6 ms·

>Harvard says it also considers “tips,” or admissions advantages, for some applicants. The plaintiffs say the college gives tips to five groups: racial and ethn

>Harvard says it also considers “tips,” or admissions advantages, for some applicants. The plaintiffs say the college gives tips to five groups: racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes. I just don't think you can, at the same time, claim to be for diversity in admissions and allow legacy admissions and preferential treatment for donors. To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. If asians are underrepresented among donors and legacies it would explain the discrepancy pretty well.

throwa_way_ 8y ago
>I just don't think you can, at the same time, claim to be for diversity in admissions and allow legacy admissions and preferential treatment for donors. Why can't they do that. Of course they can do that, most Universities in the US do that. >To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. No, they are specifically discriminated against, read the linked article.
- rspeer 8y ago
  I recognize that in a literal sense you can claim to support diversity and also have legacy admissions. What GP meant is that you shouldn't, because it makes the claim a lie. Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity.
  - tzs 8y ago
    For the sake of simplicity, let's assume all legacy admissions are white males, and that the diversity they claim to promote is racial and gender diversity. > Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity That's only true if the number of white males that would be admitted in a fully diverse class is not large enough to accommodate all the legacy admissions. I suspect that this is not the case, and so legacy admissions are essentially orthogonal to diversity considerations. Dropping the assumptions stated in the first paragraph, the above argument remains correct as long as each category considered for diversity analysis has more admissions than the number of legacy admissions in that category.
    - rspeer 8y ago
      I am not sure where you're even going with this. It's like you're trying to have a different argument about privilege. Harvard-educated people don't have more male children. Making sure that Harvard students keep coming from the same families is, quite directly, the opposite of diversity. You don't have to count white males to see that Harvard keeps being shaped by the same group of people. This is classism, in particular. Of course class is correlated with race, but even if it weren't, this would be fucked up.
      - tzs 8y ago
        Usually when organizations have diversity programs and goals, it is racial or pseudo-racial diversity they are talking about, or gender diversity, or both of those. To achieve such goals, for every 1000 students a school should have about 127 black students, 178 Hispanic students, 613 white non-Hispanic students, 48 Asians, and 34 others. About 290 of every 1000 Harvard students are legacy admissions. Legacy admissions are overwhelmingly white. My point was that Harvard can admit those 290 legacy students without affecting its racial diversity easily, because fully diverse Harvard would have 613 non-Hispanic white students per 1000 students. They could arrange that every legacy admission who would not have made it but for being legacy displaces another non-Hispanic white student, so had no affect on racial diversity. I would not be at all surprised if among the white applicants Harvard has enough from each income level that they could even make it so each legacy admission that would not have made it if not legacy is displacing a non-legacy who is white and in the same income range.
        TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Additionally, if a school admits an increasingly diverse mix over time, this should should impact the legacy admissions to become more diverse over time.
        rspeer 8y ago
        The legacy admissions will create a dampening effect on diversity, averaging it out with whatever it was 30 years ago.
darawk 8y ago
> To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. Those are equivalent things. Whether you frame it as boosting the scores of every other group, or cutting the scores of Asians, the net effect is the same, and should be considered the same activity.
SenseiMaster 8y ago
> To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment During "lopping" time, they use ethnic stats and ethnic profile to downgrade people from "admit" to "waitlist" or "deny", so it can be characterized as "negative treatment". > As the admissions process winds down, the dean and the director of admissions review the pool of tentatively admitted students and decide how many need to be “lopped,” by having their status changed from “admit” to “waitlist” or “deny,” the court papers say.
duxup 8y ago
I think you can say that. It just depends on how the numbers turns out, but then we also have to agree on what the right "diversity numbers" are.
privateSFacct 8y ago
This was part of the study, and even controlling for legacy and athletes, Asians still underrepresented. Harvard absolutely INSISTS it doesn't discriminate against Asians though - their president came out with a pretty strong statement about correcting the record.
Veelox 8y ago
>To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. I am going to make some assumptions and I apologise if they are wrong. I am going to assume that you think racism is wrong. I think that includes structural rasism. That is, policies, procedures, and practices by institutions that systematically disadvantage on race over another. From you above comment, it seems like you believe other racial minorities get an excplicit tip as a matter of policy. It also seems like you believe whites get an implicit tip due to the due to the process of how legacies work. Yet, you seemed to stop a step short of calling this structural rasism against Asian Americans. Is there something I am missing for why you didn't take that last step?
- kjeetgill 8y ago
  This is a delicate issue so I'm afraid your fantastic post won't receive a response from anyone who didn't agree with you 100%. I felt I should chime in. Why that last step is a little different for some of us. Truthfully, I don't know. 'Structural Racism' feels different that regular direct explicit racism. I don't feel as confident making blanket statements about it at least. I can certainly think of structurally racist scenarios that feel totally and completely wrong. Casting in movies and entertainment for instance. But other times it's less clear. At the very least there's a point where a desire to be charitable and give someone the benefit of the doubt starts to fade into the picture. I don't wish to speak to the exact matter at hand. I'm catching up on the story still.
- sadamznintern 8y ago
  Structural racism for African Americans is longstanding issues of disproportionate policing, a massive wealth gap as a result of block busting and red lining, and the educational disadvantages that come with it. If the only thing Asians have against them is having to go to Cornell or a state school instead of Harvard I think those complaining should rethink their priorities.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    Asian people have been discriminated against and oppressed plenty throughout (recent) history, just because the Asians in the US are doing well doesn't mean there is no discrimination - we're just seeing that minorities who come here through skilled immigration pathways tend to be more successful, but don't worry, we're cracking down on that now and you'll see the reversion to the mean occuring in Asian kids soon enough.

