Brady, were you the accuser? @MBAGrad2015"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-american-organi…
One of the comments was pretty funny. The person said why don't they practice affirmative action in the NBA?
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
April 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
I think Asian-Americans (and anyone for that matter) have every right to want transparency when it comes to admissions decisions at select colleges.
But, it's not like they are underepresented at Harvard. Actually the opposite. Asian Americans make up 20% of the Harvard incoming class but are only around 5% of the US Population so...
Look at SAT averages by demographic admitted. They're not the same, so there is bias (to an extreme against Asians). It's affirmative action, and they're not taking the top candidates to increase diveristy- it's entirely legal and their choice.
Well yeah, Harvard's mission isn't necessarily to accept "top candidates" based on academic merit alone, but to accept those who they see are fit to attend and as a private institution they can do that. Even if Harvard were to accept based on academic merit, some if not most who are probably accusing Harvard of bias probably wouldn't be admitted solely on those terms. Most likely, there was something else in their application that was rather "sub par" (i.e. lacking some "wow" factor, cured cancer, published a best selling book, etc, etc).
It is true that Asians are overrepresented at elite colleges relative to their share of the overall U.S. population, but that is irrelevant for two reasons. First, what matters is the % of applicants to Harvard who are Asian. I don't know this figure since it's not public, but I am confident that it's way higher than 5%. Let's say it's actually 15-25% (not inconceivable); if that were the case the 20% Asian population at Harvard is not a sign of over-representation. Second, given that Asians are held to a higher admission standard than other ethnic groups, they are suffering from discrimination, pure and simple. After all that is the very definition of what constitutes discrimination. Although Harvard is indeed a private university, they still accept federal funding and are thus subject to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which explicitly forbids discrimination of any sort based on race or ethnic background. Proving this in court will be a tougher proposition of course, but the argument that Asians are held to a higher standard is ample with data and evidence. The question is whether a federal court is willing to hear the case and what they would actually do. Ideally, if I were a judge in charge of such a case, I would order Harvard to divulge all relevant data on admissions and race. This would include % of applicants broken down by race, % acceptance rate by race, median SAT scores by race, median family income by race, and private notes written by admission officers during the process. If this were to happen, I think we would be utterly shocked at how deep the discrimination against Asians lie, for they are where the Jew were at during the 1920's and 1930's.
except boston area courts aren't michigan area courts. good luck!
"Transparency in admissions decisions" would result in a lot of private schools having to add a column that reads "% of new admits who were only given admission because their parents donated a shit-ton of money".
Wait, so the complaint bashes Harvard's "holistic" process but then uses the SAT score disparity as a main supporting argument? Maybe the word "holistic" is not one they test at the SAT?
Also funny how they use CalTech as an example--the most socially awkward school I know in the US.
You misunderstand the crux of the argument. They are not advocating that Harvard or any other college use the SAT as the sole arbiter of admissions. They are rather arguing that admissions committees are hiding behind the rhetoric of "holistic" admissions to justify discrimination against Asians.
This is one of the most misunderstood aspect of this debate, so it needs further clarification. First, although people often say that admissions is way more than the SAT (and that is certainly true), they understate the importance of the exam. After all, you will almost never hear an admissions officer discourage applicants with lower scores to apply. Why? Because doing so will mean fewer applications, less money from fees, and higher acceptance rates, all of which dilute the school's aura of prestige. Thus, an admission officer will always say in public that the SAT is just one measure of the applicant's overall profile. This is true substantively speaking, but it neglects the fact that there is a direct positive correlation between scores and acceptance rates. Applicants with higher scores are accepted at greater rates than those with lower scores, and this is consistent across the board. Harvard for instance accepts about half of all applicants with a perfect 2400 SAT. This is ten times higher than the overall 5% acceptance rate. This statistic belies the notion that schools don't care that much about scores. If anything, it tells me the opposite, that colleges see the SAT as a fairly reliable measure of intelligence and work ethic, a fact that is supported by actual data. Furthermore, the type of high school students who get super high scores will mostly likely excel in other areas since it is an indication of work ethic, ambition, and brainpower.
