [6 favorites]
I think it's a pretty bad argument to come in and say that the people pursuing this suit does not have our interests at heart. If you are white, or you are a "successful"/elite Asian American, or an institutional administrator saying this, that's some serious unchecked bias. It's telling, not listening, to other Asian Americans. One reason I say this is because I used to espouse that attitude and in particular, the narrative that AA's in these situations are being exploited for antisolidarity against other marginalized PoC and ethnic groups. Then I spent time on the mainstream AA subreddit which at the time had a more diverse mix of AA voices, and then I wasn't so sure anymore but the lesson I learned the most was coming in to that sub and encouraging tone-deaf, top-down arguments about what and why my fellow lower-SES Asian Americans are wrong about and ignorant of.
Either you think elite admissions are basically screwing over Asian Americans as a bloc, or not. Then the social question is if you would rather Asian Americans spend their energies trying to rectify that, or deconstruct that framing one level up, which in the usual case is to have Asian Americans reject valuing those schools and find other ways to grow and build and learn while fighting racism. The standard conflict between groups of AA's is precisely these two conflicting semipolitical choices. But if you synthesize that, then what comes to light is the hidden assumption that if in a magic world that admitted more AA's to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or whatever, these AA's would simply pull up the ladder (the first choice). Making that assumption is profoundly offensive. It is offensive because it is evidence-free speculation. It is offensive because it precludes the vision in any movement for emancipation that sometimes you can take the fight to inside the system, and while a skepticism of that is valid, telling people (who are not like yourself) that they can't and shouldn't do that isn't. It's offensive because it makes AA's simple. It is the ideological privilege I just referred to.
So again, I used to be like that, pointing out other AA's ignorance of the Real issue in these controversies, in an effort to show that their argument and complaints were misinformed, misguided, and misplaced/misdirected. But I actually talked to them and listened to them, and I can't do that anymore, because in their shoes, it is so condescending.
posted by polymodus at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2018
Either you think elite admissions are basically screwing over Asian Americans as a bloc, or not. Then the social question is if you would rather Asian Americans spend their energies trying to rectify that, or deconstruct that framing one level up, which in the usual case is to have Asian Americans reject valuing those schools and find other ways to grow and build and learn while fighting racism. The standard conflict between groups of AA's is precisely these two conflicting semipolitical choices. But if you synthesize that, then what comes to light is the hidden assumption that if in a magic world that admitted more AA's to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or whatever, these AA's would simply pull up the ladder (the first choice). Making that assumption is profoundly offensive. It is offensive because it is evidence-free speculation. It is offensive because it precludes the vision in any movement for emancipation that sometimes you can take the fight to inside the system, and while a skepticism of that is valid, telling people (who are not like yourself) that they can't and shouldn't do that isn't. It's offensive because it makes AA's simple. It is the ideological privilege I just referred to.
So again, I used to be like that, pointing out other AA's ignorance of the Real issue in these controversies, in an effort to show that their argument and complaints were misinformed, misguided, and misplaced/misdirected. But I actually talked to them and listened to them, and I can't do that anymore, because in their shoes, it is so condescending.
posted by polymodus at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2018
a minority vs minority thing
From the outside, it seems like the American system was designed from the beginning to keep an elite in power by pitting minorities (and often minorities that add up to a majority) against each other. It seems like it'll keep doing that as long as the elite-school structure stays in place, even if the cast of characters that's allowed access to elite institutions changes over time. What other result are you going to get when an elite education provides such a big advantage and only a small number of people can access it?
It seems like something that goes back to the slave-owning elites and their friends who designed American political and education systems in the first place: Structure institutions so that those outside the elite pull each other down. Harvard's admissions department can act like it's helping minorities by letting them come to Harvard, but the very fact that the graduates of Harvard and a handful of other schools so dominate elite institutions means that it'll always be pushing some minority down while it lifts another up.
You're not going to get equality by fine-tuning the admissions process at Harvard.
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
From the outside, it seems like the American system was designed from the beginning to keep an elite in power by pitting minorities (and often minorities that add up to a majority) against each other. It seems like it'll keep doing that as long as the elite-school structure stays in place, even if the cast of characters that's allowed access to elite institutions changes over time. What other result are you going to get when an elite education provides such a big advantage and only a small number of people can access it?
