College Admission Is Not a Personality Contest. Or Is It?

"Documents showing that Harvard rated Asian-American applicants lower on personality traits than applicants of other races raise questions about how college admissions officers evaluate intangible criteria. What constitutes ‘likability’ or ‘courage?’ How do they know someone is ‘widely respected?’

Here’s what some education scholars and former admissions officers say about the use of personality traits in the admission process. Spoiler alert: It’s not a science." …

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-universities-personality-criteria-admissions.html

I’m concerned that adcoms are just rating down Asian applicants since there probably is an indirect and unwritten order to limit the number of Asians on campuses.

How about we keep the admissions process, but blank out the names and ethnicities of the applicants then see what the racial composition of these elite colleges will be? That will really prove whether there was foul play and racism in the process while catering to the pro-holistic crowd.

^^I’d love to see what happened if they did that. And i wonder if the outcome would be so different. I think one of the issues everyone faces is that of their own doppelgangers. To create a diverse (in all senses) class, they need kids with different profiles – even excluding race. How many robotics or AIME champs, how many lax bros, how many violinsts, etc. In every community, often for practical reasons such as what’s available, and often for cultural reasons (what everyone else does), kids do the same activities and often have the same goals (including college preferences.) And when all the kids with the same profile apply to the same schools, only some will get in. I see a variant of this in my own community. And yet I know how hard it is to persuade a kid from my neck of the woods to consider a school in Minnesota, for example. They want to go where everyone else they know is going (or to a school everyone else they know wI’ll be impressed by.)

How a kid is going to bring that profile to the class is, I suspect, what they are looking for. Call it like ability, personality, whatever. But there’s always that hope in putting together a class that these different types connect and collaborate and leave feeling part of each other’s worlds. Essays and LORs are imperfect at best, but I can tell you that I have read a few that have made me think, “nah”…

“I’m concerned that adcoms are just rating down Asian applicants since there probably is an indirect and unwritten order to limit the number of Asians on campuses.”

Just a guess… although I agree the evidence suggests there is an issue of bias, it’s probably not that blatant or nefarious. If the AOs were being explicitly instructed to limit Asian applicants, it’s likely that this type of bombshell blatant discrimination would have leaked by now. The difference in assessment probably comes down to the same inherent bias issues that continue to dog women and minorities; most people aren’t even aware of their bias and even those that are struggle to overcome it. Similar to how the exact same behavior is perceived differently if a man vs a woman, the behaviors of an Asian applicant are perceived differently than the same behavior of a non-Asian applicant.

Examples -
The exact same resume from a person with a name implying he is a white male receives more interview requests than the resume with a minority or female name.

When young boys take charge to organize a playground scenario, they are viewed as being natural leaders and strong problem solvers. The exact same actions in young girls are often described as bossy or overbearing.

When a non-Asian applicant is captain of the Math team or a skilled violinist that plays concerts at retirement homes, s/he is viewed as a caring, intelligent leader. When an Asian applicant performs the same actions, s/he is viewed as the robotic product of tiger parents.

Plenty of studies highlight how people can view the exact same action yet assign different perceptions or labels to the action based on the gender or race of the person being evaluated.

^very well put. This type of confirmation bias in this very high stake process will indeed raise tons of questions.

As an Asian American with two kids admitted to highly selective colleges (peers of Harvard) and two more on their way, I am okay with a hard quota system for the sake of diversity, say 15% for Asian American kids. But don’t use personality traits to put them down. It is insulting and racist!

I find it highly offensive as a parent of a caring smart sensitive male student who plays lacrosse being often categorized into the “lax bro” perjorative on cc. Young men are a bit of wide open target that wouldn’t be allowed in most other polite dialogues. Happy go lucky and smart young men who enjoy sports are not all drunkards and shallow. And that’s how the term comes across.

^^^ My thoughts too — are we going to stereotype or not; we need to be consistent.

Geniuses often are loners who don’t easily mix with other people. They may be on the spectrum of ADHD. They cane easily become irritated at people whose minds are slower than theirs. They wouldn’t do very well if judged on ‘personality’.

@TatinG

I think those types of geniuses just stick out more. I remember reading Chris Langan’s lulzy theory of everything paper and seeing him fight random internet people who got frustrated trying to decipher what he’s trying to say.

The more normal and well-adjusted geniuses don’t receive much attention unless they made a breakthrough in some field. It’s easier to claim to be a genius and make an ass out of yourself than it is to invent something unique.

@hzhao2004

Unless you can prove that racial diversity is needed or important, I think you’re just trying to pull up the ladder from the other Asians.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with considering personality in the admissions process. I think considering personality, and by extent character, are important things to consider in College Admissions. If I was hiring for an organization, I don’t want to just see that they are hard working and capable, but they are passionate, have leadership potential, and are overall a good person. These may be subjective, but if those traits stand out, then they can be great contributors to the community and the college at large.

@shawnspencer

The personality portion of the process is probably a contingency section in case the other sections don’t produce the racial make-up that the almighty adcoms want to see.

Extroverts have an advantage, IMHO. They are more likely to have leadership positions, be more noticed in class by teachers, and put themselves out there to ask for more opportunities in general.

@StudyingIsBad I think that is a pretty cynical view of how admissions process works.

@shawnspencer

More like realistic.

If the Asian applicants really were lacking in “personality”, then why even look at race and ethnicity?
Surely the adcoms would get the same racial composition if they looked at everything but race and ethnicity. Surely the URM essays and LORs would shine with such mighty personalities.

Personality tests are some of the most subjective and unfair measures imo.

There’s been extensive psychological research that shows that unconscious bias plays such a huge role in everything ranging from skin color, to symmetry of ones face, to the length of your name.

Even extending this to written work, such as LOR’s and wording of EC’s and essays, it seems extremely likely that kids who are just trying to be sincere, can come off wrong and thus be dinged by AO’s in the personality column.

I have suggested this same thing on other threads. It would solve a lot of problems, but would also be difficult to put into affect. Having read through many “results” and “chance me” threads it seems very common for students to have extra curriculars related to their ethnicity and religion. Chinese students often participate in Chinese programs, teach Chinese, etc. My daughter has several community service and leadership positions directly related to our congregation. It would be very hard to blot out.

@gallentjill

The Chinese will adapt and avoid anything that would out their ethnicity. Right now, there is no penalty for being part of a Chinese program since they can’t mask their ethnicity.

It’s not a personality test. Personality is one of the 5 categories in which Harvard rated/rates applicants on a scale of 1 to 6. It’s common for selective, holistic colleges to rate applicants on scales of 1-5 or 1-6 in a variety of categories like this, including categories that depend on desired personality/character type criteria, as reflected by LORs, essays, interview, and other components of the application. The NYT article mentions that 18% of Asian applicants were rated 1-2 in this “personality” category compared to 21% of White applicants. That’s not a huge difference, and not suggestive of a “contingency section.” It’s also likely that the prosecution selected this specific range of 1-2, rather than average or listing the percentage at each number because it was the range that best showed their position. The more important question is whether students were deserving of the ratings they received, based on the application. There is not enough information in the article to determine this.

France does this; college admissions are done only on the basis of grades and your score on the BAC. A consequence of this if tried in the US is that, based on the data that the colleges themselves supply, the percentage of URM students would decrease significantly at many selective schools, and I doubt that US society at the moment would accept this.