Another point made by AA proponents which really irks me is the insidious assumption that Asians are somehow less multi-dimensional and multi-faceted than other groups and that because all they offer is high grades and scores, that somehow explains the high standard imposed upon them. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. Perhaps this was true in the 70's and 80's when Asians were recent immigrants, but Asian applicants in recent years have been just as well-rounded as their peers. They have excelled in the classroom, clubs, sports, music, art, science, you name it. The "holistic" argument is a cheap cop-out used to justify discriminatory admission policies and are actually a veiled form of racism. It is the exact same argument used by Harvard to keep out Jews.
I am glad that Asians are finally standing up to the system rather than being passive and meek. Like blacks did during Civil Rights, Asians need to fight vocally for their rights and to be treated equally. They are not asking for special treatment, merely that they have a shot at the American Dream by being subject to the same standard as everyone else as opposed to the Olympian hurdles they have to currently overcome to gain admission to a coveted school.
I actually agree with almost every point you make here.
Laughed hard at the above poster who just indirectly compared Harvard to Nazi Germany... Bro, I really hope you are not an Asian Harvard reject. If you are, though, it is not because of discrimination... In fact, if you are an Asian Harvard reject, you are a great example of Harvard's admission system working well.
Brady you're on a roll, I totally agree with you that Harvard should be 80% asian
I've been less active, is that the new Brady?
MBAGrad2015 has talked about nothing but affirmative action bias, fund of funds, the weak post MBA market, and dating apps. Could he be anyone else?
Yep, his latest username
I'm dying at the comparison's to the civil rights movement and world war era Jews.
It's interesting to me how people like Brady can have such little perspective on the world that they think you can rank and file people by SAT scores. Complete lack of social awareness and aptitude. And he wonders why he doesn't do as well as he thinks he deserves in admissions and job applications.
First, I'm not Brady. Second, did you even read my posts? You obviously did not or you did but struggle with reading comprehension. I said explictly that college admission should not be based entirely on test scores. What I said was that the data shows that college adcom obviously takes SAT scores very seriously, much moreso than people are willing to admit. My critique is not of holistic admissions per se but the way college adcom hides behind that vague terminology to justify the implicit use of quotas and discrimination against Asians.
I can't speak for those who made comparisons to WWII Jews (which is ridiculous), but I did make one reference to civil rights blacks. Again, go back and read it. I did not say the current predicament of Asians is on par with what blacks went through back then. Instead, I said that like blacks, Asians should be more vocal and aggressive in demanding justice.
I don't struggle with reading comprehension, you just aren't able to make an actual argument that doesn't depend on itself. Your arguments depend on the base assumption that test scores rank and file applicants in a linear fashion, which isn't true either in life or the admissions process, but you keep arguing as if you aren't assuming that and then concluding that Asians are discriminated against because they have higher test scores.
It's HS/low level college circular argument techniques at their finest.
Good WSJ op-ed on this topic. I'm glad that the mainstream media has picked up on it. Hopefully a federal court will hear this or Blum's lawsuit.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-jews-of-harvard-admissions-14320771…
I think someone erroneously thought Brady brought up Nazi Germany, but he was talking about Harvard admissions with Jews in the 20s and 30s. I've got to admit, Brady does bring up some great points.
It is undeniable that Asians have a much more difficult time getting into Harvard than other races. Tests scores are commonly cited because they are the easiest to see indicators that we have. Certainly admissions have many different criteria they judge on but to characterize Asians as one dimensional robots who do nothing but study for tests, and deserve to fail holistic entrance, is racist and damaging.
However this issue is not going to change for another generation, because as a whole first generation Asian-american have very little interest in politics. In addition Asians make a small percentage of the US population and is deeply divided on party lines. There is just currently zero political reason to change affirmative action, and has become a consequence of our political system.
