Supreme Court Ruling, Race based admissions.

[darkamgine]

If there is any drop in the number of black and Hispanic matriculants to MD schools, I believe it will be only temporary. I am very confident that they will raise their game and their average gpa/mcat will go up.

When you say this, it feels like you are projecting an false illusion to cover up the reality, especially when it is based on an empty assumption that things will fix itself. What makes you so confident that they will "raise their game and their average gpa/mcat will go up."? Why won't they just quit medicine/physician for other fields?

It would be the equivalent of an African-American saying, "the low Asian representation in sports is just temporary, I am very confident they will raise their game and get into the major leagues." It's not like Asians cannot play sports at the highest level. There was Linsanity and now Shohei Ohtani who is at the top of the league. But the infrastructure and culture is not there for most Asians to pursue professional sports. It's not like there will be a sudden increase of Asians who want to overcome the barriers to get into sports. Because of the barriers, most Asian-Americans do not even consider sports as a future profession. And who knows, maybe we missed the next Steph Curry or Lebron James just because they were a different race and focused on academics.

On the other side, African-Americans have the opposite issue.

"I do this science experiment when I am in school. Let's say I am in a White school, I say 'how many want to play pro sports?' Less than 10% raise their hand. 'I wanna be a doctor, I wanna be a lawyer, I wanna be an engineer'. When I speak at Black schools, 90% of the kids want to play sports. 90%. There's a couple that wanna be doctors, which makes me proud, but 90% of the kids when I speak in Black schools... Our kids are brainwashed if they think they can only play sports or be entertainers. You have a better chance of being a doctor than being in the NBA."

And this quote by Barkley.

They put us in a box where we can only be sports and entertainers," complains Barkley, who never graduated from Auburn. "White kids grow up thinking they can be doctors, lawyers and engineers. Black kids don't think that. My goal is to get young black kids, I never talk to them about sports. Never. I say hey, you can be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, teacher, fireman, policeman, things like that. I never talk to them about playing sports. It's unrealistic.

Not only does he talk to children about careers but put his money into as well helping others.

He donated a million dollars to help Hurricane Katrina victims. He gave a million to an all-black Birmingham elementary school and another million to Leeds High to help students pay for college. Initially, he earmarked the Leeds scholarships for black students. Then, two years into the program, a young white girl told him, "We've got some poor white kids who want to go to college, too." The scholarships were expanded to include everyone.

Initiatives like these are what are needed if we want change to happen. However, changes like this is like swimming upstream where constant effort is needed. Otherwise, water flow downstream and things will happen in a predictable manner. Everyone expects a drop in URM but all of a sudden, things will reverse because they raised their game? I prefer Newton's first law of motion, inertia.

Lastly, as an Asian male and ORM, there are some issues which I am face because of who I was born as. I am male and if some woman does not want me to examine their privates and would prefer a female physician, I will accommodate that. If someone cannot speak English and wants a doctor who speaks their language, that is their preference and I am okay with that. If someone has a distrust for the medical system because they are used to radical discrimination such as racial profiling by police and jobs, and prefer someone of their own race, I will try to get them that service. In the end, I will adapt to my patient's needs if reasonable. I cannot solve the issues within the African-American community but I will be understanding towards their struggles.

One final analogy is if you had 4 adopted children, would it be fair to give them all the same resources regardless of their need or ability? Or would you consider each of their circumstances and decide what is suitable for each, perhaps giving different amounts of resources and time to each? Yeah, I know Harvard undergrad was basically penalizing Asian-Americans to benefit others which is unquestionably wrong, but focus on the question. So if one of the children is struggling to stay in school, would you not help them? Just let them flunk because they are not as prepared as the others? Would you do the same if they were not adopted but children you raised? When you break down these racial barriers, you realize there is only one race, human.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eigen]

And do you get high stats URM applications at your school? They all seems to be grabbed by T10 schools with scholarships. Sometimes I wonder how adcoms from one school can comment on process at schools like Harvard.

I'm not at a medical school, so I don't get applications "at my school".

But I have applicants that have gotten into schools of every rank and in every state in the US, which I feel like gives me a pretty good window into the process from a more holistic viewpoint. These students include URM and ORM students all over the "stats" range.

 

[Plut0]

You don't really provide reasoning here, but given your figures it seems you might be conflating outcome (action) with intent (cultural values).

Action and behavior is what counts. Any one can claim any "values" without following through with action. When people express a hope that Blacks and Hispanics will "value education more" or "need to pull themselves up," it is talking about concrete action and not checking a different box on a survey.

Differences in outcome can also be due to circumstance: less money spent on education because there is less money to go around, less time spent studying due to a need to work and bring in money, less parental time spent focused on children's education because of competing jobs. Given the immense differences in average income in the US between Asian, Black and Hispanic families, I would posit that your second figure simply shows that families who have higher income are more likely to spend more on education. In fact, the relative breakdown of money spent on education follows the exact same order (Asian > White > Hispanic > Black) that median household income follows.

View attachment 373946

Your hypothesis, if true, is perfectly compatible with what I posted. Poorer households for a variety of reasons on average exhibit behaviors that value education less, and Blacks tend to be poorer, so by extension Blacks on average exhibit behaviors that value education less.

In any case, the study where I got the first figure examined the issue and concluded that different household incomes do not fully explain racial differences. Analyzing 'the homework gap' among high school students | Brookings

 

[eigen]

Your hypothesis, if true, is perfectly compatible with what I posted. Poorer households for a variety of reasons on average exhibit behaviors that value education less, and Blacks tend to be poorer, so by extension Blacks on average exhibit behaviors that value education less.

I'm not sure this statement is synonymous with any definition of "value". And, again, comes across as a casually racist and dismissive comment. Saying people who can't afford education just need to "value it more" is dismissive. Saying something is a "value" is about intent and importance, not about outcomes (concrete action).