It seems like something that goes back to the slave-owning elites and their friends who designed American political and education systems in the first place: Structure institutions so that those outside the elite pull each other down. Harvard's admissions department can act like it's helping minorities by letting them come to Harvard, but the very fact that the graduates of Harvard and a handful of other schools so dominate elite institutions means that it'll always be pushing some minority down while it lifts another up.
You're not going to get equality by fine-tuning the admissions process at Harvard.
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think it's a pretty bad argument to come in and say that the people pursuing this suit does not have our interests at heart.
Again, read up on the guy funding this. People are saying that he doesn't have the interests of minority groups in mind because he has been running a decades-long campaign to destroy affirmative action. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how there is any justification for any minority group to toss their lot in with a guy who is pretty openly looking to ultimately harm them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:04 PM on June 16, 2018 [11 favorites]
Again, read up on the guy funding this. People are saying that he doesn't have the interests of minority groups in mind because he has been running a decades-long campaign to destroy affirmative action. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how there is any justification for any minority group to toss their lot in with a guy who is pretty openly looking to ultimately harm them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:04 PM on June 16, 2018 [11 favorites]
This is definitely not a new thing - it's been happening for years. "Penalties" for Asian-Americans have been present in elite university admissions for quite a while now. For example, these articles are from 2015 and 2013:
- Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
- They believe getting rid of race considerations will work to the advantage of Asian Americans, who on average have held more extracurricular leadership positions and have higher test scores and grade-point averages than whites, yet have the lowest acceptance rate to elite private universities.
The whole so-called 'meritocratoc system' is bunk. The vast majority of applicants to elite schools - regardless of race - are coming from educational and economic privilege, and that's how they could get such high scores to start with.
If it were really about identifying the exceptional, than the whole incoming class would be filled with single mothers who graduate high school while working full-time and parenting. Those are the truly amazing and driven people. Or at kids who went to terrible schools and still came out literate amd interested in learning - those are your most agile minds. (Needless to say, the majority of both groups in the US will likely also be people of colour).
Fine tuning the system that's already stacked against the actually marginalised people.
The only way to truly address inequality is to dismantle the system by which attendance at a handful of elite universities is the only access one can gain into influence. When it comes to media, politics, science and academia, we need more people who went to community colleges - because they have experiences of life that people at elite universities rarely do - even to holding a job while studying.
posted by jb at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
If it were really about identifying the exceptional, than the whole incoming class would be filled with single mothers who graduate high school while working full-time and parenting. Those are the truly amazing and driven people. Or at kids who went to terrible schools and still came out literate amd interested in learning - those are your most agile minds. (Needless to say, the majority of both groups in the US will likely also be people of colour).
Fine tuning the system that's already stacked against the actually marginalised people.
The only way to truly address inequality is to dismantle the system by which attendance at a handful of elite universities is the only access one can gain into influence. When it comes to media, politics, science and academia, we need more people who went to community colleges - because they have experiences of life that people at elite universities rarely do - even to holding a job while studying.
posted by jb at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2018 [7 favorites]
Are these problems with selectivity as prevalent in systems like Canada's or is an artifact of the educational caste system in the US?
Due to the very large size of our best research universities - UofToronto has some 60,000 undergraduates - we don't have the same problem.
However, we sort of import it from the US. Our truly elite families (CEOs, etc) ship their children off to the Ivy League, and then they come back to take up the positions that have been prepared for them.
posted by jb at 6:43 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
polymodus: I think it's a pretty bad argument to come in and say that the people pursuing this suit does not have our interests at heart.
I dunno, Edward Blum is the guy pursuing this suit; I'm not a mind-reader, but I'm fairly comfortable arguing that he probably does not have our interests at heart. Like, when I say that proximity-to-whiteness will not protect us, one of the specific things I mean is that, if Blum ever succeeds in his quest to kill affirmative action, I do not personally feel reassured or convinced that, next, he'll continue to advocate for my interests instead of advocating for white people's interests at my expense. (I'm not really passing judgment on the Asian American folks who joined his organization.)
polymodus: Either you think elite admissions are basically screwing over Asian Americans as a bloc, or not.
Again, the framing of who's getting "screwed over" seems strange to me. Someone is "screwed over" in the admissions process if they deserve a spot at the school but didn't get it. Who deserves the spots? What do we want the demographics of the student body at an elite school to look like? I really don't think there's a neutral, objective, purely meritocratic answer. (Though there are bad answers, for sure.)
This particular legal case focuses on whether there is bias in the "personal"/nonacademic metrics used by admissions. I don't think the plaintiffs have shown enough evidence to support the claim that Harvard is using an explicit bias or a quota. But, like, what would a "fair" nonacademic metric even look like? What would a "fair" academic metric even look like, for that matter? One of the uncomfortable parts of this debate, I think, is that in practice, the nonacademic metric will often consist of "whatever variables are necessary to ensure a quota-like effect without actually being a quota". Every weighting of these variables necessarily expresses a opinion about what the student body should look like.
Two things we know are that:
1) Legacy preferences probably have a huge impact on admissions (neither the plaintiff nor the defendants in this case are denying this), perhaps more of an impact than all of affirmative action as a whole? Remember: Harvard admits more white students with legacy preferences than all black students combined.
I think this:
- benefits rich folks (including Asian Americans) over poor folks (including Asian Americans, and disproportionately including Black and Latinx people)
- benefits white people over non-white people (including Asian Americans, Black, Latinx people, etc.)
If Ed Blum wanted to advance our interests, why doesn't he try to end legacy preferences?
2) I think that Asian Americans as a bloc, along with white people as a bloc, have historically benefited from anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism in American society and in our educational system.
Of course, I'm not arguing that lower-SES Asian Americans don't exist, or aren't disadvantaged, either compared to rich Asian Americans, or compared to white people. But a poor Black or Latinx kid probably still experiences discrimination that a poor Asian or white kid does not experience. A middle-class or rich Black or Latinx kid probably experiences discrimination that a middle-class or rich Asian or white kid does not experience. It's not just SES alone; there's an extra effect of anti-Black/anti-Latinx racism. And this gives Asian and white kids an advantage even though they never asked for it, and even though they may have other disadvantages due to SES or other factors.
So, if affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies aim to help increase representation for Black and Latinx students who have historically experienced anti-Black/anti-Latinx racism, which white and Asian American students have not experienced, then to the extent that we have benefited from the structural racism in society, these policies should remove a small part of that benefit. Broadly, I think that's a good thing. I'm not convinced that that means that Asian Americans are being screwed over. (Of course, I also don't think that's a reason to stop advocating for a more just society for lower-SES people, including Asian Americans.)
polymodus: But if you synthesize that, then what comes to light is the hidden assumption that if in a magic world that admitted more AA's to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or whatever, these AA's would simply pull up the ladder (the first choice). Making that assumption is profoundly offensive.
I hadn't heard this particular assumption (and don't think I'd espouse it myself); I think the argument usually just goes: if an equally-qualified Black or Latinx student was in that spot, they'd "take the fight to inside the system" and advance their own communities' interests equally well themselves.
(I keep connecting the arguments back to Black and Latinx students because that is what the plaintiffs in this case are explicitly fighting about. Ed Blum literally wants to end affirmative action because he believes it gives an unfair advantage to African American and Hispanic applicants; this isn't subtext, it's text. Of course, I'd be happy if we eliminated legacy preferences and gave more spots to all underrepresented minorities across the board.)
More generally, yes, I definitely agree that the centralization of prestige in a few so-called "elite schools" in the US is part of the problem. Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, and the other "elite schools" reject so many equally-qualified students, so, necessarily, those students will bring their ability to whichever schools they do end up attending. I've also attended state schools, and I know many state schools will provide an equally good education as the most selective private schools, but don't get the same name recognition from employers; that's a problem. (I'm aware that I'm speaking from a position of privilege here.)
posted by omnomnOMINOUS at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2018 [15 favorites]
I dunno, Edward Blum is the guy pursuing this suit; I'm not a mind-reader, but I'm fairly comfortable arguing that he probably does not have our interests at heart. Like, when I say that proximity-to-whiteness will not protect us, one of the specific things I mean is that, if Blum ever succeeds in his quest to kill affirmative action, I do not personally feel reassured or convinced that, next, he'll continue to advocate for my interests instead of advocating for white people's interests at my expense. (I'm not really passing judgment on the Asian American folks who joined his organization.)
polymodus: Either you think elite admissions are basically screwing over Asian Americans as a bloc, or not.
