Harvard & UNC lawsuits: LEGACY PREFERENCE

<p>I would turn to a Harvard faculty member who does sit on the admissions committee for insight. Harry R. Lewis has a blog, called “Bits and Pieces,” which I can’t link due to CC’s terms of service. However, a post about Harvard admissions, inspired by Jeremy Lin, was posted in Harvard’s feed. I’ve cited it before, but in this conversation, it should be heard. </p>

<p>Lewis cites a report issued in 1960 by the retiring head of admissions, W.J. Bender. (<a href=“http://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/27/feed_items/284[/url]”>http://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/27/feed_items/284&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>

[quote]
Perhaps, in other words, we will actually be the best college and make the optimum use of our resources if we are reasonably relaxed about it, if we show a little more humility and humanity and catholicity in our search for talent, if we recognize the fundamental human and social importance of other factors than A-getting ability and high academic ambitions, and don’t use the faculty exclusively to reproduce themselves. By all means let’s have a lot of brilliant students, the first-class academic minds which have always been one of the hallmarks of Harvard.** And in the getting of these, let’s look particularly for the truly original and independent and imaginative minds, even if they are found in candidates with SAT scores of 550 and a rank in the middle of their school classes. but let’s have some other students to help hold the place together, students who are intelligent and curious and interested enough to profit from Harvard, who are intelligent without necessarily being “intellectuals” but whose distinction is primarily other–goodness or loyalty or every or perceptivity or a passionate concern of some sort. …**
In other words, my prejudice is for a Harvard College with a certain range and mixture and diversity in its student body–a college with some snobs and some Scandinavian farm boys who skate beautifully and some bright Bronx pre-meds, with some students who care passionately if unwisely (but who knows) about editing the Crimson or beating Yale, or who have an ambition to run a business and make a million, or to get elected to public office, a college in which not all the students have looked on school just as preparation for college, college as preparation for graduate school and graduate school as preparation for they know not what. Won’t even our top-one-per-cent be better men and better scholars for being part of such a college?<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>

<p>550 in 1960 would be roughly 620 on CR today, and 570 on Math. </p>

<p>I think it would be very hard to maintain the argument that not admitting solely by test score and GPA constitutes discrimination against any particular group, when the college in question can show multiple documents written by important administrators over years advancing a policy of not admitting by test scores and class ranks. This passage could not be clearer that Harvard really does care about the “other factors.”</p>

<p>Periwinkle…great link. Thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Since these things seem to devolve into debates without the benefit of data, here is a link to ethnicity and scores from 2013.</p>

<p><a href=“Home – SAT Suite of Assessments | College Board”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-By-Gender-Ethnicity-2013.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, the SAT tables suggest that possibly they are smarter, on average, than white kids. This is particularly acute in the right tail of the distribution of scores.</p>

<p>The problem with the suit, I believe, is that it will be dismissed on the basis that we can’t allow objective measurements to get in the way of what we want to happen at these universities, which is already embedded in public policy. And I actually agree with that point broadly speaking (mostly on libertarian grounds) , although I’d probably make some adjustments to their polices if I were in charge or HY or P and owned it myself. Maybe.</p>

<p>“The problem with the suit, I believe, is that it will be dismissed on the basis that we can’t allow objective measurements to get in the way of what we want to happen at these universities, which is already embedded in public policy. And I actually agree with that point broadly speaking (mostly on libertarian grounds) , although I’d probably make some adjustments to their polices if I were in charge or HY or P and owned it myself. Maybe.”</p>

<p>But there’s no “what WE want to happen at these universities.” For example, Stanford highly values athletic ability. What if they decided to say - we want every student to be an accomplished athlete? What stops them from doing so? It’s what Stanford wants, and they are a private entity.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have a slightly different theory: the posters who come back --time after time-- do understand all that the “opposing” side is saying or writing. They do understand it but do not … accept it for a variety of reasons, including finding the practices discriminatory because of their perceived imbalance of numbers. </p>

<p>In a way, I also think that many of us despite stating the obvious and taking H’s “side” do understand the frustration of Asians when they focus on their (recent) superior numbers in the high ranges of SAT scores. After all, they were presented with a simple proposal: do your best in school, try to be the very best, and focus on building what appears to be the perfect resume for the HYPS in the world. This is not far from our cultural mindset that works in many countries in the world,and especially in Asia where a test score on one exam separates the very smart from the incredibly smart. </p>

<p>The problem it takes a long time to understand that the elements that contributed to the massive overrepresentation of Asians among a finite number of schools do not deliver as they used to as … the numbers of similar applicants has grown so much that the student who used to stand out with those uber scores and angular activities has diminished. </p>

<p>To get back in time, we might remember the story of a (very vocal) father who was incredibly upset when his D decided to spend more time on helping her class with the lights at a play than pursuing yet an another academic success. Her reward was to see her computer unplugged, I believe that many of us responded with a “Be happy” and this will serve her well. I think that he only came around at the same time he could buy a large bag of red sweatshirts at the Farm. Perhaps by now, he also tells his friends that taking on the responsibility of manning the lights at a play is seen as a better activitivity that battling for the lead role or “having” to be the first violonist in the ensemble. </p>

<p>Fwiw, and this if for VOR, there is still a chasm about understanding the athletic side. His reaction was telling: it was about being the best. When I mentioned hockey or lacrosse, he jumped on “money athletics” and varsity. My version was all about TEAM participation, and not about one particular sport. It is not about being the QB or the running back only; it’s about being a guard and toiling in the obscurity of hard work and dedication. We all know that kids should not write about sports, but how do we think that an adcom reacts to an essay of a kid who played OL in a team that never won a game and finds the activity a source of understanding the parables of Kiekergarrd! </p>

<p>In the end, Asians might have a raw deal as they suffer from a combination of parental misguidance and narrow focus on activities that reward the individual. It is understandable that they keep on punching the clock that used to work well. The numbers are clear, and that includes the 20 percent at Harvard that represents 300 percent of the racial mix of the US. And this is not very different from what has happened to the WASP group over the past decades. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>TPG, could this be a result on the focus on professions that are known to be living cash cows? If you look at Harvard, there are people who look at it as a trampoline to Wall Street, the life of a IBer, or one of those plum medical careers. For some, it is all about climbing the SES ladder. In fact, is there a parallel with the people who might deride H for continuing to admit people who express an interest in sociology, anthropology, or the arts? </p>

<p>And then there are the people who think it is worthwhile to spend time in the world of lower education and plan to work for the Peace Corps or TFA. How large do you think the Asian contingent is among the people who made such decision? What would be the ratio be of Asians versus others in pre-med/preIB versus the soft programs? Or at the MBA factory versus the School of Education? And you could do this at Stanford as well! </p>

<p>One needs only to look at basketball teams at schools like U Kentucky to understand that diversity does not carry over to big name school sports.</p>

<p>@Hunt - why are you just speaking to “white” applicants? AA applicants also come from well rounded backgrounds and meet the criteria for “holistic” admissions as well. I do admissions counseling (not just interviewing for Yale) and I know a whole lot of high powered Asian parents. I have to explain to them that these colleges are not MIT - they do not want a whole school full of nerds. Now, are all Asians nerds, of course not. But I do remind them that their parenting style comes back to haunt them. I have had way too many Asian students who wanted to be music majors, Classics majors, drama majors, psychology majors, literature majors, etc. tell me that their parents just will not allow it. They want them in the hard sciences on the path to med school, engineering and the like. They don’t even want them on track for law school.</p>

<p>So, if your whole life you are told to get stellar grades, join the “right EC’s” (math competitions, playing at age 4 at Carnegie Hall, Model UN), you generally are not going to have the intangible qualities that these schools want. They do have a certain amount of slots for kids that are there for pure academic prowess, but as a Yale graduate I can tell you for a fact that a campus full of these types would have changed the whole fabric of my experience.</p>

<p>"So, if your whole life you are told to get stellar grades, join the “right EC’s” (math competitions, playing at age 4 at Carnegie Hall, Model UN), you generally are not going to have the intangible qualities that these schools want. "</p>

<p>This is the nub of the cultural expectation going on here. Folks like Voiceofreason want to hear that Harvard has set out a rubric for getting in, if they can show that they have checked all the boxes, they should be rewarded with admission, and what’s frustrating is that they feel the rubric is hidden away somewhere. “If you wanted me to be the newspaper editor instead of the student body president, why not just TELL me? If you award more points for playing oboe than violin, why not just TELL me?” It is predicated upon a cultural mindset of … Harvard’s beds are to be earned by those who do the most WITH THE INTENT OF PLEASING HARVARD.</p>

<p>Harvard et al have a different mindset. They want to see you develop the most interesting, passionate (which is not synonymous with “sole focused passion”) YOU that you can be, and if you’re interesting enough on some dimension or dimensions, then welcome to the club. The very idea that you’ve done something for the sole / express purpose of pleasing Harvard is seen as unctuous or brown-nosing or eye-roll-worthy over here, in a way it isn’t in other cultures.</p>

<p>“There is a reason why many Asians take up Golf, Soccer and Tennis versus other sports like Football, LAX, Basketball. There are many more professionals of Asian descent in the former versus the latter. Seeing helps foster the youth to take up those sports when Asian presence is next to nil in the favored revenue sports”</p>

<p>This is exactly what we mean by conformity. Xiggi’s advice - hey, why not break free from the usual tennis / golf / soccer and try other sports is met with “but we can’t, because other people don’t.” It’s “give me a rule, AND give me permission to follow the rule, since I don’t have any leadership initiative on my own part.” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Tperry, I think that you might be preaching to the choir. Or at least from one Yale insider to another. Time to flash that secret virtual handshake. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Interestingly enough I know a few Asians that are doing the ‘name your service thing’ and those who do it are getting into Harvard’s MD, JD and MBA programs. :stuck_out_tongue: </p>

<p>exactly Pizzagirl - that is why “sincerity” and “passion” are important and why when I do interviews I ask applicants about the EC’s. I want to see if they are passionate about them or if it is something that is just there so that their list looks long or “well rounded”. You could have gone to the Congo and helped dig a well to bring drinking water to the masses, but if you describe it to me clinically during the interview, I am going to get the sense that you did that just so it looks good. Yes, it is subjective. Yes, that is life. And, before someone says that some interviewees are not gregarious, trust me, I am not basing my evaluation on that. I have had gregarious, talkative interviewees where I left feeling that they were blowhearts with no substance. </p>

<p>@xiggi - LOLOL</p>

<p>In fairness, it’s hard to generalize that Asian kids don’t understand the process. Many do come through with rigor, accomplishment, activities beyond the stereotypes, additional (worthy) challenges they sought out (I don’t mean math competitions,) plenty of good guy/good gal quality, including perspective, grounding and wit. And more. It gets recognized. </p>

<p>This is one reason the persistent myth that they’re discriminated against is frustrating. Like applicants from every group, it’s just that not all do. Folks have to break the mindset that all top stats kids magically have all the components these most competitive colleges want. </p>

<p>

MIT isn’t MIT any more either. They are looking for more than just math and science ability.</p>

<p>

If SAT measured intelligence–and if test prep didn’t work–I might agree with you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For this lawsuit the plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. In order to prove his case the plaintiff plans on using statistical analysis to show discriminatory intent. In his study of admissions at elite universities Espenshade has shown a 50 point SAT discount is applied to Asian applicants, and the plaintiff may decide to use a similar statistical method. Espenshade has discussed his use of SAT test scores to study admission discrimination:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Re: #300</p>

<p>

</a></p>

<p>But wasn’t 1960 about the time that Harvard (and other elite schools) was significantly raising its admission standards with respect to academics? In that age, didn’t a substantial part of its frosh class come from SES-elite prep schools, without necessarily needing particularly high level of academic distinction, while a small (but growing around that age) portion was admitted mainly on the basis of academic eliteness? The former were the ones satisfied with “gentlemen’s C” grades, while the latter held up the school’s academically elite reputation.</p>

<p>Ucbalumnus, according to the Harvard Gazette, Professor Lewis serves on Harvard’s undergraduate admissions committee: <a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/college-admits-class-of-18/[/url]”>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/college-admits-class-of-18/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

<p>He also wrote in the piece above,

</p>

<p>He is a greater authority on Harvard than any of us. He has just been named the interim Dean of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science. To quote from the article,

</p>

<p>So when he cites Bender’s philosophy, and states that the perspective has been influential for 52 years, you know what? I believe him.</p>

<p>I will further add that there is no evidence that Harvard, the institution, places great value on perfect standardized testing. If anything, I can remember information sessions at Harvard and Princeton in which admissions people warned against devoting too much effort to testing. Harvard certainly does look for brilliance, passion, intelligence, and genius. In my opinion, it does not look for dutiful, devoted, hard workers. The standard is perhaps closer to effortless mastery of multiple fields, with an evident hunger for more.</p>