Affirmative Action

Study: Elite Colleges' Race-Conscious Admissions Discriminate Against Asian Applicants

Caltech doesn't practice affirmative action, and its Asian American student population has increased. Harvard, on the other hand...

|

AA
Piyapong Thongcharoen / Dreamstime

In 1882, President Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, effectively barring all Chinese immigrants from entering the country. The ban did not come to an end until 1943.

Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), recalled this sad period of American history in her remarks at a National Press Club event in Washington, D.C., earlier this week. The event, which was co-hosted by CEO and the Federalist Society, highlighted a new CEO paper titled, "Too Many Asian Americans: Affirmative Discrimination in Elite College Admissions."

While not as obviously discriminatory as the Chinese Exclusion Act, race-conscious admissions policies often put Asian applicants at a disadvantage, since they would be overrepresented (relative to their share of the U.S. population) at many campuses absent deliberate efforts to admit more black and Latino students.

Asian Americans are over-performers in the education system: despite making up just 5 percent of the U.S. population, they represent "30% of the recent American maths and physics Olympiad teams and Presidential Scholars, and 25-30% of National Merit Scholarships," according to The Economist. When universities simply pick the most qualified students, Asian Americans are more likely than other groups to earn admission. When universities practice "holistic admissions"—a code word that indicates admissions officials are considering the racial background of the applicants in order to foster an ethnically diverse campus—Asian applicants need to score 140 more points on the SAT than white students in order to get in, according to research by Thomas Epanshade and Alexandria Radford.

The author of the new CEO paper, Althea Nagai, finds reason to be concerned about the impact of race-conscious admissions. She compared the percentages of Asian students at three elite private colleges: the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Caltech does not practice affirmative action; its Asian student population stands at 43 percent, having nearly doubled since 1990. MIT and Harvard, on the other hand, use race-conscious admissions in an attempt to achieve a racially diverse student body; consequently, the percentage of Asian students at both schools has remained relatively flat over the past two decades—26 percent at MIT, 17 percent at Harvard. Harvard, unlike MIT and CalTech, awards preferential admissions treatment to legacy applicants, which might explain why Asians constitute an even smaller percentage of Harvard's student body. Legacy preferences likely benefit white students, at the expense of minority applicants.

"So-called holistic admissions and diversity goals enable discrimination against Asian American applicants, much as the Harvard plan of the 1920s, also using holistic admissions, did against Jewish applicants," wrote Nagai.

The paper comes at a time when Harvard is facing a lawsuit for allegedly discriminating against Asian American applicants. Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group suing Harvard on behalf of Asian students who were rejected, recently persuaded a judge to compel the university to release some information relating to its admissions practices. More could be revealed at trial, according to The Harvard Crimson.

Chavez, who founded CEO in 1995, is both pro-immigration and anti-affirmative action—a combination that seems perfectly consistent to her as a conservative. And yet, in 2015, Chavez says she lost her gig as a pundit on Fox News after a producer claimed her pro-immigration conservativism was too "confusing" for viewers. That surprised Chavez, who had worked in the Reagan administration during the 1980s. Reagan, the political father of modern conservatism, was a supporter of immigration.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Just Backed Out of the Nuclear Summit With North Korea: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “proper” Libertarian position is no racial preferences in state schools, but it’s okay for private universities to discriminate, right?

    And to the extent that private universities depend on the gov’t for support either directly through grants or indirectly through student loans, that’s just another reason kill these funding mechanisms and totally separate Education and State.

    And, of course, Libertarians will reserve the right to criticize those institutions who “discriminate” base on race.

    Did I get that all correct?

    1. Not really. And since you appear to be just trolling…

    2. The “proper” Libertarian position is no racial preferences in state schools

      How about “no state schools” instead?

    3. Did I get that all correct?

      Those all look like good points to me, but I’m not one of the “Libertarians” you’re addressing.

    4. “…totally separate Education and State.”

      I am 1,000 % on board with that! And all these God-damned degrees credentials and licenses get the fuck out of my life! Physicians often do a totally suck-ass job of bothering to do a simple Google search and discover, for example, that God-damned stupid shrinks should NOT prescribe anti-depressants on top of mood stabilizers for bipolar patients, and they go right the fuck ahead and do that anyway! Then their foolishly trusting patients are driven to mania! If I am going to have to “own my disease” and double-check the living fuck out of my doctors, who can NOT even be bothered to do a Google search, then WHY in the hell do I need these fucking parasitical bastards gate-keeping me, like trolls under the bridge, before I can get my meds?!?! GTFO ye parasitical bastards! Next thing you know, I will need a licensed EE to prescribe me an alarm clock radio, and a PhD Mechanical Engineer to authorize my oil change! Wake up, ye sheeples ye!!!!

