Harvard University is fighting to keep its admissions process under wraps(marketwatch.com)
marketwatch.com
Harvard University is fighting to keep its admissions process under wraps
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/harvard-university-is-fighting-to-keep-its-secretive-admissions-process-under-wraps-2018-06-28
226 comments
> It's just laughable that an admissions process is a trade secret
More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs. Beyond the anti Asian bias, I think something more revealing will be the number of legacy admits.
Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network.
If that is indeed a good analogy, then it makes sense Harvards admission criteria is a trade secret.
More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs. Beyond the anti Asian bias, I think something more revealing will be the number of legacy admits.
Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network.
If that is indeed a good analogy, then it makes sense Harvards admission criteria is a trade secret.
> Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network.
This is simply not true. I went to what I would call a tier 3 school for undergrad and then ended up at MIT for graduate work. The difference between the two institutions was really night and day. Not only are the classes more rigorous and the instructors objectively better at MIT, but the students just think differently: they have much more ambition and are far less constrained by the status quo / what their parents did. Being around that totally changed my outlook of what is possible and what I should expect from myself, and really pushed me to make huge career and self-education strides.
This is simply not true. I went to what I would call a tier 3 school for undergrad and then ended up at MIT for graduate work. The difference between the two institutions was really night and day. Not only are the classes more rigorous and the instructors objectively better at MIT, but the students just think differently: they have much more ambition and are far less constrained by the status quo / what their parents did. Being around that totally changed my outlook of what is possible and what I should expect from myself, and really pushed me to make huge career and self-education strides.
I've had a similar experience, but I would also say that MIT has its own blind spot: it's more commercial-minded, more applications- and engineering-focused, than truly zeroed in on the radical seeking of scientific truth.
I generally agree with this, but here is a counterpoint regarding graduate studies.
From my first hand experience as a graduate student at MIT, a lot of the research produced at MIT generates a disproportionate amount of buzz - essentially identical work (in terms of quality) produced by a student in a "tier 3" school will not generate the same kind of recognition. The reasons for this lie in the network effects; people read and cite people who they can attest to with less effort and scrutiny.
The points regarding the instructors and student body are definitely valid and should not be ignored.
From my first hand experience as a graduate student at MIT, a lot of the research produced at MIT generates a disproportionate amount of buzz - essentially identical work (in terms of quality) produced by a student in a "tier 3" school will not generate the same kind of recognition. The reasons for this lie in the network effects; people read and cite people who they can attest to with less effort and scrutiny.
The points regarding the instructors and student body are definitely valid and should not be ignored.
Agree 100x
Example from my field: silicon photonics project which got a lot of press and all of them mentioned MIT, usually in the headlines. U boulder contributed to the project and got e near zero recognition.
Example from my field: silicon photonics project which got a lot of press and all of them mentioned MIT, usually in the headlines. U boulder contributed to the project and got e near zero recognition.
Hear, hear. Having experienced a similar transition, the improved quality of instruction and the impressive caliber of my cohort was shockingly apparent in my very first class. I liken the transition to switching from the minor leagues to the pros.
I have not gone to graduate school at a place like MIT or Harvard, but I have done graduate work at both a top 30 and a top 60 school. There was absolutely a difference in quality of research, professors, and coursework at both schools (STEM subjects, and the top 30 school being higher quality).
I agree. I studied at Cambridge, then did my Master's elsewhere, and there is a qualitative difference between the two. The difference in the amount of work you are expected to do is vast (Cambridge was more than double the workload, on average), and the instructors drive you forward, even if it means going beyond the strict confines of what you need to know.
There's also a difference in mindset - there's an appreciation of knowledge for knowledge's sake, and there's a presumption that you can get up to speed with the basics of things quickly even if it is outside of your subject. I distinctly remember discussing calcium channels with the medical students (at an event where there was also a lot of drinking), and discussing economics with the economists.
There's also a difference in mindset - there's an appreciation of knowledge for knowledge's sake, and there's a presumption that you can get up to speed with the basics of things quickly even if it is outside of your subject. I distinctly remember discussing calcium channels with the medical students (at an event where there was also a lot of drinking), and discussing economics with the economists.
"More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs."
They always were, to some extent. Comparably, they are considerably more egalitarian now than they were even 50 years ago.
"so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network"
Whatever the admissions problems - they are still very good schools. They tend to have better profs and better students and that counts for a lot. Also huge financing basis, and due to 'brand' they get visitors from prominent individuals the world over.
I think the problem is not the schools - it's the way we treat 'brand value' particularly in places like the Silicon Valley.
I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?).
It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant.
Particularly when it comes to socialization - I find that Ivy League types are confident and polished communicators, so I particularly enjoy the process of trying to 'see past the nice smile' to find what counts ... but fully aware of how important it is to still have 'brand recognition' even at the company early on, as this actually does help to recruit more talent and investment, sadly.
They always were, to some extent. Comparably, they are considerably more egalitarian now than they were even 50 years ago.
"so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network"
Whatever the admissions problems - they are still very good schools. They tend to have better profs and better students and that counts for a lot. Also huge financing basis, and due to 'brand' they get visitors from prominent individuals the world over.
I think the problem is not the schools - it's the way we treat 'brand value' particularly in places like the Silicon Valley.
I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?).
It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant.
Particularly when it comes to socialization - I find that Ivy League types are confident and polished communicators, so I particularly enjoy the process of trying to 'see past the nice smile' to find what counts ... but fully aware of how important it is to still have 'brand recognition' even at the company early on, as this actually does help to recruit more talent and investment, sadly.
> I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?).
I've been heavily involved in interviewing, from the hiring side. You are actually correct.
From the hiring party's perspective, the cost of interviews is the time of the current employees administering them. The candidate's entire resume is thus taken into account before making the expensive decision to fly them over and have 5-10 people interview them in person.
In other words, there certainly is some weight given to a candidate's educational credentials, but it's almost completely limited to the decision whether to interview them at all.
Once a candidate is in front of an interviewer, their resume only matters as a jumping point into live discussion, typically of topics like past projects and interests. The brand of their school makes zero difference at this point.
> It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant.
The unpleasant truth is that unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance.
Nobody flies a candidate for a full day of interviews just to reject them based on something that was already known.
Not every candidate from a top school is smart. There's plenty of terrible candidates from top schools, and they bomb interviews just like everybody else, and when they do they get rejected.
Finally, I'd say that nowadays, the benefit of the handful (say top 10) schools is far less obvious. There's plenty of "2nd-tier" engineering schools that will easily get you into most interviewing processes.
I've been heavily involved in interviewing, from the hiring side. You are actually correct.
From the hiring party's perspective, the cost of interviews is the time of the current employees administering them. The candidate's entire resume is thus taken into account before making the expensive decision to fly them over and have 5-10 people interview them in person.
In other words, there certainly is some weight given to a candidate's educational credentials, but it's almost completely limited to the decision whether to interview them at all.
Once a candidate is in front of an interviewer, their resume only matters as a jumping point into live discussion, typically of topics like past projects and interests. The brand of their school makes zero difference at this point.
> It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant.
The unpleasant truth is that unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance.
Nobody flies a candidate for a full day of interviews just to reject them based on something that was already known.
Not every candidate from a top school is smart. There's plenty of terrible candidates from top schools, and they bomb interviews just like everybody else, and when they do they get rejected.
Finally, I'd say that nowadays, the benefit of the handful (say top 10) schools is far less obvious. There's plenty of "2nd-tier" engineering schools that will easily get you into most interviewing processes.
"The brand of their school makes zero difference at this point."
"unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance."
I disagree with this point (and FYI I don't think I've been rejected due to this).
I strongly believe that the word like 'Harvard' biases perceptions right from the start of the interview. As do appearance, culture, possible demarcations of political orientation.
I believe that even at a supposedly imminently professional place as Google ... that the same person interviewing with a 'thick southern accent' who enjoyed 'hunting and fishing' would have more difficulty than otherwise.
Tech is generally a little better than other fields because it's a little easier to intelligently discriminate between good and bad ... but in my view it's problem.
I totally agree that 'school' is a reason to 'fly them out' - but I also believe that if you did not allow interviewers to see the resumes ... that'd you get different results.
"unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance."
I disagree with this point (and FYI I don't think I've been rejected due to this).
I strongly believe that the word like 'Harvard' biases perceptions right from the start of the interview. As do appearance, culture, possible demarcations of political orientation.
I believe that even at a supposedly imminently professional place as Google ... that the same person interviewing with a 'thick southern accent' who enjoyed 'hunting and fishing' would have more difficulty than otherwise.
Tech is generally a little better than other fields because it's a little easier to intelligently discriminate between good and bad ... but in my view it's problem.
I totally agree that 'school' is a reason to 'fly them out' - but I also believe that if you did not allow interviewers to see the resumes ... that'd you get different results.
> I strongly believe that the word like 'Harvard' biases perceptions right from the start of the interview. As do appearance, culture, possible demarcations of political orientation.
I'm only really familiar with engineering interviews, but for those, in the past decade and especially recently, most of these factors are irrelevant.
The trend since at least 2005 has been ever more strongly favoring real, quantifiable, comparable, job-related challenges. Most everything else is a distraction, which interviewers are trained to ignore.
This was a result of scientific studies of the older interview paradigms, which indeed suffered from some of the biases you mentioned and were - for these and other reasons - inefficient at predicting good job performance.
This is doubly true for intellectual work like engineering, where quirky folk (including those who have poor appearance, not much interest in non-geeky culture, etc.) are common and often the best candidates.
Bottom line: performance is measured and quantified on well-defined tasks, the rest is largely fluff, unless the candidate is being a blatant jerk or something of that extreme nature.
> I believe that even at a supposedly imminently professional place as Google ... that the same person interviewing with a 'thick southern accent' who enjoyed 'hunting and fishing' would have more difficulty than otherwise.
Do you have any data or evidence to back this up?
I'm inclined to believe that someone like that would, if anything, stand out if they performed well on the technical part. They'll be the "CS genius hillbilly".
That's another thing you're missing: the main challenges provide such a strong and salient signal of performance, that the rest of the data is largely interpreted in light of that performance.
That goes for school brand too, by the way.
If a candidate from MIT does very badly, the reaction is not "let's forgive him, he's from MIT" but rather "for someone who got accepted and graduated MIT, this guy sure did underperform" and a prompt rejection.
> I totally agree that 'school' is a reason to 'fly them out'
School brand alone will not get you a plane ticket. It might get you a phone screen. There's too many bomb candidates from top schools to just freely shower them all with plane tickets.
By the way, I agree with the claims made in the article. With top schools like Harvard giving legacy candidates 6 times chances of admission, you're going to have a lot of Harvard students who got there because their parents did, and/or their grandparents before them, etc.
That means a lot of bomb candidates from even the very, very best schools. Hiring businesses are aware of this.
The brand power of these top schools therefore falls short of what you seem to believe.
Sure, you can get a phone screen with a Harvard degree. But you can get the very same one with an NYU degree too. And once you do, it doesn't matter that you're "only from NYU".
I'm only really familiar with engineering interviews, but for those, in the past decade and especially recently, most of these factors are irrelevant.
The trend since at least 2005 has been ever more strongly favoring real, quantifiable, comparable, job-related challenges. Most everything else is a distraction, which interviewers are trained to ignore.
This was a result of scientific studies of the older interview paradigms, which indeed suffered from some of the biases you mentioned and were - for these and other reasons - inefficient at predicting good job performance.
This is doubly true for intellectual work like engineering, where quirky folk (including those who have poor appearance, not much interest in non-geeky culture, etc.) are common and often the best candidates.
Bottom line: performance is measured and quantified on well-defined tasks, the rest is largely fluff, unless the candidate is being a blatant jerk or something of that extreme nature.
> I believe that even at a supposedly imminently professional place as Google ... that the same person interviewing with a 'thick southern accent' who enjoyed 'hunting and fishing' would have more difficulty than otherwise.
Do you have any data or evidence to back this up?
I'm inclined to believe that someone like that would, if anything, stand out if they performed well on the technical part. They'll be the "CS genius hillbilly".
That's another thing you're missing: the main challenges provide such a strong and salient signal of performance, that the rest of the data is largely interpreted in light of that performance.
That goes for school brand too, by the way.
If a candidate from MIT does very badly, the reaction is not "let's forgive him, he's from MIT" but rather "for someone who got accepted and graduated MIT, this guy sure did underperform" and a prompt rejection.
> I totally agree that 'school' is a reason to 'fly them out'
School brand alone will not get you a plane ticket. It might get you a phone screen. There's too many bomb candidates from top schools to just freely shower them all with plane tickets.
By the way, I agree with the claims made in the article. With top schools like Harvard giving legacy candidates 6 times chances of admission, you're going to have a lot of Harvard students who got there because their parents did, and/or their grandparents before them, etc.
That means a lot of bomb candidates from even the very, very best schools. Hiring businesses are aware of this.
The brand power of these top schools therefore falls short of what you seem to believe.
Sure, you can get a phone screen with a Harvard degree. But you can get the very same one with an NYU degree too. And once you do, it doesn't matter that you're "only from NYU".
According to research I've read about; many leading businesses only hire from elite schools, with few exceptions. For example, here's this article from The Atlantic (which includes a few other factors):
Recruitment, Resumes, Interviews: How the Hiring Process Favors Elites
For those who didn't go to prestigious schools, don't come from money, and aren't interested in sports and booze—it's near impossible to gain access to the best paying jobs.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/recruit...
Recruitment, Resumes, Interviews: How the Hiring Process Favors Elites
For those who didn't go to prestigious schools, don't come from money, and aren't interested in sports and booze—it's near impossible to gain access to the best paying jobs.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/recruit...
First of all, notice that none of this contradicts my comment.
A prestigious school brand will help you to get into the hiring process. I did hear that for certain roles in certain companies, such prestigious brand is effectively a requirement to enter the process. This is rare in software engineering, because there's so much demand, that even the top tier employers can't limit themselves to top school graduates, not if they want to fill up all openings.
The other reason is that these top schools churn out a lot of legacy graduates - people who got in and graduated because their parents attended the school and/or donated money. That means there's a lot of top school graduates who aren't that bright, and many of the brightest people who went to less prestigious schools.
A prestigious school brand will help you to get into the hiring process. I did hear that for certain roles in certain companies, such prestigious brand is effectively a requirement to enter the process. This is rare in software engineering, because there's so much demand, that even the top tier employers can't limit themselves to top school graduates, not if they want to fill up all openings.
The other reason is that these top schools churn out a lot of legacy graduates - people who got in and graduated because their parents attended the school and/or donated money. That means there's a lot of top school graduates who aren't that bright, and many of the brightest people who went to less prestigious schools.
> "I think the problem is not the schools - it's the way we treat 'brand value' particularly in places like the Silicon Valley."
I agree with basically everything you said except this part. These schools very actively attempt to boost their brand. OTOH, silicon valley stands out as being one of the few places to place relatively less weight on such pedigrees and has even developed alternatives, e.g. the Thiel fellowship.
