4 ms·

Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate?

by ptd 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago
Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate? (sic) If you re-read my comment, it's clear that I'm not talking about rates of representation. You are trying to bring that in. We're talking about the process, be it a policy implementation or an algorithm. It's the age-old "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity." https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...
- ptd 8y ago
  I wasn’t trying to bring anything in, simply curious exactly what you meant. You’re right though, if I had read you comment more closely I would have realized my question was irrelevant. Thanks for the link.
waterhouse 8y ago
As I understand it, Asians are "underrepresented" at Harvard relative to what they would be if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics. They're "underrepresented" relative to the pool of candidates who are qualified to be at Harvard. But they are "overrepresented" compared to the general population of the United States. Which comparison is the right one?
- deogeo 8y ago
  Surely their high SAT scores and over-representation at Harvard compared to the general population are both caused by some heretofore unidentified analogue of white-privilege - what other explanation is there?
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    'Surely'? Why must it 'surely' fit into a preconceived ideological straightjacket? (One who's adherents are like 90% white, FWIW). The answer is that asian immigrants are a self-selected subset of 1.5B asians in asia. The social justice mental toolkit doesn't have an answer to this anomaly. American census numbers and the assumption of a normal distribution within them don't square with the highly-motivated subset of Asians who immigrated.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      I think deogeo was being sarcastic, though see also Poe's law.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Given that: 1) Cultural factors often raise people from poor to middle class 2) The above often happens with little monetary input 3) Culture is transmissible In contrast, giving people money and resources has a very poor track record for increasing wealth long term. Why aren't social justice people all about the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge? If anything, on the whole, they seem ideologically in favor of policies that erode the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge.
      - yourbandsucks 8y ago
        I hope you're not asking me, because I don't understand the social justice people at all. My guess is a combination of social media obsession and limited life experience cause them to optimize for 'sounding woke' over 'things that help real people'.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Aren't all immigrants a highly-motivated subset of their home countries/continents?
- csa 8y ago
  > if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics I think this type of statement represents the main problem that folks who run down the “Asians at Harvard” rabbit hole. People assume that Harvard admissions is all just based on who is the biggest brainiac based on grades and SATs, and that’s simply not the case at Harvard or any other elite school. Decent article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-ratings-tips-how-harvard-admissions-selects-student/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-... High SAT and high grades gets you merely a 2 (1 being best) in one of four categories (academic, athletic, extracurricular, and personal/leadership). If you get a 2 in three of four categories, it still only gets you a 40% chance of admission. That said, getting a 1 in any category gives the applicant a bump to anywhere between 48% and 88% chance of admission. Note that only about 100 people per year get a 1 on academic, and that still only gives them a 68% chance of admission if that’s their only 1. Standards are sky high. To anyone who has high scores and great grades in a rigorous curriculum and wants to apply to an elite school, I advise them to differentiate themselves in ways other than academics — it’s a much easier path to acceptance. In my opinion, these non-academic selection criteria is one of the things that makes top schools amazing places. Specifically: - Great grades and great SAT scores (750+ in Math and Verbal) are a baseline for being considered. - The more of the following list below an applicant can check off, the more likely they are to get admitted. If they have several high quality checks, the requirements for grades and scores can actually decrease to a surprisingly low level: (rough order of importance... non-exhaustive list) 1. Recruited athlete. 2. Diversity candidate (race). 3. Notable academic achievement (e.g., publish a paper). 4. Demonstrate leadership via some verifiable and substantial project. 5. Be a skilled-but-not-recruited athlete (esp. in non-varsity sports), entertainer, or person of interest (e.g., children of famous or powerful people). Accolades or championships help. 6. Create a substantial and successful business or non-profit. 7. Diversity candidate (geographical). 8. Have an incredible personal narrative (e.g., Malala) — this might be more important... it’s hard to tell. 9. Be the child of an alum. 10. Be the child of a substantial donor (also hard to rate in importance... it really only comes into play if they aren’t admitted normally). 11. School/department applied to (depends on university). It boggles my mind when someone (Asian or otherwise) points to great grades and great SAT scores and gripes about not getting into an elite school. Elite schools explicitly state that they are looking for well-rounded applicants or “multidimensional excellence”. Why is that person/applicant surprised when they only focused on one dimension and did that in a non-exceptional way (compared to other applicants)? Anyway, this is a topic I know quite a bit about. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions.

Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate?

by ptd 8y ago

Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate?

