4 ms·

> I think the ~1300 Asian students that didn’t get into Harvard from 2010-2015 that scored above white students that were admitted really suffered as a result o

by csa 4y ago

> I think the ~1300 Asian students that didn’t get into Harvard from 2010-2015 that scored above white students that were admitted really suffered as a result of Harvards policies. Grades and test scores are not the primary determination for admissions at elite schools. They say as much on their admissions web sites. I have no idea why some people continue to believe and repeat that grades and tests scores are the key to elite school admissions. It’s much more than that. Once the applicant has crossed a reasonably high threshold, all of the other stuff is what makes the difference between admit and reject. Some folks may not like that elite school admissions are more than grades and test scores, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Check out this article: https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-students-get-accepted-ivy-league- https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-st... #3, the hook, is what a lot of folks who complain about elite school admissions completely ignore. Good recommendations are also important, and these are often not cultivated (and usually they need to be, either organically or structurally). The applicants who feel like they were “victimized” based on their race were more likely victimized by their parents or guidance counselors for focusing their efforts on the wrong things during high school.

barry-cotter 4y ago
> I have no idea why some people continue to believe and repeat that grades and tests scores are the key to elite school admissions. It’s much more than that. Everyone believes this. The people who disagree with you disagree on the reason. They think it’s mostly racism. You think Asians are in some way on average inferior in a way that’s obvious to admissions staff but not to alumni interviewers.
- csa 4y ago
  > Everyone believes this. Based on the replies I get here and elsewhere (I beat this drum a lot since I think many people have such in accurate perceptions), many people still think that grades and scores are the primary determining factor in elite school admissions, apparently with a dose of racism thrown in to hold down groups who are good at grades and scores. I get very few people who really embrace the idea of “the hook” (link below) and try to learn more about it. I’m imagining because it’s hard and not concrete — that is, there is no formula to create a good hook and there are few litmus tests to know if your hook is good enough. https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-students-get-accepted-ivy-league- https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-st... > You think Asians are in some way on average inferior in a way that’s obvious to admissions staff but not to alumni interviewers. Yes, I trust the staff to have a better idea of where all applicants (including Asians) fit into the total applicant pool versus the alumni interviewers. If I had to take a guess, I’m guessing that bias in personal score (for all people, not just Asians) impacted fewer than 20 applicants at Harvard last year. Maybe fewer than 10. There are strong efforts to combat rater bias in the process. One of the Supreme Court justices asked why that score was used if it mattered so little. The short answer is that really strong scores probably got straight admitted, really weak scores got straight denied, and the marginal candidates are selected based on a number of variables (so this score would be just one of those). Said another way, finding bias that is going to make a few percent of failing applicants have a slightly better failing score is something that should be looked into (mainly to see if it impacts marginal candidates), but it’s not going to change the admission status of those candidates. In Harvard terms, if the personality score is in a very low category, bumping it up one notch doesn’t make any difference. Any time spent on fine tuning one failing rating in a failing application is inefficiently used time, and these folks are on a clock.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by csa 4y ago

barry-cotter 4y ago

> I have no idea why some people continue to believe and repeat that grades and tests scores are the key to elite school admissions. It’s much more than that. Everyone believes this. The people who disagree with you disagree on the reason. They think it’s mostly racism. You think Asians are in some way on average inferior in a way that’s obvious to admissions staff but not to alumni interviewers.

csa 4y ago
> Everyone believes this. Based on the replies I get here and elsewhere (I beat this drum a lot since I think many people have such in accurate perceptions), many people still think that grades and scores are the primary determining factor in elite school admissions, apparently with a dose of racism thrown in to hold down groups who are good at grades and scores. I get very few people who really embrace the idea of “the hook” (link below) and try to learn more about it. I’m imagining because it’s hard and not concrete — that is, there is no formula to create a good hook and there are few litmus tests to know if your hook is good enough. https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-students-get-accepted-ivy-league- https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/15-tips-minority-st... > You think Asians are in some way on average inferior in a way that’s obvious to admissions staff but not to alumni interviewers. Yes, I trust the staff to have a better idea of where all applicants (including Asians) fit into the total applicant pool versus the alumni interviewers. If I had to take a guess, I’m guessing that bias in personal score (for all people, not just Asians) impacted fewer than 20 applicants at Harvard last year. Maybe fewer than 10. There are strong efforts to combat rater bias in the process. One of the Supreme Court justices asked why that score was used if it mattered so little. The short answer is that really strong scores probably got straight admitted, really weak scores got straight denied, and the marginal candidates are selected based on a number of variables (so this score would be just one of those). Said another way, finding bias that is going to make a few percent of failing applicants have a slightly better failing score is something that should be looked into (mainly to see if it impacts marginal candidates), but it’s not going to change the admission status of those candidates. In Harvard terms, if the personality score is in a very low category, bumping it up one notch doesn’t make any difference. Any time spent on fine tuning one failing rating in a failing application is inefficiently used time, and these folks are on a clock.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]