I agree with basically everything you said except this part. These schools very actively attempt to boost their brand. OTOH, silicon valley stands out as being one of the few places to place relatively less weight on such pedigrees and has even developed alternatives, e.g. the Thiel fellowship.
It depends on which part of the Valley. Trying getting an internship in VC if you're not from a top tier ...
Was there ever a doubt in that? I wish I had known that University is for networking and making connections. Maybe my life would have been easier.
My ex's internship at Harvard was as simple as her dad knowing a prof that is friends with a harvard one. No prep, no interview, no nothing. It opened a lot of doors and that's great, but the interesting thing was that when things are so easy to attain, I had to do a lot of convincing to actually get her to attend it.
And when I contrast it to the amount of stones that were thrown in my way, I can't help but be a little bit jealous
My ex's internship at Harvard was as simple as her dad knowing a prof that is friends with a harvard one. No prep, no interview, no nothing. It opened a lot of doors and that's great, but the interesting thing was that when things are so easy to attain, I had to do a lot of convincing to actually get her to attend it.
And when I contrast it to the amount of stones that were thrown in my way, I can't help but be a little bit jealous
I remember when my wife was applying to law schools in the UK and she happened to know someone (through a sporting club) who had previously handled admissions at one law school and he explained to her that they were looking for an "alpha quality" in applicants - my wife proceeded to ask what actually made up this quality and how they tested for it - to which the answer was basically "you know it when you see it". Eventually when she realised was "alpha quality" meant "went to a good public school and already have family in the profession"...
Mind you - at least these days law has changed and nobody really cares about how posh your relatives are, just how much money they have....
Mind you - at least these days law has changed and nobody really cares about how posh your relatives are, just how much money they have....
I don't think the (high rate) of legacy acceptances has ever been considered a secret at the top ivies? "Harvard's incoming class of 2021 is made up of over 29 percent legacy students, reports The Harvard Crimson." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-o...
At the school I went to, even before I applied I knew that their admissions process funneled legacy applications into an entirely separate pool from normal applications.
At the school I went to, even before I applied I knew that their admissions process funneled legacy applications into an entirely separate pool from normal applications.
>They try hard to let in disadvantaged kids, but it's a crap shoot deciding who has potential and who doesn't. They rarely care about anything other than academics. (I'm not sure how they recruit the rowers.)
They don't try that hard.
Being vaguely involved with the Oxbridge undergrad admissions process in CS/Math i can tell you there is very little trying. A fuss is being made about coming from a disadvantaged background but in practice sadly the people running it only care about one thing: how well you can grind out an answer to a math olympiad style question in 15 minutes. Yes, extra-curriculars and well-roundedness don't matter which I think is a good thing because I believe in focusing on being great at one thing.
What it comes down to nonetheless is preparation and school support, e.g. via training for math competitions. Saying the interviews are about 'evaluating the thinking process' of the applicant is a fantasy when most applicants come from schools where they have been trained to do them for years. Oxbridge are not forthcoming about this but ultimately they take people who are already well groomed Math olympiad winners, not raw potential.
It's probably still better than opaquely selecting for race and like-ability and if this means many math undergrads are Asian, why should that be a problem? It's still unfair to disadvantaged children and this sucks, but at least the criteria are clear.
Ps: on your question how they recruit rowers: They let them study land economy, that's the joke at least.
They don't try that hard.
Being vaguely involved with the Oxbridge undergrad admissions process in CS/Math i can tell you there is very little trying. A fuss is being made about coming from a disadvantaged background but in practice sadly the people running it only care about one thing: how well you can grind out an answer to a math olympiad style question in 15 minutes. Yes, extra-curriculars and well-roundedness don't matter which I think is a good thing because I believe in focusing on being great at one thing.
What it comes down to nonetheless is preparation and school support, e.g. via training for math competitions. Saying the interviews are about 'evaluating the thinking process' of the applicant is a fantasy when most applicants come from schools where they have been trained to do them for years. Oxbridge are not forthcoming about this but ultimately they take people who are already well groomed Math olympiad winners, not raw potential.
It's probably still better than opaquely selecting for race and like-ability and if this means many math undergrads are Asian, why should that be a problem? It's still unfair to disadvantaged children and this sucks, but at least the criteria are clear.
Ps: on your question how they recruit rowers: They let them study land economy, that's the joke at least.
I have interviewed maths applicants at Oxford, with the caveat that it was 20 years ago.
The things that struck me were that a lot is dependent on the individual interviewers. I tried hard to look for potential as did most of the interviewers I spoke to did but can be easier said than done. The exam wasn't a big factor in the decision making I found, unless somebody did really well or really badly, as the marks were all very bunched up and we couldn't see the scripts to see what people were getting right and wrong.
Also, the course is really hard for somebody who hasn't done double maths A-level, so if somebody only has single maths, you have to pretty confident that they will be able to basically teach themselves further maths A-level. There is obviously some support from tutors with that, but the set-up is aimed at people with double maths.
They definitely don't only take groomed Maths Olympiad winners and the questions are much easier than Olympiad questions (in my undergraduate year there were only two of us who had made it to the top 20 country in the British Maths Olympiad stuff for example - Cambridge filters them all off!)
I also don't think even the top schools train up for the interviews as much as you say - I went to a school that was top ten in the A-level league tables nd only had one mock interview.
The things that struck me were that a lot is dependent on the individual interviewers. I tried hard to look for potential as did most of the interviewers I spoke to did but can be easier said than done. The exam wasn't a big factor in the decision making I found, unless somebody did really well or really badly, as the marks were all very bunched up and we couldn't see the scripts to see what people were getting right and wrong.
Also, the course is really hard for somebody who hasn't done double maths A-level, so if somebody only has single maths, you have to pretty confident that they will be able to basically teach themselves further maths A-level. There is obviously some support from tutors with that, but the set-up is aimed at people with double maths.
They definitely don't only take groomed Maths Olympiad winners and the questions are much easier than Olympiad questions (in my undergraduate year there were only two of us who had made it to the top 20 country in the British Maths Olympiad stuff for example - Cambridge filters them all off!)
I also don't think even the top schools train up for the interviews as much as you say - I went to a school that was top ten in the A-level league tables nd only had one mock interview.
The questions in the admissions exam and interviews are fairly straightforward, they are nowhere near any math olympiad level. Math olympiads normally require a host of advanced techniques, each of which is quite accessible but never gets taught in schools. Interview questions just need what gets taught plus some understanding of what a proof is.
I am aware, PhD students design and mark these questions, and can interview :)
The point is that if you go to a target school doing Math olympiads throughout your school life, the admissions exam and interview is a walk in the park. The applicants who didn't have any of this preparation can still do well but will fare relatively worse against that group, and I think this is very obvious in the ultimate intake.
The point is that if you go to a target school doing Math olympiads throughout your school life, the admissions exam and interview is a walk in the park. The applicants who didn't have any of this preparation can still do well but will fare relatively worse against that group, and I think this is very obvious in the ultimate intake.
It's incredibly hard (impossible?) to come up with a system which cannot be prepared for by a subset of students with access to top tier tuition. You can do some score normalisation based on background but I expect you'd agree that isn't going to help if people can't get through the first years course content?
I don't believe anyone wants the course to be easier. So how do you enable people who are underprivileged to catch up with a shitload of additional tuition which has been offered to other applicants? How do you distinguish effectively between the two, whilst also accepting high aptitude students?
It's not that I think any elite university does this brilliantly - but as someone with a decent level of exposure do you have a feeling on whether there are complete solutions?
I don't believe anyone wants the course to be easier. So how do you enable people who are underprivileged to catch up with a shitload of additional tuition which has been offered to other applicants? How do you distinguish effectively between the two, whilst also accepting high aptitude students?
It's not that I think any elite university does this brilliantly - but as someone with a decent level of exposure do you have a feeling on whether there are complete solutions?
Are those interviews by PhD students in addition to or replacement for interviews by proper dons?
Each applicant receives multiple interviews and I can perform one of these as a PhD student, and have received the same training any faculty member would have.
The interview process is relatively standardized, and if my results were to differ starkly from what more experienced interviewers do they would be disregarded, and the director of studies for that college would simply not invite me back to help.
I would add that asking PhD students to do this is not the worst thing because via supervisions and other teaching efforts, we have a good picture of what undergrads here need to be able to do. An interview is a like a short supervision.
The interview process is relatively standardized, and if my results were to differ starkly from what more experienced interviewers do they would be disregarded, and the director of studies for that college would simply not invite me back to help.
I would add that asking PhD students to do this is not the worst thing because via supervisions and other teaching efforts, we have a good picture of what undergrads here need to be able to do. An interview is a like a short supervision.
Thanks - that actually sounds fairly sensible.
> Being vaguely involved with the Oxbridge undergrad admissions process in CS/Math i can tell you there is very little trying. A fuss is being made about coming from a disadvantaged background but in practice sadly the people running it only care about one thing: how well you can grind out an answer to a math olympiad style question in 15 minutes.
It varies a lot between colleges/interviewers. I initially interviewed at Trinity (Cambridge), and there was an admissions exam (roughly STEP I/II level) and the interview was solely focused on that. I was then pooled to Selwyn, and there was no admissions exam and the interview was much more general (split into three parts - NatSci DoS-barely even about the subject, more about yourself generally/why Cambridge; CompSci DoS-more general questions, it was more about coming up with an idea, or how you would implement something, and broader CS concepts, than being able to chase down a specific answer to a set question; Physics DoS-focused around a particular question, but was more interested in you being able to come up with a viable method, and explain your reasoning, than being able to do every single step there and then (I needed _a lot_ of hints, and was still admitted for CompSci, and that DoS later said that wasn't an issue - I could see the broader idea, and would have got there with time/being able to look things up)). Someone who interviewed directly with Selwyn said they had the same experience.
It varies a lot between colleges/interviewers. I initially interviewed at Trinity (Cambridge), and there was an admissions exam (roughly STEP I/II level) and the interview was solely focused on that. I was then pooled to Selwyn, and there was no admissions exam and the interview was much more general (split into three parts - NatSci DoS-barely even about the subject, more about yourself generally/why Cambridge; CompSci DoS-more general questions, it was more about coming up with an idea, or how you would implement something, and broader CS concepts, than being able to chase down a specific answer to a set question; Physics DoS-focused around a particular question, but was more interested in you being able to come up with a viable method, and explain your reasoning, than being able to do every single step there and then (I needed _a lot_ of hints, and was still admitted for CompSci, and that DoS later said that wasn't an issue - I could see the broader idea, and would have got there with time/being able to look things up)). Someone who interviewed directly with Selwyn said they had the same experience.
> What it comes down to nonetheless is preparation and school support, e.g. via training for math competitions. Saying the interviews are about 'evaluating the thinking process' of the applicant is a fantasy when most applicants come from schools where they have been trained to do them for years.
I'm from the U.S., so take my input with a grain of salt with regards to applying it to the English school system, but in my experience the majority of mathematical talent comes from outside work, with next to zero support from schools.
I'm from the U.S., so take my input with a grain of salt with regards to applying it to the English school system, but in my experience the majority of mathematical talent comes from outside work, with next to zero support from schools.
That's because you didn't go to an elite math school.
What kind of school are you referring to when you mention “elite math school”?
There are schools in various countries, e.g. Romania, which are known for producing extremely well prepared applicants. They select for these schools from the entire country and have them focus on sciences, math and computer science early on. They practice Oxbridge style interviewing/math olympiad questions to death.
This results in for instance there being proportionally many more Romanians at Oxbridge Cs/Math/Physics than you'd expect by population.
This results in for instance there being proportionally many more Romanians at Oxbridge Cs/Math/Physics than you'd expect by population.
Ok, sure, but there are very few schools like that in the U.S. outside of homeschools.
most recruited rowers do one of the cash cow masters courses.
If the emperor were ever naked, this would be it.
I don't know if that analogy holds, since the emperor made a habit of writing amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing (metaphorically) "I'm nude and that's OK! Though it would be awfully inconvenient for you to say I were naked. I just prefer a holistic fashion policy which includes nude among a range of options such as deshabille, birthday suit, unclothed, etc."
Verbatim quotes:
Brown University, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Stanford University, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University submit this brief as amici curiae in support of respondents. Amici have long used admissions policies similar to the Harvard Plan that Justice Powell approved in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and the University of Michigan Law School plan this Court upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Amici accordingly have substantial experience with admissions policies that consider all aspects of an applicant’s background and experience, including in some circumstances the applicant’s racial or ethnic background.
...
Amici accordingly urge the Court to interpret the Constitution, consistent with Bakke and Grutter, to continue to allow educational institutions to structure admissions programs that take account of race and ethnicity as single factors within a highly individualized, holistic review process.
I don't know if that analogy holds, since the emperor made a habit of writing amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing (metaphorically) "I'm nude and that's OK! Though it would be awfully inconvenient for you to say I were naked. I just prefer a holistic fashion policy which includes nude among a range of options such as deshabille, birthday suit, unclothed, etc."
Verbatim quotes:
Brown University, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Stanford University, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University submit this brief as amici curiae in support of respondents. Amici have long used admissions policies similar to the Harvard Plan that Justice Powell approved in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and the University of Michigan Law School plan this Court upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Amici accordingly have substantial experience with admissions policies that consider all aspects of an applicant’s background and experience, including in some circumstances the applicant’s racial or ethnic background.
...
Amici accordingly urge the Court to interpret the Constitution, consistent with Bakke and Grutter, to continue to allow educational institutions to structure admissions programs that take account of race and ethnicity as single factors within a highly individualized, holistic review process.
> They try hard to let in disadvantaged kids
I'd like to see proof of above with data. I think "they" want everyone to believe that they try hard to let in disadvantaged kids
I'd like to see proof of above with data. I think "they" want everyone to believe that they try hard to let in disadvantaged kids
You'll find all the colleges have an outreach programme where they send the undergrads around to various schools to encourage the kids to apply.
I'm not sure the dons themselves can do much about it, it seems like they only get to see a small sample of the total pool of applicants. I only met a couple of them when I was applying, and after I got in it didn't look like they had a full view.
As for data, it's not obvious what data would tell you whether they did or didn't try.
I'm not sure the dons themselves can do much about it, it seems like they only get to see a small sample of the total pool of applicants. I only met a couple of them when I was applying, and after I got in it didn't look like they had a full view.
As for data, it's not obvious what data would tell you whether they did or didn't try.
> Some admits are duds, and some are hits.
Elite schools in the US know and admit this, too. They are constantly trying to figure out how to minimize the duds.
> I would assume they claim this because they are being sued by Asians about bias
This claim is made so often, yet it is so fantastically short-sighted. It boggles my minds that people think that great grades and great standardized test scores are the best predictors for being a strong contributor in an elite academic setting (yes, it's great for predicting more good grades, but that's a shallow definition of success in an elite school setting -- the resources available can be and are used so much more productively).
Things like charisma (incl. leadership), curiosity, drive, and creativity make a huge difference, and those things are fantastically difficult to quantify in a reliable way that can scale. Things like financial capital and social capital are real things that keep a school healthy and strong over time.