Ignoring (or minimizing) the SES factor and focusing on race to suggest that certain racial and ethnic groups are less deserving because of lower accomplishment in a particular metric with known biases is, again, problematic.

These comments are particularly problematic, IMO, when they come from people who want to be physicians. The parallels between educational attainment and social determinants of health are numerous, and I would wonder how you would apply this same logic to, say, gaps in health outcomes between racial groups.

Would you suggest, for example, that the worse health outcomes among African Americans in the US is because they "need to value health more"? Or would you look at and understand the complex socioeconomic factors that result in worse health outcomes for some groups than others, and look at systemic solutions to help those groups?

 

[texasvandy]

I follow Texas school threads closely and do know several people who were admitted to elite schools this year. Someone with high stats (75 LizzyM or above) and URM do fare reasonably well at elite schools irrespective of their circumstances if they are URM. I predicted to someone with a 79 early in the cycle they would not be in Texas and sure enough they received 3 top 10 admissions and leaving Texas.

It is unnatural to assume elite schools are only looking for low SES among URMs. They admit every kind among every race with low SES. 2 Asians with low SES got admitted to Cornell and Yale with almost a full ride (both with 80+ LizzyM) while 2 URMs who didn't qualify for aid got admitted to Hopkins and one with low SES got admitted pretty much everywhere in the nation. Top medical schools who only have financial FA are not even asking students for their financial information before they admit them so some of the SES info can seep through only via their essays.

I trust the schools when they say they admit students without FA concerns. Two Asians who got great FA in undergrad still got into top schools and got full FA again while URMs with high stats who were admitted didnot get any FA or got full FA based on their circumstances. There is a well known URM couple from Texas who posted a thread with their questions about school selection (one had well off parents with no FA and the other first gen and they attended a top undergrad). They had to try to stay together by attending closeby schools since they didnt both get into same schools (combination of Harvard and Yale, UCSF and Stanford etc) or WashU while both had full rides from UTSW.

 

[john7991]

When you say this, it feels like you are projecting an false illusion to cover up the reality, especially when it is based on an empty assumption that things will fix itself. What makes you so confident that they will "raise their game and their average gpa/mcat will go up."? Why won't they just quit medicine/physician for other fields?

It would be the equivalent of an African-American saying, "the low Asian representation in sports is just temporary, I am very confident they will raise their game and get into the major leagues." It's not like Asians cannot play sports at the highest level. There was Linsanity and now Shohei Ohtani who is at the top of the league. But the infrastructure and culture is not there for most Asians to pursue professional sports. It's not like there will be a sudden increase of Asians who want to overcome the barriers to get into sports. Because of the barriers, most Asian-Americans do not even consider sports as a future profession. And who knows, maybe we missed the next Steph Curry or Lebron James just because they were a different race and focused on academics.

On the other side, African-Americans have the opposite issue.


And this quote by Barkley.


Not only does he talk to children about careers but put his money into as well helping others.

Initiatives like these are what are needed if we want change to happen. However, changes like this is like swimming upstream where constant effort is needed. Otherwise, water flow downstream and things will happen in a predictable manner. Everyone expects a drop in URM but all of a sudden, things will reverse because they raised their game? I prefer Newton's first law of motion, inertia.

Lastly, as an Asian male and ORM, there are some issues which I am face because of who I was born as. I am male and if some woman does not want me to examine their privates and would prefer a female physician, I will accommodate that. If someone cannot speak English and wants a doctor who speaks their language, that is their preference and I am okay with that. If someone has a distrust for the medical system because they are used to radical discrimination such as racial profiling by police and jobs, and prefer someone of their own race, I will try to get them that service. In the end, I will adapt to my patient's needs if reasonable. I cannot solve the issues within the African-American community but I will be understanding towards their struggles.

One final analogy is if you had 4 adopted children, would it be fair to give them all the same resources regardless of their need or ability? Or would you consider each of their circumstances and decide what is suitable for each, perhaps giving different amounts of resources and time to each? Yeah, I know Harvard undergrad was basically penalizing Asian-Americans to benefit others which is unquestionably wrong, but focus on the question. So if one of the children is struggling to stay in school, would you not help them? Just let them flunk because they are not as prepared as the others? Would you do the same if they were not adopted but children you raised? When you break down these racial barriers, you realize there is only one race, human.

I agree with everything you said except using the word penalize to express how Harvard was handling AA. When you say penalize, it makes it sound like colleges were consciously punishing (which I think if it were the case, admissions would be resigning and losing their jobs) Asians for being Asian. I can see how it seems like being Asian is a penalty though

 

[deleted961749]

I agree with everything you said except using the word penalize to express how Harvard was handling AA. When you say penalize, it makes it sound like colleges were consciously punishing (which I think if it were the case, admissions would be resigning and losing their jobs) Asians for being Asian. I can see how it seems like being Asian is a penalty though

Harvard undergrad admissions did actively punish Asian-American applicants by giving them lower personality scores than those of every other race. This is a well-documented phenomenon that you can easily look up. There’s no telling whether similar discrimination occurs at any other school other than UNC (where it does not) or any other level of higher education, but it did occur at Harvard at the undergraduate level. There’s no denying it.

 

[esob]

I agree with this but I have noticed a lot of anti blackness in this thread that was rarely called out (e.g. “Asian Americans work harder than URM/ Asian Americans earned it” etc.) However, when I called it out, I received a lot of negative feedback. Let’s just make sure we aren’t stereotyping from all sides here.

My reply was in response to a reported post. If any community member sees inappropriate content they should report it so that the moderation team can review it. As much as we would love to, we can't read every post that is made (there are more than 8 million posts in the premed community alone), so we rely on the community to alert us when something is inappropriate

 

[john7991]

Harvard undergrad admissions did actively punish Asian-American applicants by giving them lower personality scores than those of every other race. This is a well-documented phenomenon that you can easily look up. There’s no telling whether similar discrimination occurs at any other school other than UNC (where it does not) or any other level of higher education, but it did occur at Harvard at the undergraduate level. There’s no denying it.

