4 ms·

It's always so frustrating to see how elite colleges get away with such brazen racial discrimination. Where are the alumni orgs speaking out about this? I wond

It's always so frustrating to see how elite colleges get away with such brazen racial discrimination. Where are the alumni orgs speaking out about this? I wonder how much of this is rooted in the desire to protect their own kid's chances of admission vs loyalty and the desire to protect their academic "brand". Either way, I don't forsee them fixing this any time soon, Unfortunately, the Harvard brand seems ingrained in the national consciousness as synonymous with top-notch. So just not applying in protest wouldn't serve the students, especially when other schools do the same thing. I almost wish that Asian Americans had their own equivalent of a prestigious HBCU like Spelman or Howard. It would help siphon off some of the talent from Harvard and the like and probably be an excellent institution in general.

alephnerd 6y ago
Luckily we do. They’re called the University of California system. At least California banned affirmative action in the 90s.
- hhsuey 6y ago
  > UC may choose to advance goals like diversity and equal opportunity using a broad range of admissions that are not based on an individual’s race or gender. For example, holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. these things are highly correlated with race, however.
  - lawrenceyan 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong with recognizing that people in disadvantaged situations face greater difficulties in overcoming systemic obstacles. Being able to overcome these factors are actually generally a very strong signal in determining potential of future success. This is why affirmative action in of itself is not a wholly bad thing. It's just that using ethnicity as the primary proxy is worse at generating a strong signal as compared to > income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement.
- throwUCaway 6y ago
  Perhaps in theory, but not in practice. I went to a UC for graduate school a decade after Prop 209 passed, and there was blatant affirmative action in the admissions/recruiting process. They literally treated candidates different based on their family's country of origin. The deans were open about the fact that they "pushed the envelope" on affirmative action, despite it being illegal.
MiroF 6y ago
> I wonder how much of this is rooted in the desire to protect their own kid's chances of admission vs loyalty Certainly, legacy & athlete admissions could be reduced more in order to lessen the discrimination against Asian-Americans. That said, affirmative action also means that white people are slightly underrepresented relative to the population at institutions like Harvard, so I think it is not mostly a desire to protect one's own kid.
krebs_liebhaber 6y ago
Look on the bright side. As top-tier universities continue to desecrate themselves further, they'll lose their signaling power. Soon it'll be just another luxury item, like a Louis Vuitton bag or a bottle of vintage wine (to an extent, it already is - think of the CEO failsons like Jared Kushner).

alephnerd 6y ago

Luckily we do. They’re called the University of California system. At least California banned affirmative action in the 90s.

hhsuey 6y ago
> UC may choose to advance goals like diversity and equal opportunity using a broad range of admissions that are not based on an individual’s race or gender. For example, holistic review in admissions considers income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement. these things are highly correlated with race, however.
- lawrenceyan 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with recognizing that people in disadvantaged situations face greater difficulties in overcoming systemic obstacles. Being able to overcome these factors are actually generally a very strong signal in determining potential of future success. This is why affirmative action in of itself is not a wholly bad thing. It's just that using ethnicity as the primary proxy is worse at generating a strong signal as compared to > income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement.
throwUCaway 6y ago
Perhaps in theory, but not in practice. I went to a UC for graduate school a decade after Prop 209 passed, and there was blatant affirmative action in the admissions/recruiting process. They literally treated candidates different based on their family's country of origin. The deans were open about the fact that they "pushed the envelope" on affirmative action, despite it being illegal.

MiroF 6y ago

> I wonder how much of this is rooted in the desire to protect their own kid's chances of admission vs loyalty Certainly, legacy & athlete admissions could be reduced more in order to lessen the discrimination against Asian-Americans. That said, affirmative action also means that white people are slightly underrepresented relative to the population at institutions like Harvard, so I think it is not mostly a desire to protect one's own kid.

krebs_liebhaber 6y ago

Look on the bright side. As top-tier universities continue to desecrate themselves further, they'll lose their signaling power. Soon it'll be just another luxury item, like a Louis Vuitton bag or a bottle of vintage wine (to an extent, it already is - think of the CEO failsons like Jared Kushner).