Again, the framing of who's getting "screwed over" seems strange to me. Someone is "screwed over" in the admissions process if they deserve a spot at the school but didn't get it. Who deserves the spots? What do we want the demographics of the student body at an elite school to look like? I really don't think there's a neutral, objective, purely meritocratic answer. (Though there are bad answers, for sure.)
This particular legal case focuses on whether there is bias in the "personal"/nonacademic metrics used by admissions. I don't think the plaintiffs have shown enough evidence to support the claim that Harvard is using an explicit bias or a quota. But, like, what would a "fair" nonacademic metric even look like? What would a "fair" academic metric even look like, for that matter? One of the uncomfortable parts of this debate, I think, is that in practice, the nonacademic metric will often consist of "whatever variables are necessary to ensure a quota-like effect without actually being a quota". Every weighting of these variables necessarily expresses a opinion about what the student body should look like.
Two things we know are that:
1) Legacy preferences probably have a huge impact on admissions (neither the plaintiff nor the defendants in this case are denying this), perhaps more of an impact than all of affirmative action as a whole? Remember: Harvard admits more white students with legacy preferences than all black students combined.
I think this:
- benefits rich folks (including Asian Americans) over poor folks (including Asian Americans, and disproportionately including Black and Latinx people)
- benefits white people over non-white people (including Asian Americans, Black, Latinx people, etc.)
If Ed Blum wanted to advance our interests, why doesn't he try to end legacy preferences?
2) I think that Asian Americans as a bloc, along with white people as a bloc, have historically benefited from anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism in American society and in our educational system.
Of course, I'm not arguing that lower-SES Asian Americans don't exist, or aren't disadvantaged, either compared to rich Asian Americans, or compared to white people. But a poor Black or Latinx kid probably still experiences discrimination that a poor Asian or white kid does not experience. A middle-class or rich Black or Latinx kid probably experiences discrimination that a middle-class or rich Asian or white kid does not experience. It's not just SES alone; there's an extra effect of anti-Black/anti-Latinx racism. And this gives Asian and white kids an advantage even though they never asked for it, and even though they may have other disadvantages due to SES or other factors.
So, if affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies aim to help increase representation for Black and Latinx students who have historically experienced anti-Black/anti-Latinx racism, which white and Asian American students have not experienced, then to the extent that we have benefited from the structural racism in society, these policies should remove a small part of that benefit. Broadly, I think that's a good thing. I'm not convinced that that means that Asian Americans are being screwed over. (Of course, I also don't think that's a reason to stop advocating for a more just society for lower-SES people, including Asian Americans.)
polymodus: But if you synthesize that, then what comes to light is the hidden assumption that if in a magic world that admitted more AA's to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or whatever, these AA's would simply pull up the ladder (the first choice). Making that assumption is profoundly offensive.
I hadn't heard this particular assumption (and don't think I'd espouse it myself); I think the argument usually just goes: if an equally-qualified Black or Latinx student was in that spot, they'd "take the fight to inside the system" and advance their own communities' interests equally well themselves.
(I keep connecting the arguments back to Black and Latinx students because that is what the plaintiffs in this case are explicitly fighting about. Ed Blum literally wants to end affirmative action because he believes it gives an unfair advantage to African American and Hispanic applicants; this isn't subtext, it's text. Of course, I'd be happy if we eliminated legacy preferences and gave more spots to all underrepresented minorities across the board.)