      1. Got that right. A doctor practically killed my mother prescribing statins without CoQ10. And the need for CoQ10 with statins is old news! Meanwhile I’m doing most of my own diagnosis, I only go to the doctor when I need a permission slip for a drug or test.

        Can’t wait for software to take over the medical profession, and doctors to be reduced to the status of oil change technicians.

        1. “…without CoQ10” … Yes, I have cut back to once every two days not once a day for statins, and I take them right before bedtime, with CoQ10… To mostly eliminate legs cramps (painful!). CoQ10 clearly seems to help me!

          Friggin’ doctors make NO money gate-keeping to sell over-the-counter CoQ10, so the parasites can’t be bothered to recommend it to us!!!

      2. Separation of Propaganda and State

        Separation of Church and State
        Separation of Education and State
        Separation of Media and State
        Separation of Art and State

    5. Nothing in this article advocates bringing state power to bear against these schools, so it certainly doesn’t follow that saying that these schools should not discriminate against certain races violates Libertarian principles. Libertarians are perfectly free to criticize racial discrimination at any given institution, public or private, without violating their small government views. Try again.

    6. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here,…. http://www.onlinereviewtech.com

    7. The whole idea of a “proper Libertarian position” is silly, but then, MMb is just trolling.

      I spent a long day last Thursday taking in the Circumstance and Pomp of the ceremonies at Harvard, and they do know how to put on a graduation ceremony for 35,000 people in attendance.

      Beginning with Astronomy and ending with Systems Biology, there may have been a handful of black recipients but it wasn’t until many had walked across the stage that it struck me… looking across the seated graduates resplendent in their red power gowns and three stripes on the sleeves, and the masters recipients, there weren’t any obviously black faces. There *were* many faces showing Asian roots (I’d say a large majority) but then, they aren’t URM … under represented minorities, and without them, science at Harvard would collapse.

      My kid (with blue eyes and light brown hair) did their BS at the University of California, and the UC are forbidden by law to use race in admissions, unlike Stanford or the Ivies. As a private institution, CalTech is allowed by law to take diversity into account but choose instead to discriminate based on the quality of the scholar. Good for CIT.

      Harvard thinks their way is better, but I fear it isn’t. … I wish the Asian student’s legal challenge well.

      1. There was a Black Commencement the day before… for the Black Community at Harvard, celebrating amongst themselves before the university wide mass commencements and smaller diploma awarding ceremonies. One of the latter and only one I actually attended (my kid was one of the Doctor of Philosophy recipients in the physical sciences) was given by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Interim Dean Emma Dench was doing yeoman’s work making the same truly heartfelt congratulatory presentation to all, over and over and over again. She was fascinating to watch… Aunt Judi should be proud how strong the acting gene is in her family.

  2. Diversity is obviously essential for a decent education, and if affirmative action has shown to be the most effective method to produce a diverse student body, then the practice must continue. It saddens me to see Asian Americans oppose affirmative action, especially since doing so puts them on the same side as white supremacists.

    1. the same side as white supremacists

      And also the C.H.U.D.

      1. I don’t think the sewer people need to be dragged into this.

        1. Especially when there are so many of them among the commentariat.

          1. That’s quite an admission.

    2. “Diversity is obviously essential for a decent education”

      You forgot to link to the named, verifiable, accurate source.

      1. I guess the Japanese do not get decent educations.

        1. White Americans segregated in schools also did not get a good education before 1965 either.

          Nobody is sure how the USA got into space until schools had what lefties call a diverse student body.

          1. Got into space:

            By importing Nazi’s, duh.

        2. I know! Tragic, really.

      2. You forgot to notice that OBL is an obvious parody.

        1. I did not notice the quote came from OBL. Mea culpa.

          1. When did Osama Bin Laden join the commentariot?

    3. If they wanted a diversity of opinions then they would have called them diversities instead of universities.

      1. I approve of this post.

      2. You can’t get more diverse than the entire universe, can you?

      3. Goodness! You appear to mistake the demand for diversity (meaning skin color and different ways of being aggrieved and victimized) with the total unwillingness to even have to *put up with* diversity of opinions, which is damaging to the psyche of those poor, pathetic attendees.