I agree that it is a phenomenon, yes, but the word phenomenon is defined as:

a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

The fact is that Asians got the lowest scores when it came to personality. The cause was never proven to be discrimination. I know it seems like there’s undeniable evidence, but since it wasn’t proven, there is deniability.

There are multiple arguments that suggest Harvard wasn’t actually discriminating.

 

[deleted961749]

I agree that it is a phenomenon, yes, but the word phenomenon is defined as:

a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

The fact is that Asians got the lowest scores when it came to personality. The cause was never proven to be discrimination. I know it seems like there’s undeniable evidence, but since it wasn’t proven, there is deniability.

There are multiple arguments that suggest Harvard wasn’t actually discriminating.

The definition of discrimination for your reference is: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Can you explain to me how rating Asian Americans lower in terms of personality compared to any other race somehow does not match the above definition? Do you think that the lower ratings were just?

 

[Plut0]

I agree that it is a phenomenon, yes, but the word phenomenon is defined as:

a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

The fact is that Asians got the lowest scores when it came to personality. The cause was never proven to be discrimination. I know it seems like there’s undeniable evidence, but since it wasn’t proven, there is deniability.

There are multiple arguments that suggest Harvard wasn’t actually discriminating.

The cause is very much proven as discrimination. The only two explanation for Asians having a low personality score are:
1. Asians really do have worse personality
2. Harvard is discriminating against Asians

1 is disproved by the fact that Asians have the same personality rating as other races in alumni interviews. Therefore 2 is the reason.

 

[john7991]

The definition of discrimination for your reference is: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Can you explain to me how rating Asian Americans lower in terms of personality compared to any other race somehow does not match the above definition? Do you think that the lower ratings were just?

I know what discrimination means. What I’m saying is that it wasn’t proven to be discrimination. And I will say, just because Asians scored lower, that doesn’t mean it was because of discrimination.

I can’t explain to you why Asians scored lower compared to other races in personality. All I can say is that it was never proven.

I know some people won’t like to hear that but it’s the truth. It wasn’t proven. SCOTUS never said that’s what it was and if they did then show me, I can be wrong but I checked and I’m not seeing it.

I’m not trying to cause trouble.

 

[deleted961749]

I know what discrimination means. What I’m saying is that it wasn’t proven to be discrimination. And I will say, just because Asians scored lower, that doesn’t mean it was because of discrimination.

I can’t explain to you why Asians scored lower compared to other races in personality. All I can say is that it was never proven.

I know some people won’t like to hear that but it’s the truth. It wasn’t proven. SCOTUS never said that’s what it was and if they did then show me, I can be wrong but I checked and I’m not seeing it.

I’m not trying to cause trouble.

Please give me an alternative explanation. Surely Harvard themselves would have provided some kind of explanation for this right? What evidence did they bring to the table? If neither you nor they can come up with a convincing alternative, then by process of elimination, it is discrimination.

 

[KoolGirlKaye123]

It was well documented when AAMC published tables of applicants and matriculants by GPA and MCAT by race that as a group Black and Hispanic applicants had smaller proportions of applicants in the upper right quadrant and more in the lower left. This is not to say that they are "unqualified" but if anything but the top 43% will be labeled "inferior" ... what would any reasonable applicant do?

There are far more "qualified" applicants than there are seats. One argument is that grades and scores trump all else and that is the definition of "the best". Others would observe that above a given threshold (which is relatively low - maybe 510/5.60), everyone is academically qualified. Where do we go from there? If it is going to be that LizzyM score, however flawed (I don't even use it anymore -- the math got wonky after the MCAT scoring system changed) is the only thing, then yes, everyone who isn't already 4.0/527 is going to have to up their game.

It’s the wording that’s offensive. If you look at their previous posts, you would see where we are coming from.

 

[john7991]

The cause is very much proven as discrimination. The only two explanation for Asians having a low personality score are:
1. Asians really do have worse personality
2. Harvard is discriminating against Asians

1 is disproved by the fact that Asians have the same personality rating as other races in alumni interviews. Therefore 2 is the reason.

The judges in the lower courts said there’s no proof of discrimination and when SFFA brought it up to SCOTUS, AA was overturned, but SC justices never said Asians were being discriminated against. I’m sorry but it wasn’t proven.

Harvard decides what they want in their students and that includes personality traits which means that if they gave someone a low personality score, it’s not because that person has a bad personality but that they don’t have the traits that Harvard is looking for or maybe they had less of it than another applicant, or maybe they did have those traits but didn’t express it as well as another applicant. That’s it. Harvard is telling the people they deny (based on personality) that they don’t have certain personality traits that they want in their students. It doesn’t mean you’re boring or have one of the worst personalities if Harvard determines that you don’t have the traits they want.

Please give me an alternative explanation. Surely Harvard themselves would have provided some kind of explanation for this right? What evidence did they bring to the table? If neither you nor they can come up with a convincing alternative, then by process of elimination, it is discrimination.

I could give you my opinion if you want it.

 

[deleted961749]

The judges in the lower courts said there’s no proof of discrimination and when SFFA brought it up to SCOTUS, AA was overturned, but SC justices never said Asians were being discriminated against. I’m sorry but it wasn’t proven.

Harvard decides what they want in their students and that includes personality traits which means that if they gave someone a low personality score, it’s not because that person has a bad personality but that they don’t have the traits that Harvard is looking for or maybe they had less of it than another applicant, or maybe they did have those traits but didn’t express it as well as another applicant. That’s it. Harvard is telling the people they deny (based on personality) that they don’t have certain personality traits that they want in their students. It doesn’t mean you’re boring or have one of the worst personalities if Harvard determines that you don’t have the traits they want.