If a person from a given group feels like they were discriminated against, I would ask them to try to answer better the question of what do they think that they are giving to the school. Directly or indirectly, almost all admits to an elite school have a very solid answer to that question.
Elite schools in the US know and admit this, too. They are constantly trying to figure out how to minimize the duds.
> I would assume they claim this because they are being sued by Asians about bias
This claim is made so often, yet it is so fantastically short-sighted. It boggles my minds that people think that great grades and great standardized test scores are the best predictors for being a strong contributor in an elite academic setting (yes, it's great for predicting more good grades, but that's a shallow definition of success in an elite school setting -- the resources available can be and are used so much more productively).
Things like charisma (incl. leadership), curiosity, drive, and creativity make a huge difference, and those things are fantastically difficult to quantify in a reliable way that can scale. Things like financial capital and social capital are real things that keep a school healthy and strong over time.
If a person from a given group feels like they were discriminated against, I would ask them to try to answer better the question of what do they think that they are giving to the school. Directly or indirectly, almost all admits to an elite school have a very solid answer to that question.
While I agree that Ivy League admissions could be more transparent, I certainly hope they don't move to the Oxbridge style of purely focusing on academics.
University admissions are not just a means of selecting people - they are also important behavioral incentives for teenagers. I'd much rather encourage high schoolers to focus on a wide variety of interests (for some that might be academics, for others, the arts) rather than coerce everyone into caring about grades at the expense of everything else.
University admissions are not just a means of selecting people - they are also important behavioral incentives for teenagers. I'd much rather encourage high schoolers to focus on a wide variety of interests (for some that might be academics, for others, the arts) rather than coerce everyone into caring about grades at the expense of everything else.
The thing is, if I'm poor and you're rich, your papa can take you to posh places in Europe and Asia, can pay for dancing and music lessons and for all sorts of fancy things which make you a lot more well rounded than me, when we're both 18-19.
At least with a test the playing field is way more leveled.
If you want extra info, add another test. You want to major in Math? Cool, you also have to pass a geography/history/biology/whatever test (you choose which one and it only counts 15%).
At least with a test the playing field is way more leveled.
If you want extra info, add another test. You want to major in Math? Cool, you also have to pass a geography/history/biology/whatever test (you choose which one and it only counts 15%).
> Contrast this "trade secret" to a chat with an Oxford don, and you'll find the don is quite straightforward in admitting they are fallible
Most will admit it's subjective as well (Cambridge). I've had at least two Directors of Studies tell me that half of the point of the interview is finding someone they want to teach/work with.
Most will admit it's subjective as well (Cambridge). I've had at least two Directors of Studies tell me that half of the point of the interview is finding someone they want to teach/work with.
Well, the second that admissions process gets out, an entire industry will move to game the metrics it uses. That will make those metrics largely useless, as only the rich will be able to afford private coaching to make sure they hit the metrics.
>It's just laughable that an admissions process is a trade secret, and unless there's a compelling explanation given, I would assume they claim this because they are being sued by Asians about bias, and giving places to legacies, which is just as bad for a place that sells itself on excellence.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but when I'm walking around Harvard Square, I always assume the point of "excellence" is that intelligence and money should get married.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but when I'm walking around Harvard Square, I always assume the point of "excellence" is that intelligence and money should get married.
This is an issue at Stuyvesant High School too.[0]
[0] http://www.bkmag.com/2015/03/31/only-ten-black-students-were...
[0] http://www.bkmag.com/2015/03/31/only-ten-black-students-were...
I don't think it's the same. Stuy (and Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, etc) have only a single well-defined metric -- the test. Admissions are as transparent as it gets.
Isn’t ‘trade secret’ the wrong terminology as long as they accept federal subsidies?
Harvard wouldn't be in this mess if they just give up the bullshit myth that it is at all a meritocracy. They should just have a fixed admissions ratios:
- X% of seats for children of wealthy alumni, to maintain their alumni and donor network.
- Y% of seats based on academic or artistic merit: to maintain their brand. Sure, throw sports in there if you insist.
- Z% of seats by pure lottery. This helps Harvard mitigate any population skew introduced by X% and Y%.
They can tell anybody who doesn't like it to go fuck themselves. No more pretending to be fair and all that bullshit.
- X% of seats for children of wealthy alumni, to maintain their alumni and donor network.
- Y% of seats based on academic or artistic merit: to maintain their brand. Sure, throw sports in there if you insist.
- Z% of seats by pure lottery. This helps Harvard mitigate any population skew introduced by X% and Y%.
They can tell anybody who doesn't like it to go fuck themselves. No more pretending to be fair and all that bullshit.
Without the perception of meritocracy, I think the brand does slip significantly and Harvard has created a bigger problem for itself.
As soon as you formally acknowledge that you're letting some people in due to legacy or lottery, the value of the reputation diminishes because any given person may have been accepted on lottery. People know who's legacy and who's not, but the university can't acknowledge it publicly for that reason.
As soon as you formally acknowledge that you're letting some people in due to legacy or lottery, the value of the reputation diminishes because any given person may have been accepted on lottery. People know who's legacy and who's not, but the university can't acknowledge it publicly for that reason.
Is legacy really a mystery though? I think most people know that is a thing...
I'm not saying people don't know who gets in mostly due to legacy. I'm saying the university can't formally confirm.
I really think that kinda ruins the idea that it would tarnish their image if folks already know. Nobody would think differently if they said it.
Maybe, or maybe it's another case of a "common knowledge" phenomenon. Sure, theoretically everyone knows about legacies, but formally acknowledging it means you can't pretend not to know for specific purposes.
(E.g. "everyone knows" is an invalid argument for court if someone brings up discrimination; "they admitted it in a public statement" is a totally valid argument.)
(E.g. "everyone knows" is an invalid argument for court if someone brings up discrimination; "they admitted it in a public statement" is a totally valid argument.)
Exactly this (and well-phrased)!
K cough ushner
It's more simple than that.
They will never fully open the black box, because people will optimize for its contents.
There is an UNBELIEVABLE amount of entitlement thinking and out and out attempts to cheat that go on at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. If no one knows what admissions is looking for other than straight A's, then you just get straight A's and do the extras that YOU think are important. (Which as it turns out, is what they really want to determine.)
They will never fully open the black box, because people will optimize for its contents.
There is an UNBELIEVABLE amount of entitlement thinking and out and out attempts to cheat that go on at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. If no one knows what admissions is looking for other than straight A's, then you just get straight A's and do the extras that YOU think are important. (Which as it turns out, is what they really want to determine.)
> They will never fully open the black box, because people will optimize for its contents.
This is laughable. There are many, many people who have worked at admissions at elite schools, and they will tell you the contents of the "black box". What they would say goes something like this:
1. There are 10-30% of the entering class that we know we want.
2. The rest we have to fill with essentially clones (smart but unexceptional students).
3. We choose the clones that we think will make our school a better place in the short term and long term. Due to the multitude of variables that are introduced in selecting from the clones, it looks like our decisions are capricious. Maybe they are for the clones, but the clones aren't where we are looking to find our big winners in the admissions process.
Read some of the stuff by Cal Newport. He's closer to the right track than anything else I've seen.
This is laughable. There are many, many people who have worked at admissions at elite schools, and they will tell you the contents of the "black box". What they would say goes something like this:
1. There are 10-30% of the entering class that we know we want.
2. The rest we have to fill with essentially clones (smart but unexceptional students).
3. We choose the clones that we think will make our school a better place in the short term and long term. Due to the multitude of variables that are introduced in selecting from the clones, it looks like our decisions are capricious. Maybe they are for the clones, but the clones aren't where we are looking to find our big winners in the admissions process.
Read some of the stuff by Cal Newport. He's closer to the right track than anything else I've seen.
That doesn't tell you the contents of the black box, it only tells you the output of the black box.
What people want to know is, how does the school "know" they want the initial 10 percent?
How does the school "know" what clones (drones) they want?
Etc, etc, etc.
What people want to know is, how does the school "know" they want the initial 10 percent?
How does the school "know" what clones (drones) they want?
Etc, etc, etc.
For the top 10-30%, I will give you two heuristics.
1. Sniff test: You read something in their application and say to yourself “damn, that’s really cool”.
2. More robust test: They have worked on a hard problem and have done something interesting with it. This could be research, starting a business, starting a non-profit, something substantive in their community, something creative (usually externally validated like being a top performer), etc. Again, check out Cal Newport’s stuff. He says very specifically that it’s not a formula, because it’s not (I suppose it is at one level of abstraction, but...).
For the rest of the class, there are a ton of variables that are usually out of the control of the applicant (one variable being who is on the admissions committee that year). Again, a quick heuristic is to ask what the applicant is giving the university. If the answer is not fairly compelling, then their chances of getting in decrease dramatically.
If you’re looking for specifics, these are harder to find, and generally vary from year to year depending on the applicant pool. A few random ideas:
- Kushner’s dad pledged $2.5 million over 10 years. It’s probably more than that now.
- PA residents get preferential admissions treatment for Penn. They need something else going for them if their grades and scores are subpar.
- Each elite boarding school gets a range of spots any given year.
- Academically strong athletes are strong, esp. if they are great athletes by Ivy standards.
- Academically weak athletes better be damn good and better have at least one more desired trait. Some of these folks do 13th grade at an elite boarding school to prep them for elite universities in a number of ways.
- Being a legacy doesn’t get you nearly as far as people think it does. The number of legacy rejects typically far outweighs the number of legacy accepts. Again, that applicant better have another desired trait or two.
- Having social capital and being able to demonstrate that goes a long way. What is “social capital”? Well, an applicant might say something like “I want to study economics at $SCHOOL because I want to understand better the fundamentals that my father, the finance minister of $COUNTRY, regularly discusses with me about his job and how that impacts my country and the counties around it.” The size of $COUNTRY can vary wildly, but these folks are unassumingly at elite schools.
Does that better answer your question?
1. Sniff test: You read something in their application and say to yourself “damn, that’s really cool”.
2. More robust test: They have worked on a hard problem and have done something interesting with it. This could be research, starting a business, starting a non-profit, something substantive in their community, something creative (usually externally validated like being a top performer), etc. Again, check out Cal Newport’s stuff. He says very specifically that it’s not a formula, because it’s not (I suppose it is at one level of abstraction, but...).
For the rest of the class, there are a ton of variables that are usually out of the control of the applicant (one variable being who is on the admissions committee that year). Again, a quick heuristic is to ask what the applicant is giving the university. If the answer is not fairly compelling, then their chances of getting in decrease dramatically.
If you’re looking for specifics, these are harder to find, and generally vary from year to year depending on the applicant pool. A few random ideas:
- Kushner’s dad pledged $2.5 million over 10 years. It’s probably more than that now.
- PA residents get preferential admissions treatment for Penn. They need something else going for them if their grades and scores are subpar.
- Each elite boarding school gets a range of spots any given year.
- Academically strong athletes are strong, esp. if they are great athletes by Ivy standards.
- Academically weak athletes better be damn good and better have at least one more desired trait. Some of these folks do 13th grade at an elite boarding school to prep them for elite universities in a number of ways.
- Being a legacy doesn’t get you nearly as far as people think it does. The number of legacy rejects typically far outweighs the number of legacy accepts. Again, that applicant better have another desired trait or two.
- Having social capital and being able to demonstrate that goes a long way. What is “social capital”? Well, an applicant might say something like “I want to study economics at $SCHOOL because I want to understand better the fundamentals that my father, the finance minister of $COUNTRY, regularly discusses with me about his job and how that impacts my country and the counties around it.” The size of $COUNTRY can vary wildly, but these folks are unassumingly at elite schools.
Does that better answer your question?
If they haven't opened the black box, then how do you know what they really want to determine?
That's the point, you don't. You have to do what YOU think is important. Maybe that is important to them, maybe it isn't. The benefit to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, etc, is that they are presented with an application that outlays a profile more closely resembling the real you. Of course, only the school itself will know what they are looking for in prospective students.
This is actually good, as it severely restricts the number of avenues available to prospective students, (and their parents), to game the system. And you better believe that students, and especially their parents, will try to game the system at a minimum. Again, many go beyond that with out and out attempts at fraud and cheating.
This is actually good, as it severely restricts the number of avenues available to prospective students, (and their parents), to game the system. And you better believe that students, and especially their parents, will try to game the system at a minimum. Again, many go beyond that with out and out attempts at fraud and cheating.
but you said you knew what they wanted:
> do the extras that YOU think are important. (Which as it turns out, is what they really want to determine.)
> do the extras that YOU think are important. (Which as it turns out, is what they really want to determine.)
But then Harvard is no longer a perfect selector of the elite and a degree from Harvard no longer signals surefire intelligence.
it never did top begin with, but that's beside the point, it's all about branding.
it never did top begin with, but that's beside the point, it's all about branding.
Many big tech companies made their hiring processes more transparent. Partly because of the call for more diversity in tech. I hope colleges follow suit. Even if the formula is "Rich daddy" + "lacross".
With Tech the opening up actually comes partly as a response to universities. I worked quite closely with our HR team recruiting some grads and they had to explain "If you want to exclusively hire <insert very specific description> then recruit from <Y> university".
Sure enough, roughly 30% of our office were from that university and it was incredible how well we'd managed to select for very specific, but technically irrelevant, characteristics.
Sure enough, roughly 30% of our office were from that university and it was incredible how well we'd managed to select for very specific, but technically irrelevant, characteristics.
Well, tech is hiring from HBCUs now because 1) it's PR and 2) Stanford grads are a finite resource.
It's "lacrosse"... which I guess proves your point
Harvard has not perpetuated the myth of meritocracy in decades. That's what the whole lawsuit is about: trying to force the plaintiff's version of meritocracy.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You know, I think you're right. I just went to their admissions page. They have no mention of "being the best", etc. It's all about affordability, diversity, inclusiveness, etc.
I guess at this point the myth is self-perpetuating, and Harvard just lets it be.
They could probably end the lawsuits in a minute if they just up and said "we're not the best and don't care about wanting the best."
I guess at this point the myth is self-perpetuating, and Harvard just lets it be.
They could probably end the lawsuits in a minute if they just up and said "we're not the best and don't care about wanting the best."
Information to the contrary? Here ya go...
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/application-process/w...
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/application-process/w...
Open data style it could list your category on the diploma received.
Harvard - X, Harvard - Y or Harvard - Z, that way any of those categories wouldn't be devaluating others.
Is this something you could know for any university? I imagine most private ones anyway would be pretty secretive about how many positions they reserve for so-called "legacy" students.
I wonder what exactly you mean by "meritocracy".
My take:
- Lots of AP success, good grades, good recs, etc. are just table stakes for anyone who is seriously considering going to an elite school. If that's all an applicant is bringing to the table, they will basically be competing with 1000s of clones. This does not bode well for them unless they have something else that stands out.