    4. O B L T F U

      1. If your post was sarcasm, I take mine back.

    5. It is only obvious to minds closed by modern progressivism.

      If you go to a UC Berkeley or Los Angeles, or CalTech, you will see fewer black students but the students you meet got there through the same door and have the respect of their peers.

  3. Back in 2012, Ron Unz covered similar ground in “The Myth of American Meritocracy”, published in the American Conservative. Most shockingly, Unz, both a Jew and a Harvard graduate, claimed that Asians were being denied “equal opportunity” not because of quotas for non-whites but because Jews were gaming the system. (It’s a very long article and you have to read through most of it before Unz gets to the “shocking” part.)

    1. It seems Caltech managed to outwit the Jews’ shenanigans, while MIT and Oxford succumbed to them.

      /sarc

      1. BEST SH*NANIGANS EVAH!

    2. JOOOOOZZZZZZ!!!!1!!111!!!!!!!!

  4. Equal treatment of individuals is put aside for equality of result for demographic categories of dubious value.

    1. You just described the equity doctrine.
      Next time you hear a True Believer use the word ‘equity’, frequently deployed alongside ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, you should understand they’re talking about racial and gender communism.

  5. I’m not sure why it’s shocking that discriminating “in favor” of some groups means discriminating against non-favored groups. How could it be otherwise?

    Incidentally, legacies should get scholarships, usable at whatever school they’re qualified to get into. That should appease the alumni without bending academic qualifications to let in dumb legacies.

    1. Previously affirmative action was sold as a means to address historic racism (Asians still didn’t get in on that, but hey), which, grumbling aside, is at least somewhat understandable.

      Now the same policy is rebranded “diversity”, and is on shaking ground with its moral justification and its curious selectivity as to what qualifies as “diverse”, never mind it essentially deigns all races as caricatures.

      Inasmuch as the discrimination of the KKK is considered abhorrent; it will be hard to justify the discrimination against Asians as not of the same ilk.

      1. Affirmative action is okay because it’s punching up. Try to imagine the world as a zero-sum power struggle where the ends justify the means. Asians have been enjoying a little too much white privilege these days.

        1. It’s not privilege, unless you think a mother starting in on the flash cards at six months is privilege. It’s relentless hard work.

          1. Success will always be conflated with privilege. Socialists are hellbent on spreading the belief that your lot in life is the result of outside forces, rather than effort. That’s why meritocracy is considered a white construct, because whites are less oppressed, somehow. I guess Asians are guilty of cultural appropriation for playing that game.

            1. “What about single moms who don’t have time to blah blah blah stupidity”

    2. This misunderstands legacy admissions, as generally applied. Unlike AA admissions, legacies are almost always qualified for schools they get into. They just get a huge boost in their odds of getting in (in other words, a legacy who has 35th percentile qualifications for the specific school will probably get in, while one without is most likely doomed). they also outperform the average students at their schools.

      Black and Latino AA recipients have qualifications that wouldn’t get them into the tier of schools below the ones they’re accepted to solely on merit. The difference in SAT scores between Asians and blacks at a good school is about as big as between the averages of Harvard and, say, Western Michigan

      1. Legacies would still face the mismatch problem if they’re let into schools they couldn’t enter on merit alone.

        Let them find a school they *can* get into on merit, and let Dad’s (or Mom’s) alma mater help with the tuition, etc.

        1. what part of “they don’t get into schools they couldn’t enter on merit alone” don’t you understand?

          1. Maybe I should make up some numbers to illustrate.

            A school has 1500 SAT 50th percentile and 3.7 GPA. 1400 25th percentile and 3.5. It admits 10% of applicants.

            If you have a 50th percentile GPA and SAT, you’re probably not getting in. If you have 25th percentile numbers, you’re very, very unlikely to get in unless you’re black, Hispanic, or your father was the president

            But if you’re average at this very high level and a legacy, you probably will get in. Much, much more likely to get in than a random person at that level

            Not that it’s absolute. One of my best friends was a Princeton legacy. Had a 5.something GPA, 1480ish SAT, and was a two sport athlete at the Division One level. Didn’t get in ED.

            1. Because people still won’t get it: the number of 3.7 GPAs and 1500 SATs by black Americans in a year is considerably smaller than the number of black students Harvard admits. I forget the exact number, but the top 8 or so universities admit more black students than score over 1400 on the SAT. the gulf between AA admits and regular admits is enormous.

              1. I get it, being a legacy isn’t as much of and advantage of being black.

                But it’s still part of a holistic blah blah blah, one factor among many to blah blah blah.