I could give you my opinion if you want it.

Yes I’m very interested in hearing why you think one race of applicants would, on average, be significantly less suitable for Harvard than any other. Your continued defense of Harvard in the face of such clear evidence of discrimination is frankly astonishing to me.

 

[senecca]

The judges in the lower courts said there’s no proof of discrimination and when SFFA brought it up to SCOTUS, AA was overturned, but SC justices never said Asians were being discriminated against. I’m sorry but it wasn’t proven.

Harvard decides what they want in their students and that includes personality traits which means that if they gave someone a low personality score, it’s not because that person has a bad personality but that they don’t have the traits that Harvard is looking for or maybe they had less of it than another applicant, or maybe they did have those traits but didn’t express it as well as another applicant. That’s it. Harvard is telling the people they deny (based on personality) that they don’t have certain personality traits that they want in their students. It doesn’t mean you’re boring or have one of the worst personalities if Harvard determines that you don’t have the traits they want.


I could give you my opinion if you want it.

Dear Friend, I do not know your race. But, please do me a favor. Please replace “Asian American “ with your race in your text and read it again and ask yourself how you feel. Also, if Harvard consistently gave negative personality rating to all applicants from your own race, would you still defend them for that ? You don’t have to respond, just ask yourself.

See, there are no judges in America. There are only liberal judges and conservative judges because all are appointed by the politicians. So, unfortunately their opinion (both liberal and conservative) do not carry much weight. I listened to the three or four hours of the entire oral arguments of the Harvard and UNC cases, none of the three liberal judges ever uttered the words “Asian Americans” even once. It was as if they felt disgusted in saying those words. How can you expect them to accept that harvard discriminated against Asian Americans ? It will never happen. Too much to ask. Same with the lower courts judges, they are liberal judges. You can wake up someone who is sleeping, definitely not someone who pretends to be sleeping.

Harvard themselves admitted that if race was removed from consideration, the Asian Americans would constitute 45% of their class. It is proved and supported by the demographics at CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA etc. But, again it is up to the individuals to acknowledge it and accept it or just dismiss it.

Edit: fixed some typos.

 

[KoolGirlKaye123]

Dear Friend, I do not know your race. But, please do me favor. Please replace “Asian American “ with your race in your text and read it again and ask yourself how you feel. Also, if Harvard consistently gave negative rating to all applicants from your own race, would you defend them ? You don’t have to respond, just ask yourself.

I think YOU should also apply this method when you speak about Black/African American applicants

 

[senecca]

I think YOU should also apply this method when you speak about Black/African American applicants

I always do that. We will wait for 5 years and discuss about what I said. We will have some data by then. What I said was only a positive thing even though you saw it the opposite way. It happens.

 

[KoolGirlKaye123]

I always do that. We will wait for 5 years and discuss about what I said. We will have some data by then. What I said was only a positive thing even though you saw it the opposite way. It happens.

I'm not talking about the data. You're stuck on data but not seeing the negative impact your language and tone can have on people. Imagine talking to a patient from an underrepresented background like this. I promise you that patients care more about being treated well and respected than they do their physicians' MCAT score/GPA. I think we need to be more patient-centered here. They are the most affected in all of this, not the privileged folks who are able to apply to college and medical school.

Attending college is a privilege itself yet people are crying about not getting into Harvard... Let's "be for real"

 

[deleted961749]

I'm not talking about the data. You're stuck on data but not seeing the negative impact your language and tone can have on people. Imagine talking to a patient from an underrepresented background like this. I promise you that patients care more about being treated well and respected than they do their physicians' MCAT score/GPA. I think we need to be more patient-centered here. They are the most affected in all of this, not the privileged folks who are able to apply to college and medical school.

Attending college is a privilege itself yet people are crying about not getting into Harvard... Let's "be for real"

View attachment 373974

I realize this is an extremely first-world problem. However, I take issue with people using whataboutisms to deny the problematic nature of Harvard’s statistically-proven penalty for Asian-American applicants. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, you are cool in my books.

 

[Plut0]

The judges in the lower courts said there’s no proof of discrimination and when SFFA brought it up to SCOTUS, AA was overturned, but SC justices never said Asians were being discriminated against.

When the lower courts said Harvard's admission scheme did not constitute "discrimination", they were referring to discrimination in the legal sense established by Grutter. The Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter precisely because its flawed standards legitimized the discriminatory (treating people differently) behavior of Harvard.

There were statistical evidence showing an Asian penalty, recorded anti-Asian stereotype remarks from the admissions committee, and to top it off, Harvard's shameful history of doing the exact same thing to Jews a century ago.

Harvard decides what they want in their students and that includes personality traits which means that if they gave someone a low personality score, it’s not because that person has a bad personality but that they don’t have the traits that Harvard is looking for or maybe they had less of it than another applicant, or maybe they did have those traits but didn’t express it as well as another applicant. That’s it. Harvard is telling the people they deny (based on personality) that they don’t have certain personality traits that they want in their students. It doesn’t mean you’re boring or have one of the worst personalities if Harvard determines that you don’t have the traits they want.

The alumni interviewers, who actually spoke to the applicants, did not rate Asians lower. But the admission committee, who inexplicably included knowledge of race in making their decisions, did.

I am curious as to what you think of alleged discrimination in other parts of society. If a qualified woman was passed over for promotion because the business was looking for someone "stable and reliable," do you give the business the benefit of doubt? If a Black applicant was rejected because a company is looking for someone "who can connect with our White clients," do you find it perfectly acceptable?

I’m sorry but it wasn’t proven.

What, in your mind, would it take to prove discrimination? Do you consistently apply this standard when it comes to alleged discrimination against other races?

