Why Does Harvard Discriminate against Asians?

 

We’re conservatives around here, though we often disagree about what, exactly, that means. But one area where there’s common agreement — at least, it’s always seemed to me — is the whole idea of racial preferences and set-asides. We’re against them, most of us. Mostly, the liberals are for them. But sometimes they get all tied up in knots when there’s an ethnic group being held back by quotas. Asians, for instance, seem to be actively discriminated against when applying to Harvard. From an editorial in the New York Times:

To get into the top schools, [Asians] need SAT scores that are about 140 points higher than those of their white peers. In 2008, over half of all applicants to Harvard with exceptionally high SAT scores were Asian, yet they made up only 17 percent of the entering class (now 20 percent). Asians are the fastest-growing racial group in America, but their proportion of Harvard undergraduates has been flat for two decades.

A new lawsuit filed on behalf of Asian-American applicants offers strong evidence that Harvard engages in racial “balancing.” Admissions numbers for each racial and ethnic group have remained strikingly similar, year to year. Damningly, those rare years in which an unusually high number of Asians were admitted were followed by years in which especially few made the cut.

And how is this reasoning not racist?

The truth is not that Asians have fewer distinguishing qualities than whites; it’s that — because of a longstanding depiction of Asians as featureless or even interchangeable — they are more likely to be perceived as lacking in individuality. (As one Harvard admissions officer noted on the file of an Asian-American applicant, “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”)

So, clear cut, right? The progressives at Harvard are racist hypocrites, right? Not so fast:

So why is the new discrimination tolerated? For one thing, many academics assume that higher rates of admission for Asian-Americans would come at the price of lower rates of admission for African-Americans.

Harvard, the op-ed writer points out, accepts African Americans and Hispanics and athletes and children of alumni. His point, which I don’t find persuasive, is this:

The real problem is that, in a meritocratic system, whites would be a minority — and Harvard just isn’t comfortable with that.

Because the real problem is that, in a meritocratic system, there wouldn’t be affirmative action. And Harvard — and op-ed writers in the NY Times — just aren’t comfortable with that.

But there’s a group of Asians that are. That want a level playing field. I say, let them have it. And let’s all be thankful for Angry Asians leading us to a more colorblind world.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 101 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Turn a cabal of angry Korean mothers loose on campus. They won’t know what hit them.

    • #1
  2. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    We must not forget the Harvard Enlightened have the best interests of a Progressive Society at heart.  That means from time to time it may be necessary to mercilessly crush one group so that another group might be raised up.  We knuckle draggers clinging to guns and religion cannot fathom the intricacies of their thinking.  So we must trust the Enlightened to know what is best for all.

    • #2
  3. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Statism requires tearing down the strong; and strength comes in different forms.  When it was convenient to pull down the Jews in American Universities or in Europe, it was not “racism” that was the issue but nationalism; and when it was necessary to pull down the whites in America, then racism became the vogue.

    It is not the “-ism” that is relevant – that is merely a tool.  What is relevant is the agenda of tearing down the strong.  For without that, statism is impossible.  Division, appearance of privilege and inequality drive the rise of state control.

    Asians, then, are not minorities – or perhaps not minority enough.  When is comes to school admissions, it’s all black and white.

    • #3
  4. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Maybe we should be happy that there are lots of high-achieving young people out there who won’t end up having their intellects diminished by a Harvard “education”.

    • #4
  5. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Rob Long:But there’s a group of Asians that are. That want a level playing field. I say, let them have it. And let’s all be thankful for Angry Asians leading us to a more colorblind world.

    Let me posit, for the sake of a good conversation, that our country is indeed divided into classes. In the past, those classes were dictated by blood.

    Let me posit further that these days, the classes are determined by education.

    The two keywords are class and education. Our question shouldn’t be about education; it should be about whether we effectively have a class system that makes it (a) easier or (b) more difficult to compete for better jobs, salaries, and social influence. Do we really want our future dictated by our class, which is in turn decided by our education?

    I argue that true achievement in life is determined by a mix of factors: the chief quality is hustle, followed by attitude, and then a mix of intelligence and knowledge and experience. Our society “selects” the elite through education … one of the lesser factors in the equation. Remember, reward and achievement are two different things. There are some achievers who only get limited reward, but there a lot of rewardees who have minimal or no achievement.