- Based on pure intellectual prowess, maybe ~30% of each Harvard class (less in other elite schools as prestige level decreases) is able to understand/identify/conceive of, work on, and solve interesting problems. The number of people who meet this standard and do not get into an elite school (typically the school of their choice -- they are aggressively courted) is very small, and it is usually due to some glaring error and/or omission in their application.
- The rest of the class is filled up with solid-but-unexceptional intellectual clones (good grades, etc.) who are bringing something else to the table. This could be (using your order and adding some) child of wealthy alums, child of donors, talented athlete, possessor of social capital, racial diversity, geographic diversity, etc.
First, note that "fairness" in terms of merit stops at 30% or less of the class. If one were to limit "fair" to actually being intellectually qualified, then the admissions would stop there. Is that fair? I don't know, but I am certain that almost no one wants that on either side of the fence.
So the next question that the admissions group has to answer is "Well, how do we fill the rest of the spots. Hmmmm... we have a BUNCH of applicants that kind of look alike. How shall we prioritize them?"
This is how we get groups that get an advantage. As said above, this could be a child of wealthy alums, a child of donors, a talented athlete, or a possessor of social capital. It could also be something like race (both for literal diversity of color, but also for diversity of life experiences) or geographic location.
Are any of these "fair"? Some may be more fair than others (athletes, even at athletically-weak Ivies, develop social capital that stays with them after graduation that most non-athletes don't really appreciate), but at least they are a functioning heuristic that can arguably add something at a higher rate than "random".
I would personally say that selecting for one or more of these groups may not be "fair" as in "choose from like group randomly", but I think it is probably much better for the ecology surrounding the school(s). Each of these groups leads to something positive for the school, while selecting at random means that the school will also benefit randomly (and probably less in the long run).
These schools are at the top, and they want to stay there. Making admissions decisions that are likely to increase their financial and social capital is a good way to do that.
> No more pretending to be fair and all that bullshit
The best I can tell, elite schools are as fair as they can be for the truly strong/qualified applicants -- they all get admitted. After those are admitted, while staring into the face of a lot of academically similar applicants, the elite schools start making decisions that benefit and perpetuate their existence. To be fair, I am surprised that the paths that lead to these decisions generate as much interest as they do. It seems fairly natural to me.
My take:
- Lots of AP success, good grades, good recs, etc. are just table stakes for anyone who is seriously considering going to an elite school. If that's all an applicant is bringing to the table, they will basically be competing with 1000s of clones. This does not bode well for them unless they have something else that stands out.
- Based on pure intellectual prowess, maybe ~30% of each Harvard class (less in other elite schools as prestige level decreases) is able to understand/identify/conceive of, work on, and solve interesting problems. The number of people who meet this standard and do not get into an elite school (typically the school of their choice -- they are aggressively courted) is very small, and it is usually due to some glaring error and/or omission in their application.
- The rest of the class is filled up with solid-but-unexceptional intellectual clones (good grades, etc.) who are bringing something else to the table. This could be (using your order and adding some) child of wealthy alums, child of donors, talented athlete, possessor of social capital, racial diversity, geographic diversity, etc.
First, note that "fairness" in terms of merit stops at 30% or less of the class. If one were to limit "fair" to actually being intellectually qualified, then the admissions would stop there. Is that fair? I don't know, but I am certain that almost no one wants that on either side of the fence.
So the next question that the admissions group has to answer is "Well, how do we fill the rest of the spots. Hmmmm... we have a BUNCH of applicants that kind of look alike. How shall we prioritize them?"
This is how we get groups that get an advantage. As said above, this could be a child of wealthy alums, a child of donors, a talented athlete, or a possessor of social capital. It could also be something like race (both for literal diversity of color, but also for diversity of life experiences) or geographic location.
Are any of these "fair"? Some may be more fair than others (athletes, even at athletically-weak Ivies, develop social capital that stays with them after graduation that most non-athletes don't really appreciate), but at least they are a functioning heuristic that can arguably add something at a higher rate than "random".
I would personally say that selecting for one or more of these groups may not be "fair" as in "choose from like group randomly", but I think it is probably much better for the ecology surrounding the school(s). Each of these groups leads to something positive for the school, while selecting at random means that the school will also benefit randomly (and probably less in the long run).
These schools are at the top, and they want to stay there. Making admissions decisions that are likely to increase their financial and social capital is a good way to do that.
> No more pretending to be fair and all that bullshit
The best I can tell, elite schools are as fair as they can be for the truly strong/qualified applicants -- they all get admitted. After those are admitted, while staring into the face of a lot of academically similar applicants, the elite schools start making decisions that benefit and perpetuate their existence. To be fair, I am surprised that the paths that lead to these decisions generate as much interest as they do. It seems fairly natural to me.
> Z% of seats by pure lottery.
I wouldn't elect any political official or moderator by pure lottery.
I wouldn't elect any political official or moderator by pure lottery.
Are college students representing you? Or moderating something you participate in? I'm confused why those are relevant comparisons.
You might be doing yourself a disservice. There are a lot of people who would be extremely competent in practice who are put off by the dirt and competition of the election process.
Choosing officials by lot is also extremely resistant to the money-in-politics problem and corruption amongst officials (it becomes easier to detect, and occasionally you get incorruptible people in the role).
The ideal political system could well be random lot to determine a small pool of candidates (I think 3-4), then voters choose 1.
Choosing officials by lot is also extremely resistant to the money-in-politics problem and corruption amongst officials (it becomes easier to detect, and occasionally you get incorruptible people in the role).
The ideal political system could well be random lot to determine a small pool of candidates (I think 3-4), then voters choose 1.
Who seeds the random number generator?
This topic is so endlessly fascinating because it encapsulates debates on meritocracy, privilege, wealth, and recruiting that have a ripple effect across a lifetime.
I attended an Ivy and a lot of the stereotypes are true. The varsity athletes are sharper than you would expect. Because the Ivy League agreed to not give scholarships to athletes (unlike Stanford), teams have a gentleman's agreement with admissions to keep a specific average GPA and SAT/ACT score. So for every gifted athlete that's a dull crayon from Groton you also got a high-achieving student-athlete. I was a TA, and the varsity athletes were the only ones who showed up consistently. They had limited time and needed to be efficient with their schoolwork. The club athletes are the rich parents + boarding school crowd. I briefly played club lacrosse - these kids were a caricature of what you would expect. The network effect is real btw.
A running joke at Stanford is that the athletes go to Stanford Community College.
The briefs in Fisher vs. UT are a great legal primer on the state of university admissions these days. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
I attended an Ivy and a lot of the stereotypes are true. The varsity athletes are sharper than you would expect. Because the Ivy League agreed to not give scholarships to athletes (unlike Stanford), teams have a gentleman's agreement with admissions to keep a specific average GPA and SAT/ACT score. So for every gifted athlete that's a dull crayon from Groton you also got a high-achieving student-athlete. I was a TA, and the varsity athletes were the only ones who showed up consistently. They had limited time and needed to be efficient with their schoolwork. The club athletes are the rich parents + boarding school crowd. I briefly played club lacrosse - these kids were a caricature of what you would expect. The network effect is real btw.
A running joke at Stanford is that the athletes go to Stanford Community College.
The briefs in Fisher vs. UT are a great legal primer on the state of university admissions these days. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
Not to say they're not sharp.... but I belive at most of those schools there is a system of automatic scholarships based on income. So while you don't get a sports scholarship, athletes are still not paying either way. Not to knock their academics or anything, but the no sports scholarship is just no 'sports' scholarship.
On another aside, at a lot of schools athlete attendance is recorded by other students and reported to the coaches, at times even a non mandatory attendance class is mandatory as far as the coaches see it so at those schools they show up ;) They might not be as sharp, but they know they have to show up.
On another aside, at a lot of schools athlete attendance is recorded by other students and reported to the coaches, at times even a non mandatory attendance class is mandatory as far as the coaches see it so at those schools they show up ;) They might not be as sharp, but they know they have to show up.
Based upon my experiences in business, quite a lot of the time when someone says they don't want to share the details of a "soft" process (rather than engineering or scientific methods) its because they don't actually have anything like a documented repeatable process and they are just using "judgement" to make the decision - which for something like recruitment or admissions is likely to be influenced by personal and organisational biases.
"The school says releasing the information could put it at a competitive disadvantage"
Likely because people might find their policies unethical, which would stop them from making choices that maximize the perceived value of a Harvard degree?
Likely because people might find their policies unethical, which would stop them from making choices that maximize the perceived value of a Harvard degree?
There's also Goodhart's law / Campbell's law.
Once the measures for admission are made public they'll cease being good measures as many will teach/live to the measures rather than actually remain high quality students. (Of course the measures may also be bad measures.)
It may be better for the school to have a written system for evaluating or at least reaching an initial coarse filter result which they create and disseminate to external auditors who ensure it has been applied 'fairly' to the data set and which can provide opinions about the process without revealing details that could ruin the effectiveness of the measures.
Additionally they could monitor the applicant pool to see if the applicants are more uniformly reacting to a discovered / leaked measure and thus that it has ceased being a good tool for decision making.
Once the measures for admission are made public they'll cease being good measures as many will teach/live to the measures rather than actually remain high quality students. (Of course the measures may also be bad measures.)
It may be better for the school to have a written system for evaluating or at least reaching an initial coarse filter result which they create and disseminate to external auditors who ensure it has been applied 'fairly' to the data set and which can provide opinions about the process without revealing details that could ruin the effectiveness of the measures.
Additionally they could monitor the applicant pool to see if the applicants are more uniformly reacting to a discovered / leaked measure and thus that it has ceased being a good tool for decision making.
Being smart and being able to get shit done (that describes the top of most elite school classes) is not a mystery -- it's just really hard to do. The people who are able to do it, however, are pretty much all admitted.
The measures for admission for the rest of the people (I call them very smart but unexceptional "clones") is based on things that benefit the university -- athletes, donors, etc. The "secret" for these folks is just to add value to the university. Some folks are born with it (cough Kushner cough), but others earn it by being leaders, athletes, etc.
Check out Cal Newport's stuff on these matters. He's about as close as it gets to correct, imho.
The measures for admission for the rest of the people (I call them very smart but unexceptional "clones") is based on things that benefit the university -- athletes, donors, etc. The "secret" for these folks is just to add value to the university. Some folks are born with it (cough Kushner cough), but others earn it by being leaders, athletes, etc.
Check out Cal Newport's stuff on these matters. He's about as close as it gets to correct, imho.
I doubt it would make much of a dent in their reputation. It is already widely perceived (whether true or not) that children of important donors, legacies and other groups get preferential treatment.
It may be worse than that. E.g. the claims in the Asian-American applicants' lawsuit may be proven right: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/harvard-asian-admissio... and there might be other things like that that are generally frowned upon.
IMO, perceiving and have hard data are two different things. If it was proven by data then they might have to give way to all kinds of lawsuits. Without data they can steadfastly claim to be neutral even if they are perceived otherwise.
Legacy and donors do get preferential treatment, but almost all of them are fairly strong academically (not as strong the top 30% or so of the class, but still strong). There are very few people who are unqualified but still get in due to legacy or donor status (cough Kushner cough).
> Likely because people might find their policies unethical, which would stop them to making choices that maximize the perceived value of a Harvard degree?
Which assumptions are you relying on which result in one begetting the other?
Which assumptions are you relying on which result in one begetting the other?
If they reveal their policies, those are highly publicized and enough moral outrage is generated, they'll have to commit to changing their policies or risk having their reputation permanently stained. Of course, being Harvard University, they would probably wouldn't take too hard a blow, but it would still devalue them.
I guess I'm missing a point.
Why would it devalue them with their target audience?
Why would it devalue them with their target audience?
If I were considering going to Harvard, knowing that there was recently a widely publicized controversy surrounding their acceptance criteria would certainly make me think twice - apart from the moral concerns of supporting such an institution, it's a safe bet that hiring managers would be aware that Harvard graduates were not necessarily selected for merit, which might cause them to value it less than a scholastically-equivalent education from a different university.
If there were any moral concerns in the hiring world at large, the Ivy League would already be in decline. The truth that it is more about connections than raw talent or merit has been evident for a long time. The myth that America is a meritocracy and that the Ivy League only takes the most meritorious is one of the most successful marketing schemes ever devised.
This reminds me of an old joke:
Q. How do you know that someone attended Harvard?
A. They tell you within 30 seconds of meeting them.
This reminds me of an old joke:
Q. How do you know that someone attended Harvard?
A. They tell you within 30 seconds of meeting them.
> This reminds me of an old joke:
> Q. How do you know that someone attended Harvard?
> A. They tell you within 30 seconds of meeting them.
This is almost exclusively only true for the people who were one of the (extremely) weaker admits.
There is definitely a way to talking about going to Harvard (usu. only when asked), and saying it directly is not the usual preferred choice.
This is almost exclusively only true for the people who were one of the (extremely) weaker admits.
There is definitely a way to talking about going to Harvard (usu. only when asked), and saying it directly is not the usual preferred choice.
Oh, I did not know that. Did you go to Harvard perchance?
I will redirect my answer to a question you didn’t ask.
Google the following and check the top link for a decent read:
Michael Giovinco Harvard Boston quora
Google the following and check the top link for a decent read:
Michael Giovinco Harvard Boston quora
The second answer addresses the problem with the first:
> ...[T]his response always strikes me as pointless and condescending. ... Whenever I hear people pull the "I went to Boston" routine--and a lot of Harvard alums do this even when in the exclusive presence of other elite school grads--it does seem like bragging/false modesty, because the implication is "one way or the other, you won't be able to handle the fact that I went to Harvard."
I don't want you to feel awkward, so I won't ask if you went to school in Boston.
> ...[T]his response always strikes me as pointless and condescending. ... Whenever I hear people pull the "I went to Boston" routine--and a lot of Harvard alums do this even when in the exclusive presence of other elite school grads--it does seem like bragging/false modesty, because the implication is "one way or the other, you won't be able to handle the fact that I went to Harvard."
I don't want you to feel awkward, so I won't ask if you went to school in Boston.
> I don't want you to feel awkward, so I won't ask if you went to school in Boston.
Does Bunker Hill Community College count?
Does Bunker Hill Community College count?
> it's a safe bet that hiring managers would be aware that Harvard graduates were not necessarily selected for merit
It boggles my mind that hiring managers currently thing that elite school grads are (mostly) selected for merit.
Some of the grads are decent grinders/hoop-jumpers, but the fast majority are not the top 10-30% of the class that gives the school its reputation.
It boggles my mind that hiring managers currently thing that elite school grads are (mostly) selected for merit.
Some of the grads are decent grinders/hoop-jumpers, but the fast majority are not the top 10-30% of the class that gives the school its reputation.
"it's a safe bet that hiring managers would be aware that Harvard graduates were not necessarily selected for merit,"
Isn't this true of just about every school?
Isn't this true of just about every school?
Currently, Harvard, Yale and the other Ivy Leagues are perceived as the best education money can buy. If it turns out that it's not actually that hard to get into Harvard if you have money or are legacy (and that the education itself is middling), it may lead to a hit in reputation. It may not make a difference to the Cruella DeVille types directly, but public perception is a thing. If enough of the public perceives a Harvard degree as ill-gotten, the value of that degree goes down. Ergo, they start losing applicants to the other Ivys.