In any case, I encourage you to read my previous post where I explained the federal Title VI litigation process. You will find that the courts have developed analytically frameworks to prove discrimination precisely to combat disingenuous arguments like "Harvards is looking for certain personality traits".

 

[KoolGirlKaye123]

I realize this is an extremely first-world problem. However, I take issue with people using whataboutisms to deny the problematic nature of Harvard’s statistically-proven penalty for Asian-American applicants. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, you are cool in my books.

It's an issue that doesn't require denigrating another group, especially one that is extremely marginalized and underrepresented in these spaces. So as long as you're willing to acknowledge that, "you are cool" in my books as well.

 

[deleted961749]

It's an issue that doesn't require denigrating another group, especially one that is extremely marginalized and underrepresented in these spaces. So as long as you're willing to acknowledge that, "you are cool" in my books as well.

I agree. It looks like we’re on the same page.

 

[john7991]

Dear Friend, I do not know your race. But, please do me a favor. Please replace “Asian American “ with your race in your text and read it again and ask yourself how you feel. Also, if Harvard consistently gave negative personality rating to all applicants from your own race, would you still defend them for that ? You don’t have to respond, just ask yourself.

I did what you asked and I felt bad, but that’s natural. Most people would feel bad if they heard claims that their race was being discriminated against, but if they do their own research with an open mind, they might feel better.

I am not defending Harvard. I have never said Harvard is innocent.

See, there are no judges in America. There are only liberal judges and conservative judges because all are appointed by the politicians.
So, unfortunately their opinion (both liberal and conservative) do not carry much weight.

I believe we have many nonpartisan judges, so with this, I disagree.

I listened to the three or four hours of the entire oral arguments of the Harvard and UNC cases, none of the three liberal judges ever uttered the words “Asian Americans” even once. It was as if they felt disgusted in saying those words. How can you expect them to accept that harvard discriminated against Asian Americans ? It will never happen. Too much to ask. Same with the lower courts judges, they are liberal judges. You can wake up someone who is sleeping, definitely not someone who pretends to be sleeping.

I really don’t think them never saying “Asian American” means much. How many times did they speak and when they spoke, how long did they speak for? Everyone knew the case involved Asian Americans, so saying it repeatedly, since it’s a lengthy thing to say (six syllables), maybe, just isn’t necessary. You seem to imply that just because the justices never said “Asian American,” they’re racist or something or it’s proof that they hold bias towards Asian Americans, leading to them voting with AA, which I find very hard to believe.

Harvard themselves admitted that if race was removed from consideration, the Asian Americans would constitute 45% of their class. It is proved and supported by the demographics at CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA etc. But, again it is up to the individuals to acknowledge it and accept it or just dismiss it.

No, Harvard did not say that.

Harvard said (they never actually said this by the way):

If only academics were considered, Asians would make up 43% of the admitted class.

They did not say race, a common misconception.

The thing is, Harvard isn’t a college that wants the best students (4.0). Their vision does not align with that of a meritocracy. Harvard wants people who they think are going to make an impact in the world, people with certain traits that they believe is what makes great leaders great. This is what the personality rating argument is about.

Can Harvard not decide what they want? Can they not choose to only admit students with 2.5 GPAs if that is what they wanted?

You’re under the impression that Harvard must choose you because of your grades.

This thinking is the same thing as a guy asking a girl “I’m a nice guy so why won’t you date me?”

 

[senecca]

You seem to imply that just because the justices never said “Asian American,” they’re racist or something or it’s proof that they hold bias towards Asian Americans, leading to them voting with AA, which I find very hard to believe.

No, I didn’t say/imply that they are racists. That’s a very strong word that I would never like to use it against anyone. I never used that word in my life ever. I consider it as very offensive to use it against anyone and it is against my nature. I meant to say they were biased . That’s it.

Edit: added a few more lines.

 

[Goro]

You’re under the impression that Harvard must choose you because of your grades.

This thinking is the same thing as a guy asking a girl “I’m a nice guy so why won’t you date me?”

I never thought of comparing hyperacheivers and the stat-obsessed to incels, but your comparison is apt.

 

[deleted961749]

I never thought of comparing hyperacheivers and the stat-obsessed to incels, but your comparison is apt.

I’m not sure about that. Schools accept government money and have to follow certain laws regarding admissions. No individual is bound to the same laws when choosing who to date. Also, I don’t think anyone sane is advocating for affirmative action in the dating scene LOL

 

[please.let.me.in]

I really don’t think them never saying “Asian American” means much. How many times did they speak and when they spoke, how long did they speak for? Everyone knew the case involved Asian Americans, so saying it repeatedly, since it’s a lengthy thing to say (six syllables), maybe, just isn’t necessary. You seem to imply that just because the justices never said “Asian American,” they’re racist or something or it’s proof that they hold bias towards Asian Americans, leading to them voting with AA, which I find very hard to believe.


No, Harvard did not say that.

Harvard said (they never actually said this by the way):

If only academics were considered, Asians would make up 43% of the admitted class.

They did not say race, a common misconception.

The thing is, Harvard isn’t a college that wants the best students (4.0). Their vision does not align with that of a meritocracy. Harvard wants people who they think are going to make an impact in the world, people with certain traits that they believe is what makes great leaders great. This is what the personality rating argument is about.

Can Harvard not decide what they want? Can they not choose to only admit students with 2.5 GPAs if that is what they wanted?

You’re under the impression that Harvard must choose you because of your grades.

This thinking is the same thing as a guy asking a girl “I’m a nice guy so why won’t you date me?”

The thing is, Harvard isn’t a college that wants the best students (4.0). Their vision does not align with that of a meritocracy. Harvard wants people who they think are going to make an impact in the world, people with certain traits that they believe is what makes great leaders great. This is what the personality rating argument is about.

