The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Flashback 1987: "In a Pure Meritocracy … Stanford Could Become 40 Percent Jewish, 40 Percent Asian-American"
Concerns that elite universities have rigged their admissions policies to disfavor Asian Americans are nothing new. In 1987, Newsweek reported accusations along those lines. The article noted that the acceptance rate for Asian American applicants at elite colleges had dropped dramatically, that Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford had all studied why the Asian American acceptance rate was lower than for white students with similar academic credentials. (The answers ranged from potential unconscious biases to Asian Americans being less likely to benefit from legacy and athletic preferences.) UC Berkeley, already 22% Asian American in 1978, "revised its procedures in 1983 to give greater weight to essays and extracurricular activities, areas in which Asian-American students traditionally fare less well."
The article concludes with these thoughts:
Schools opened the way to previously excluded ethnic groups in the 1960s. Now Asian-Americans have turned affirmative action on its head by outperforming not only other minorities but the majority as well. As a result, educators are asking themselves whether it is legitimate to try to preserve the traditional, largely WASP culture of most prestigious schools. "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."
I remember reading this at the time and being appalled that people would think there is something inherently wrong with a school being 40 percent Jewish and 40 percent Asian American. I was a bit surprised that I was actually able to find the article!
I recall reading another article around the same time, which I haven't been able to find, that helps explain why strong suspicions of discrimination against Asian Americans at Berkeley and UCLA didn't lead to lawsuits. The article explained that once in a while, a parent of an Asian American kid with a 1600, 4.0, and excellent extra-curriculars would threaten to sue. If the admissions office took the threat seriously, they would quietly admit the student.
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
Seems hard to believe that schools would have to reject Asian-Americans with 1600 SATs, 4.0 GPA and excellent extra-curriculars in order to avoid having more Asian-Americans than they wanted. I guess it would suck to be an almost perfect Asian-American with a 1599 or 3.999 and rejected because of the large number of perfect Asian-American kids ahead of them.
Well, back in the day 1600 was much rarer than it is now, but let's just say "very high SAT scores, 4.0 GPA, excellent ecs" and, importantly, better credentials than some of their white friends and classmates who were admitted. It's the latter point that got the parents made enough to threaten to sue.
David, what often happened back then was that someone (usually male) would get an 800 on the math section but only a 500-550 on the English -- and this was a kid going into the sciences anyway.
Very rarely did you see a double 800 -- I don't know of anyone who ever got one.
A 600 was a *very* respectable score back then for either.
I got a 1590, multiple 5 and 4s on APs, and straight As throughout high school.
Harvard did not accept me early action. Wasn't a big deal - I got into MIT. My guidance counselor said that Harvard makes a point of rejecting some top applicants to enhance its aura of exclusivity. I do not know if that is true.
Having gone to MIT I assume you got an up close look at Harvard and were deeply relieved not to have been accepted. They seem to have an eye for what I guess you would call "poorly-adjusted" people. It has the vibe of an asylum.
Yes, in fact McLean psychiatric hospital, a few miles away from Hahvahd, has long been considered one of its dorms because of the large number of students who end up there.
A 600 may have been respectable, but it wasn't Ivy caliber.
Made 35 out of 36 on the ACT, sort of the SAT's underachieving little brother, 4 guys in my High School scored a perfect 36, Wang Chun, Ho Lee Fuc, Sum Ting Wong, and Yung Guy Kum,
Frank
A 600 on either the math or language subtest was -- and remains -- a very "respectable" score. Indeed, at the regional state school where I taught we were always suitably impressed by students who scored that high. However, to be average in /any/ of the top-25 elite schools requires sub-test scores to be 100 points higher. At the "top 10" SAT schools, the average is 750 or higher.
https://www.number2.com/average-sat-score/#Which_States_have_the_Highest_SAT_Participation_Rates
The issue is about endowment…Harvard and Yale know how to build a large endowment and going strictly merit based they believe would eventually lead to fewer donations. Once wealthy Americans stop donating to them then they will lose their prestige. I personally would never donate to my alma mater because they have a huge endowment and they changed their admissions policies and I don’t support the charges.
Why would there be a "requisite 10% Black"?
Either it would be merit or it wouldn't be -- there is no halfway on this...
But the larger question is why can't an institution teach a CULTURE independent of race? Boston College is Jesuit -- they very much used to (and I believe still do) teach Jesuit culture there. Brandeis (I believe) is officially Jewish and would be teaching Jewish culture.
Why couldn't Stanford teach Railroad Robber Baron culture -- to students of whatever race(s) that they admitted?
As an aside, MIT is now teaching proper formal table manners to its students -- knowing that they will have to go to restaurants with both bosses and big money folk, they are teaching what the 37 different forks are all for.
Yet another made up anecdote by Dr. Ed. Where does he think there are that people care about different types of forks?
At MIT, according to the bit you quoted. Do you always have so much difficulty reading simple English?