"and that the education itself is middling"
If this were true, wouldn't we already know this?
If this were true, wouldn't we already know this?
Yes, we do.
Largely, it is (esp. for lower level classes).
The professors largely do not care about teaching -- they have research to do. The idea is that they typically point you to some materials, and they assume that smart people will figure it out.
Don't get me wrong. The learning resources are phenomenal, and folks can and do learn a ton from their peers. That said, most of the teaching is awful.
If someone wants to be taught well, don't go to an Ivy -- go to small liberal arts college (lots of good teachers at these schools).
Largely, it is (esp. for lower level classes).
The professors largely do not care about teaching -- they have research to do. The idea is that they typically point you to some materials, and they assume that smart people will figure it out.
Don't get me wrong. The learning resources are phenomenal, and folks can and do learn a ton from their peers. That said, most of the teaching is awful.
If someone wants to be taught well, don't go to an Ivy -- go to small liberal arts college (lots of good teachers at these schools).
Presumably pcstl thinks poor kids hoping to achieve class mobility won't apply because they don't want to support a school that discriminates against them.
Hence, you get a class of people willing to overlook discrimination (such as the beneficiaries of it).
Hence, you get a class of people willing to overlook discrimination (such as the beneficiaries of it).
"Legacy applicants, or students with a parent who attended Harvard, were accepted to the school at the rate of about 34%, according to data from six admissions cycles analyzed by an economist hired by the group suing the school. That’s compared to an admissions rate of about 6% of non-legacy students, according to an analysis of Harvard data."
And I'm sure some of that is because the children of Harvard graduates tend to be more qualified (in terms of other application criteria) than the general population or applicant pool.
If an additional 1000 2.0 students applied to Harvard next year this number would look even worse. But would the change be meaningful?
That's not to say they don't take legacy into account. But, as presented, those numbers can be misleading.
If an additional 1000 2.0 students applied to Harvard next year this number would look even worse. But would the change be meaningful?
That's not to say they don't take legacy into account. But, as presented, those numbers can be misleading.
Some of it also likely occurs because the children of Harvard graduates will have a better idea of what the process is looking for, not least of which because they have an N=1 daa point of a successful application.
Similarly, if you're trying to have a successful interview with a company, it helps to talk to people who have interviewed there before, preferably people who have interviewed there successfully.
(The process may well have other issues that make "legacy" applications more likely, but a higher acceptance rate of such applications doesn't inherently suggest a problem.)
Similarly, if you're trying to have a successful interview with a company, it helps to talk to people who have interviewed there before, preferably people who have interviewed there successfully.
(The process may well have other issues that make "legacy" applications more likely, but a higher acceptance rate of such applications doesn't inherently suggest a problem.)
If children of graduates are more qualified _naturally_ then why does Harvard _need_ it to be _policy_ that they take legacy status into account? MIT and Caltech seem to do fine with legacy-blind admissions.
Probably proportionally based for each one.
Legacy applicants are X% more qualified naturally (well educated parents, etc), and get Y% from the admissions. Given the numbers for Harvard, MIT, etc, there are plenty of qualified applicants for each spot.
Legacy applicants are X% more qualified naturally (well educated parents, etc), and get Y% from the admissions. Given the numbers for Harvard, MIT, etc, there are plenty of qualified applicants for each spot.
I'm not from the US so don't really know what I'm talking about - but my impressions from this side of the pond are that MIT and Caltech seem to have rather different reputations from Harvard?
Than the general population possibly, but not than the applicant pool, which is the comparison that matters.
It seems more likely that in the applicant pool the non-legacy kids would be smarter. Imagine how confident of your ability you'd have to be to apply to Harvard as a random kid from a public high school in Iowa. Whereas if you'd grown up expecting to go there because your parents did, the threshold for applying would be pretty low.
It seems more likely that in the applicant pool the non-legacy kids would be smarter. Imagine how confident of your ability you'd have to be to apply to Harvard as a random kid from a public high school in Iowa. Whereas if you'd grown up expecting to go there because your parents did, the threshold for applying would be pretty low.
[deleted]
I cannot wait for the legal discovery process commences. It’s going to be a bloodbath, because Harvard has discriminated against Asians far more subtly and systematically than they did with Jews.
Discrimination against Jews was far more than systematic, it was institutional and not really a secret. Moreover, an overall overrepresentation of Asians are admitted, which us completely a different kind of 'bias' than simply not admitting them at all.
Though I'd disagree with the whole if it, if they went 'strictly SAT' or something, and suppose 50% of every class was Asian-American, whereupon Asian-Americans only make up 5% of the overall population of the US thereby meaning a 10x overrepresentation ... well - that's a problem by any social measure.
So it's far more complicated than simply 'they don't like some people and don't want them there'.
Though I'd disagree with the whole if it, if they went 'strictly SAT' or something, and suppose 50% of every class was Asian-American, whereupon Asian-Americans only make up 5% of the overall population of the US thereby meaning a 10x overrepresentation ... well - that's a problem by any social measure.
So it's far more complicated than simply 'they don't like some people and don't want them there'.
a problem by any social measure.
Elite universities should admit the best students. Science / truth is and should be epistocratic, rather than democratic, fair or equal.
If other ethnies cannot educate their children up to Asian standards, then that's a failure of the other ethnies. Punishing Asians for consistently raising better children is victim blaming. All the more, so since it's very easy to raise successful children: study hard & consistently, value education and do lots of maths.
We should celebrate the Asian focus of intellectual excellence rather than punish them.
> consistently raising better children
Most of my extended family is Chinese-born. This cohort (educated, upper middle class and above) definitely raises better test-takers. They are statistically much less likely to divorce and much less likely to be on public assistance. I value these traits enormously myself.
It is not clear to me they are better children. Personal anecdata shows that many of these kids were raised with such obsessive concern with getting into Ivy League colleges that they are not complete adults, and often don't know what to do with their lives when they graduate.
Most of my extended family is Chinese-born. This cohort (educated, upper middle class and above) definitely raises better test-takers. They are statistically much less likely to divorce and much less likely to be on public assistance. I value these traits enormously myself.
It is not clear to me they are better children. Personal anecdata shows that many of these kids were raised with such obsessive concern with getting into Ivy League colleges that they are not complete adults, and often don't know what to do with their lives when they graduate.
Probably not beyond norm...most college graduates don't know what to do when they graduate!
That's an interesting perspective, but I wonder if the kids who actually get in based on merits other than test-taking are any better. My anecdata is that they are not.
It's particularly relevant to tech because there is the concern that technical interviews, poorly structured, are creating a culture that favors admitting candidates who optimize for passing technical interviews.
Hmm, you may or may not be Chinese born or Chinese descendant,but your remark is still racist in the sense that you think the Chinese people are large the same and they're different from other people. It doesn't matter if you think the Chinese people are good or bad, it's racist.
"Elite universities should admit the best students. Science / truth is and should be epistocratic, rather than democratic, fair or equal"
First, it doesn't have to be, and was never necessarily meant to be, second, it depends on how you define your 'epistemological' criteria.
To my point: 'just using SAT scores' would be basically a very bad way to select students.
For example, some US States high schools may focus intensely on 'SAT prep'. Others may have a policy of not prepping at all. Some candidates speak English as their second language and are at a big disadvantage.
"We should celebrate the Asian focus of intellectual excellence rather than punish them."
This is 'intellectual excellence' on some level, but I view the 'race to perfect SAT' as competitive, not intellectual.
We can all work 12 hours a day from the age of four, but is that what we want? In South Korea, they literally had to ban doing homework after 10 pm, because it was a social malaise. This is a cultural attribute, on the whole, it's certainly better than kids 'not doing homework', but my experience with South Korean students at Grad School has informed me that I don't think that this is really what we want, nor is it actually very productive. (Too clarify about my South Korean compatriots - it's they who were complaining that during their summer internships at home, they would be paid meagre wages, literally a couple thousand dollars a month - after a lifetime of intensely competitive academic endeavour)
There are a number of factors at play and I think 'representation' is one of them, on some level.
Also, I'm the last person to be pushing intersectional arguments, I'm generally wary of it all, and totally opposed to 'proportional representation' and that kind of stuff. I'm saying - it's a factor, that's all.
First, it doesn't have to be, and was never necessarily meant to be, second, it depends on how you define your 'epistemological' criteria.
To my point: 'just using SAT scores' would be basically a very bad way to select students.
For example, some US States high schools may focus intensely on 'SAT prep'. Others may have a policy of not prepping at all. Some candidates speak English as their second language and are at a big disadvantage.
"We should celebrate the Asian focus of intellectual excellence rather than punish them."
This is 'intellectual excellence' on some level, but I view the 'race to perfect SAT' as competitive, not intellectual.
We can all work 12 hours a day from the age of four, but is that what we want? In South Korea, they literally had to ban doing homework after 10 pm, because it was a social malaise. This is a cultural attribute, on the whole, it's certainly better than kids 'not doing homework', but my experience with South Korean students at Grad School has informed me that I don't think that this is really what we want, nor is it actually very productive. (Too clarify about my South Korean compatriots - it's they who were complaining that during their summer internships at home, they would be paid meagre wages, literally a couple thousand dollars a month - after a lifetime of intensely competitive academic endeavour)
There are a number of factors at play and I think 'representation' is one of them, on some level.
Also, I'm the last person to be pushing intersectional arguments, I'm generally wary of it all, and totally opposed to 'proportional representation' and that kind of stuff. I'm saying - it's a factor, that's all.
> We should celebrate the Asian focus of intellectual excellence rather than punish them.
First, I’m going to remove the “Asian” aspect of your comment, because I don’t think the phenomenon you are speaking of is uniquely Asian.
Let me frame it slightly differently.
One group, let’s call them TestPreppers, are excellent at acing tests. Yes, these types of students are common is East Asia (e.g., due to the cram school culture), but they can be found other places as well (e.g., upper middle class communities in the US NE corridor regardless of race).
The second group, let’s call them ThinkersDoers, are really good at identifying interesting problems and doing constructive work on that problem. These folks tend to be smart, creative, and hard working. They exist is all races (including, but not limited to, Asians).
In an academic setting or some professions that have domain specific hard problems to work on, the TestPreppers are largely terrible to work with. Lots of hand holding. Lots of training. Outcomes are predictable but uninspiring. They are great grinders. That said, they will almost never contribute anything positive to your work group other than a willingness to do grunt work that others don’t want to do. Note that the doing the grunt work is valued, but finding grinders is not hard. The VAR (value above replacement — a sports stats term) is basically zero.
The ThinkersDoers, however, will provide unique insights about the problem space and will advance the team in unique and valuable ways. Their VAR is very high — these folks are so difficult to find at any level. These folks are incredibly fun to work with, and you are very sad when they leave the team.
I really wish that we, regardless of race, would encourage the development more ThinkersDoers rather than focus on the relatively mundane TestPreppers. Raising a TestPrepper (to the exclusion of anything else) just seems like a wasted opportunity to develop a ThinkerDoer who has the opportunity to move the needle much more substantially in any endeavor they choose to persue.
First, I’m going to remove the “Asian” aspect of your comment, because I don’t think the phenomenon you are speaking of is uniquely Asian.
Let me frame it slightly differently.
One group, let’s call them TestPreppers, are excellent at acing tests. Yes, these types of students are common is East Asia (e.g., due to the cram school culture), but they can be found other places as well (e.g., upper middle class communities in the US NE corridor regardless of race).
The second group, let’s call them ThinkersDoers, are really good at identifying interesting problems and doing constructive work on that problem. These folks tend to be smart, creative, and hard working. They exist is all races (including, but not limited to, Asians).
In an academic setting or some professions that have domain specific hard problems to work on, the TestPreppers are largely terrible to work with. Lots of hand holding. Lots of training. Outcomes are predictable but uninspiring. They are great grinders. That said, they will almost never contribute anything positive to your work group other than a willingness to do grunt work that others don’t want to do. Note that the doing the grunt work is valued, but finding grinders is not hard. The VAR (value above replacement — a sports stats term) is basically zero.
The ThinkersDoers, however, will provide unique insights about the problem space and will advance the team in unique and valuable ways. Their VAR is very high — these folks are so difficult to find at any level. These folks are incredibly fun to work with, and you are very sad when they leave the team.
I really wish that we, regardless of race, would encourage the development more ThinkersDoers rather than focus on the relatively mundane TestPreppers. Raising a TestPrepper (to the exclusion of anything else) just seems like a wasted opportunity to develop a ThinkerDoer who has the opportunity to move the needle much more substantially in any endeavor they choose to persue.
Best answer in all of thread. You are a true ThinkerDoer :)
But that has never been the only goal of most of these institutions.
What you are talking about makes sense for something like the IIT in India - and take a look at the huge number of students who run from that environment to a liberal arts education in the US.
To shed more light on your position - by extension we can ask why someone has to study electives and waste so much time on it.
Merit is measured on the subjects that are part of their degree.
The US college education is faced with a definitional crisis - they are tooled for a different era, when a college education wasn’t something every citizen was expected to get.
What you are talking about makes sense for something like the IIT in India - and take a look at the huge number of students who run from that environment to a liberal arts education in the US.
To shed more light on your position - by extension we can ask why someone has to study electives and waste so much time on it.
Merit is measured on the subjects that are part of their degree.
The US college education is faced with a definitional crisis - they are tooled for a different era, when a college education wasn’t something every citizen was expected to get.
The US college education is faced
with a definitional crisis
huge number of students who run from [IITs] to
a liberal arts education in the US.
It's part of one's maturation to work out what one wants to do in life. More important is that IITs consistently produce excellent graduates, eg. Sundar Pichai, Sachin Bansal, or the undergraduates who developed the AKS primality test. (Note I'm not saying that IITs are ideal, indeed they can do much better.) Universities (or at least elite universities) should be judged primarily by the quality of their top graduates (for they have a disproportionate impact), and not by their failures.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Generally, the definition of "best students" that the top universities are looking for is the ones who are best able to handle the content of the course by themselves without their parents there pushing them, because that's what it takes to succeed. They're not looking for the students who've most effectively been sheparded through intensive test prep by their parents, because that all falls apart the moment they have to stand on their own and deal with harder courses that can't be prepped for in the same way.
>Though I'd disagree with the whole if it, if they went 'strictly SAT' or something, and suppose 50% of every class was Asian-American, whereupon Asian-Americans only make up 5% of the overall population of the US thereby meaning a 10x overrepresentation ... well - that's a problem by any social measure.
By this definition, that "problem by any social measure" already exists. The Jewish (undergrad) population at Harvard is 25% [0] whereas the U.S. Jewish population is approximately 2%. Given this already-existing 10x overrepresentation, would a significant increase in the percentage of Asian-American students vs the domestic population be a social problem? Maybe yes maybe no, it's a complex question.
[0] https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...
