The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Concern about Discrimination against "Asian Americans" in University Admissions--in 1987!
Do Colleges Set Asian Quotas? Newsweek, February 9, 1987.
With a mix of awe and animosity, students in the Boston area joke that MIT stands for Made in Taiwan. Like many of the nation's most competitive schools, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has experienced huge increases in Asian-American enrollments.
Across the Ivy Legue, Asian-Americans, who make up only 2 percent of the nation's college-age population, account for 11 percent of this year's freshman class. Proud of their high grades and test scores, Asian-Americans say they should be doing even better -- and have accused top colleges of imposing ceilings to keep them out. "Asians are being discriminated against," charges Arthur Hu, an MIT alum who has studied Ivy League admissions patterns. "Unwritten quotas are making it more and more difficult to get into selective schools."
Recent admissions patterns do raise troubling questions. The nation's toughest institutions began admitting large numbers of Asian-Americans in the mid-1970s. But as their applications increased -- by as much as 1,000 percent -- the acceptance rate dropped; at Yale, the "admit" rate for Asian-Americans fell from 39 percent to 17 percent in the last decade. The timing was no coincidence, charges University of California, Berkeley, Prof. Ling-chi Wang. He claims that when worried schools realized what was happening, they began to curb the numbers.
Colleges deny setting ceilings, but they have taken the charges seriously. A Stanford University subcommittee concluded that "unconscious biases" might be responsible for the discrepancy in admission rates; subcommittee member Daniel Okimoto, a political-science professor, found that Asian-American applicants were often stereotyped as driven and narrowly focused….
Brown University, meanwhile, keeps a log of minority admits during admissions season, reportedly to achieve a total of 20 percent. "Asian-Americans should be concerned," says a Brown admissions officer. "We call them enrollment goals, but it works out about the same as a quota."….
"Stanford could become 40 percent Jewish, 40 percent Asian-American and 10 percent requisite black," says emeritus Harvard sociologist David Riesman. "You'd have a pure meritocracy, and that would create problems for diversity and alumni."
Around the same time this article appeared, I recall reading a story along the same lines, but with a specific focus on the UC schools. One thing that stood out to me was that the article related that several parents who happened to be attorneys sent demand letters to Berkeley and UCLA, threatening to sue them for discrimination against their Chinese-American children who had been rejected despite better credentials than non-Asian admittees from their high schools. The schools responded by quietly admitting the students.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Concur - contrary to what others have assured us, the metrics previously used in the selection process have changed dramatically, yet they achieve similar results.
Around the mid-1980s MIT rewrote some of its policies by replacing "minorities" with "underrepresented minorities", which was obviously meant to make Asian students honorary whites.
Had Asian student neighbors in university who I saw studying late into the night even on a Friday when my Mexican friend and I headed out to party and laughed at the Asian students. They are all probably wealthy and retired now, having helped create the Web, and I’m unemployed and will likely work into my 70s…should I live that long.
So basically, because people who happen to share ethnicity with a given student outperformed, as a whole, the median, that student's accomplishments are discounted? How in the world is that remotely ok? So that other people aren't jealous because there are too many Asians. It's not like Asian kids come out of the womb knowing calculus . . . . they had to put in the work.
Race-ist!!!!!!!
prepare for a biting reply from the "Reverend" Arthur Jerry Sandusky-Kirtland
You're right, of course -- it's anything but fair.
Is it a coincidence that the people pushing this (racist) crap also happen to be fans of Marxism? ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.") Seems pretty fucking unfair to me... But I guess I am just not sufficiently enlightened.
College admissions are unfair. I notice that no one is shedding any tears for urban kids or women, who are also discriminated against. Why is that, if your concern is fairness?
In 1992, the percentage of Asian graduate students in engineering at UCLA was over 60%. In fact UCLA was a major communications hub between Chinese during the Tienanmen massacre and its aftermath.
"Asian-American applicants were often stereotyped as driven and narrowly focused"
Is the assumption here that if the stereotype were true that would be a bad thing?