                I was simply suggesting a way to help legacies without bending pure meritocratic rules. So sue me.

  6. Fuck diversity.

    I saw something earlier today that ETS doesn’t report to schools, along with the scores, that “mentally disabled” test takers were given extra time or other assistance in taking the PSAT and SAT. They used to but stopped about 10 years ago. Why don’t they just eliminate all racial, ethnic and gender disparities in standardized test scores by providing the lower-scoring classes with the correct answers?

  7. Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group suing Harvard on behalf of Asian students who were rejected

    I agree with their position and think this is stupid. How’s that for confusing.

  8. This article is contradicting itself. You wrote that Harvard is facing a lawsuit for _allegedly_ discriminating, but two paragraphs before that you described Harvard’s openly racist admissions policy.

    1. It’s Robby (didn’t even have to look). He’d stick ‘allegedly’ in an article which linked Ted Kennedy with Mary Jo Kopechne’s death.

      1. I don’t know if I blame him totally for this. My local news station would call someone a suspect even if they were caught in the commission of a crime and then describe the crime they were allegedly committing. It’s really bizarre.

        1. The media does that because wrongfully accusing someone of a crime is defamation in most states.

          1. I understand why they do it, that doesn’t make it less bizarre sounding.

          2. The media does that because wrongfully accusing someone of a crime is defamation in most states.

            IANAL, but as long as they don’t refer to them by name, ‘perpetrator’ or ‘believed/alleged perpetrator’ is both more accurate and legally acceptable.

            Suspect is when they have no idea who committed a crime or if a crime was even committed. When a crime is known to have been committed and people were there, some of whom were involved, the police and law are more than just suspicious.

        2. The local NPR affiliate referred to the person held in the Santa Fe school shooting as ‘suspect’. It was (not so) bizarre because they’ll literally declare people guilty of supporting the NRA.

          1. I remember a report about a standoff that ended when the suspect was shot and killed by police.

    2. Journalists always use the word “allegedly” when discussing any civil lawsuits or criminal cases that are still ongoing. It’s a longstanding practice, and not that hard to understand.

      1. “Allegedly” is also used because potentially prejudicial statements in the press can affect both the prosecution or plaintiff and the defense when the matter is tried and/or settled in the courts.

  9. “Asian privilege”

    1. ~4 billion strong.

  10. Ideological progressives must really hate the success of Asians because it undermines the entire concept of “white privilege.” Rather than try to understand why Asians are so successful, they choose to ignore their success and discriminate against them.

    1. And “race realists” do the exact same thing from the other side. It must be weird to be a white supremacist and then realize that your own shitty excuse for logic means that Asian people are actually better than you.

      1. What’s weirder is being told that you’re a white supremacist because you noticed that Asian people are actually better on average than whites.

        Personally, I’m doing what I can to make the whole issue moot, by being interracially married. In the long run it’s the only solution that will finally end this.

      2. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to ignore that if there is a ‘superior’ genotype that it would clearly be Asian from an achievement on standardized testing standpoint.

        1. Eh, I think it’s mostly cultural. My (Filipina) wife insisted on starting with the flash cards by 6 months, we had our son reading at an adult level before he was out of kindergarten.

          Now, granted, my whole family has been STEM for generations, and she’s a PBK, so there’s probably some genetics in there, too. But I still think most of it is cultural.

    2. Not only ignore the success, but actively attempt to suppress the potential for success by denying admission.

      1. Socialism involves bringing the higher achievers down to to the lowest common denominator.

        That system cannot have smart people learning that socialism is a failure.

  11. And yet, in 2015, Chavez says she lost her gig as a pundit on Fox News after a producer claimed her pro-immigration conservativism was too “confusing” for viewers.

    Supporter of immigration or supporter of open borders?

    Big difference.

    Ronald Reagan was never a supporter of open borders.

  12. Little known fact: Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act because they put pee pee in his Coke.

      1. You wrote “Lacist” because they laced his Coke with pee pee, right?

      2. You wrote “Lacist” because they laced his Coke with pee pee, right?

  13. I’m glad colleges’ discrimination against Asians is coming more to light, but it pales to the discrimination Asians face in the workplace. In many high-end industries, companies will hire lots of Asians at the entry level and then never promote them. There was a study from Yale Law School that showed that Asian alumni were less than half as likely to get top positions like law firm partners or judges than blacks, Hispanics, or whites. I am against affirmative action and racial discrimination at all levels, but it is odd that everyone is focusing on college and not the more important stuff that happens later. Fixing affirmative action at the college level without dealing with workplace issues will just lead to Asians spending more money on degrees that are worth less.

