13 ms·

It’s perhaps to address lower scores amongst legacy and athlete students who are accepted? It can’t be controversial if the comparison metric is removed. I’m g

It’s perhaps to address lower scores amongst legacy and athlete students who are accepted? It can’t be controversial if the comparison metric is removed. I’m guessing it also helps eliminate the “blue collar asian” applicants more easily. It removes one of their shining accomplishments. From a 2018 article from politico: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/21/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-221669/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/21/harvard-a... “But the data collected by the Education Department contained some explosive information. It showed the athletes and so-called legacies who were actually accepted had lower SAT scores than the rest of the class and were also deemed less attractive candidates by the admissions officers conducting Harvard’s process. Some of the comments those officers wrote on the application folders of admitted legacies strongly suggested something more than a tiebreaker was at work. “Lineage is main thing,” one reader wrote. “Double lineage, but lots of problems … no balance,” the notes on another successful application said. “Lots of lineage here … Hard to explain a NO,” yet another said. “Classical case that would be hard to explain to DAD.”

routerl 5y ago
It's so funny how the class of people who most criticize "entitlements" (read: social services paid for by taxes) are the same class of people who are most "entitled" (to admittance in (so-called) elite institutions).
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  Umm I think you'll find the criticism of both things comes primarily from the right. To be clear, this push to remove standards is coming from the left (in the guise of racial justice blah blah blah) but the beneficiaries will primarily be the untalented children of the gentry class (the Lori Laughlin's of the world).
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    I get the racial justice angle. I just have a bad feeling that in the long run this sort of thing will end up hurting racial justice more than helping.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - refurb 5y ago
    Those are the same groups?
ren_engineer 5y ago
>lineage just the way they refer to it is disturbing, bad enough favoring legacies but "lineage" makes it sound like they really think these people are somehow superior based on their bloodline. The new nobility, how dare these serfs with good test scores defile our institutions!
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  Is a Harvard education really that spectacular anymore or is it more a social indicator? Feels like it’s prominence has wained over the past couple decades.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    The education is probably nothing special but it's more about the social network.
    - Jtype 5y ago
      If you cut down on legacies then you lose the advantage of the social network. Kind of a catch-22.
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        Not entirely. If the selection process ensures that the brightest (and luckiest) minds are all together, they will still be able to benefit one another over time, even if they didn't gain access to capital or connections beyond their cohort.
    - brian-armstrong 5y ago
      Amazing to think that one movie could change a college's appearance so profoundly!
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        What movie?
osipov 5y ago
modern technology gives even the most mediocre elites the means to govern the society. as the result there is less demand by the elites for capable managerial talent so harvard et al don't need to focus on separating wheat from the chaff.
mdasen 5y ago
I think it gives Harvard a lot of cover for their admissions decisions. As you noted, Harvard has come under fire for rejecting a lot of Asian American applicants while also coming under fire for letting in less-qualified legacy applicants. While standardized tests have biases that are problematic, this move allows them to be more or less biased as they choose. It's possible that they will become less biased in their admissions, but it's also possible they'll become more biased. The University of California has also announced that they won't be considering SAT/ACT scores for admission. California forbids affirmative action in their state schools and while the SAT/ACT aren't objective tests, people often treat them as such and it provides a number for people to compare (whereas you can't really compare "really good at guitar" with "volunteers planting trees"). It's led to Berkeley being 2% Black and UCLA being 3% Black while Stanford is 7% Black and USC is 5% Black. Also notable, Berkeley is 24% White and UCLA is 26% White while Stanford is 32% White and USC is 37% White; Berkeley/UCLA are 36%/28% Asian vs 23%/21% for Stanford/USC. The University of California system is certainly having its admissions decisions impacted by California laws against affirmative action in their public universities. I don't expect Harvard's admissions makeup to change significantly. I just expect it to be harder for third-parties (who might want to sue) to compare data. If you're qualitatively comparing applications that take a lot of time to review, it makes a lawsuit very difficult. If you're able to compare a numeric score, it makes it less time-consuming (even if the numeric score is biased/inaccurate, people often treat it as unbiased/accurate). It's easier to argue qualitative differences in judgement too and means that you have to start challenging things individually rather than as a class (which basically makes it impossible). With the University of California, it will be interesting to see if they start coming closer to peer institutions in their student body.
- _brnu 5y ago
  How are the SAT/ACT not objective tests? Are they not objective measures of how you perform on the SAT/ACT? There are abundant low cost practice guides and study materials. I came from a very poor family and with some practice at home scored very well on the SAT. It was one of the few tools I had to attract college admissions boards. I feel like taking that away will severely disadvantage poor kids who are otherwise bright with strong work ethics.
paulpauper 5y ago
Everyone seems to waaaaaay underestimate how hard it is to get an elite athletic scholarship or overestimate how common they are. They are uncommon and you have not only have to be good academically but outstanding athletically. it is harder than getting in with an athletic scholarship than without one.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  or the school just needs an excuse to admit legacy candidates
- isoskeles 5y ago
  > it is harder than getting in with an athletic scholarship than without one. I agree with most of your comment, but I think you're using "harder" and "rarer" interchangeably here. One would guess that receiving a scholarship for elite athleticism or superior intellect are both quite difficult, and I have zero basis of comparison for which one is harder. I would not assume that athletic scholarships being rarer reflects on their difficulty. Rather, it's most likely a reflection on what the main function of a university is, as a place of learning. They admit more students to study than to play sports.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  I tend to agree. Athletics, while not academics, is as valid a reason as chess or acting for acceptance into a school. And top D1 athletes in the top tier sports are generally exceptional at what they do. The unfortunate thing may be that we've conflated college admissions with this notion of "merit", rather than what you can get out of college itself.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  It's especially hard to get athletic scholarships at Harvard, because as with all Ivy League universities they don't award them. Of course, I'm sure the athletics department does apply other forms of pressure to various parts of Harvard, making it easier for athletes to get admitted and pass their classes etc. But any scholarships they award are (corruption aside) at least theoretically based around financial need.
forgotmyoldname 5y ago
I didn’t go to Harvard, but I went to a decent university. I was one of those students who got perfectly scores on all my tests but couldn’t possibly be bothered to do homework in high school, so my grades were less than perfect. If it weren’t for my high ACT score, I’m pretty confident I wouldn’t have been accepted into any university—especially as someone from a lower middle class family. I’m not sure if eliminating standardized testing is a misguided effort to introduce fairness or a wisely guided effort to only let in the types they want through a more opaque process.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why could you be bothered to work hard on your tests but not your homework? I don't get the difference?
  - forgotmyoldname 5y ago
    Homework was several hours per night of busy work. I learned nothing from it. I spent that time teaching myself programming and things that were actually useful. For tests, simply paying attention and listening to what the teacher said was enough to do well. For many people, homework is completely useless and many US schools absolutely love overwhelming students with it. There are also kids who need to work jobs after work to support their family--busy work assignments are just punishment for them, and countless people I know suffered because of that. The ACT/SAT was a way for them to elevate themselves.
    - andrew_ 5y ago
      Weighing in to say; same exact experience here.
    - Auracle 5y ago
      The only thing I learned from the Aeneid diorama in my “Honors” English class in 9th grade was that a teacher could mark down a cave for not being colorful enough.
  - deleted 5y ago
908B64B197 5y ago
Who is this going to hurt the most? You guessed it, poor whites and asians. The kids who couldn't afford extra curricular but who did great on the tests. Who is it going to help the most? Children of wealthy East-African and Caribbean immigrants. This focus on extra-curricular also makes it really easy to sneak-in affirmative action (despite voters and the general public repeatedly saying no). Because, let's be honest, you can't objectively compare these things to one another. > lower scores amongst legacy and athlete students I'll give a pass to athletes. It's no small feat to get an athletic scholarship, and for many sports there's absolutely no future beyond college (no pro league or circuit like football or tennis).
bitwize 5y ago
Revitalizing an old Harvard tradition, I see. Of course, back then it was Jews they excluded...

