5 ms·

Reminder: Harvard consistently rates Asian students lower on personality traits like "likability", which is a part of their admissions process: https://www.nyti

Reminder: Harvard consistently rates Asian students lower on personality traits like "likability", which is a part of their admissions process: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...

gentaro 8y ago
"We're not racist, we just happen to not like Asians."
solveit 8y ago
Despite alumni interviewers rating Asian students about the same as others, I might add.
- DevoidSimo 8y ago
  Well presumably if they are alumni then they were given a high enough rating to get in so the numbers are skewed. Unless this is alumni from other universities.
  - solveit 8y ago
    No, Harvard alumni interviewing candidates is part of the admissions process. The alumni rated Asian candidates as being just as personable as candidates from other races. Since the alumni are volunteers from all walks of life (other than the obvious fact that they all went to Harvard), the idea is that they aren't affected by whatever is going on inside the admissions office, and the disparity between alumni ratings and admissions office ratings is evidence of systemic bias against Asians.
fraudsyndrome 8y ago
That's why I believe they introduced measuring traits for "well-roundedness". Asian/Asian-Americans were doing better than whites at their own game (tests) and as such started testing for skills that can't be easily measured and are heavily biased. Suddenly someone with high scores and other non-technical skills can still be considered not well-rounded.
- err0ne 8y ago
  This policy was instituted in 1926 to discriminate against another minority entirely. You should stop framing this in terms of White vs. X. This is misguided and largely a nomenclature issue which is now perverting the way people reason about these things. What you perceive as "white" does not superpose perfectly with what the actual in-group perceives as white. It's a combination of ethnicity, cultural background, and social standing. The right combination opens a lot of door. Otherwise you are treated like a plebeian, with various degrees of aggressiveness. If you want to see power, take a look at Harvard's rowing club and discreet but powerful positions of power their alumnis hold. FAANG are the public facing massive corporations which everyone knows about. There are many more companies with clout and cash that no one talks about and who have their monopolies unchallenged, their position enshrined by regulation, and which are cash machines funding a particular establishment that no one ever talks about.

gentaro 8y ago

"We're not racist, we just happen to not like Asians."

solveit 8y ago

Despite alumni interviewers rating Asian students about the same as others, I might add.

DevoidSimo 8y ago
Well presumably if they are alumni then they were given a high enough rating to get in so the numbers are skewed. Unless this is alumni from other universities.
- solveit 8y ago
  No, Harvard alumni interviewing candidates is part of the admissions process. The alumni rated Asian candidates as being just as personable as candidates from other races. Since the alumni are volunteers from all walks of life (other than the obvious fact that they all went to Harvard), the idea is that they aren't affected by whatever is going on inside the admissions office, and the disparity between alumni ratings and admissions office ratings is evidence of systemic bias against Asians.

fraudsyndrome 8y ago

That's why I believe they introduced measuring traits for "well-roundedness". Asian/Asian-Americans were doing better than whites at their own game (tests) and as such started testing for skills that can't be easily measured and are heavily biased. Suddenly someone with high scores and other non-technical skills can still be considered not well-rounded.

err0ne 8y ago
This policy was instituted in 1926 to discriminate against another minority entirely. You should stop framing this in terms of White vs. X. This is misguided and largely a nomenclature issue which is now perverting the way people reason about these things. What you perceive as "white" does not superpose perfectly with what the actual in-group perceives as white. It's a combination of ethnicity, cultural background, and social standing. The right combination opens a lot of door. Otherwise you are treated like a plebeian, with various degrees of aggressiveness. If you want to see power, take a look at Harvard's rowing club and discreet but powerful positions of power their alumnis hold. FAANG are the public facing massive corporations which everyone knows about. There are many more companies with clout and cash that no one talks about and who have their monopolies unchallenged, their position enshrined by regulation, and which are cash machines funding a particular establishment that no one ever talks about.