    My perspective is formed from teaching in an expensive college prep high school. A lot of kids came through the school who, even though they were dim and lazy, were locks to go top-notch schools and could coast to solid salaries. Their future was a gift of their education, but their education was a gift of their social class. “Education” rewarded them, even though they were bereft of any chance of achievement.

    • #5
  6. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    There’s no evidence of Harvard discriminating against Asians. Pointing out that Asians at Harvard have on average a higher SAT score doesn’t imply what the author says it does: i.e. it doesn’t imply they “need” a higher score to get into Harvard than other students. Simply that the ones who make it, have a higher score.

    Harvard “discriminates” on a lot of things other than SAT scores and GPA grades.You have to do in-person interviews for Harvard, and that may be where many Asian kids don’t make the cut.

    There;s nothing to indicate here that these Asian kids applying to Harvard are “US born” or “US raised” Asian kids. A big chunk of the applications come from China itself, and a lot of things can determine if you make the cut or not, such as TOEFL scores, ability to speak English, extra-curricular activities etc.

    Lets put it this way: Harvard recruits…exceptional…kids. If everyone who applies to Harvard has excellent SAT scores and GPAs…Harvard needs to discriminate on something other than SAT scores and GPA…even if some students may have somewhat higher SAT scores than others.

    SAT score is a cut-off point. Above that cut-off point, it makes little difference anymore. Other factors come in to differentiate. If the majority of these Asian kids, however, don’t have any factors to differentiate themselves from the pack, then they aren’t going to make the cut.

    • #6
  7. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Did I ever tell you about my very white, blonde blue eyed brother in-law checking the “African American” check box for his SATs?  He got the highest score of any African American in the country, and received an invitation to the White House – to be presented an award.  He wanted to go and accept the award, but both family and school staff “promptly” corrected the error.

    • #7
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    So, despite having excellent intellectual credentials, Asians are failing to be admitted on the basis of those ludicrous interviews? That is not a defense – it’s another count of the indictment.

    • #8
  9. user_2967 Inactive
    user_2967
    @MatthewGilley

    I think it’s fair to say that the admissions office in Cambridge acted stupidly.

    • #9
  10. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    AIG:You have to do in-person interviews for Harvard, and that may be where many Asian kids don’t make the cut. […] and a lot of things can determine if you make the cut or not, such as TOEFL scores, ability to speak English, extra-curricular activities etc. […]  Lets put it this way: Harvard recruits…exceptional…kids.

    For the sake of a good conversation, what counts as “exceptional” in the eyes of Harvard?

    After all, we can likely assume that the kids who are already in Harvard are exceptional, at least as previously measured by Harvard entrance exams. How far a stretch is it to wonder if Harvard considers “exceptional” to be people … similar to the existing Harvard student body?

    And since most of us already decry the in-house, group-thinkers who come out of the Ivy League now, isn’t it a legitimate question to wonder that the reason they got into the Ivy League is that they were “suitable” (i.e., Harvard-clone) candidates in the first place?

    • #10
  11. Lucy Pevensie Inactive
    Lucy Pevensie
    @LucyPevensie

    AIG:There’s no evidence of Harvard discriminating against Asians. Pointing out that Asians at Harvard have on average a higher SAT score doesn’t imply what the author says it does: i.e. it doesn’t imply they “need” a higher score to get into Harvard than other students. Simply that the ones who make it, have a higher score.

    Harvard “discriminates” on a lot of things other than SAT scores and GPA grades.You have to do in-person interviews for Harvard, and that may be where many Asian kids don’t make the cut.

    Actually, in the old days, Harvard did not discriminate on the basis of anything other than SAT scores and GPAs.  Then they discovered that they were admitting “too many” Jews when they used objective criteria.  So they added all the other stuff: the interviews and so on. The only reason for the inclusion of the other factors you cite was anti-Semitism.  The fact that they are now using it for anti-Asian discrimination simply is the next stage of the long history of unfairness to small groups that are excelling.

    I would add that anyone who doubts that there is explicit anti-Asian sentiment in the admissions process to the Ivies should talk to a friend who has participated in the alumni interview process.