More generally, yes, I definitely agree that the centralization of prestige in a few so-called "elite schools" in the US is part of the problem. Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, and the other "elite schools" reject so many equally-qualified students, so, necessarily, those students will bring their ability to whichever schools they do end up attending. I've also attended state schools, and I know many state schools will provide an equally good education as the most selective private schools, but don't get the same name recognition from employers; that's a problem. (I'm aware that I'm speaking from a position of privilege here.)
posted by omnomnOMINOUS at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2018 [15 favorites]
This graph is very instructive; legacy/athletics hurts Asian admission chances about as much as demographic correction. Together, they drop the percentage of admissions from "academics alone" from 48% to 19%! The "extracurricular and pesonal" axis that the article focuses on definitely does damage Asian chances, but nowhere near as much as the other types of correction.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:02 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:02 PM on June 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
As an Asian American who attended an Ivy League university during the height of the affirmative action battle (California Prop 209 was approved in Nov 1996) and was constantly asked "isn't it so unfair" that Asian Americans with higher test scores were "losing out" to "less qualified" Black and Latino students, I both believe that there is racial bias operating in admissions offices that defaults to assumptions that Asian Americans are uninteresting nerds and a completely legitimate argument for an admissions process that considers things like race, family educational background (first in the family to go to college, etc), income, etc and thus an affirmative action program that admits students not solely on the basis of GPAs and test scores.
I do not trust Blum one bit.
I do not trust Blum one bit.
Edward Blum is also challenging race-conscious admissions policies at other selective universities, claiming that they do not comply with the strict legal standard set forth in Fisher.[12] To that end, he has founded Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation. This organization seeks to recruit students who have been rejected by selective universities and file lawsuits on their behalf.[13] Specifically, Blum is targeting Harvard University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He set up websites called harvardnotfair.org,[14] uncnotfair.org,[15] and uwnotfair.org[16] to attract plaintiffs.posted by spamandkimchi at 8:22 PM on June 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
linked earlier, in different context, but perhaps a helpful reminder of the waters we're swimming in, re: 'the way our society talks about education': "The fact that everyone seems to agree that the purpose of education is 'job skills', rather than say, 'the flourishing of the human mind', shows the triumph of a certain new kind of liberalism, for which I can only think of one word."
posted by kliuless at 8:28 PM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by kliuless at 8:28 PM on June 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
The Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, which I support, is an organization aimed at increasing the diversity at Harvard. It is run by alums and usually recommends Harvard Board members and Overseers (elected by alums) that promote diversity.
They have issued this statement on this, providing some background and preliminary stats.
Short version: The litigant has really bad intentions. There is nothing to support his divisive claim.
posted by vacapinta at 6:55 AM on June 17, 2018 [8 favorites]
They have issued this statement on this, providing some background and preliminary stats.
Short version: The litigant has really bad intentions. There is nothing to support his divisive claim.
posted by vacapinta at 6:55 AM on June 17, 2018 [8 favorites]
There is nothing to support his divisive claim.And again, the favoring of white applicants gets swept under the rug. Nothing to see here, move on, move on. Don't be so divided.
posted by inconstant at 7:38 AM on June 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
The judge and jury in this case should perhaps ignore the intentions of the litigant (and even that is arguable, given that well-funded, tendentious advocates can manipulate the legal process, e.g. SLAPP suits, and the shoe fits Edward Blum).
But be that as it may, WE should absolutely evaluate the intentions of the litigant, because we are discussing the press release he released about his politically motivated lawsuit -- not the legal issues or the evidence, which we are not privy to -- and we're evaluating the slanted framing he applied to it
posted by msalt at 12:02 PM on June 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
But be that as it may, WE should absolutely evaluate the intentions of the litigant, because we are discussing the press release he released about his politically motivated lawsuit -- not the legal issues or the evidence, which we are not privy to -- and we're evaluating the slanted framing he applied to it
posted by msalt at 12:02 PM on June 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
For example, there are many subtleties to the "personality" issue that Blum is focused on here. Harvard has individual interviews of each applicant, by an alumnus, and I suspect that the "personality" rating derives from from that.
As snickerdoodle noted, one's personal story is a big factor, and being a first generation immigrant, or having survived some personal trauma, is a good story. This factor by nature cuts against academic achievement, because grades and test scores are correlated with growing up in a high SES household with a stable family, good schools, etc. That's a bad story, and it often leads to unpleasant personality traits (arrogance, lack of empathy, entitlement, etc.)
When I applied to Harvard, the guy who interviewed was literally the only person in history from my blue-collar Catholic high school who had ever gone to Harvard. It was a lucky but unfair advantage to me, and I really doubt I would have gotten in with any other interviewer. Also, back then, geographic diversity was a consideration, and applicants from Oregon were rare. (Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT was the only other Oregon admittee my year.) That is "personality" too.