Here's MIT discussing it.
https://news.mit.edu/2013/turning-20-charm
Ed,
I'm hoping that DB (or others) will be able to chime in, as I also didn't understand that sentence. If a hypothetical percentage of black admissions is required, then how can you claim it's (in this same hypo) a pure meritocracy? Seems to be the exact opposite.
I, of course, see that DB is not the one making this claim...he's merely quoting David Riesman. But my understanding of the English language leads me to the same grammatical question that you raised. Are we failing to understand Riesman's well-written and clear point? Or did he leave out an important "not" in the quoted sentence or something along that line?
He's basically saying that even if Stanford gave up every other sort of preference it used, it would still be committed to have 10% black students, that this is a core non-negotiable commitment.
'Either it would be merit or it wouldn’t be'
Or you're mistaking the symptom for the disease.
'teach a CULTURE independent of race?'
I'm sure that would be great but I expect you'd be driven to a rage by any steps required to get to a real version of that, rather than a boilerplate mission-statement version.
If every elite school was 40 pc Asian and 40 pc Jewish, then I do think representation could be an issue, especially if that translated into similar representation in important jobs throughout the economy and politics, though I don't think it would. Few Fortune 500 CEOs go to places like Stanford, and there's always grad school...
But I've always thought that the best argument for AA, at least historically, for black Americans was that they were sufficiently segregated physically and culturally in the US that if they didn't have a "seat at the table," it's not so much that decisionmakers would be hostile as there would be no one to point out or consider how their decisions would affect this "out" group.
But *that* said, in 1987, Jews and Asians were each about 2% of the population. There weren't enough of either to go around for them to be those percentages at all the Ivies, public Ivies, Ivy adjacents, and little Ivies. So if one was alarmed in 1987 that there are "too many" Jews and/or Asians (really, primarily Chinese and some Japanese and Indians, not lots of Filipinos), it's was primarily "aesthetic" complaint (why are we letting those grubby Jews and Asians "take over.")
And then and now, the folks that worry about representation don't worry about the virtual absence of white evangelical Protestants, about 15% of the US population from these schools... Maybe they should have, because they increasingly seem to think they don't have a stake in our institutions, which is why many are fans of Trump.
Professor B....Your last paragraph has a good insight on evangelicals. That would fit with what I have directly observed in my own social circle, just listening.
'because they increasingly seem to think they don’t have a stake in our institutions'
Perhaps it's because of decades of overwhelming right-wing hostility and hatred of those institutions. If white evangelical protestants suddenly decided to send their kids to these colleges, they'd get in, but that's a lot of money for college funds and a lot less for evangelical preachers and political grifters. So it's a pity they don't, but really if there's one group in the US capable of throwing their weight around and then some, it's white evangelicals.
By the way, in terms of demographic breakdowns and representation, why don't they all get analysed in relation to income and wealth? That is to say, the main problem when it comes to racial disparities may be down to what percentages of which groups are disproportionately poor, or not.
David, you neither understand populism nor the debate between Booker T Washington and WEB DuBois.
The elite national university as the ticket to power is fairly new -- prior to 1960, places like Harvard were regional universities that largely drew from the New England states.
This may be changing. Sen. Tim Scott, who stands a good chance at Trump's VP spot, went to Charlestown Southern University, which I've never even heard of. Justice ACB is out of Rhodes College, which I've also never heard of, and Notre Dame Law -- a reputable school, but not Harvard or Yale.
ND’s endowment is a lot bigger than Brown’s. And Rhodes is like SMU it’s just that it is in Memphis and so it will always play second fiddle to Vanderbilt in Nashville. Tim Scott would never be Trump’s VP and Charleston Southern is nowhere close to as good a school as Rhodes although the fact it is in Charleston with the most incoming wealth per capita of any city in America (thanks to politicians like Tim Scott) means it could improve quickly if it wants to water down its religious aspects.
No, they weren't.
Wouldn't mind if all Ivies were 100% asian-jewish, so long as these asian-jewish paid underachieving natives a generous wage to service them. But they are not such generous tippers. I've learned this recently delivering groceries. They mostly select the default tip, 5%.
I've a better idea: pay service providers enough so that they don't have to rely on tips.
I agree -- and remember when a regional retailer (Ocean State Job Lot) tried to get people to pay a 2% tip to the cashier. That didn't last long...
The market seems to have determined that higher base wages for this sort of work aren’t possible. Tips are the only way this job can pay. Going in, I thought that mostly rich people could afford the luxury of delivery, and that turned out to be true. Most deliveries are in rich neighborhoods (7-figure+ home value). But these rich people just don’t tip well. I’d be happy if my employer just set a higher default tip. Most people would leave it out of laziness. Amazon fresh has a higher default tip, but they wanted me to get higher car insurance (I have state minimum coverage). I said sure, if you pay for it. That is not what they had in mind. At least it is easy to quit this job for short periods if I’m losing too much money at it due to costs.