throwa_way_ 8y ago

>I just don't think you can, at the same time, claim to be for diversity in admissions and allow legacy admissions and preferential treatment for donors. Why can't they do that. Of course they can do that, most Universities in the US do that. >To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. No, they are specifically discriminated against, read the linked article.

rspeer 8y ago
I recognize that in a literal sense you can claim to support diversity and also have legacy admissions. What GP meant is that you shouldn't, because it makes the claim a lie. Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity.
- tzs 8y ago
  For the sake of simplicity, let's assume all legacy admissions are white males, and that the diversity they claim to promote is racial and gender diversity. > Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity That's only true if the number of white males that would be admitted in a fully diverse class is not large enough to accommodate all the legacy admissions. I suspect that this is not the case, and so legacy admissions are essentially orthogonal to diversity considerations. Dropping the assumptions stated in the first paragraph, the above argument remains correct as long as each category considered for diversity analysis has more admissions than the number of legacy admissions in that category.
  - rspeer 8y ago
    I am not sure where you're even going with this. It's like you're trying to have a different argument about privilege. Harvard-educated people don't have more male children. Making sure that Harvard students keep coming from the same families is, quite directly, the opposite of diversity. You don't have to count white males to see that Harvard keeps being shaped by the same group of people. This is classism, in particular. Of course class is correlated with race, but even if it weren't, this would be fucked up.
    - tzs 8y ago
      Usually when organizations have diversity programs and goals, it is racial or pseudo-racial diversity they are talking about, or gender diversity, or both of those. To achieve such goals, for every 1000 students a school should have about 127 black students, 178 Hispanic students, 613 white non-Hispanic students, 48 Asians, and 34 others. About 290 of every 1000 Harvard students are legacy admissions. Legacy admissions are overwhelmingly white. My point was that Harvard can admit those 290 legacy students without affecting its racial diversity easily, because fully diverse Harvard would have 613 non-Hispanic white students per 1000 students. They could arrange that every legacy admission who would not have made it but for being legacy displaces another non-Hispanic white student, so had no affect on racial diversity. I would not be at all surprised if among the white applicants Harvard has enough from each income level that they could even make it so each legacy admission that would not have made it if not legacy is displacing a non-legacy who is white and in the same income range.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Additionally, if a school admits an increasingly diverse mix over time, this should should impact the legacy admissions to become more diverse over time.
        rspeer 8y ago
        The legacy admissions will create a dampening effect on diversity, averaging it out with whatever it was 30 years ago.

darawk 8y ago

> To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. Those are equivalent things. Whether you frame it as boosting the scores of every other group, or cutting the scores of Asians, the net effect is the same, and should be considered the same activity.

SenseiMaster 8y ago

> To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment During "lopping" time, they use ethnic stats and ethnic profile to downgrade people from "admit" to "waitlist" or "deny", so it can be characterized as "negative treatment". > As the admissions process winds down, the dean and the director of admissions review the pool of tentatively admitted students and decide how many need to be “lopped,” by having their status changed from “admit” to “waitlist” or “deny,” the court papers say.

duxup 8y ago

I think you can say that. It just depends on how the numbers turns out, but then we also have to agree on what the right "diversity numbers" are.

privateSFacct 8y ago

This was part of the study, and even controlling for legacy and athletes, Asians still underrepresented. Harvard absolutely INSISTS it doesn't discriminate against Asians though - their president came out with a pretty strong statement about correcting the record.

Veelox 8y ago

>To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring. I am going to make some assumptions and I apologise if they are wrong. I am going to assume that you think racism is wrong. I think that includes structural rasism. That is, policies, procedures, and practices by institutions that systematically disadvantage on race over another. From you above comment, it seems like you believe other racial minorities get an excplicit tip as a matter of policy. It also seems like you believe whites get an implicit tip due to the due to the process of how legacies work. Yet, you seemed to stop a step short of calling this structural rasism against Asian Americans. Is there something I am missing for why you didn't take that last step?

kjeetgill 8y ago
This is a delicate issue so I'm afraid your fantastic post won't receive a response from anyone who didn't agree with you 100%. I felt I should chime in. Why that last step is a little different for some of us. Truthfully, I don't know. 'Structural Racism' feels different that regular direct explicit racism. I don't feel as confident making blanket statements about it at least. I can certainly think of structurally racist scenarios that feel totally and completely wrong. Casting in movies and entertainment for instance. But other times it's less clear. At the very least there's a point where a desire to be charitable and give someone the benefit of the doubt starts to fade into the picture. I don't wish to speak to the exact matter at hand. I'm catching up on the story still.
sadamznintern 8y ago
Structural racism for African Americans is longstanding issues of disproportionate policing, a massive wealth gap as a result of block busting and red lining, and the educational disadvantages that come with it. If the only thing Asians have against them is having to go to Cornell or a state school instead of Harvard I think those complaining should rethink their priorities.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  Asian people have been discriminated against and oppressed plenty throughout (recent) history, just because the Asians in the US are doing well doesn't mean there is no discrimination - we're just seeing that minorities who come here through skilled immigration pathways tend to be more successful, but don't worry, we're cracking down on that now and you'll see the reversion to the mean occuring in Asian kids soon enough.