On the other hand, the subjectivity of the personal evaluation obviously reinforces the status quo, as the interviewer's entire life informs his or her judgments, and alumni tend to be white, affluent and male. Asian American culture does tend to be a bit different than mainstream culture, and difference is rarely rewarded. Speaking advisedly in stereotypes and ignoring for now the wide variations among Asian cultures, one interesting thing is that stereotypical Asian-American traits such as studiousness, respect for teachers, hard work, and quietness are also stereotypical female traits, which women are also downgraded for.
posted by msalt at 12:17 PM on June 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
As snickerdoodle noted, one's personal story is a big factor, and being a first generation immigrant, or having survived some personal trauma, is a good story. This factor by nature cuts against academic achievement, because grades and test scores are correlated with growing up in a high SES household with a stable family, good schools, etc. That's a bad story, and it often leads to unpleasant personality traits (arrogance, lack of empathy, entitlement, etc.)
When I applied to Harvard, the guy who interviewed was literally the only person in history from my blue-collar Catholic high school who had ever gone to Harvard. It was a lucky but unfair advantage to me, and I really doubt I would have gotten in with any other interviewer. Also, back then, geographic diversity was a consideration, and applicants from Oregon were rare. (Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT was the only other Oregon admittee my year.) That is "personality" too.
On the other hand, the subjectivity of the personal evaluation obviously reinforces the status quo, as the interviewer's entire life informs his or her judgments, and alumni tend to be white, affluent and male. Asian American culture does tend to be a bit different than mainstream culture, and difference is rarely rewarded. Speaking advisedly in stereotypes and ignoring for now the wide variations among Asian cultures, one interesting thing is that stereotypical Asian-American traits such as studiousness, respect for teachers, hard work, and quietness are also stereotypical female traits, which women are also downgraded for.
posted by msalt at 12:17 PM on June 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
the decent person part isn’t necessary at all
E.g., the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard comes from Katz v. United Status, where Katz was unambiguously a criminal recorded discussing his crimes on a pay phone.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 1:39 PM on June 17, 2018
E.g., the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard comes from Katz v. United Status, where Katz was unambiguously a criminal recorded discussing his crimes on a pay phone.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 1:39 PM on June 17, 2018
As someone who has been to law school, and understands how the law works, I have to say that the intentions of the litigant are completely irrelevant to whether or not you should support a given piece of litigation.
Oh, for heaven's sake. As a public interest lawyer, I say that a person who chooses to ignore the ultimate goals of a litigant in deciding whether to support a litigation is a sucker of epic proportions. When litigation is being used to change public policy, you have to consider the policy ends in view.
posted by praemunire at 7:56 PM on June 17, 2018 [5 favorites]
Oh, for heaven's sake. As a public interest lawyer, I say that a person who chooses to ignore the ultimate goals of a litigant in deciding whether to support a litigation is a sucker of epic proportions. When litigation is being used to change public policy, you have to consider the policy ends in view.
posted by praemunire at 7:56 PM on June 17, 2018 [5 favorites]
Gently, I'm going to suggest that your theoretical grasp on how the law works may not be as strong as you think it is.
A decided case has two main outcomes: the relief and the narrative that justifies that relief. Both of those, but most especially the narrative, are often fundamentally shaped by the intentions of the winning litigant. Note, for instance, that what the plaintiff is not seeking here is the declaring of legacy admissions to be discriminatory, even though, as others have pointed out, they effectively serve to reserve about a quarter of the class for an overwhelmingly white group, at the expense of Asian-Americans. Instead, he is seeking to exclude blacks and Latino/as. Equally importantly, if the plaintiff prevails here, he will prevail through the court's endorsing some kind of theory of what legally justifies or does not justify the use of certain considerations in admission, and some kind of story about how college admissions have worked and should work. With this kind of plaintiff framing the facts, it will be a theory and a narrative that undermines racial justice overall. And that is what future courts will look at in deciding further cases along this line, as the plaintiff's backer continues his attack on affirmative action generally.