The market seems to have determined that higher base wages for this sort of work aren’t possible. Tips are the only way this job can pay.
This doesn't make sense. If I pay an extra 15-20% at a restaurant for the servers, cooks, and other employees as a tip, why is that different that simply having the prices be higher by that amount? What you are saying is that people tipping is irrational and that is somehow supposed to be more efficient.
'The market seems to have determined'
You might as well have said 'Santa Claus.' In fact, if workers cannot be paid a living wage, something is very *wrong.* And it is probably wrong by design.
The world needs grocery delivery guys too!
A pure meritocracy is a myth. Success depends as much on being in the right place at the right time, having parents with the resources to foster your academic growth, or even just having safe drinking water instead of there being too much lead in it, as it does individual merit.
Merit isn’t something you’re born with; it is the measure that is used each time you are compared to others. If your parents don’t have the money to “foster your academic growth” and you have no other financial means, you simply won’t be in the group from which the best college graduate is selected. You still might be the best candidate from a different group if you apply yourself.
Meritocracy simply requires the best candidate be selected whenever a selection is made.
If your parents don’t have the money to “foster your academic growth” and you have no other financial means, you simply won’t be in the group from which the best college graduate is selected.
This is correct and what I am getting at. A meritocracy is in contrast to class-based social systems. When I see people argue the virtues of meritocracy, whether in college admissions or job performance evaluations, the assumption is that is everyone had an equal opportunity to succeed. The effects of inherited wealth make that a false assumption.
Mixing meritocratic ideas with inherited wealth skews people's perspectives. A recent sociological research paper argues that the data shows that people are becoming more convinced that economic and social success are earned even as wealth inequality is increasing.
My perspective is that people are well served by believing that their efforts and talent will be rewarded, as that provides the motivation to seek opportunities. But they should avoid the dark side of that logic and not assume that their failures are due to inherent character flaws or lack of ability. That can lead to a fixed mindset that will hinder their chances of future success. ("I got a D in math because I suck at math, so why even try?") The same should apply to how people look at others and their efforts. Encourage people to put for the effort to succeed using the possibility of being rewarded for their effort as motivation. But then do not assume that people that are poor are just stupid and lazy.
The point of meritocracy isn't equal opportunity. It's the people who are best at something being the ones who end up doing it. You don't want your planes falling out of the air, your bridges collapsing, and to die of easily cured illnesses? Then you want engineers and doctors to be picked on the basis of how good they are at engineering or medicine, and not some trait that's irrelevant to performance.
Meritocracy is obviously vital in these sorts of technical fields where poor performance is immediately obvious and life threatening, but it's no less important in other fields. The cost of failure is just slower and more obscure than planes falling out of the air.
Not are the best, not for education or even most jobs. Will perform the best.
Though even that leaves out other metrics than performance, which some positions might be looking for. Expected time to stay in the seat, for instance. Overqualified is a thing for exactly this reason.
At Auburn I had Bo Jackson and Charles Barkley in a Sociology class. Bo finally grad-jew-ma-cated some 10 years later with a BS (Appropriate) in "Family & Child Development" RMOR* left after 3 years for the NBA, never got his degree, but as he famously said "some of the people who work for me did"
Frank
*Round Mound of Rebound
Well, Jews are almost entirely white and Asians are white-adjacent, so there you have it.
Not unless Stanford admits that that's what going to Stanford is for.
If they're pretending to admit based on merit, we get to judge them by the standards they're pretending to have.
"Of course it would be a bad thing. It would mean many groups would be massively underrepresented in entrance to elite levers of power. That’s terrible for a diverse democracy."
(1) It's terrible for a diverse democracy that going to certain schools has become so important for certain powerful jobs, period.
(2) Right now, many groups are massively underrepresented. About 15% of American are white evangelical Protestants. It's very unlikely that even 5% of Stanford students are (and even fewer at Northeastern schools).
(3) The vast majority of students aren't going to holding levers of power, even at Stanford.
(4) Look up numerus clausus and Hungary or Poland in the 1920s, and you will find you ideological allies on this.
I think the more important question is: Do we really want "the places schools like Stanford open the doors to" to be run by incompetents?
If the admissions were based on merit, why would anyone feel that the schools were "closed off to them"?
People get upset when they feel that they are being unfairly excluded. You know, like when a school takes race into account in admissions decisions. Few people say, "I wanted to go to Harvard, but my scores weren't good enough; the system is unfair." Lots of people say, "I wanted to go to Harvard, but they don't admit people who look like me; the system is unfair."
Conservatives who complain - like others who complain — do so because they think they're being discriminated against.
Well it also was initially modeled after Cornell, a Land Grant College -- and almost went broke until it founded Silicon Valley after WWII -- so its mission today ain't what it was when Leland founded it.
Isn't making sure the best students get the best training in the public welfare as well?
Not according to the Supreme Court.