    1. Lance Ito fucked it up for them. They’re still pissed at him for allowing cameras. But you know how those people love their cameras. He couldn’t help it, it was his nature.

    2. “There was a study from Yale Law School that showed that Asian alumni were less than half as likely to get top positions like law firm partners or judges than blacks, Hispanics, or whites.”

      Heh. That’s funny.

    3. The explanation I heard (the audience was Asian-American) was that Asian lawyers simply weren’t as aggressive and pushy as the lawyers from other groups. So the cultural thing actually bit them on the ass this time (assuming the explanation is true).

      1. Maybe if Margaret Cho went into the legal profession she could change those figures…

  14. It always makes me wonder if there was an alternative approach to race based policies that came out of the Civil Rights movement, beyond simply doing nothing (the default libertarian/anti-government stance). The racist shit that used to go down was pretty egregious, and it’s hard to argue against the need to directly attack that defect in our society. But we’re never going to be able to unwind this heritage of anti-discrimination laws, which now primarily serve to emphasize the existence of race instead vs. their original effect of tamping down racist attitudes.

    You can’t have race/sex/gender neutral society and also have specific legal protections based on group characteristics.

    1. we’re never going to be able to unwind this heritage of anti-discrimination laws, which now primarily serve to emphasize the existence of race instead vs. their original effect of tamping down racist attitudes.

      I’m not sure anti-discrimination laws were ever really effective at tamping down racist attitudes. You can mandate all the diversity quotas you want, but that’s not going to change some people’s attitudes. In fact, it may have the opposite effect by making the non-favored races (whites and asians) feel like they’re being punished for the sins of their ancestors (and in the asian’s case, punished for succeeding without the state’s “help”).

      You can’t have race/sex/gender neutral society and also have specific legal protections based on group characteristics.

      I don’t think most of the people pushing this nonsense are really interested in having a race/sex/gender neutral society.

      1. My understanding of what happened, is that early on the Civil rights movement had a choice to make between simple equality under the law, and “remedial” preferences. They despaired of achieving equal status in any reasonable time frame if they “merely” had equal rights, and went for preferences. So we skipped directly from enforced segregation, to enforced integration, and never tried seeing what people would do if they were just free.

        That was when the “right” lost blacks, politically, because the Democrats were quite comfortable with handing out racial preferences, and didn’t mind all that much just switching who got them, so long as it yielded votes. While the Republicans stuck by their “equal rights means *equal* rights position. So they got outbid.

        So, no, the people pushing this nonsense aren’t interesting in equality of rights. They’re interested in continuing to buy votes with racial/ethnic preferences.

        1. That was when the “right” lost blacks,

          You can argue a bit about right vs left, but the Republicans lost blacks decades before that, around the Depression.

          1. Do you think a lot of blacks supported George Wallace or Lester Maddox back in the day? I say supported rather than voted, because their votes were often suppressed. Why would Southern Democrats suppress blacks votes if they were voting Democrat?

          2. I think the Democrats started winning more black votes in the thirties and gradually had most black votes by the sixties and seventies. They bought a lot of votes. It is amazing Democrats got such support after oppressing blacks for 2 centuries.

  15. I find it a bit annoying that affirmative action only seems to become wrong because to benefits one minority group at the expense of another. Why can’t people accept that it’s just as wrong to screw over a white kid because of his race as an Asian? Maybe not start from the default assumption that white people just have it coming?

    1. You’d have to undo decades of cultural programming that defines whites as oppressors for the crime of being born.

  16. Congratulations, Asians! You’re now officially white people.

    1. When universities practice “holistic admissions”?a code word that indicates admissions officials are considering the racial background of the applicants in order to foster an ethnically diverse campus?Asian applicants need to score 140 more points on the SAT than white students in order to get in, according to research by Thomas Epanshade and Alexandria Radford.

      They’re not just white people. They’re extreme white people. Diana Moon Glampers, call your office.

      1. I noticed that too. Apparently Asians are now at the top of the Progressive Victimhood Stack (at least for the purposes of college admissions).