It's unfortunate that Asians are so apolitical, but I think it's slowly changing with the new generation. The first generation immigrants were too worried about putting food on the table and assimilating. Now as the new generation becomes more educated and affluent, they are becoming more politically aware. The shift of Asians to the Democratic Party is unfortunate, but I am delighted that Asian groups are waking up and realizing how racist and morally egregious AA is. I have no idea if this will go anywhere, but at the very least it's getting people talking about it.
Asians voted for republicans during the last midterm elections (50% vs 49%) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/9/asian-vote-breaks-for-re… And honestly, Asian ethics/values fall much more in line with republican thought. However many Asians rightfully view both parties as hostile, both Republicans and Democrats view immigrants as stealing american jobs.
Truth be told Affirmative Action is one of the most valuable learning experiences a second generation Asian will get. It teaches that life isn't fair and race matters, and I feel like one of the reasons why Asians are so successful is because they are trained to overcome obstacles and conform to the majority expectations. To me, it is much better to be taught this harsh lesson early in the game, rather than complain about a fabricated 'bamboo ceiling' later in life.
@MBAGrad2015" -- I am actually surprised that I agree with you on almost everything you have said so far. However, what can you do? The answer: nothing. A lawsuit won't do anything; the criteria for admission to top schools is nebulous.
My fantasy is that the Harvard lawsuit (the one filed by Blum last fall) will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Because private schools' admissions are based on more than numbers, it's difficult to prove discrimination UNLESS Harvard or any other top school for that matter divulges all relevant data.
Are denied applicants seeking damages?
Even though Harvard is a private institution, it's still, perhaps unfortunately, subject to public laws, many of which are unconstitutional, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Harvard, in a perfect world, ought' to be able to admit any student it so desires unless the school starts accepting federal funding.
I'm sorry, but did you just say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read.
Also, Harvard does accept federal funding, which is why it's subject to the Civil Rights Act.
A radical view (which I hold) is that, Harvard, being private, can do whatever they want, and admit people under whatever criteria they think serves Harvard best.
Another radical view (which I hold) is that, over time, a school which admits the inferior candidate, will yield an alumni network whose power is ultimately inferior to that school which does not engage in AA discrimination against the superior candidate. No political action is required, because the invisible hand of the market inevitably moves against those who admit (or hire) on a basis that would otherwise not be justifiable. That may take some time, but it is inescapable.
I agree with your second statement. Even medical schools participate in AA, accepting blacks that have significantly lower MCAT scores than Asians and whites. These lower scored students end up failing medical school or quitting due to lack of work ethic. AA fails because it simply allows entrance of unremarkable candidates into remarkable programs and schools. These candidates will most likely not succeed in that environment because they are unqualified to.
Certainly there are a lot of factors that influenced the rapid climb in rankings, most notably accepting the common app, but being ranked #4 put the school on the map for a lot of high school seniors who would otherwise have no clue about the school.
The rise of uchicago undergrad is really fascinating. It has a brutal undergrad academic life, curved classes, awful social life, and hyde park is horrendous. And yet, it has gone from a 60% acceptance rate in 2000 to around 9% now. That is unprecedented. Yes, the common app helped, but uchicago also asks some very specific quirky essay questions, so it's still a lot of work to fill out. I don't know what is driving uchicago's rise. It's not location like what NYC did for Columbia. And it's not as if uchicago is tied to a hot industry such as stanford with tech.
In general, worrying about affirmative action is useless and ultimately, pretty beta. If Asians keep doing well for themselves, enough will eventually rise to positions of power, influence policy, and eventually neutralize this issue.
This says 77% in 1993. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/March-2011/College-Comeback-…- University-of-Chicago-Finds-Its-Groove/ Which is consistent with student folklore
Yeah I think my year was the last year it was 'easy' to get in. Afterwards we hit #4 on the rankings, and everyone jokes about how we snuck in.
I'm an Asian-Australian and I've been offered to do a one-year exchange at Wharton as part of my degree. I didn't have to fill in my race or such, the only things taken into account where grades and EC's.
I do have to clarify that both of my parents are immigrants, and I come from a middle income family. I can't believe that just because you're Asian I'd have to work much harder than a Black/Hispanic person.