routerl 5y ago

It's so funny how the class of people who most criticize "entitlements" (read: social services paid for by taxes) are the same class of people who are most "entitled" (to admittance in (so-called) elite institutions).

gotoeleven 5y ago
Umm I think you'll find the criticism of both things comes primarily from the right. To be clear, this push to remove standards is coming from the left (in the guise of racial justice blah blah blah) but the beneficiaries will primarily be the untalented children of the gentry class (the Lori Laughlin's of the world).
- kenjackson 5y ago
  I get the racial justice angle. I just have a bad feeling that in the long run this sort of thing will end up hurting racial justice more than helping.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 5y ago
  Those are the same groups?

ren_engineer 5y ago

>lineage just the way they refer to it is disturbing, bad enough favoring legacies but "lineage" makes it sound like they really think these people are somehow superior based on their bloodline. The new nobility, how dare these serfs with good test scores defile our institutions!

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
Is a Harvard education really that spectacular anymore or is it more a social indicator? Feels like it’s prominence has wained over the past couple decades.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The education is probably nothing special but it's more about the social network.
  - Jtype 5y ago
    If you cut down on legacies then you lose the advantage of the social network. Kind of a catch-22.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      Not entirely. If the selection process ensures that the brightest (and luckiest) minds are all together, they will still be able to benefit one another over time, even if they didn't gain access to capital or connections beyond their cohort.
  - brian-armstrong 5y ago
    Amazing to think that one movie could change a college's appearance so profoundly!
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      What movie?

osipov 5y ago

modern technology gives even the most mediocre elites the means to govern the society. as the result there is less demand by the elites for capable managerial talent so harvard et al don't need to focus on separating wheat from the chaff.