When you look at Harvard's arguments like the one you presented here, they essentially are saying that they consider three-four facets of each applicant:

1) Academics. GPA, SAT/ACT, class rank.
This is probably the easiest thing to evaluate because it is largely quantitative data. Asians in this country, have consistently shown themselves to excel academically. Right or wrong, much of this is due to cultural factors that have been mentioned.

2) Extracurriculars. This like sport/club involvement. Playing an instrument/artistic endeavors. Community service.
This is a harder category to weigh/compare. As far as I know, there are no comprehensive studies in higher academia that compare extracurricular involvement between racial categories of admitted college students. However, I think most of us are familiar with anecdotal evidence that Asian Americans are very competitive with regards to extracurricular involvement (i.e. playing cello since age three, debate club president, competitive swimmer, etc.), again, much to do with cultural factors.

3) Legacy. How many generations of your family have attended a school. This is in many ways a necessary evil for prestigious schools. The donations and connections that wealthy alumni families contribute forces schools to play by their tune to an extent.
For the most part, this will largely advantage white students since minorities of any kind have only been legally allowed to attend prestigious schools for about two generations or so.

By my estimation, the first and second categories are typically at least positive or neutral for a typical Asian American applicant. The third category is neutral or negative for a typical Asian American applicant.

This brings us to the fourth category:

4) Character. Adversity that an individual has overcome. Life experiences that have shaped them. Heart for their community (rather than just checking a box for community service). Goals for their life and future.

This is also a hard category to quantify, however, Harvard (and many other schools) have taken it upon themselves to create a metric scale for the purposes of translating diverse experiences into a single, quantitative measure.

When Harvard is asked to explain why their proportion of Asian students is lower than the proportion you would expect from "academics alone,"
and they bring up CHARACTER SCORES, I shouldn't have to explain to you how demeaning, insulting, hurtful, and, ultimately racist it is to even mention it. When people defend Harvard with reasoning like I quoted above that Harvard shouldn't just decide solely based on grades but that "Harvard wants people who they think are going to make an impact in the world, people with certain traits that they believe is what makes great leaders great." What you are implying by that statement is that Asians, for some unstated reason, do not have the special something that makes great leaders great or will cause them to make an impact on the world. Again, highly, HIGHLY, insulting.

We only know that this is happening at Harvard because Harvard was sued and was forced to disclose evidence in discovery. Given that Harvard is a leader in higher education, it is highly probable that other elite institutions are following their lead. In light of this, maybe don't call a high-achieving Asian American a conspiracy theorist after they voice their frustrations with faceless admission committees at the graduate and undergraduate level. Admissions committees who reject them without ever looking them in the eye or explaining exactly why they did not receive an acceptance past a courtesy "we received applications from many highly-qualified applicants this year and have only a few spots" cop-out.

Edit: Grammar

 

[senecca]

I never thought of comparing hyperacheivers and the stat-obsessed to incels, but your comparison is apt.

This comment sounds very offensive to me. If having high or perfect stats is considered as such a bad thing, schools and universities should convey it to all the students when they enroll, so that they would be better informed and stay within the accepted/recommended level.

. One can have high stats, be good in writing and also have impressive extracurriculars, they are not mutually exclusive. Even Harvard acknowledges that Asian Americans outperform other groups even in extracurriculars.

I never said “use only stats”. As I mentioned a few times, GPA/MCAT/SAT come up frequently in discussions only because they are the objective measures, visible and tangible. It is like comparing apples to apples.

CalTech, Berkeley, ucla etc do not consider only GPA and SAT, they do use all the aspects of holistic admissions except the race. Asian Americans cannot secure 45% of the seats in those highly competitive institutions only with good grades and SAT.

I hope I made it clear. I do not have anything more to say. I am out of here.

 

[please.let.me.in]

I never thought of comparing hyperacheivers and the stat-obsessed to incels, but your comparison is apt.

@Goro
You did not directly call anyone on this thread out by name. However, given the flow of this conversation, it is not hard to tell which users you were thinking about and responding to when you chose to say this. For you to compare people that you've never met anywhere other than an online forum to "incels" says more about you than it does about them. The fact that, per your profile, you are a faculty member and "verified expert" of some kind disappoints and disgusts me. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am direct messaging you my name and number. If you want to double down on what you implied here about me and others like me, go ahead and give me a call. Also, please let everyone here know what institution you are involved with. That way, we will all know the prejudices of at least one school that any reapplicants following this thread don't need to waste their money applying to.

 

[SnailPo]

I’m gonna go outside tomorrow and touch some grass, get a little sunshine, take a deep breath of fresh air, etc. Judging by the last few comments, it would be in some of y’all’s best interest to do the same 😌

 

[LunaOri]

@Goro
You did not directly call anyone on this thread out by name. However, given the flow of this conversation, it is not hard to tell which users you were thinking about and responding to when you chose to say this. For you to compare people that you've never met anywhere other than an online forum to "incels" says more about you than it does about them. The fact that, per your profile, you are a faculty member and "verified expert" of some kind disappoints and disgusts me. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am direct messaging you my name and number. If you want to double down on what you implied here about me and others like me, go ahead and give me a call. Also, please let everyone here know what institution you are involved with. That way, we will all know the prejudices of at least one school that any reapplicants following this thread don't need to waste their money applying to.

He was referring to the sense of entitlement, not to the personal attractiveness.

 

[john7991]

When the lower courts said Harvard's admission scheme did not constitute "discrimination", they were referring to discrimination in the legal sense established by Grutter. The Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter precisely because its flawed standards legitimized the discriminatory (treating people differently) behavior of Harvard.

From what I’ve read, they, lower courts, said that AA, and how Harvard was using it, doesn’t constitute discrimination in the legal sense, but they also said that SFFA didn’t prove that Harvard is placing a race penalty on Asians.

When it comes to SCOTUS, they were very vague and they never tied their decision (to get rid of AA) to the claim that Harvard was discriminating against Asians.