Are Asians underrepresented at Harvard? Or if you’re referring to something else, can you elobarate? (sic) If you re-read my comment, it's clear that I'm not talking about rates of representation. You are trying to bring that in. We're talking about the process, be it a policy implementation or an algorithm. It's the age-old "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity." https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...

ptd 8y ago
I wasn’t trying to bring anything in, simply curious exactly what you meant. You’re right though, if I had read you comment more closely I would have realized my question was irrelevant. Thanks for the link.

waterhouse 8y ago

As I understand it, Asians are "underrepresented" at Harvard relative to what they would be if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics. They're "underrepresented" relative to the pool of candidates who are qualified to be at Harvard. But they are "overrepresented" compared to the general population of the United States. Which comparison is the right one?

deogeo 8y ago
Surely their high SAT scores and over-representation at Harvard compared to the general population are both caused by some heretofore unidentified analogue of white-privilege - what other explanation is there?
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  'Surely'? Why must it 'surely' fit into a preconceived ideological straightjacket? (One who's adherents are like 90% white, FWIW). The answer is that asian immigrants are a self-selected subset of 1.5B asians in asia. The social justice mental toolkit doesn't have an answer to this anomaly. American census numbers and the assumption of a normal distribution within them don't square with the highly-motivated subset of Asians who immigrated.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    I think deogeo was being sarcastic, though see also Poe's law.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Given that: 1) Cultural factors often raise people from poor to middle class 2) The above often happens with little monetary input 3) Culture is transmissible In contrast, giving people money and resources has a very poor track record for increasing wealth long term. Why aren't social justice people all about the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge? If anything, on the whole, they seem ideologically in favor of policies that erode the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge.
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      I hope you're not asking me, because I don't understand the social justice people at all. My guess is a combination of social media obsession and limited life experience cause them to optimize for 'sounding woke' over 'things that help real people'.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Aren't all immigrants a highly-motivated subset of their home countries/continents?
csa 8y ago
> if Harvard judged candidates based on SAT scores, scholastic achievement, and other seemingly-objective-and-reasonably-sensible metrics I think this type of statement represents the main problem that folks who run down the “Asians at Harvard” rabbit hole. People assume that Harvard admissions is all just based on who is the biggest brainiac based on grades and SATs, and that’s simply not the case at Harvard or any other elite school. Decent article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-ratings-tips-how-harvard-admissions-selects-student/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/21/dockets-... High SAT and high grades gets you merely a 2 (1 being best) in one of four categories (academic, athletic, extracurricular, and personal/leadership). If you get a 2 in three of four categories, it still only gets you a 40% chance of admission. That said, getting a 1 in any category gives the applicant a bump to anywhere between 48% and 88% chance of admission. Note that only about 100 people per year get a 1 on academic, and that still only gives them a 68% chance of admission if that’s their only 1. Standards are sky high. To anyone who has high scores and great grades in a rigorous curriculum and wants to apply to an elite school, I advise them to differentiate themselves in ways other than academics — it’s a much easier path to acceptance. In my opinion, these non-academic selection criteria is one of the things that makes top schools amazing places. Specifically: - Great grades and great SAT scores (750+ in Math and Verbal) are a baseline for being considered. - The more of the following list below an applicant can check off, the more likely they are to get admitted. If they have several high quality checks, the requirements for grades and scores can actually decrease to a surprisingly low level: (rough order of importance... non-exhaustive list) 1. Recruited athlete. 2. Diversity candidate (race). 3. Notable academic achievement (e.g., publish a paper). 4. Demonstrate leadership via some verifiable and substantial project. 5. Be a skilled-but-not-recruited athlete (esp. in non-varsity sports), entertainer, or person of interest (e.g., children of famous or powerful people). Accolades or championships help. 6. Create a substantial and successful business or non-profit. 7. Diversity candidate (geographical). 8. Have an incredible personal narrative (e.g., Malala) — this might be more important... it’s hard to tell. 9. Be the child of an alum. 10. Be the child of a substantial donor (also hard to rate in importance... it really only comes into play if they aren’t admitted normally). 11. School/department applied to (depends on university). It boggles my mind when someone (Asian or otherwise) points to great grades and great SAT scores and gripes about not getting into an elite school. Elite schools explicitly state that they are looking for well-rounded applicants or “multidimensional excellence”. Why is that person/applicant surprised when they only focused on one dimension and did that in a non-exceptional way (compared to other applicants)? Anyway, this is a topic I know quite a bit about. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions.