<p>The issue is that given the same or higher stats, the Asian EC or essay or LOR will be unfairly discounted.</p>
<p>How the heck can you say that sorghum? Where do you get that? The Asian EC or essay or LoR is NOT discounted. These play heavily (as for all kids.). These are what can distinguish one applicant from another. When you have 35000 apps, a good chunk (I personally say 50%) from top performers in their high schools, the “rest of the story” is critical. This is about fleshing out the kid behind the numbers, lifting the veil. Like it or not. </p>
<p>In many respects, that’s the point- and Espenshade’s explanation of why his data shouldn’t be taken as the ultimate truth. Any number of kids presenting the same (or similar, past some “bar”) stats are not equal. </p>
<p>It has been claimed that the number of Asian applicants to Harvard et al. has risen significantly over the past decade or so, while the % of the admitted students who are Asian has remained essentially constant at the top schools.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether this is true or not–have hard data already been presented on this thread, addressing that point? However, it seems plausible to me, based on demographic trends that I have observed in multiple university towns.</p>
<p>If it is true, then in my opinion, it tends to suggest race-conscious admissions. The additional Asian applicants are just displacing Asian applicants who would have been accepted a decade ago? I would certainly be interested in alternative explanations. </p>
<p>Quantmech, when you speak of demographic trends in university towns, do you mean more Asian families living in such towns? More university employees of Asian heritage? </p>
<p>Yes–when the People’s Republic of China started to permit large numbers of graduate students in STEM fields to come to the US to study, quite a few of them stayed in the US and had families. My recollection is that the expansion in numbers of PRC grad students started somewhere around 1990 (locally, anyway)–perhaps a bit before that, and there were small numbers of PRC students even earlier. The time interval is right for the second generation of those who stayed to be applying to college. The children are not all going into STEM fields. </p>
<p>I suspect that’s a little unusual mathmom, in terms of the timing–was he an undergrad at Caltech? I guess if he was 18 in 1983, then he would be only 49 now, and so might well have pre-college-age children. Most of the PRC students who came to my university had master’s degrees from the PRC already–so they arrived at about age 24. Of course, men can also have children much later in life than women can (except for adoption, step-families, etc.).</p>
<p>I thought Jeff Yang’s article was the most interesting link posted in this whole thread for the simple reason- that story above all provides any insight into actual practices of admission at Harvard and what might be considered a smoking gun (or lack there of).</p>
<p>Essentially, what the guy said was whatever his parents made him do all his life was not worthy of Harvard and wasn’t going to get him in but what he told the interviewer about being a writer and making movies on his own (probably hidden information from his parents) has what got him in the end. I am betting his essay said he was going to become a researcher and find a cure for cancer etc. rather than about his interest in writing.</p>
<p>People tend to forget that above all, Harvard is just a larger LAC for undergrads. If all 35000 applicants are Asian and everyone wants to major in sciences based on their apps, there are only 600 or 700 they can admit overall in those majors. Where do they find the people to fill the other 1000 seats in the other departments?</p>
<p>Well, I guess we’ll find out what the discovery process yields in open court. Perhaps the quota is a class of individuals and not race per se.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the lower stat students are not STEM majors (premed, primarily); also econ. If I was an adcom, and had a goal/quota for the matriculating class of 25-30% premeds, I would easily take the highest scoring bunch of that group. [And note, the Claimants use Caltech as an example, which to me, defeats their purpose, since Caltech does the exact same thing – it accepts the highest scoring STEM majors available.]</p>
<p>And then I would take the highest scoring pre-theater majors, pre-music majors, folks from the Mountain States, Alaska, and on down the line. [Note, Caltech does not care about music or theater majors.]</p>
<p>Ditto to the 10-15% of the goal of Californians, and similar numbers of New Yorkers and NE’ers, all which have a higher % of Asians than does flyover country.</p>
<p>Why would a school take the highest scoring theater major? Music major? Athlete, Etc?</p>
<p>Once a score was high enough, why wouldn’t a school take the best actors and actresses, the best musicians, the best athletes, etc?</p>
<p>Even pre med, why wouldn’t a school take somebody with experience in the medical field, who has volunteered for years, shown passion, leadership,etc?</p>
<p>High scores and the above characteristics are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In those cases, great.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t a school take a student who had to work 20 hours a week to help support his or her family over somebody with higher test scores?</p>
<p>The criteria in picking a student body is not just test scores,</p>
<p>Tpg/346, a kid who breaks forth- whether it’s beyond the bounds his family sets or the narrow expectations at his hs, can be a treasure. We know it, in real life. Problem: so many kids see hs context success as the only bar. “I’m a leader, I was president of the class!” “I founded a pre-med club.” (What’s a hs pre-med club do?) “I’m on the X team.”</p>
<p>BB- I’ll generalize, but a lot of those pre-meds put a lot of emphasis on how they’ve wanted to be a doctor since kindergarten (yeah, sure) and how much they want to help people (yada yada.) Same for engineer wannabes. As if a heartfelt plea makes a difference. Then you see they haven’t done anything to dip their toe into the environment, familiarize themselves with the realities or mindset (outside class,) nor to “help” others (beyond some hs activity which is short and easy, often at arm’s length.) It misses, “show, not tell.” So, sometimes, the kid who “puts his money where his mouth is” makes an entirely different impression than just stats can predict. You can’t just go on “highest scoring” (unless you mean reviewer ratings scores.)</p>
<p>As said, the problem with CA and NYC- and throw in some particular high schools- is the sheer volume of applicants. If you take that super kid from Albany, who is already energized, going beyond and having impact, is some nth kid out of the horde applying from Stuy going to get his nose out of joint? And to some, if the Stuy kids is Asian, does it “prove” discrimination. ? </p>
<p>Well like I said, IFF I was adcom…and the reason I would is because test scores matter for reporting, ECs do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most premeds will wash out by Organic Chem, so I personally would not be that interested in medical field experience that they obtained in HS. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By definition, I have a pile of 10-20,000 applications with passion and leadership, most of which have glowing recs (‘walks on water’). Might as well make a first cut by test scores/GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THAT I absolutely would do, but that means I must admit a higher scorers to balance my medians.</p>
<p>Regardless, at most I am going to accept ~25% premeds, xx % music majors, etc., bcos I want a balanced class. (I have profs in the music and theater departments that need students too, not to mention coaches.)</p>
<p>Ha, what reporting concerns? Some do think adcoms sit around worrying about US News and peer reviews based on score levels. But these colleges have thousands of high scoring applicants and we aren’t talking about the threat of some overwhelming drop in the top 25% of matriculants, if they look for qualitative merits. Not among elites.</p>
<p>And, when top colleges tout their students, it IS about their engagements. Do they say, Billy who scored 2400 and once did a walkathon? Or Billy who started an inner city program that now has X students? (Whatever.)</p>
<p>xiggi writes that Harvard has a “massive over-representation of Asians” so it can’t be discriminatory. From this logic, Google and other tech firms must be discriminatory against women and URM because they are massively under represented at those firms. When was the last time you heard that the NBA or the NFL was “massively over represented” with Blacks? @fabrizio is right about you xiggi.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl You seem to believe that anyone who uses a rubrik is a terrible employer and does not know what they are doing. For some reason, you believe you can do the best job at finding the “best” employees because you use your intuition and feel to select an applicant. Never mind that you have just passed on the highest qualified applicants for the brown nosing, handsome, white male who just flattered you with quips about how rosy your cheeks are, how your smile brightens a room and that working for you would be the pinnacle his career. Even though this applicant just barely made the “qualification” cut. Great for you, perhaps not so great for your company.</p>
<p>texaspg Thinks that the “Jeff Yang’s article was the most interesting link posted in this whole thread for the simple reason- that story above all provides any insight into actual practices of admission at Harvard and what might be considered a smoking gun (or lack there of).” </p>
<p>Did Yang provide his and his sister’s SAT and HSGPA in the article? Nope. However, everyone assumes Yang had terrible SAT and HSGPA by Harvard’s standards but got in. But how could this be? According to Yang, he and his sister were groomed by his tiger parents to do well in school and the SAT. By all accounts, since there is a huge sentiment that SAT is “teachable” then why didn’t Yang and his sister score through the roof given that Yang prepped for Harvard since his diaper days.</p>
<p>Either the SAT isn’t so “teachable” after all or Yang and his sister scored really well and masked those values to give his anecdotal evidence that he was accepted to Harvard because he “sucked at the piano” reader appeal, which based upon the comments seemed to have worked. Never mind that Yang’s sister probably violated federal laws by reading confidential data and/or violated Harvard’s trust for student employees, but if the story is good and gets press then all is justified.</p>
<p>BTW texaspg Not all Asians want STEM degrees, many have interests in obtaining non-STEM degrees. If Harvard wanted to limit STEM then it could do like Cornell and require applicants to choose their college of engineering or the arts etc. for admission into each department within Harvard if this was such a concern.</p>
<p>^^huh? If I am adcom, I make my rules…and one of my rules would be to keep median as high as possible. But I also then look at class rank, and a higher test score will not beat a higher class rank.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand why Asians are super over-represented at Harvard if the Asian style of college application (as caricatured quite unfairly and in an ugly manner on this forum) is so horrible. Can someone please explain?</p>
<p>No one can generalize that all Asian apps are flawed.
But nor can they generalize that Asian top scorers are necessarily and incontrovertibly superior, by a standard that looks at more than scores.</p>
<p>What some are saying, is that, at 4% of the US population, the Asian 20% at Harvard is notable. That’s all, really. It doesn’t say they are more special, nor that they are less. It does look like a hefty number. In some ways, it could be said that it sure looks like the elites are interested in lots of Asians. Even if it means pushing aside some Whites to get the space. Hmm, chew on that.</p>
<p>Some say, well, more Asians are applying, so more should be getting in. Huh? Then they cite, again, how Asians have better stats. And that sometimes gets a “so what?” because we all know- and keep saying that- stats aren’t all that’s considered. No elite college is just asking for who you are, how to contact you and your stats, then picking in an absolute top-down manner.</p>
<p>So some then say, “Yeah, but…” And it keeps going in circles. We’re at 24 pages and the arguing is silly. </p>