.
Sadly that's true. In the U.S., whether it's undergrad, grad, job, Asians are held to an exponentially higher standard than blacks and hispanics. It's racism pure and simple. I guess the "good" thing is that if you're an Asian-American who managed to get into an elite school or job, no one will question your intelligence, work ethic, and right to be there.
That really is disheartening ..
In Australia, if said person wanted to enter into a target the only thing taken into consideration is our ATAR score (similar to the US SAT). The only advantages are given to those who are Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander (similar to American-Indians) and the geographically disadvantaged. No other factors are accessed - a much fairer system in my opinion.
As someone who went to an elite undergrad and grad school, you seem to whine a lot MBAGrad. Shouldn't all your prestige be paying off? Who the hell makes a spreadsheet of colleges in high school? You sound like a great dude to hang out with, lol. You seem like an annoying gunner and it probably shows everywhere you go, no one likes gunners. I love your intense focus on blacks/Hispanics when white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA. I love how you completely and totally ignored the legacy/varsity sports argument, despite that being a bigger issue just based on absolute numbers.
I said in another post in this same thread that I have major issues with legacy and recruited athletes as well, but since the OP was specifically about race-based affirmative action, I have focused my critique on that aspect.
White women get AA in MBA admissions and some male-dominated graduate programs such as engineering. But they don't get AA for college, law, med. There is gender parity (probably a bit more women) at those programs.
3 is never going to happen, especially at large state schools. #1 will most likely STILL result in a majority of those socioeconomic admits being black/Hispanic. Asians are the highest income earners in society, Blacks/ Hispanics are on the other end of that spectrum. It would probably just result in more poor white ppl getting int Harvard.
Surely this can't be correct
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-20…
Yep, Asians take home more than double what African Americans bring home.
I agree that #3 would never happen at state schools. Those schools derive a lot of revenue from sports, so it's not feasible. My comment was limited to elite private schools.
I agree with you that socioeconomic AA would actually capture a lot of blacks and hispanics, in particular the ones who really need help without discriminating against Asians. It also would result in poorer whites from underrepresented areas getting in. Harvard and its peers are diverse ethnically but not so much socioeconomically. It's gotten better of course with need-based financial aid and grant only packages (no loans), but race-based AA is a hindrance to such progress.
I meant in the USA, as an average that is totally correct lion Cub.
Brady have you given some thought to a second bachelors? Maybe Yale?
Woe is Brady.
He went to an Ivy League school for undergrad, but it wasn't Harvard.
He went to an elite MBA program, but it wasn't HBS.
He made it into the FO but wasn't a BSD.
He looks down on himself for not getting there... and looks down on everyone else who hasn't gotten there either.
100% of people out there- construction workers, McDonald's employees, Big Ten alumns- feel sorry for him that he's only at the 2% quantile and not the 1% quantile.
And his failure is due to his ethnicity, not the fact that it might be luck.
TLDR: Brady, can you do yourself and us a HUGE favor and BE HAPPY?
"Think about all of the people in the world who go to sleep hungry, scared, or both. If you can't be happy coming out of a top tier MBA program, that's a slap in the face to the people out there who would give anything to have 1/1000th of the opportunity you have for themselves or their kids."
-Prof. Deepak Malhotra
Some pretty divisive arguments. I'd just like to add one thought:
Asians are held to higher standards because they are viewed as one-dimensional and lack "holistic" qualities. What if someone said African Americans, whites, or Latinos are held to lower standards because they are viewed as less intelligent? This blanket assumption that we place on Asians is without doubt racist and will need to be changed over time. ANY blanket assumptions made on race is racism and bigotry. It is absolutely outrageous the racism against Asians has persisted this long without political challenges.
Interesting development in the Harvard case. This is moving faster than I had thought.