    • #11
  12. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    Barkha Herman:Did I ever tell you about my very white, blonde blue eyed brother in-law checking the “African American” check box for his SATs? He got the highest score of any African American in the country, and received an invitation to the White House – to be presented an award. He wanted to go and accept the award, but both family and school staff “promptly” corrected the error.

    The very blonde blue-eyed progeny of a good friend (WASP) married to another close friend (third generation American with Hispanic background and last name) was encouraged by parents to check “Hispanic” when applying to college. Her grades and test scores would have gotten her in anywhere, but the little checked box got her a scholarship to a top-ranked university.

    Asians face the same discrimination as do many Jewish applicants when applying to schools; they are *over-represented* in providing impressive credentials and are punished in the name of diversity.

    • #12
  13. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    The real crime here is that people still go to Harvard. That’s what we need to fix. We need to start discriminating against Ivy League degree holders. After all no sane person would actually want to spend 200K to get a BA from such an over inflated institution.

    • #13
  14. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    Did Rob draw the black bean and end up with the “Keep the main feed going over the long weekend” assignment?

    Whatever, good to see Rob posting.

    • #14
  15. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Discrimination to allow African-Americans or Hispanics into top schools is indeed a phenomenon. We can see this simply by the fact that many of the ones admitted do not meet the…cut-off…for the SAT/GPA scores for those schools.

    The reverse, however, is not true. I.e., the SAT is a cut-off point, above which it makes little difference to Harvard or many other schools, and hence above that, other factors come into play. Hence why only looking at SAT scores doesn’t imply “discrimination”.

    Percival: So, despite having excellent intellectual credentials, Asians are failing to be admitted on the basis of those ludicrous interviews? That is not a defense – it’s another count of the indictment.

    The interviews aren’t “ludicrous”. They are essential, once you’ve made it to the interview pool.

    Keep in mind that most people at Harvard aren’t going in there to study science and math and engineering. Hence why you’ll see 40% Asians at CalTech, but 20% at Harvard.

    I.e., the fit between the student and the particular program they are applying to. Harvard may not care as much about your math SAT score, simply because at most Harvard programs, that’s not what they’ll be doing.

    KC Mulville: And since most of us already decry the in-house, group-thinkers who come out of the Ivy League now, isn’t it a legitimate question to wonder that the reason they got into the Ivy League is that they were “suitable” (i.e., Harvard-clone) candidates in the first place?

    Of course. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But that doesn’t imply race. It implies that they seek candidates which they think will fit better with their programs, and with the image the school has created.

    Of course they seek to “clone” themselves. 

    And it’s obviously worked pretty well for them so far. Harvard isn’t #1 for no reason. They’re very good at “discriminating” on the bases of many…subjective…criteria. 

    But again, that doesn’t imply race. It simply implies that very many Asian kids who apply at Harvard don’t have what it takes to meet these criteria.

    • #15
  16. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    KC Mulville: For the sake of a good conversation, what counts as “exceptional” in the eyes of Harvard?

    I can tell you of my experience with PhD applicants at my school. We get about 200 applications for about 2 spots per year. More than half the applications are from Asian kids; mostly from China (i.e. not US-born or US-raised Asians).

    10 people will get interviews for those 2 spots. How do you select these 10 people?

    Everyone already has excellent test scores and GPAs. There’s self-selection going on here, so you’re not going to get people with low scores or low GPAs even applying.

    So if everyone has high test scores and GPAs…how do you differentiate between 200 applications to pick the top 10?

    You have to see where they…stand out.

    And from my experience, the people who get the interviews are ALMOST NEVER the ones with the top scores or the top GPAs. It’s usually the people with prior research experience, the people with recommendations from well-known researchers, the people who already have publications or have gone through the publication process, or the people with research interests that fit in well with the facility here.

    And then the interview process itself will differentiate the top 2 candidates from these top 10.

    So the lesson here is: do well enough in school to pass the cut-off point for the test scores and GPAs. But don’t devote all your time to those metrics, because a top school really is not going to care if you have 4.0 GPA vs a 3.8 GPA, if the 3.8 also has a lot of other desirable qualities.

    That’s not what you see with a lot of Asian kids. You see a strive for perfection in test scores, and very little else. But if everyone already has high enough test scores…the schools are just not going to care, because if 100 of 200 applications all look alike, they’re just going to end up in the trash. Nothing is going to stand out in the mind of the readers to select you, out of the other 99 people with the exact same qualifications.