By this definition, that "problem by any social measure" already exists. The Jewish (undergrad) population at Harvard is 25% [0] whereas the U.S. Jewish population is approximately 2%. Given this already-existing 10x overrepresentation, would a significant increase in the percentage of Asian-American students vs the domestic population be a social problem? Maybe yes maybe no, it's a complex question.
[0] https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...
>that's a problem by any social measure.
No it is not. East Asians on average are higher quality students than gentile whites in every measure of intelligence and grit we have. Denying them entry because such ethnic differences make you uncomfortable is not just.
No it is not. East Asians on average are higher quality students than gentile whites in every measure of intelligence and grit we have. Denying them entry because such ethnic differences make you uncomfortable is not just.
[deleted]
Jews are overrepresented by ~15x and nobody bats an eye, why would it be a problem with Asians?
That's not true. The move from meritocratic, quantitative university admissions policy actually started because of antisemitism. A prominent but anonymous Harvard alumni was shocked that its campus was 'Hebrewized'. Fast forward to today and we have the current status of quo of a 'Holistic' admissions process.
"Holistic admissions criteria emerged at Ivy League schools in the early 20th century and were almost immediately twisted for virulently anti-semitic purposes. Until the 1920s, students took an admissions test and those that did well on the test were admitted to the colleges “almost entirely on the basis of academic criteria.” This resulted in lots of Jewish men on the campus of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
An alumni visiting the Harvard campus around this time was shocked by the scene: 'Naturally, after 25 years, one expects to find many changes, but to find that one’s University had become so Hebrewized was a fearful shock. There were Jews to the right of me, Jews to the left of me, in fact they were so obviously everywhere that instead of leaving the Yard with pleasant memories of the past I left with a feeling of utter disgust of the present and grave doubts about the future of my Alma Mater.'
It’s around this time that Ivy League schools switched from a strictly quantitative system of test scores to a more subjective, holistic approach."
https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-...
Going on a tangent, imo this blog post as one of the starting points of the current spate of lawsuits. The impact and reach of YC companies is huge.
"Holistic admissions criteria emerged at Ivy League schools in the early 20th century and were almost immediately twisted for virulently anti-semitic purposes. Until the 1920s, students took an admissions test and those that did well on the test were admitted to the colleges “almost entirely on the basis of academic criteria.” This resulted in lots of Jewish men on the campus of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
An alumni visiting the Harvard campus around this time was shocked by the scene: 'Naturally, after 25 years, one expects to find many changes, but to find that one’s University had become so Hebrewized was a fearful shock. There were Jews to the right of me, Jews to the left of me, in fact they were so obviously everywhere that instead of leaving the Yard with pleasant memories of the past I left with a feeling of utter disgust of the present and grave doubts about the future of my Alma Mater.'
It’s around this time that Ivy League schools switched from a strictly quantitative system of test scores to a more subjective, holistic approach."
https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-...
Going on a tangent, imo this blog post as one of the starting points of the current spate of lawsuits. The impact and reach of YC companies is huge.
I think you and the parent poster are both correct. Modern admissions came about from antisemitism, but jewish students are overrepresented today. I found two different numbers online for harvard undergards, one at 12% and one at 25%, which either way is an overrepresentation of the baseline ~2% of Americans.
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...
> Yale University’s undergrad student body is 27 percent Jewish (1,500 Jewish undergrads out of 5,477 total). Percentage-wise, it narrowly beats out its Ivy League rival Harvard University, which is 25 percent Jewish (1,675 out of 6,694 undergrads). But Cornell University and Columbia University both have more Jews in total — 3,000 and 1,800, respectively.
https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/harvard-uni...
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...
> Yale University’s undergrad student body is 27 percent Jewish (1,500 Jewish undergrads out of 5,477 total). Percentage-wise, it narrowly beats out its Ivy League rival Harvard University, which is 25 percent Jewish (1,675 out of 6,694 undergrads). But Cornell University and Columbia University both have more Jews in total — 3,000 and 1,800, respectively.
https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/harvard-uni...
The idea of 'Over representation' of a certain racial group based on there
percentage of the population is entirely subjective and racist.
At Cal Tech Asians are roughly 50% of students. Cal Tech does not consider race in admissions. Those students rightfully earned there places base on merit and objective criteria.
To make the suggestion that they should be systematically denied those positions because of there race and percentage of population is regressive. Who gets to decide what percentage of what race is a good percentage?
Harvard is desperately trying to cover there criteria because it more then likely runs contrary to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and they are going to louse this law suite if it goes to trial.
Lets see the exact formula that Harvard is using for race vs percentage of the population so we can apply the same formula to all races they admit. Lets compare European, Jewish, Asian student percentages based on the same formula.
I think that administration at Harvard is scared to death of that type of scrutiny but that is exactly what they are going to get. And it could seriously stigmatize the school for decades. And set some significant legal presented so Schools can not use these sort of behind closed doors racist regressive policies any more.
At Cal Tech Asians are roughly 50% of students. Cal Tech does not consider race in admissions. Those students rightfully earned there places base on merit and objective criteria.
To make the suggestion that they should be systematically denied those positions because of there race and percentage of population is regressive. Who gets to decide what percentage of what race is a good percentage?
Harvard is desperately trying to cover there criteria because it more then likely runs contrary to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and they are going to louse this law suite if it goes to trial.
Lets see the exact formula that Harvard is using for race vs percentage of the population so we can apply the same formula to all races they admit. Lets compare European, Jewish, Asian student percentages based on the same formula.
I think that administration at Harvard is scared to death of that type of scrutiny but that is exactly what they are going to get. And it could seriously stigmatize the school for decades. And set some significant legal presented so Schools can not use these sort of behind closed doors racist regressive policies any more.
> Though I'd disagree with the whole if it, if they went 'strictly SAT' or something, and suppose 50% of every class was Asian-American, whereupon Asian-Americans only make up 5% of the overall population of the US thereby meaning a 10x overrepresentation ... well - that's a problem by any social measure.
The "I don't see colors" part of me is cringing at what this implies. Aren't Asian-Americans supposed to be more than their race?
The "I don't see colors" part of me is cringing at what this implies. Aren't Asian-Americans supposed to be more than their race?
Yes, definitely, but people are also 'much more than their SAT scores'.
>> that's a problem by any social measure.
It is? Why? And is it Harvard's to fix to the detriment of Asian-Americans?
It is? Why? And is it Harvard's to fix to the detriment of Asian-Americans?
It's not quite the 50% that you say would be a problem "by any social measure", but Caltech has 43% Asian undergraduates, 28% White, and it seems to work out OK.
If Caltech's goal was to identify and mold the next generation's national and global leadership then it would have failed completely.
I don't think people here understand Harvard University. The funny thing is, this level of misunderstanding is so naive and naively self-righteous that it might actually destroy the cesspool. So, good.
I don't think people here understand Harvard University. The funny thing is, this level of misunderstanding is so naive and naively self-righteous that it might actually destroy the cesspool. So, good.
How are they "overrepresented" if they're qualified? All data point to them being underrepresented in terms of their qualifications.
Overrepresented to those who want equality of outcome, not just equality of opportunity.
Then attack the inequality directly. Let us sieze the high IQ alleles and distribute them to the proletariat!
We should not just pretend an equality exists where it does not. East Asians on average are smarter than whites, by about half a standard deviation or more. This explains the disparate outcomes. If you don’t like it subsidize embryo selection. Any ethnic differences can be vastly overwhelmed by iterated embryo selection in the near future.
Don’t put roadblocks in the way of us using what little intelligence we have in the pre-embryo-selection world efficiency.
We should not just pretend an equality exists where it does not. East Asians on average are smarter than whites, by about half a standard deviation or more. This explains the disparate outcomes. If you don’t like it subsidize embryo selection. Any ethnic differences can be vastly overwhelmed by iterated embryo selection in the near future.
Don’t put roadblocks in the way of us using what little intelligence we have in the pre-embryo-selection world efficiency.
jews are overrepresented by around that factor. why is not one suggesting for this jewish "problem"?
I think this is going to be a watershed case that shows that race based
admissions and affirmative action programs no matter the intent are
socially and morally regressive. They inevitably lead to racist polices and
race based favoritism of one for or another.
"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
Yep. Precisely.
Why would they keep it secret? To stop others from gaming the system or because the system can't be gamed since its biased from the start?
Harvard is being sued for racial discrimination against Asian Americans in
there admissions policies.
They created set of personality criteria for admissions. The criteria was entirely subjective, things like 'positive personality', and 'likability'. Then gave Asians consistently low scores on theses subjective criteria. And then weighed the criteria high enough to knock them out of positions which they would have otherwise qualified for if the admissions was based on standard academic criteria.
Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on objective measurable criteria.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
They created set of personality criteria for admissions. The criteria was entirely subjective, things like 'positive personality', and 'likability'. Then gave Asians consistently low scores on theses subjective criteria. And then weighed the criteria high enough to knock them out of positions which they would have otherwise qualified for if the admissions was based on standard academic criteria.
Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on objective measurable criteria.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
What sucks is that bias and racism is also baked into many “objective” criteria.
Take test scores - just having the right parents will push your sores up on average.
Having better performance regular ties into wealth and upbringing. No surprise then that the dominant economic group will hold an advantage is such tests.
The damned intertwined nature of all these issues is what makes it hard to set up an actual objective measure. Which then brings us back to subjective decision making.
Take test scores - just having the right parents will push your sores up on average.
Having better performance regular ties into wealth and upbringing. No surprise then that the dominant economic group will hold an advantage is such tests.
The damned intertwined nature of all these issues is what makes it hard to set up an actual objective measure. Which then brings us back to subjective decision making.
I think this is the kind of mindset that is being challenged here.
You actually can set up objective criteria for entry to a college. That some groups perform better than others in no way means they are not objective.
The unwillingness to accept the possibility that objective criteria might not result in equal outcomes from all groups is the problem. The rabbit hole of "that can't be objective because it challenges my assumption that all groups would perform equally" only ends in bad places.
You actually can set up objective criteria for entry to a college. That some groups perform better than others in no way means they are not objective.
The unwillingness to accept the possibility that objective criteria might not result in equal outcomes from all groups is the problem. The rabbit hole of "that can't be objective because it challenges my assumption that all groups would perform equally" only ends in bad places.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the objective for these schools is to have a diverse student body, not necessarily the "objectively best students based on the things we decide to measure."
Perhaps--but that wasn't the claim in the comment I was responding to.
And if that's the case, they should be comfortable saying openly that they're intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans for the good of the diversity of the student body.
And if that's the case, they should be comfortable saying openly that they're intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans for the good of the diversity of the student body.
Iirc the head of one of those schools has already said that they can fill their class up with valedictorians if they do choose.
If they followed the pure merit route it would be exactly like it is today in other countries - people would over prepare for the exams and entrance will depend on who got 0.05% more than another person.
That’s the main draw of the American system- these schools long ago saw that there would be a problem because of baked in bias and took steps to equalize it while keeping their own interests constant.
And let’s not ignore the raw ability of the people who are aiming for Harvard - if a candidate for Harvard doesn’t get in, their safety school is still the first choice of a massive chunk of college applicants.m
Ps: in this sub thread I was not specifically talking about diversity; but it is an argument I do make and it is also a short throw from where my previous comment in this thread.
If they followed the pure merit route it would be exactly like it is today in other countries - people would over prepare for the exams and entrance will depend on who got 0.05% more than another person.
That’s the main draw of the American system- these schools long ago saw that there would be a problem because of baked in bias and took steps to equalize it while keeping their own interests constant.
And let’s not ignore the raw ability of the people who are aiming for Harvard - if a candidate for Harvard doesn’t get in, their safety school is still the first choice of a massive chunk of college applicants.m
Ps: in this sub thread I was not specifically talking about diversity; but it is an argument I do make and it is also a short throw from where my previous comment in this thread.
Its not objective criteria that is the problem. Its the interpretation and
misrepresentation by ideologues that is inadequate.
'just having the right parents will push your sores up on average'
That has little to do with the objectivity or subjectivity of the test. There can be a wide variation of social development between racial groups, economic classes, religious communities, geographic regions etc. Not to mention individual IQ and ability.
A standardized test in say, mathematics is objective. The same tests that demonstrate competency are administered all over the world in every country and culture in the world. You can objectively determine the level of ability of any given student regardless of race or culture.
To simply say that because disparity exist we should therefor abandon standards and objective criteria in favor of a set of morphological corrective fictions that look good on paper but do nothing to fix the disparity is diminishing for everyone.
The problems are simply much harder and more complicated then peoples egos will let them admit. Its very easy to propose a grand theory that fixes all the problem of the world quickly and completely.
'just having the right parents will push your sores up on average'
That has little to do with the objectivity or subjectivity of the test. There can be a wide variation of social development between racial groups, economic classes, religious communities, geographic regions etc. Not to mention individual IQ and ability.
A standardized test in say, mathematics is objective. The same tests that demonstrate competency are administered all over the world in every country and culture in the world. You can objectively determine the level of ability of any given student regardless of race or culture.
To simply say that because disparity exist we should therefor abandon standards and objective criteria in favor of a set of morphological corrective fictions that look good on paper but do nothing to fix the disparity is diminishing for everyone.
The problems are simply much harder and more complicated then peoples egos will let them admit. Its very easy to propose a grand theory that fixes all the problem of the world quickly and completely.
"Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on objective measurable criteria."
Meritocracies aren't purely objective, either. Someone has to come up with the metrics, and someone has to decide whether someone meets those metrics. And not every metric that would be needed would be something that can be easily and objectively quantified.
Meritocracies aren't purely objective, either. Someone has to come up with the metrics, and someone has to decide whether someone meets those metrics. And not every metric that would be needed would be something that can be easily and objectively quantified.
The lawsuit alleges Harvard didn't even meet the applicants.
It looks pretty bad for them.
It looks pretty bad for them.
It might also be because the system is not actually consistent or well-defined. They might, say, depend primarily on reviewer judgement, and can measure reviewer correctness on hit/miss student ratios for those admitted, while not actually encoding it in strict law.
Exposing this however would inevitably require that they do, strictly, define their terms and conditions, which may lead to worse outcomes, if its not easy to produce non-gameable rules, or rules that actually match successful reviewer judgement.
Exposing this however would inevitably require that they do, strictly, define their terms and conditions, which may lead to worse outcomes, if its not easy to produce non-gameable rules, or rules that actually match successful reviewer judgement.
[deleted]
Glad that the mention athletics. I used to be surprised that Sports matter so much. I recall interviewing a not so bright Princeton grad. I was surprised, given the high esteem I held the school. When he mentioned playing lacrosse, I asked how much that helped in admissions. He said, “About as much as Football at Ohio State.”
At least he was honest!
At least he was honest!
I used to be anti affirmative action. Then, I met a lot of students at a similar tier school who were basically shoved there by their parents. Little original thought or unique qualities, just sent to an expensive private school and drilled on the SAT like monkeys.
So now I am in support of affirmative action, maybe out of disappointment in my traditional upbringing classmates.
So now I am in support of affirmative action, maybe out of disappointment in my traditional upbringing classmates.