A federal judge in Boston ordered Harvard to divulge some admission documents (obviously not everything and we don't know how much Harvard will be forced to hand over) and ruled that both parties will have a discovery period of 10 to 12 months. Furthermore, the plaintiff will be able to depose 10 Harvard admission officials for questioning. Although not quite as extensive as I had liked, I'm pretty happy with this progress. Just one small move towards justice.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/5/4/race-based-lawsuit-update/
To address the OP, nobody has talked about graduate school. We're an industry forum and it's natural to forget about research-based PhD programs, but most of these schools say their smartest students go on to get PhDs. So I think there's an interesting natural experiment going on here.
At the graduate PhD level, you have an admissions process where Harvard has a strong incentive to be meritocratic. PhD students are more "hired" than "admitted" when you think about it. They don't pay tuition, they get a stipend, and in exchange they are expected to teach and do research.
At the undergraduate level, no such incentive exists. But Harvard, Princeton, and other schools have always stated that undergrad is merely preparation for grad school, and that their best students go on to graduate school. We ought to be able to hold them to the notion that the graduate students they admit ought to be a rough cross section of who had the most merit at the undergraduate level.
So this really ought to boil down to a simple question: if undergraduate admissions are meritocratic, should the racial makeup of your PhD students- supposedly the best performing undergrads out there- look like the racial makeup of your undergrads? Are the two different? Why are they different?
You see this come up in behavioral finance all of the time. It's very easy to come up with an alternative explanation or factor if all someone does is add lots of controls. Harvard can always claim that white students play more sports, have qualitative factors that aren't captured, interview better, etc. But if you have a natural experiment, it gets a lot more embarrassing to explain why 20% of your undergrads are Asian while 40-50% of your graduate students are Asian but went to "lesser" schools, if all of the things you say about your best and brightest going on to grad school are true, and you have research and money on the line in grad school.
PhD admissions are quite meritocratic because grant money is on the line. On average, funded grad students cost advisors ~65-70K per year. So yes, they absolutely are being hired.
But beyond that, PhD class sizes are much, much smaller, making short-term affirmative action difficult to implement (if that were desired). STEM PhD class sizes can be as small as 3-10 at smaller programs. When you factor in the sheer number of international students vs. Americans applying for US grad programs (relative to undergrad programs), it is no shock that many PhD programs are 40-50% Asian.
I think you bring up an excellent thought experiment, but undergrad vs. grad school demographics are not an apples to apples comparison.
It's not a perfect comparison but it's as close as we can get in real life and these schools have stated repeatedly that their best performing students- the ones they are most proud of- tend to go on and get PhDs and sometimes enter academia. And if you can argue that if there are enough of these students to completely fill the undergraduate classes at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and MIT- or at least argue that there are enough Asians in these PhD programs that they have admitted to make the Asian contingent in their undergraduate classes larger- who ought to be at the front of the line- you're basically meeting the statistical definition of bias (maybe not the legal definition). And why are a large number of the Asian grad school admits coming from schools like CMU, Caltech, Chicago, and public ivies- schools that admit undergrads largely on academics and test scores? These are the schools that Daniel Golden described many of his highly-qualified Asian-American applicants going to after they were shut out of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
You can still probably come up with some alternative explanations to talk about how and why grad school is different than undergrad. Most of those explanations are going to piss off a lot of the faculty at those schools (IE PhDs and researchers are one-dimensional or don't need to fit our definition of GreekArete), so they need to tread carefully.
One of my friends was the quarterback on his football team in high school- they made the finals at state. He also got a perfect score on his SATs and a 3.95 GPA. He was denied admission to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton but got into Caltech solely on academics. He did a bunch of research there and is now in the third year of his Math PhD at Princeton. To claim that Asians are getting denied admission because of a holistic approach- looking purely for students who excel in several areas and aren't just grinds- seems a little strange to him.
I think the best angle is to hold these schools against claims they've made. If their best students go to grad school, why do they have a larger total number of Asian PhDs in their graduate school than in undergrad? Why do they shut out Asians at the undergraduate level, only to admit Asians from Caltech, Chicago, and CMU in grad school when grant money is on the line?