    It’s no different from a job interview. Being “qualified” is a basic hurdle. It’s not what’s going to get you selected.

    PS: I am an example of what I said above. I had mediocre GRE scores and GPA (mediocre within the pool of applicants, not the population). But I had 2 years of research experience in my field, had publications, had recommendations from good researchers etc. That put me in the top 10 to be interviewed. At which point I had to explain why my test scores and GPA were only “mediocre”…the explanation being that my time was better used in doing research, rather than studying for the test. And the people interviewing you aren’t stupid: they know that a perfect GRE score means very little in how well you will do in a PhD program. It’s just a basic selection criteria, and no more.

    • #16
  17. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    PPS: And for the people who talk about the “ivy leagues” etc…Look, they are tops for a reason. What they have been doing actually works really well. A Harvard MBA has an average starting salary in the neighborhood of $160k.

    All your criticisms of these schools would mean something if they weren’t actually producing hugely successful people.

    But they are, and hence these criticisms are moot.

    The real test is how well they do in the job market.

    PPPS: And of course, still no evidence of “racial” discrimination”. Just very good at “discriminating” good candidates from not as good ones.

    • #17
  18. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    EThompson: Asians face the same discrimination as do many Jewish applicants when applying to schools; they are *over-represented* in providing impressive credentials and are punished in the name of diversity.

    Everyone has “impressive credentials” who applies to these schools.

    Hence, a moot point.

    If there were really “discrimination” against Asians, you would see a large population of overly-qualified Asian students going to lower-level schools, because the top ones wouldn’t take them.

    Do we see that?

    Nope. Not at all.

    We see them going in large quantities to schools which specialize in science and math and engineering, because those fit better with their “credentials”. Harvard, simply might not.

    • #18
  19. user_199279 Coolidge
    user_199279
    @ChrisCampion

    Barkha Herman:Did I ever tell you about my very white, blonde blue eyed brother in-law checking the “African American” check box for his SATs? He got the highest score of any African American in the country, and received an invitation to the White House – to be presented an award. He wanted to go and accept the award, but both family and school staff “promptly” corrected the error.

    This is my favorite story of the day.

    • #19
  20. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    AIG:

    EThompson: Asians face the same discrimination as do many Jewish applicants when applying to schools; they are *over-represented* in providing impressive credentials and are punished in the name of diversity.

    Everyone has “impressive credentials” who applies to these schools.

    Hence, a moot point.

    If there were really “discrimination” against Asians, you would see a large population of overly-qualified Asian students going to lower-level schools, because the top ones wouldn’t take them.

    Do we see that?

    Nope. Not at all.

    We see them going in large quantities to schools which specialize in science and math and engineering, because those fit better with their “credentials”. Harvard, simply might not.

    You didn’t get my point in the least. Many Asians apply to MIT/ many Jewish students apply to Harvard. Everybody is qualified if they are applicants to these levels of schools but certain socio-ethnic groups have to do better because there are “too many of them” applying and they disrupt the required diversity of the student population.

    Thank goodness I attended college in a different era. I was a white “privileged” with a 3.8 GPA and a 1450 SAT score (before there was a third writing section) that would have gotten me nowhere today.

    • #20
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The interview process as described by you are only there to allow the institutions to subjectively reject those who fail to meet their “non-academic” qualifications, among which are having the wrong complexion.

    Oh, wait…

    The interview process as described by you are only there to allow the institutions to subjectively reject those who fail to meet their “non-academic” qualifications, among which are having the wrong complexion.

    There. That which has been asserted in bold cannot be refuted.

    But anyway, are 17% of the interviewers Asian as well?

    • #21
  22. user_199279 Coolidge
    user_199279
    @ChrisCampion

    I’m not quite buying the “Asians are good at math so they don’t apply to Harvard” line.  If half the applicants were Asian and exceptionally high SAT scores, but only make up 20% of the student body, well, if half the applicants were black and had exceptionally high SAT scores but only made up 20% of the student body, would Al Sharpton be standing in Cambridge with a bullhorn?

    Colleges use a host of factors not only to accept students, but to award financial aid as well.  I used to work at a small college, and the “higher ups” would routinely sift through stacks of financial aid applicants and cherry-pick the ones they would allocate grant money to – in other words, who would get the “free” money vs. who’s getting stuck with loans.