    2. Hahaha. They are white people minus the sweet entertainment gigs like Captain America.

      1. One of there days they’ll have some movies featuring Asians with special powers.

        /sarc

        1. What about Godzilla? Is he considered Asian?

        2. What about Godzilla? Is he considered Asian?

        3. What about Godzilla? Is he considered Asian?

        4. What about Godzilla? Is he considered Asian?

          1. Sorry, I kept pushing the submit button.


  17. And yet, in 2015, Chavez says she lost her gig as a pundit on Fox News after a producer claimed her pro-immigration conservativism was too “confusing” for viewers. That surprised Chavez, who had worked in the Reagan administration during the 1980s. Reagan, the political father of modern conservatism, was a supporter of immigration.

    Yeah, this is one of many reasons I refuse to watch Fox. They’re just as bullshit as other media outlets in that they have a narrative, and by god they’re going to push that narrative regardless of the facts.

  18. Reminder that the “scientific consensus” is that race does not exist.

    No scientific consensus on why Asians excel in academics or Blacks excel in athletics.

  19. race-conscious admissions policies often put Asian applicants at a disadvantage, since they would be overrepresented (relative to their share of the U.S. population) at many campuses absent deliberate efforts to admit more black and Latino students.

    Uh, Robbie, you understand that Asians aren’t around 20% of the population, right? They’re already dramatically overrepresented at selective universities

    1. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    2. Dramatically over-represented as a fraction of the general population, dramatically under-represented as a fraction of qualified applicants.

      Which should matter more in a nominally meritocratic institution?

      1. Robbie’s standard, which was in my quote

        1. Which is not an answer to your question in the second line. Affirmative action is evil, but that’s not what’s being discussed here.

          1. In a way it is; In order to over-represent one group relative to their share of qualified applicants, you have to under-represent another group relative to that same basis. Because it’s a zero sum game.

            Asians are the designated fall guys for affirmative action.

    3. Doesn’t the term “overrepresented” imply that we should treat individuals based on their identity group and that they should be a certain percentage based on their percentage of the general population? Who decides that?

  20. Ronald Reagan couldn’t get elected dog catcher these days. He actually sat down and ate lunch with Democrats some times. And (trigger warning!) he also shook their hands. In public.

    1. Like basically all Republicans to this day.

  21. I might be more inclined to sympathy if it weren’t for the very real and basic fact that this is all about bragging rights of a Harvard admit in certain circles/socio-economic groups. Why Harvard continues to have this cache in their minds is beyond me. I am not going to clutch my pearls because little Johnny or Janey has to go to, gasp, UVA or UNC-CH or a “lesser Ivy” or T50 school on the US News and World Report list.

    There also seems to be this enduring belief that near perfect SAT and GPA and checking the boxes on extra curricular activities=surefire admission. EVERY YEAR there is wailing when the Ivy release come out about how some unworthy person got in over perfect SAT/GPA son or daughter. Let’s be honest, after a certain score threshold, you’re capable of the work. So, how do you distinguish yourself from the rest of the apps with just as good scores and GPAs?

    I also suspect that declared or intended major is at play. And some of these kids may be getting lukewarm letters of rec. Top GPA does not mean best student.

    I just survived another round of college admit madness, and schools this cycle seemed to focus on increasing 1st gen students regardless of race.

    1. It’s about a lot more than Harvard, even though that’s the only school at issue in this immediate case. Any school that has selective admissions is in the crosshairs here

    2. “Why Harvard continues to have this cache in their minds is beyond me. ”

      Networking effects with the ruling class.

  22. I love how Robbie dances around the elephant in the room:
    Affirmative action is *designed* to discriminate against whites, and people like Robbie approve of sticking it to Whitey, but once it’s non-whites getting the shaft, maybe there’s something wrong with it.

    “Asian applicants need to score 140 more points on the SAT than white students in order to get in”

    How much more than black applicants, Robbie?

    “Legacy preferences likely benefit white students, at the expense of minority applicants.”

    Collectivists gonna collectivize
    Actually, it benefits a minority of white applicants, and disadvantages a majority of white applicants.

  23. Thanks for the information, Very useful
    obat luka pada mulut rahim

  24. Studies have asserted that Asians tend to have higher education accomplishments, greater wealth and less crime. Whites are somewhat inferior, then Hispanics and then Blacks. Question, will 70% – 90% of the media allow facts? Will 60% to 80% of high educators allow facts?

  25. Let’s use proper terminology. “Race-conscious” equals racism. “Affirmative action” equals racism. Cut out all this inaccurate propaganda, once and for all, and then we can have an honest conversation.

  26. Discrimination in all its forms must stay in the past. The society is so developed now and I can’t understand why we have another people, who are different from us. We need to learn more about caring for other people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.