FWIW I'm white. I think the admissions process at elite undergrads is moderately biased against white suburban middle class kids, but even more biased against poor Asian and middle class students. I do worry that everyone- Asian Americans included- is shooting themselves in the foot if the goal is to give themselves a better chance at admission. At the end of the day, if we make it purely merit based on academics and foreign nationals get a level playing field, Americans are screwed.
I think the best argument against is a direct one to the people suing- that few Asian or White Americans could make the cut in the admissions exam for Tsinghua, and that if Americans want meritocracy, they should be careful what they wish for.
Hopefully there can be some sort of quiet compromise where the quota limits increase and legacy/development becomes less of a factor in admissions. It's in H/Y/P's best long-term interests to stop competing for parent donations and just focus on competing for the next Nobel laureate or self-made billionaire.
Here we are 50 responses later and yet nobody was able to provide any evidence about the supposedly higher standards that Asians are held to. Saying SAT score = quality of applicant is really a poor argument. Guess what, I have a white friend with a 2350 SAT score who was rejected from Harvard. Definitely racism. Some of you commenters are just terrible losers...
If you use a dumb admissions process that's not deliberately racially biased, but is effectively racially biased based on your own definition of merit, it's still racial bias! That doesn't mean they've done anything morally wrong, but it does mean that the federal government needs to step in and threaten to withhold taxpayer grant money (paid by white people, Asians, and other minorities alike) until an Asian student is no longer forced to go to CMU or Caltech for undergrad in order to then get into grad school at Harvard when he can finally beat white and minority Ivy Leaguers on merit. In other words, we know that Asians face a higher bar because when the school has money on the line, they admit more of them. We know that the Asians that make it into HYP for grad school but didn't make it in for undergrad must have faced a higher bar for undergrad than grad school when the process was more competitive on average but more meritocratic. Suddenly when quality research, quality teaching, and academic excellence matters, more Asians get into HYP despite more competition. Who woulda thunk?
For the record I'm white. And for the record I don't think anyone should feel too bad about Harvard making a mistake on not admitting them (admissions is fairly random and they make that mistake on >90% of applicants). But we also need to ensure that schools receiving federal grant money (as well as 501c3 charitable status) also have a fair system for admissions that isn't in conflict with the university's own definition of meritocratic. College admissions isn't Farmville or Candy Crush, and having rich parents cut a check to the school shouldn't make it easier for you to win this game... especially when it might make another candidate lose.
You would think that if Asian-Americans were good enough to do research, chase grants, and teach for the university along with the best and brightest undergrads who go to grad school... they'd probably have been good enough to attend undergrad there, too.
tzhou91, I was going to respond to your poor line of reasoning and strawman argument yesterday but was too busy to do so. I will address it now.
Again, I have said this a million times. I never claimed that SAT score alone should be the sole criterion of admission. Any attempt to portray my argument in such a manner is intellectually dishonest. Let me turn to the SAT argument that AA opponents have brought up. Elite college applicants are graded on two factors: academic and extracurriculars. An applicant is given a numerical score on both components. "Other" factors such as race, geography, legacy, personal adversity, etc., also come into play but applicants are not formally graded on that component. Ok, so we all know that Asian applicants need to score substantially higher than blacks and hispanics to get into the exact same college (the difference in score is statistically significant to say the least). AA proponents respond by saying, "well college admissions is not based just on SAT scores and grades. It's a holistic process." Fine. I don't dispute that point. However, although that argument certainly holds at the INDIVIDUAL level (i.e., a given individual applicant may be very one-dimensional and hence get rejected), that does not hold when looking at an entire racial group, which is what this lawsuit is about. In order for your position to be correct, it must be true that Asians as an entire group are LESS qualified on the extracurricular front than blacks and hispanics as a group, a position that is entirely untenable. A UCLA study specifically found that there is no correlation between race and overall achievements.
Following that line of reasoning, let's then assume that Asians at the very least are equally as qualified as blacks and hispanics. If indeed Harvard (or any other top private college) does not discriminate against Asians, then we should expect to see the average SAT scores of those groups fall within a statistically insignificant range. That is the only logical conclusion since given that there is no correlation between race and accomplishments, then we should see a similar % of applicants from each racial group get denied for being too one-dimensional.