    The higher ups would allocate financial aid based on racial indicators in the applications.  Whites with almost the exact same financial data and academic scores would get passed over – easily – by the powers that be.

    I wouldn’t trip over myself to excuse Harvard, but it would be hard to convince me that they’re not working from a percentage quota of some kind for admittance.  That YOY enrollment percentages by race don’t change much tells you all you need to know – they’re balancing the admitted pool.

    • #22
  23. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Meghan McCain is Columbia graduate.  So much for Ivy League exceptionalism.

    • #23
  24. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    AIG:PPS: And for the people who talk about the “ivy leagues” etc…Look, they are tops for a reason. What they have been doing actually works really well. A Harvard MBA has an average starting salary in the neighborhood of $160k.

    All your criticisms of these schools would mean something if they weren’t actually producing hugely successful people.

    But they are, and hence these criticisms are moot.

    The real test is how well they do in the job market.

    That logic plainly doesn’t follow. Pick your poison. That argument says that Harvard succeeds because it takes the best people, but then the reason they get good jobs is because they went to Harvard.

    Now do they get good jobs because …

    • they’re good in the first place (which means they could have gone anywhere and still succeeded)?   or
    • they went to Harvard (which means any caliber of student could have attended and still succeeded)?

    You can assert one or the other, but not both.

    • #24
  25. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    EThompson: You didn’t get my point in the least. Many Asians apply to MIT/ many Jewish students apply to Harvard. Everybody is qualified if they are applicants to these levels of schools but certain socio-ethnic groups have to do better because there are “too many of them” applying and they disrupt the required diversity of the student population.

    That’s your assertion, that you have nothing to back up with.

    Your words “have to do better” is the key here. It’s not evident that they “have to do better”. What is evident is that they do better on the SAT scores, but we don’t know how well they do on the rest.

    Thats…my point.

    Percival: The interview process as described by you are only there to allow the institutions to subjectively reject those who fail to meet their “non-academic” qualifications, among which are having the wrong complexion.

    Again, an assertion which you have nothing to back up with.

    Chris Campion: I’m not quite buying the “Asians are good at math so they don’t apply to Harvard” line.  If half the applicants were Asian and exceptionally high SAT scores, but only make up 20% of the student body, well, if half the applicants were black and had exceptionally high SAT scores but only made up 20% of the student body, would Al Sharpton be standing in Cambridge with a bullhorn?

    What Al Sharpton would do is irrelevant to this discussion. Again, Harvard has very many selection criteria besides SAT scores. SAT scores are a filtering mechanism. Once you have high enough scores, they don’t matter. Other things matter more.

    KC Mulville: That logic plainly doesn’t follow. Pick your poison. That argument says that Harvard succeeds because it takes the best people, but then the reason they get good jobs is because they went to Harvard. Now do they get good jobs because … they’re good in the first place (which means they could have gone anywhere and still succeeded)?   or they went to Harvard (which means any caliber of student could have attended and still succeeded)?   You can assert one or the other, but not both.

    Doesn’t actually matter. Harvard selects the best, and those who graduate from Harvard are the best.

    Your argument would only be valid if we were trying to differentiate the value-added of Harvard on top of what these students would have done had they gone elsewhere.

    That’s not the point of the conversation, hence it is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that Harvard’s selection criteria clearly does work.

    • #25
  26. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Running up a sixteen trillion dollar debt takes exceptional stupidity.

    • #26
  27. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    AIG:

    Doesn’t actually matter. Harvard selects the best, and those who graduate from Harvard are the best.

    Gotta love the circular reasoning.

    • #27
  28. user_358258 Inactive
    user_358258
    @RandyWebster

    Mike LaRoche:Running up a sixteen trillion dollar debt takes exceptional stupidity.

    But they’re the best, Mike.

    • #28
  29. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    AIG:

    Your argument would only be valid if we were trying to differentiate the value-added of Harvard on top of what these students would have done had they gone elsewhere.

    That’s not the point of the conversation, hence it is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that Harvard’s selection criteria clearly does work.

    I see you chose the poison.

    • #29
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Standardised tests may not be the only way of measuring potential.  What are the other factors Universities take into account when deciding on admissions, and are they defined and applied consistently to every applicant?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.