This is just the flip side of basic PI strategy.
posted by praemunire at 8:40 AM on June 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
A decided case has two main outcomes: the relief and the narrative that justifies that relief. Both of those, but most especially the narrative, are often fundamentally shaped by the intentions of the winning litigant. Note, for instance, that what the plaintiff is not seeking here is the declaring of legacy admissions to be discriminatory, even though, as others have pointed out, they effectively serve to reserve about a quarter of the class for an overwhelmingly white group, at the expense of Asian-Americans. Instead, he is seeking to exclude blacks and Latino/as. Equally importantly, if the plaintiff prevails here, he will prevail through the court's endorsing some kind of theory of what legally justifies or does not justify the use of certain considerations in admission, and some kind of story about how college admissions have worked and should work. With this kind of plaintiff framing the facts, it will be a theory and a narrative that undermines racial justice overall. And that is what future courts will look at in deciding further cases along this line, as the plaintiff's backer continues his attack on affirmative action generally.
This is just the flip side of basic PI strategy.
posted by praemunire at 8:40 AM on June 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
As someone who has been to law school, and understands how the law works, I have to say that the intentions of the litigant are completely irrelevant to whether or not you should support a given piece of litigation.
But one of the main points of affirmative action in the first place is that there are situations where justice requires a broader consideration of context than simply asking if a particular rule seems fair on it's face in isolation.
When you're judging a law or policy related to affirmative action, it is absolutely valid and necessary to ask, "Is this change an attempt by white people to bring back (or continue) the racist bullshit that affirmative action was put into place to counter?" And that's definitely what this is.
posted by straight at 5:41 PM on June 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
But one of the main points of affirmative action in the first place is that there are situations where justice requires a broader consideration of context than simply asking if a particular rule seems fair on it's face in isolation.
When you're judging a law or policy related to affirmative action, it is absolutely valid and necessary to ask, "Is this change an attempt by white people to bring back (or continue) the racist bullshit that affirmative action was put into place to counter?" And that's definitely what this is.
posted by straight at 5:41 PM on June 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
Janelle Wong & David Silver in the Boston Globe: "Telling the wrong story about racial discrimination in education"
Which brings us back to the assumption that Asian-Americans face a penalty in admissions when it comes to test scores. While many assume that high performance on standardized tests results from hard work and studying, research suggests otherwise. Among the most important predictors of test scores are parents’ education and income.posted by spamandkimchi at 6:56 PM on June 18, 2018 [3 favorites]
Test scores, of course, do play a major role in admissions, and many Asian-American students benefit tremendously. Not coincidentally, they are also much more likely than the average American to have highly educated parents and high household incomes. Why? Selective immigration policy has recruited highly-educated immigrants from Asia, especially since 1991, when the parents of many Asian-American college applicants arrived in the United States.
The personality traits rated by admissions officers are likely to be associated with overcoming challenging life circumstances. One of the realities of being black or Latino in America is that your group on the whole has more opportunities to demonstrate the ability to overcome challenges like substandard schools and poverty — much in the same way that white and Asian-American students on the whole have more opportunities to translate private test preparation and access to honors and advanced placement courses into impressive transcript statistics. It is also the case that Asian-Americans who do not attend high-performing schools or who did not benefit from selective immigration policies (such as the children of refugees from Southeast Asia) will be well-served by the current whole-student approach to admissions.
Harvard Is Doing America's Best Students No Favors: "elite universities have locked America's most talented students into a zero-sum rat race, boosting top schools' prestige, but not doing any good for the country or society as a whole"
posted by kliuless at 6:11 AM on July 3, 2018
posted by kliuless at 6:11 AM on July 3, 2018
« Older In Search Of Forgotten Colors | Dress for Success - 2018 Edition Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I would get calls from potential employers, and I would see a pattern of very troubling and bigoted assumptions, and it was the students of Asian ancestry who carried the brunt of it. I was absolutely shocked because I would not have said any of those negative personality assumptions that the HR person made would have remotely described that student, and I would have to spend time pulling those filters off that person's eyes. Those students were just like the other students save for the race.
So I would go one step further and say those were perceived differences based on the misperceptions and misinterpretations that did not actually exist, most likely meaning the evaluator had already made up their mind before the student ever had a chance to open their mouths.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 7:37 AM on June 16, 2018 [34 favorites]