mdasen 5y ago

I think it gives Harvard a lot of cover for their admissions decisions. As you noted, Harvard has come under fire for rejecting a lot of Asian American applicants while also coming under fire for letting in less-qualified legacy applicants. While standardized tests have biases that are problematic, this move allows them to be more or less biased as they choose. It's possible that they will become less biased in their admissions, but it's also possible they'll become more biased. The University of California has also announced that they won't be considering SAT/ACT scores for admission. California forbids affirmative action in their state schools and while the SAT/ACT aren't objective tests, people often treat them as such and it provides a number for people to compare (whereas you can't really compare "really good at guitar" with "volunteers planting trees"). It's led to Berkeley being 2% Black and UCLA being 3% Black while Stanford is 7% Black and USC is 5% Black. Also notable, Berkeley is 24% White and UCLA is 26% White while Stanford is 32% White and USC is 37% White; Berkeley/UCLA are 36%/28% Asian vs 23%/21% for Stanford/USC. The University of California system is certainly having its admissions decisions impacted by California laws against affirmative action in their public universities. I don't expect Harvard's admissions makeup to change significantly. I just expect it to be harder for third-parties (who might want to sue) to compare data. If you're qualitatively comparing applications that take a lot of time to review, it makes a lawsuit very difficult. If you're able to compare a numeric score, it makes it less time-consuming (even if the numeric score is biased/inaccurate, people often treat it as unbiased/accurate). It's easier to argue qualitative differences in judgement too and means that you have to start challenging things individually rather than as a class (which basically makes it impossible). With the University of California, it will be interesting to see if they start coming closer to peer institutions in their student body.

_brnu 5y ago
How are the SAT/ACT not objective tests? Are they not objective measures of how you perform on the SAT/ACT? There are abundant low cost practice guides and study materials. I came from a very poor family and with some practice at home scored very well on the SAT. It was one of the few tools I had to attract college admissions boards. I feel like taking that away will severely disadvantage poor kids who are otherwise bright with strong work ethics.

paulpauper 5y ago

Everyone seems to waaaaaay underestimate how hard it is to get an elite athletic scholarship or overestimate how common they are. They are uncommon and you have not only have to be good academically but outstanding athletically. it is harder than getting in with an athletic scholarship than without one.

cyanydeez 5y ago
or the school just needs an excuse to admit legacy candidates
isoskeles 5y ago
> it is harder than getting in with an athletic scholarship than without one. I agree with most of your comment, but I think you're using "harder" and "rarer" interchangeably here. One would guess that receiving a scholarship for elite athleticism or superior intellect are both quite difficult, and I have zero basis of comparison for which one is harder. I would not assume that athletic scholarships being rarer reflects on their difficulty. Rather, it's most likely a reflection on what the main function of a university is, as a place of learning. They admit more students to study than to play sports.
kenjackson 5y ago
I tend to agree. Athletics, while not academics, is as valid a reason as chess or acting for acceptance into a school. And top D1 athletes in the top tier sports are generally exceptional at what they do. The unfortunate thing may be that we've conflated college admissions with this notion of "merit", rather than what you can get out of college itself.
jkaplowitz 5y ago
It's especially hard to get athletic scholarships at Harvard, because as with all Ivy League universities they don't award them. Of course, I'm sure the athletics department does apply other forms of pressure to various parts of Harvard, making it easier for athletes to get admitted and pass their classes etc. But any scholarships they award are (corruption aside) at least theoretically based around financial need.

forgotmyoldname 5y ago

I didn’t go to Harvard, but I went to a decent university. I was one of those students who got perfectly scores on all my tests but couldn’t possibly be bothered to do homework in high school, so my grades were less than perfect. If it weren’t for my high ACT score, I’m pretty confident I wouldn’t have been accepted into any university—especially as someone from a lower middle class family. I’m not sure if eliminating standardized testing is a misguided effort to introduce fairness or a wisely guided effort to only let in the types they want through a more opaque process.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Why could you be bothered to work hard on your tests but not your homework? I don't get the difference?
- forgotmyoldname 5y ago
  Homework was several hours per night of busy work. I learned nothing from it. I spent that time teaching myself programming and things that were actually useful. For tests, simply paying attention and listening to what the teacher said was enough to do well. For many people, homework is completely useless and many US schools absolutely love overwhelming students with it. There are also kids who need to work jobs after work to support their family--busy work assignments are just punishment for them, and countless people I know suffered because of that. The ACT/SAT was a way for them to elevate themselves.
  - andrew_ 5y ago
    Weighing in to say; same exact experience here.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    The only thing I learned from the Aeneid diorama in my “Honors” English class in 9th grade was that a teacher could mark down a cave for not being colorful enough.
- deleted 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

Who is this going to hurt the most? You guessed it, poor whites and asians. The kids who couldn't afford extra curricular but who did great on the tests. Who is it going to help the most? Children of wealthy East-African and Caribbean immigrants. This focus on extra-curricular also makes it really easy to sneak-in affirmative action (despite voters and the general public repeatedly saying no). Because, let's be honest, you can't objectively compare these things to one another. > lower scores amongst legacy and athlete students I'll give a pass to athletes. It's no small feat to get an athletic scholarship, and for many sports there's absolutely no future beyond college (no pro league or circuit like football or tennis).

bitwize 5y ago

Revitalizing an old Harvard tradition, I see. Of course, back then it was Jews they excluded...