You could be in favor of more extra-curriculars, or more 'holistic' criteria. But why affirmative action? That is an orthogonal issue.
The main change I would make to affirmative action would be considering factors like location, family income, etc that better represent a person's situation. But race, while not perfect, often captures these factors.
They already consider extra curriculars, and those are easily gamed since everyone knows they're important.
They already consider extra curriculars, and those are easily gamed since everyone knows they're important.
Since location and family income are perfectly observable variables, shouldn't we use them directly instead of race?
SAT training leads to modest gains of around 20-30 points on average. Also I don't see how racial background is a unique quality.
If that were actually true, no one would train for the SAT. It's a simple test easily trained for, not some ideal measure of aptitude.
It's not about race. You want people with diverse upbringings because they will do different things, and because they had the chance to go to a good school maybe they can do those different things better.
It's not about race. You want people with diverse upbringings because they will do different things, and because they had the chance to go to a good school maybe they can do those different things better.
It's absolutely true. Take a look at these papers, they have data on how much test prep increases scores:
* http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionst...
* https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/89/2/435/223527...
There is very little room for training in the SAT.
* http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionst...
* https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/89/2/435/223527...
There is very little room for training in the SAT.
>For students that have taken the test before and would like to boost their scores, coaching
seems to help, but by a rather small amount.
This is very different than having a large part of your education dedicated to doing well on the SAT, which is what I think the original comment was referring to.
This is very different than having a large part of your education dedicated to doing well on the SAT, which is what I think the original comment was referring to.
Again, results depend on the person and effort exerted.
It’s fascinating how many of those who defend Harvard eventually make some comment along the lines of “unimaginative, robotic Asians”. Underneath their arguments is a racist belief they simply can’t shake.
I bet some nastythings would be exposed if their admissions policy were revealed. Like you'd still lose points for being Jewish or a visible minority.
This is just such a weird world for me as a Swede. Here, the universities are under the same transparency rules like government agencies, meaning that you can even ask to go through your professor's inbox if you want (if they work on classified stuff, they need to keep that stuff separate).
Also, we have laws mandating how you can portion admission policies: 33% from high school grades, 33% from our version of the SAT and the rest they can negotiate with the government about what they want to use but it has to be transparent. You can also freely check the government's website and see, for every year, on what basis people were admitted for every university program in the country.
Also, we have laws mandating how you can portion admission policies: 33% from high school grades, 33% from our version of the SAT and the rest they can negotiate with the government about what they want to use but it has to be transparent. You can also freely check the government's website and see, for every year, on what basis people were admitted for every university program in the country.
how are the emails anonymized?
A program and year maps to an entry in a database. There you will see how the groups were partitioned, what the lowest GPA was in the group for grades, what the lowest score on the scholastic aptitude test was in the second group and some information about the other third, depending on the program in question. You will also see how many were not immediately accepted but put on the reserve list instead and you can also see the same statistik but for people without a Swedish national identification number and for women or men. It's all available in a simple search engine, here's the link (in Swedish):
https://statistik.uhr.se/
https://statistik.uhr.se/
Sorry, the emails you said. Correspondence with students of personal matters is classified, they aren’t allowed to hand that out. Everything else is just up for grabs!
One of the greatest minds of our times, Thomas Sowell, words it this way:
"When Jonas Salk applied to selective Townsend Harris High School in New York, and later to the then-selective City College of New York (CCNY), there might well have been some other student, not quite as academically qualified, who could have been admitted instead, on the basis of having overcome greater handicaps than Jonas Salk had.
But the relevant question is: Would that other student have been equally likely to create a vaccine that would banish the scourge of polio?"
"When Jonas Salk applied to selective Townsend Harris High School in New York, and later to the then-selective City College of New York (CCNY), there might well have been some other student, not quite as academically qualified, who could have been admitted instead, on the basis of having overcome greater handicaps than Jonas Salk had.
But the relevant question is: Would that other student have been equally likely to create a vaccine that would banish the scourge of polio?"
It's a bit absurd to suggest that on individual high school admissions questions depend the cure for polio or the equivalent.
> CCNY
A great example of the benefits of free higher education, but in terms of selectivity the problem is that Salk didn't get to go to the Ivy League or MIT or Cal Tech or some other elite science school.
> CCNY
A great example of the benefits of free higher education, but in terms of selectivity the problem is that Salk didn't get to go to the Ivy League or MIT or Cal Tech or some other elite science school.
>But the relevant question is: Would that other student have been equally likely to create a vaccine that would banish the scourge of polio?"
We'll never know, because that other student was racially profiled and denied an opportunity on that basis.
We'll never know, because that other student was racially profiled and denied an opportunity on that basis.
True. The horrible truth is that affirmative action cuts both ways; it can give advantages to under-represented groups, but only at the expense of the majority. Admissions is a zero-sum game. Every student admitted is a spot not available to someone else.
It a horrible system, but so is every other system. What you can say for affirmative action is that it tries to game the system towards those who generally get screwed over otherwise.
It a horrible system, but so is every other system. What you can say for affirmative action is that it tries to game the system towards those who generally get screwed over otherwise.
Education is a zero sum game for the applicants. But it's not a zero sum game in total. The university and society as a whole gain a greater benefit from the student with the higher potential getting the place. All other things being equal the candidate who is smartest when they apply will maximize the resultant graduate.
You could formalize it as y=mx+c where C is the candidates current education level, m is the candidate's innate ability to learn and x is the quality of the course, and y is the final quality of the candidate after getting the degree.
All other things are not equal though, and making a judgement only about the C of each candidate does not maximize y. SATs measure C, affirmative action does a really crappy job of trying to estimate m.
You could formalize it as y=mx+c where C is the candidates current education level, m is the candidate's innate ability to learn and x is the quality of the course, and y is the final quality of the candidate after getting the degree.
All other things are not equal though, and making a judgement only about the C of each candidate does not maximize y. SATs measure C, affirmative action does a really crappy job of trying to estimate m.
I like this way of framing it, although I find it questionable whether SATs, grades, etc measure C exclusively.
Because almost all candidates are the same age when applying, C also carries information about m, in the sense that the same equation applies to their time in K-12, so candidates with a high C did so either because they had a high learning rate (m) or went to a high-quality high school or had a high-quality environment (x), or some combination.
Thus I would say that SAT score measures mx. C at time t = mx + C at t - 1, or dC/dt = mx. Schools are interested in m, which is not easily measurable directly. Affirmative action is a very crude way to look for candidates that have a high m, low x, and moderate to high C at application time.
My conclusion is that if it were possible, colleges would ideally look for candidates that performed substantially better on SATs etc than their peers at each high school, as that would control for x and allow you to estimate m. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a cruder but partially functional way to do this, as it uses race as a bad proxy for x.
Because almost all candidates are the same age when applying, C also carries information about m, in the sense that the same equation applies to their time in K-12, so candidates with a high C did so either because they had a high learning rate (m) or went to a high-quality high school or had a high-quality environment (x), or some combination.
Thus I would say that SAT score measures mx. C at time t = mx + C at t - 1, or dC/dt = mx. Schools are interested in m, which is not easily measurable directly. Affirmative action is a very crude way to look for candidates that have a high m, low x, and moderate to high C at application time.
My conclusion is that if it were possible, colleges would ideally look for candidates that performed substantially better on SATs etc than their peers at each high school, as that would control for x and allow you to estimate m. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a cruder but partially functional way to do this, as it uses race as a bad proxy for x.
> affirmative action cuts both ways
... and that also happens in a different way than I think the parent refers to:
When American Major League Baseball, the top professional leagues, began (very gradually) hiring black and Latino players in 1947, it was not affirmative action. In fact it was the end of an affirmative action program for white guys - they had all these jobs specially reserved for them based on their skin color. Many of them were minor-league quality players, who only had their jobs because their skin was white. Generations of black and Latino players simply couldn't get a decent job (the Negro Leagues paid relatively poorly), including some of the best players ever.
(Incidentally, this also helped the statistics of the best players, who regularly batted/pitched against minor leaguers - how many home runs could a modern star hit if maybe a third of the pitchers he faced were minor leaguers?).
The same happens still in other fields - lots of people with jobs that they wouldn't have if they weren't white, male, coming from wealth, etc.
... and that also happens in a different way than I think the parent refers to:
When American Major League Baseball, the top professional leagues, began (very gradually) hiring black and Latino players in 1947, it was not affirmative action. In fact it was the end of an affirmative action program for white guys - they had all these jobs specially reserved for them based on their skin color. Many of them were minor-league quality players, who only had their jobs because their skin was white. Generations of black and Latino players simply couldn't get a decent job (the Negro Leagues paid relatively poorly), including some of the best players ever.
(Incidentally, this also helped the statistics of the best players, who regularly batted/pitched against minor leaguers - how many home runs could a modern star hit if maybe a third of the pitchers he faced were minor leaguers?).
The same happens still in other fields - lots of people with jobs that they wouldn't have if they weren't white, male, coming from wealth, etc.
>What you can say for affirmative action is that it tries to game the system towards those who generally get screwed over otherwise.
Judging people on their immutable characteristics is always ignorant, counterproductive, and polarizing by definition. There are a myriad of ways for us to help people who have been generally screwed by society that don't involve judging them based on their race or other physical traits. A color blind, class-based affirmative action system would be far, far preferable to anything that Harvard or other proponents of race-based affirmative action are doing. Give an automatic bonus to people who went to school in a poverty stricken area. Give an automatic bonus to those whose parents didn't graduate from college. There are tens of millions of poor, white Americans whose families have lived generations in poverty who rightfully seethe while they sit in their sweltering, air-condioner-free trailers and listen to rich, entitled people talk about the "historic privilege" of whites.
Judging people on their immutable characteristics is always ignorant, counterproductive, and polarizing by definition. There are a myriad of ways for us to help people who have been generally screwed by society that don't involve judging them based on their race or other physical traits. A color blind, class-based affirmative action system would be far, far preferable to anything that Harvard or other proponents of race-based affirmative action are doing. Give an automatic bonus to people who went to school in a poverty stricken area. Give an automatic bonus to those whose parents didn't graduate from college. There are tens of millions of poor, white Americans whose families have lived generations in poverty who rightfully seethe while they sit in their sweltering, air-condioner-free trailers and listen to rich, entitled people talk about the "historic privilege" of whites.
This is a very popular argument on HN.
Its premise is that there isn't a legacy of race-based discrimination that penalized non-white people and that is still felt today. That's, if not an extraordinary claim, at least a sweeping one: within my lifetime, there were whole areas of my home city that blacks were preventing from owning homes in, and even today, comparing a white and black family of identical incomes, the black family will live in a neighborhood where the average income is sharply lower than that of the white family.
If you don't engage with that issue, you're left with the mere observation that there are multiple factors that work against different groups of people. Perhaps we should account for more of those factors. But it doesn't follow logically that we should stop accounting for the factors that hold black families back.
Its premise is that there isn't a legacy of race-based discrimination that penalized non-white people and that is still felt today. That's, if not an extraordinary claim, at least a sweeping one: within my lifetime, there were whole areas of my home city that blacks were preventing from owning homes in, and even today, comparing a white and black family of identical incomes, the black family will live in a neighborhood where the average income is sharply lower than that of the white family.
If you don't engage with that issue, you're left with the mere observation that there are multiple factors that work against different groups of people. Perhaps we should account for more of those factors. But it doesn't follow logically that we should stop accounting for the factors that hold black families back.
> you're left with the mere observation that there are multiple factors that work against different groups of people. Perhaps we should account for more of those factors. But it doesn't follow logically that we should stop accounting for the factors that hold black families back.
Indeed there are. But in practical terms, there are so many things that happened in the past to people that disadvantage them today (e.g., grandpa had polio) that it is impossible in practice to account for all of them.
If we however take some factors, generally the ones that are easy to observe such as race, and try to address them without addressing the rest, that is textbook selection bias. So the logical argument against (semi-exclusively) accounting for the factors that hold black families back is that it would be selection bias to do so.
Furthermore, advocates of affirmative action rarely answer the very important question "how will we know when the policy is successful and past discrimination has been offset by present advantage?"
The only reasonable answer I can think of is "when members of the discriminated group have equal outcomes on average to nondiscriminated groups on average". But if this is true, then given the above, the logical way to proceed is to target underprivileged people individually, as that is the only way you will ever get such equity over all the different factors.
Indeed there are. But in practical terms, there are so many things that happened in the past to people that disadvantage them today (e.g., grandpa had polio) that it is impossible in practice to account for all of them.
If we however take some factors, generally the ones that are easy to observe such as race, and try to address them without addressing the rest, that is textbook selection bias. So the logical argument against (semi-exclusively) accounting for the factors that hold black families back is that it would be selection bias to do so.
Furthermore, advocates of affirmative action rarely answer the very important question "how will we know when the policy is successful and past discrimination has been offset by present advantage?"
The only reasonable answer I can think of is "when members of the discriminated group have equal outcomes on average to nondiscriminated groups on average". But if this is true, then given the above, the logical way to proceed is to target underprivileged people individually, as that is the only way you will ever get such equity over all the different factors.
Aren't the indicators we're looking for pretty straightforward? Don't we have a lot of simple, empirical evidence that we're not finished with the task of correcting for centuries of discrimination yet? It seems like the data is pretty straightforward.
Of course. There is however a subtle but important distinction between talking about (race-based) "past discrimination" (RBPD) versus any "past disadvantage" (such as grandpa with polio).
It is this limitation of focus to RBPD that I'm objecting to. First, I think it is a form of selection bias, as I said.
Selection bias is a big issue in politics -- I have found that climate activists like my wife hate hearing "we can deal with climate later once we've solved poverty" -- because they very reasonably know that "later" in politics means "never", and they interpret this statement to mean "poverty is more important than climate".
Interestingly, I think this is what is going on in reverse when affirmative action advocates hear people say "We should do something about RBPD, but poverty is even worse, we should focus on that first". AA advocates hear "RBPD is unimportant and we'll do it later (never)".
Perhaps you could help me with the following summary of every discussion I've had about this topic:
- Why do we care about RBPD?
Because it has lingering bad effects.
- But so does any form of past disadvantage. Why then do we focus on RBPD?
Because we have to start somewhere, and we don't have enough bandwidth to focus on everything.
- OK, but wouldn't it be simpler then to target disadvantaged individuals rather than disadvantaged groups because then we wouldn't have to solve the impossible problem of quantifying everyone's group-based net advantages and disadvantages? And also, if you adjust outcomes based on group outcomes, rather than individual outcomes (poverty), won't it be impossible to ever balance the ledger, because every time you give an advantage to one group, you disadvantage another, some members of which are disadvantaged on other axes?
And this is where it breaks down. The answer usually given is "Don't you believe in RBPD? It is horrible and there is plenty of evidence it exists!" But this doesn't answer the question at all. I've already agreed RBPD exists.