Finally, you keep harping that there is "no" evidence that Asians are held to higher standards. I find this laughable if you really believe this. I'm not gonna go into every single argument here since Edward Blum's lawsuit and groundbreaking works by Ron Unz and Dan Golden address this in great detail, supported by ample facts. I will however leave you with this one interesting nugget. Since 1990 the Asian population in the U.S. has doubled. We can reasonably infer then that the number of Asian applicants to top schools have also doubled (most likely it is way more than doubled but let's stick with this figure for now). Given that the college applicant pool in general is more qualified than ever before, let's assume that the quality of the Asian applicant pool has also increased. If there were no racial quotas of any sort (Supreme Court rejects the use of quotas), then we would expect to see the % of Asian students at these schools to have gone up as well. However, something very interesting has happened. Since 1990, there has been a drastic convergence of Asian student % at all 8 ivy league schools: between 15-20%. As a matter of fact, I think the Asian % at Harvard now is lower than it was in the 80's. There is no possible way that looking at this one can conclude that Harvard and the other ivies are NOT using Asian quotas of any sort.
Harverd should be able to admit whomever it wants but shouldn't get any of my sweet sweet tax moola
If Harvard did not receive any federal funding, then yes, it can do whatever it wants in terms of admission since it will be exempt from Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Is this true though? Can I for example exploit a gym where I only accept white people without being illegal?
I agree, Harverd and Prinseton can pay for their own damn research.
Hey mbagrad2014 hopefully they lower the standards so you can reapply and finally get in
I would actually suggest reapplying for UG and then also while you're at it reapply for the second MBA because its the prestige that matters
Sup Ronald Wiggley. First of all, it's "2015," not 2014. Second, I already graduated from top undergrad and MBA programs and am pretty happy with where I'm at. But thanks for writing this idiotic post that added nothing to the mature and thoughtful discussion on this thread!
That's Mister Wiggley to you boy
As an Asian American, all I can say is, forget discrimination. If they don't accept you at Harvard, go somewhere else and kick ass. Life goes on...
I agree that on an individual level, that's the correct approach. Nonetheless, I do think Asian-Americans have been way too apolitical and timid. They need to be more aggressive and fight systemic discriminations. If that means going to the courts, so be it. After all, African-Americans got their hard fought rights by going on the offense, not sitting around.
It's a lot easier and more feasible to win an argument to not be treated like a subhuman than it is to win an argument to allow for overrepresentation at an Ivy League university (which most of the general population already views as elitist).
...
I am not saying that AA is on the same level as segregation and Jim Crow laws. However, in both cases there is discrimination. The latter was much more explicit and vicious, but in both cases, people are treated differently based on their race/ethnic background.
Also there is historical myopia here since we are talking about this in 2015, at a time and generation when it's inconceivable that segreation could ever have been the norm. But if we were having this discussion in say 1960, many Americans would say that separation by race totally made sense, that it was the "natural" order of things. I think 50 years from now, we'll look back at affirmative action and realize how insidious and archaic that practice was.
I don't think the current system is right. What I was saying is that arguing against the general public for this issue is a lot harder than arguing for a civil rights issue.
There are a lot of wrongs in this day and age that should not occur, but some of them take more effort and movement to persuade others that it is not okay to happen, and that's probably why you see a lot of the high-achieving Asian-Americans choosing to focus on being the perfect student that an Ivy can't turn down, as opposed to pushing for some sort of social change (which is a lot harder and lengthier than 4 focused years of high school). Also, once they make it to the school they want (or even if they don't get in), they get over the fact that yes, the system is unfair, but they're too late to change it.
The only way to get the general public to care is to convince them that affirmative action is taking away spots from white students. No one gives a shit about Asians, and Asians are too politically fractured and not numerous enough to change it.
A bigger problem is that Asians voting issues are split between the two parties. (Republicans align with Asian values/Affirmative Actions. Democrats align with social issues and Immigration), so unless the party platforms undergo massive resolution, Asians will never be seriously courted.