Two things about the case:

1) AA was put to an end,

2) (what I’m getting) the core reasoning behind SFFA’s lawsuit against Harvard was that Asians were discriminated against by the personal rating. The personal rating still exists. SC never said (at least not specifically) that the personal rating was being used as a race penalty (discrimination) and that Harvard can’t use it anymore. It was never proven as a tool for discrimination, therefore, even if what SFFA claims is true about the personality tests, and even though AA is no longer a thing, Asians will still be at a disadvantage because of the personal rating which still exists, and because it still exists, Asians will continue to score the lowest in Harvard’s personality tests. Sure, the ending of AA might increase some Asians’ chances, but the Asian plaintiffs in SFFA never actually got what they wanted. Edward Blum got what he wanted though.

There were statistical evidence showing an Asian penalty, recorded anti-Asian stereotype remarks from the admissions committee, and to top it off, Harvard's shameful history of doing the exact same thing to Jews a century ago.
The alumni interviewers, who actually spoke to the applicants, did not rate Asians lower. But the admission committee, who inexplicably included knowledge of race in making their decisions, did.

Harvard’s alumni interviewers meet with nearly every applicant. The adcoms only meet with a few which are very rare cases, therefore you can’t really compare. Adcoms are very serious people so of course they’re going to give applicants lower ratings than the alumni interviewers (who are just volunteers) would. The alumni interviewers don’t get paid to interview the applicants.

I am curious as to what you think of alleged discrimination in other parts of society. If a qualified woman was passed over for promotion because the business was looking for someone "stable and reliable," do you give the business the benefit of doubt?

I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt, I would ask them what about the woman made them think she isn’t stable/reliable.

If a Black applicant was rejected because a company is looking for someone "who can connect with our White clients," do you find it perfectly acceptable?

No, I don’t think that’s acceptable.

What, in your mind, would it take to prove discrimination? Do you consistently apply this standard when it comes to alleged discrimination against other races?

I think it takes proof to prove discrimination and the only standard I would use if someone is accused of discrimination is proof.

You’re probably going to say, “SFFA has proof, so why aren’t you applying that standard here?”

At this point, it doesn’t matter what I say because SC already went over it and made a decision. I’m just repeating what was actually said.

I read your post regarding the decision.

The thing about the personality tests is that they don’t directly consider race.

 

[john7991]

Yes I’m very interested in hearing why you think one race of applicants would, on average, be significantly less suitable for Harvard than any other. Your continued defense of Harvard in the face of such clear evidence of discrimination is frankly astonishing to me.

I’ll share what a professor, David Card, on behalf of Harvard said:

Asian-Americans have “weaker average unobserved characteristics” than other applicants.

In other words, Asian-Americans have certain hidden traits or qualities that cause their personality score to decrease.

 

[john7991]

1) Academics. GPA, SAT/ACT, class rank.
This is probably the easiest thing to evaluate because it is largely quantitative data. Asians in this country, have consistently shown themselves to excel academically. Right or wrong, much of this is due to cultural factors that have been mentioned.

2) Extracurriculars. This like sport/club involvement. Playing an instrument/artistic endeavors. Community service.
This is a harder category to weigh/compare. As far as I know, there are no comprehensive studies in higher academia that compare extracurricular involvement between racial categories of admitted college students. However, I think most of us are familiar with anecdotal evidence that Asian Americans are very competitive with regards to extracurricular involvement (i.e. playing cello since age three, debate club president, competitive swimmer, etc.), again, much to do with cultural factors.

3) Legacy. How many generations of your family have attended a school. This is in many ways a necessary evil for prestigious schools. The donations and connections that wealthy alumni families contribute forces schools to play by their tune to an extent.
For the most part, this will largely advantage white students since minorities of any kind have only been legally allowed to attend prestigious schools for about two generations or so.

By my estimation, the first and second categories are typically at least positive or neutral for a typical Asian American applicant. The third category is neutral or negative for a typical Asian American applicant.

This brings us to the fourth category:

4) Character. Adversity that an individual has overcome. Life experiences that have shaped them. Heart for their community (rather than just checking a box for community service). Goals for their life and future.

This is also a hard category to quantify, however, Harvard (and many other schools) have taken it upon themselves to create a metric scale for the purposes of translating diverse experiences into a single, quantitative measure.

When Harvard is asked to explain why their proportion of Asian students is lower than the proportion you would expect from "academics alone,"
and they bring up CHARACTER SCORES, I shouldn't have to explain to you how demeaning, insulting, hurtful, and, ultimately racist it is to even mention it. When people defend Harvard with reasoning like I quoted above that Harvard shouldn't just decide solely based on grades but that "Harvard wants people who they think are going to make an impact in the world, people with certain traits that they believe is what makes great leaders great." What you are implying by that statement is that Asians, for some unstated reason, do not have the special something that makes great leaders great or will cause them to make an impact on the world. Again, highly, HIGHLY, insulting.

I think your frustration is leading you to believe that’s what I’m implying.

We only know that this is happening at Harvard because Harvard was sued and was forced to disclose evidence in discovery. Given that Harvard is a leader in higher education, it is highly probable that other elite institutions are following their lead. In light of this, maybe don't call a high-achieving Asian American a conspiracy theorist after they voice their frustrations with faceless admission committees at the graduate and undergraduate level.

I’m sorry but it was never proven.

Admissions committees who reject them without ever looking them in the eye or explaining exactly why they did not receive an acceptance past a courtesy "we received applications from many highly-qualified applicants this year and have only a few spots" cop-out.

Edit: Grammar

What college explains to rejected students why they got rejected?

 

[please.let.me.in]

I’ll share what a professor, David Card, on behalf of Harvard said:

Asian-Americans have “weaker average unobserved characteristics” than other applicants.

