5 ms·

The politically charged data holds the potential to reveal whether Harvard bypasses better-qualified Asian-American candidates in favor of whites, blacks and Hi

The politically charged data holds the potential to reveal whether Harvard bypasses better-qualified Asian-American candidates in favor of whites, blacks and Hispanics, and the children of the wealthy and powerful, the group argues. The problem is that "better-qualified" is not some absolute measure. I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient. There are several factors that aren't easily measured. For example: 1. Difficulty of high school course load. 2. Extra academic work. For example, if you've solved P=NP while having a 2.0 GPA -- would anyone care about your GPA? 3. Performance in academic-RELATED activities. If you win the IMO or the spelling bee or the Intel Science competition, etc... 4. Performance in non-academic activities. If you have a platinum album, does that matter? Or being a famous actor? Or creating a game changing app? Or becoming a top rated Go player? 4. Performance in athletics. Would being a Lebron James level talent matter? Winning an Olympic gold in gymnastics? 5. Having highly regarded morals, conviction, and courage. Would Malala get special treatment? 6. Socio-economics. All other things being equal, do we favor a student who has had no advantages over those who have had every economic advantage (best schools, tutors, etc..)? 7. Diversity of life experience (especially if exceptional). Would the child of a President have an advantage getting in? What about the experience of anyone that is fundamentally against the norm of most of the population of the incoming class. Maybe they navigated combat missions for the South Korean Navy. I do think systemically excluding a certain race is a problem. But I don't think using an old notion of merit is much better.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
FlyingLawnmower 11y ago
I think that the only data driven conclusion we can derive from "holistic" admissions that consider every factor stems from what happened in California. Most California public colleges (UC Berkeley, etc.) subscribed to the same school of thought, but when race-based considerations were banned, the Asian American percentage at the school shot up considerably. The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. I think it's very hard to argue that Asian Americans failed on your aforementioned categories, or that there wasn't a systematic bias against them when considering these facts.
- kenjackson 11y ago
  The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. This may have occurred, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the metrics they used were the only reasonable metrics. I think Harvard would argue that their metrics always looked much different than state schools. And actually that probably cuts to the heart more than anything else: What is the end goal of the pool of accepted students you bring in? Is it to reward the students for a job well done? Or is it to shape a society? Or is it something altogether different -- or a combination? I think a lot of people view college admittance as a reward for a job well done. But maybe for top-tier colleges the goal is to create leaders who will shape the future. In which case diversity actually matters a fair bit. Can you get the societal diverse leaders that you want by accepting just Asian and White students? I honestly think the answer is probably no.
venomsnake 11y ago
Can't 1+2+3 be solved by make your own exam - but make it brutally hard. Like - having no one getting to the top to be expected and a 170 IQ person getting B+. Make it with invisible names. You admit the first 1000 and have couple of places for people with 4-7 that were very close on the exam but were below the cut off line.
bradleyjg 11y ago
On top of all those very reasonable points, they are building a class. Some characteristic that may be desirable in one, ten or a hundred members of the class may not be desirable in every member of the class. For example, what if you took in all people who were interested in pursuing degrees in mathematics? The math department doesn't have the facilities to teach all those students and the upper class history classes are going to be empty. It's a matching problem as much or more as it is a ranking problem.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
> I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient. The Technion literally just admits people based on their exam scores, and nothing more. Seems to work for them. There are actually lots of universities in non-American countries that work this way.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

FlyingLawnmower 11y ago

I think that the only data driven conclusion we can derive from "holistic" admissions that consider every factor stems from what happened in California. Most California public colleges (UC Berkeley, etc.) subscribed to the same school of thought, but when race-based considerations were banned, the Asian American percentage at the school shot up considerably. The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. I think it's very hard to argue that Asian Americans failed on your aforementioned categories, or that there wasn't a systematic bias against them when considering these facts.

kenjackson 11y ago
The colleges were still considering the same criteria for admissions, but once race was removed, a significant increase in Asian American acceptances at the schools occurred. This may have occurred, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the metrics they used were the only reasonable metrics. I think Harvard would argue that their metrics always looked much different than state schools. And actually that probably cuts to the heart more than anything else: What is the end goal of the pool of accepted students you bring in? Is it to reward the students for a job well done? Or is it to shape a society? Or is it something altogether different -- or a combination? I think a lot of people view college admittance as a reward for a job well done. But maybe for top-tier colleges the goal is to create leaders who will shape the future. In which case diversity actually matters a fair bit. Can you get the societal diverse leaders that you want by accepting just Asian and White students? I honestly think the answer is probably no.

venomsnake 11y ago

Can't 1+2+3 be solved by make your own exam - but make it brutally hard. Like - having no one getting to the top to be expected and a 170 IQ person getting B+. Make it with invisible names. You admit the first 1000 and have couple of places for people with 4-7 that were very close on the exam but were below the cut off line.

bradleyjg 11y ago

On top of all those very reasonable points, they are building a class. Some characteristic that may be desirable in one, ten or a hundred members of the class may not be desirable in every member of the class. For example, what if you took in all people who were interested in pursuing degrees in mathematics? The math department doesn't have the facilities to teach all those students and the upper class history classes are going to be empty. It's a matching problem as much or more as it is a ranking problem.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

> I don't think any Ivy League-tier school would say that a formula of SAT+GPA is sufficient. The Technion literally just admits people based on their exam scores, and nothing more. Seems to work for them. There are actually lots of universities in non-American countries that work this way.