The only answer I can think of is perhaps that we should distinguish between problems caused by society (slavery) and problems not caused by society (polio), and to say that society only has an obligation to fix the former. But in this case, it becomes an issue of justice rather than outcome, and we are no longer justifying affirmative action on the basis of current bad outcomes but rather on past injustice. And if you do that, then you lose the ability to ever say when the ledger has been balanced and consequently remedies will have to go on forever.
It is this limitation of focus to RBPD that I'm objecting to. First, I think it is a form of selection bias, as I said.
Selection bias is a big issue in politics -- I have found that climate activists like my wife hate hearing "we can deal with climate later once we've solved poverty" -- because they very reasonably know that "later" in politics means "never", and they interpret this statement to mean "poverty is more important than climate".
Interestingly, I think this is what is going on in reverse when affirmative action advocates hear people say "We should do something about RBPD, but poverty is even worse, we should focus on that first". AA advocates hear "RBPD is unimportant and we'll do it later (never)".
Perhaps you could help me with the following summary of every discussion I've had about this topic:
- Why do we care about RBPD?
Because it has lingering bad effects.
- But so does any form of past disadvantage. Why then do we focus on RBPD?
Because we have to start somewhere, and we don't have enough bandwidth to focus on everything.
- OK, but wouldn't it be simpler then to target disadvantaged individuals rather than disadvantaged groups because then we wouldn't have to solve the impossible problem of quantifying everyone's group-based net advantages and disadvantages? And also, if you adjust outcomes based on group outcomes, rather than individual outcomes (poverty), won't it be impossible to ever balance the ledger, because every time you give an advantage to one group, you disadvantage another, some members of which are disadvantaged on other axes?
And this is where it breaks down. The answer usually given is "Don't you believe in RBPD? It is horrible and there is plenty of evidence it exists!" But this doesn't answer the question at all. I've already agreed RBPD exists.
The only answer I can think of is perhaps that we should distinguish between problems caused by society (slavery) and problems not caused by society (polio), and to say that society only has an obligation to fix the former. But in this case, it becomes an issue of justice rather than outcome, and we are no longer justifying affirmative action on the basis of current bad outcomes but rather on past injustice. And if you do that, then you lose the ability to ever say when the ledger has been balanced and consequently remedies will have to go on forever.
I mean, yes, isn't that the rationale? That we as a nation directly imposed de jure segregation and then for dozens of years afterwards provided a legal framework that enabled de facto segregation? Having done that, we can't simply stop and then pretend that the wrong has been righted; the victims of that discrimination operate at a persisting disadvantage as a result of it.
Also: I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages. I'm all in favor of means-tested benefits as well. It's the opponents of affirmative action who are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten.
Also: I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages. I'm all in favor of means-tested benefits as well. It's the opponents of affirmative action who are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten.
> I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages...<AA opponents> are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten.
I didn't think you were. But, as a (weak) AA opponent, I would say that the fundamental problem with AA is that it needlessly replaces data about individuals, which we have, with group-mean data. Throwing away information like this naturally leads to all sorts of perverse results, where a poor white is considered to be doing well because the average white is, and vice-versa for blacks, etc.
So I don't say AA is "verboten", but that AA is not an alternative to means-testing, it IS means-testing, except it is means-testing of groups instead of individuals. It is also a far worse intervention than means-testing, on its own terms, for a variety of reasons [1].
It is possible to argue that AA is about justice, but in practice the benefits are always allocated based on current bad outcome. Otherwise, Asians would get preference at Harvard.
---
[1] AA disadvantages:
- AA gives advantages to people based on ethnicity, regardless of whether an individual's ancestors actually suffered the abuse in question.
- Means-testing turns the philosophical and intractable question of "how much should past suffering be worth? (in terms of admission preference, etc)" with the concrete and measurable question "how poorly is this individual doing now?"
- Means-testing is far less politically controversial.
- The AA mindset encourages people to invent an ever-expanding list of disadvantaged groups so that people can get a slice of the redress pie, leading to disputes over the relative value of different kinds of oppression.
- Even wealthy, beautiful, well-educated members of a disadvantaged group get the AA benefits. AA "subsidizes" individuals who don't need it.
I didn't think you were. But, as a (weak) AA opponent, I would say that the fundamental problem with AA is that it needlessly replaces data about individuals, which we have, with group-mean data. Throwing away information like this naturally leads to all sorts of perverse results, where a poor white is considered to be doing well because the average white is, and vice-versa for blacks, etc.
So I don't say AA is "verboten", but that AA is not an alternative to means-testing, it IS means-testing, except it is means-testing of groups instead of individuals. It is also a far worse intervention than means-testing, on its own terms, for a variety of reasons [1].
It is possible to argue that AA is about justice, but in practice the benefits are always allocated based on current bad outcome. Otherwise, Asians would get preference at Harvard.
---
[1] AA disadvantages:
- AA gives advantages to people based on ethnicity, regardless of whether an individual's ancestors actually suffered the abuse in question.
- Means-testing turns the philosophical and intractable question of "how much should past suffering be worth? (in terms of admission preference, etc)" with the concrete and measurable question "how poorly is this individual doing now?"
- Means-testing is far less politically controversial.
- The AA mindset encourages people to invent an ever-expanding list of disadvantaged groups so that people can get a slice of the redress pie, leading to disputes over the relative value of different kinds of oppression.
- Even wealthy, beautiful, well-educated members of a disadvantaged group get the AA benefits. AA "subsidizes" individuals who don't need it.
Respectfully, you keep sidestepping the point. People of reduced means are at an unfair disadvantage in our society, yes. But people of disfavored minorities are at an independent, largely uncorrelated disadvantage, over and above that. Simply means-testing benefits addresses the first injustice, but not the second one.
>Its premise is that there isn't a legacy of race-based discrimination that penalized non-white people
That's completely wrong. The premise is that race-based discrimination is a terrible evil. You don't remedy the evils of the past by doubling down on the same ignorant policies.
That's completely wrong. The premise is that race-based discrimination is a terrible evil. You don't remedy the evils of the past by doubling down on the same ignorant policies.
You can argue that the evils of race-based discrimination against black families ended long enough ago that they are no longer felt today --- again, a sweeping claim --- but I don't see how you can argue that they are, but that we are obligated to do nothing about them.
By the logic you're employing, there has been no point in the history of the US where any kind of active support for black families has been justifiable; all of it constituted some form of "race-based discrimination".
Further, I'm a little curious about how you manage to square that logic with your call for class-based discrimination. Why is it OK to discriminate against children born to families of means, but not to discriminate against non-minority families? In neither case did the child have any say in where they ended up.
By the logic you're employing, there has been no point in the history of the US where any kind of active support for black families has been justifiable; all of it constituted some form of "race-based discrimination".
Further, I'm a little curious about how you manage to square that logic with your call for class-based discrimination. Why is it OK to discriminate against children born to families of means, but not to discriminate against non-minority families? In neither case did the child have any say in where they ended up.
>You can argue that the evils of race-based discrimination against black families ended long enough ago that they are no longer felt today
Nobody can credibly argue this, and it isn't the argument I'm making.
> but I don't see how you can argue that they are, but that we are obligated to do nothing about them.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we need help all people who are suffering in poverty, regardless of whether that resulted from race-based discrimination or any other social-ill, which are many.
>By the logic you're employing, there has been no point in the history of the US where any kind of active support for black families has been justifiable;
I'm saying its always wrong to treat people different based on the color of their skin, no matter what your intention or goal.
>Why is it OK to discriminate against children born to families of means, but not to discriminate against non-minority families?
Because wealth and power are not immutable characteristics. By definition the wealthy and the powerful have advantages is society. No wealthy and powerful child is suffering because a poor and powerless child got a hand up. Malik Obama doesn't need a hand up, while the white child who lives in a shack in the mountains of Appalachia certainly does.
Nobody can credibly argue this, and it isn't the argument I'm making.
> but I don't see how you can argue that they are, but that we are obligated to do nothing about them.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we need help all people who are suffering in poverty, regardless of whether that resulted from race-based discrimination or any other social-ill, which are many.
>By the logic you're employing, there has been no point in the history of the US where any kind of active support for black families has been justifiable;
I'm saying its always wrong to treat people different based on the color of their skin, no matter what your intention or goal.
>Why is it OK to discriminate against children born to families of means, but not to discriminate against non-minority families?
Because wealth and power are not immutable characteristics. By definition the wealthy and the powerful have advantages is society. No wealthy and powerful child is suffering because a poor and powerless child got a hand up. Malik Obama doesn't need a hand up, while the white child who lives in a shack in the mountains of Appalachia certainly does.
I'd like to venture that you haven't really considered my argument.
Again: take a black family and a white family of equivalent income levels. The black family, statistically, lives in a poorer neighborhood than the white family.
The harms that come from being poor are not the same as those that come from being a member of a historically disfavored minority. Both sets of harms are real. But we if solely address the class-based harms, we ratify and perpetuate the race-based harms.
It's not a complicated argument. How are you rebutting it?
Again: take a black family and a white family of equivalent income levels. The black family, statistically, lives in a poorer neighborhood than the white family.
The harms that come from being poor are not the same as those that come from being a member of a historically disfavored minority. Both sets of harms are real. But we if solely address the class-based harms, we ratify and perpetuate the race-based harms.
It's not a complicated argument. How are you rebutting it?
I don't understand the relevance of your second paragraph, either as part of the argument presented, or as a response to the parent.
The simple idea that economic means testing doesn't capture the total harm done to black families.
I thought your claim was that the harms to black families aren't just the sum of the different averages of their economic environments. That second paragraph was saying that the two are correlated. Am I misunderstanding?
The claim that racial differences are incidentally correlated (whether true coincidence or particulars of history) with economic environments is not a good argument that we should tackle inequalities in those issues at the racial level. Surely the latter only holds if you can point to causal effects.
The claim that racial differences are incidentally correlated (whether true coincidence or particulars of history) with economic environments is not a good argument that we should tackle inequalities in those issues at the racial level. Surely the latter only holds if you can point to causal effects.
>The harms that come from being poor are not the same as those that come from being a member of a historically disfavored minority.
That's where you are fundamentally wrong. Every person who worries about where their next meal is going to come from, or whether or not they are going to be homeless next month because they can't afford the rent is equally important. Nothing matters less than the "historical" reasons why people are mired in poverty. What matters is that we have a fundamentally broken society where hundreds of millions of Americans are a paycheck away from being destitute. There are far more whites than blacks living in poverty. The destitute white child living in a trailer in Appalachia, born to a single, drug-addicted mother has absolutely no privilege. To suggest that we should favor someone of a different skin color because their ancestors had different historical disadvantages is absolutely absurd.
>But we if solely address the class-based harms, we ratify and perpetuate the race-based harms.
Again, your logic is absolutely upside down. By codifying race-based favoritism, we are perpetuating the racist policies of the past that you are decrying. Suggesting that we should factor the skin color of the child born into a poverty-ridden, drug-addicted slum when considering how much help he deserves from society is not only disgusting, its offensive. That it is our official national policy is an absolute disgrace, and one of many symptoms of our sick society. If we want to evolve as a society, we need to move past our archaic, artificially created divisions. Those of you who seek to judge people based on the color of their skin are all the same, whether or not you wear the hoods.
That's where you are fundamentally wrong. Every person who worries about where their next meal is going to come from, or whether or not they are going to be homeless next month because they can't afford the rent is equally important. Nothing matters less than the "historical" reasons why people are mired in poverty. What matters is that we have a fundamentally broken society where hundreds of millions of Americans are a paycheck away from being destitute. There are far more whites than blacks living in poverty. The destitute white child living in a trailer in Appalachia, born to a single, drug-addicted mother has absolutely no privilege. To suggest that we should favor someone of a different skin color because their ancestors had different historical disadvantages is absolutely absurd.
>But we if solely address the class-based harms, we ratify and perpetuate the race-based harms.
Again, your logic is absolutely upside down. By codifying race-based favoritism, we are perpetuating the racist policies of the past that you are decrying. Suggesting that we should factor the skin color of the child born into a poverty-ridden, drug-addicted slum when considering how much help he deserves from society is not only disgusting, its offensive. That it is our official national policy is an absolute disgrace, and one of many symptoms of our sick society. If we want to evolve as a society, we need to move past our archaic, artificially created divisions. Those of you who seek to judge people based on the color of their skin are all the same, whether or not you wear the hoods.
We're not "codifying race-based favoritism". I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. That's OK; there's no reason we'd expect the two of us to resolve this debate on HN.
Is this person debating, or just acting economically? Does a moth fly towards the light because it believes in any explicit ideas in its brain, or because statistically moths flying towards light means a better off situation for moths as a whole? Does a baby _decide_ to cry?
Whatever the issues with trying to admit a diverse class, the fact that American universities still give privileges to legacy students is an outrage.
I'd venture to say that this is just the start of the coming race wars. As the American demographic increasingly turns brown, there could be significant social upheaval versus the "status quo."
> the coming race wars
Well, that's not something I'm used to hearing, besides from people like Richard Spencer or other white nationalists. Care to elaborate on why you think race wars are imminent? Somehow I don't see them happening over Harvard admissions...
Well, that's not something I'm used to hearing, besides from people like Richard Spencer or other white nationalists. Care to elaborate on why you think race wars are imminent? Somehow I don't see them happening over Harvard admissions...
Harvard admissions is just the tip of the iceberg.
Balkanization of the USA is evident. Which multi ethnic societies in history have done well?
Is this a globalist agenda pushed by elite ruling class? Can they disintegrate our tribal tendencies and replace them with global values?
Is this a globalist agenda pushed by elite ruling class? Can they disintegrate our tribal tendencies and replace them with global values?
I support affirmative action but not people lying that they're unbiased.
Should trade secrets even apply to an organization that is supposed to be a non-profit? What are they even competing against?
Why not? Nonprofit just means no one is a capital shareholder taking profit. It means nothing about the mission, values, or economic rights of the organization. The NFL is a nonprofit.
It's a private institution. So long as it doesn't accept public money or break any discrimination laws, it should be allowed to keep its admission process private. Does anyone honestly think George bush was admitted because of his grades? Let's find something meaningful to be outraged about. We are never going to win this one and it's not worth fighting.
Financial aid (FAFSA) is a federal program (meaning public tax dollars are used to keep it running) that channels a lot of money to all schools, including the Ivy League.
I'd argue in a court of law that assistance to their student body should be cut immediately if they don't open up their record and policy books. We can proceed from there.
I'd argue in a court of law that assistance to their student body should be cut immediately if they don't open up their record and policy books. We can proceed from there.
[deleted]
Contrast this "trade secret" to a chat with an Oxford don, and you'll find the don is quite straightforward in admitting they are fallible. Some admits are duds, and some are hits. Decisions are made based on a small amount of information, but only the dons decide what happens. They try hard to let in disadvantaged kids, but it's a crap shoot deciding who has potential and who doesn't. They rarely care about anything other than academics. (I'm not sure how they recruit the rowers.)
It's just laughable that an admissions process is a trade secret, and unless there's a compelling explanation given, I would assume they claim this because they are being sued by Asians about bias, and giving places to legacies, which is just as bad for a place that sells itself on excellence.