Also, this is an issue that once people enter undergrad, they generally don't care about anymore. It would take a lot of selflessness to continue pressing for change after you know that it'll only help the next generation if you're successful. Which is why unlike civil rights and any other sort of problem that will affect you constantly until it goes away, there isn't really a desperate drive to change AA. The kids who really care are Asian/White high schoolers and rejected college freshmen, who might as well be powerless.
Combine that with the fact that being "liberal" is "cool" these days, it's not hard to convince the general public that AA is the way to go. It's easy to implement, and hard to remove.
Yeah, democrats care about minorities except asians. It's time that they wake up and move to the GOP.
I agree that Asians are too apolitical and passive, which is why I'm glad they are at least taking action on this, even if it goes nowhere.
1.) Are you a citizen? 2.) Did you come here legally? 3.) Do you look and sound like you might have come here illegally?
Most Asians who can vote have the right answers to those questions, so they don't have anything to worry about from the GOP. Personally I'm a democrat but I am not against the GOP's efforts to make sure the US controls the number of people coming in. Attitudes may have changed over the past 10-20 years but I think most people can agree we're still a sovereign nation.
Reprehenderit et et consequatur iure. Quas voluptatem asperiores et corporis perspiciatis rerum voluptas repudiandae. Facilis in quaerat similique vel voluptatem commodi.
Deserunt qui et sed sit. Molestiae nulla praesentium dolores quia explicabo quos. Ea consectetur necessitatibus iste corrupti omnis dolorum porro debitis. Quibusdam reiciendis dolorem quis quis non. Rem quia mollitia est dolorum. Omnis error culpa aut doloremque laborum sit alias. Tempora et aperiam eos molestiae aut.
Vel expedita pariatur consequatur incidunt et perferendis et. Numquam sequi aut beatae ut sequi magni. Veritatis nihil labore aut ipsam ipsum fugit.
Earum a distinctio molestiae optio. Nam dolor quibusdam numquam fugit harum sunt. Perferendis qui culpa et eos similique non. Veniam quo est aut asperiores explicabo. Maxime quam aut animi quae. Ratione vero eum et occaecati natus aut excepturi id.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aliquam dicta ea qui dolor possimus. Aut ad quae tenetur illum. Earum iste quis voluptatem odit vitae enim labore distinctio. Sit beatae aut sed eos modi qui sed fuga.
Ratione in est debitis sapiente laudantium tenetur et. Doloremque ut error voluptatem est. Numquam rem eaque temporibus sit.
Neque sed repellendus et quaerat. Deleniti quas ut aut impedit cumque corporis quis pariatur. Aut quo laborum similique delectus est accusantium. Error placeat quisquam et impedit quasi voluptas in. Laborum consectetur qui adipisci deserunt dicta quam quasi.
Error accusamus sit nemo. Ipsa voluptas quis ratione ut ut. Delectus ullam provident quia quaerat et nam sed. Dolor aut id dolor suscipit odit.
Provident culpa qui maxime voluptas odio quisquam. Beatae omnis nobis consequatur. Atque et similique pariatur amet necessitatibus. Ex minima eos aut eum saepe. Eos molestias reprehenderit labore voluptatem. Voluptatum laboriosam enim officiis officiis dolorem quis cupiditate aut. Nesciunt aspernatur est rerum amet dolore.
Quia numquam vero ullam itaque. Laboriosam quod vel magnam ratione ab repellat magnam aut. Illum consequatur eveniet minima numquam quas fugit et. Repellat recusandae exercitationem quia et ad.
Officia amet magni modi tempore voluptatibus commodi et. Ut ut nihil nesciunt hic blanditiis excepturi recusandae. Quas fuga totam magni vel. Sit sed nam dolor dolorem.
Ut facere iste totam vel. Dolor quis vitae rem atque nisi nulla quaerat. Quaerat illum voluptatem culpa natus deleniti ea. Repellendus deleniti est blanditiis nostrum.