In other words, Asian-Americans have certain hidden traits or qualities that cause their personality score to decrease.

To echo the words of another poster who has already responded to you on this thread:

Yes I’m very interested in hearing why you think one race of applicants would, on average, be significantly less suitable for Harvard than any other. Your continued defense of Harvard in the face of such clear evidence of discrimination is frankly astonishing to me.

 

[john7991]

To echo the words of another poster who has already responded to you on this thread:

I’m not defending Harvard, just sharing what was said

 

[texasvandy]

I’ll share what a professor, David Card, on behalf of Harvard said:

Asian-Americans have “weaker average unobserved characteristics” than other applicants.

In other words, Asian-Americans have certain hidden traits or qualities that cause their personality score to decrease.

How would a professor, someone who has absolutely nothing to do with admissions, have any idea about what admissions is doing. My guess is that he is a racist stereotyper from Berkeley extending his bias. All he did was a statistical analysis saying exactly what the admissions at Harvard claimed.

 

[please.let.me.in]

I’m not defending Harvard, just sharing what was said.

Asians will still be at a disadvantage because of the personal rating which still exists, and because it still exists, Asians will continue to score the lowest in Harvard’s personality tests.

You say you do not agree with Harvard and are not defending them. Other things you have said here say otherwise. So, I will instead ask you directly:

Do you or do you not believe that Asians as a race have worse personalities and/or character than members other races?

 

[senecca]

What college explains to rejected students why they got rejected?

Precisely why the American college admission is screwed up. Everyone has set their own rules, everything happens behind the scenes, no oversight, no accountability, no transparency, nothing. No one can prove this way or that way. You can commit all kinds of atrocities, if the aggrieved makes a noise or complaints, you can shut them up by saying “Where is the proof?” as if the atrocities are committed in open.

I have said this before many times and let me say it again. As long as humans are involved, you can’t hope for honesty , fairness or integrity. It just won’t happen. We have to remove all human involvement from the process or make process open and transparent . The Supreme Court should have ordered the universities to upload the entire applications of all the applicants , how they were scored, final decision and the reasoning behind the decision. Then , everyone here will have the proof especially for the personality rating .

Edit: They say, a person’s true character emerges to the surface when he is in dark and no one is around or when his identity is lost.

 

[john7991]

How would a professor, someone who has absolutely nothing to do with admissions, have any idea about what admissions is doing. My guess is that he is a racist stereotyper from Berkeley extending his bias.

Card made a report:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

 

[john7991]

You say you do not agree with Harvard and are not defending them. Other things you have said here say otherwise.

The only things I have actually said are what others have said

So, I will instead ask you directly:

Do you or do you not believe that Asians as a race have worse personalities and/or character than members other races?

I do not believe that Asians have the worst personalities of all the races.

 

[please.let.me.in]

The only things I have actually said are what others have said

I do not believe that Asians have the worst personalities of all the races.

Then why do you believe that Asians will continue to score the lowest in Harvard's personality tests?

 

[texasvandy]

Card made a report:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf

Yes he did and so did another guy from Duke who provided counter evidence which said if race were removed, Asians went from 25% to 36% and if the race were changed to African American it would be 96%.

Duke economics professor's analysis to be used in Supreme Court's affirmative action case decision

Arcidiacono used “a litany of materials” in his analysis, including individual-level data about Harvard students in the Classes of 2014 to 2019.

www.dukechronicle.com

It is statistical and not a basis for characterization that says "WEAKER AVERAGE UNOBSERVED CHARACTERISTICS" since this is exactly what admissions claimed.

The statement is as valid as idiot professors' statements about African Americans on average having a lower IQ.

 

[john7991]

Then why do you believe that Asians will continue to score the lowest in Harvard's personality tests?

Because the personality rating still exists. Just because a few handful of students won’t be getting in via AA, that doesn’t exactly mean Asians’ personality ratings will jump.

 

[john7991]

Yes he did and so did another guy from Duke who provided counter evidence.

It is statistical and HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for characterization that was his outcome.

Do you mind sharing where you found this?

 

[senecca]

I think your frustration is leading you to believe that’s what I’m implying.


I’m sorry but it was never proven.


What college explains to rejected students why they got rejected?

I was holding my off from saying this for over a year. But this is appropriate time I believe.

This is actually how holistic admissions work in America. There is no elaborate science behind it.

We have only one state medical school and I collected the demographics of accepted students for six years or so. For the first four years, the demographic split of accepted applicants were 40% Asian Americans, 10% black, 10% Hispanics, 37% whites (approximately ). The numbers held steady for four years. Two years back Asian Americans became 30% and black Americans 20%. The numbers of other groups didn’t change. Do anyone know the reason? Did Asian Americans fall short holistically all of a sudden? No. According to an insider, a person was hired for an influential position according to the latest recruitment trend. He pulled the med school dean into his office and told, “I keep giving you the funds. But you are not showing me the results” !! You know what he meant. Of course, the dean complied.

The same person said if an instate applicant went out of state for undergrad, the medical school won’t touch his application because of their ego. I didn’t believe this at first. But he gave 15-20 of such cases, all with 520+ and all are asian american citizens. It did hit close to home too. Medical school Adcoms and others say, people with high stats don’t necessarily have empathy, sympathy, etc to make a good doctor , they lack humility etc. But, how about the medical schools? Are they allowed to have different standards? They can reject applicants but the applicants can’t choose to go to different schools? How about the taxes those family paid all their life? Are they going to return them?

Of course, people will ask me for proof. Because they clearly know I don’t have .

 

[texasvandy]

Do you mind sharing where you found this?

Found what? Saying exactly same thing as what admissions says does not reflect any new knowledge. However, there is absolutely no way to prove statistically an inherent unquantifiable statistic created by an admissions department. The department has used arbitrary numbers that deliberately assign lower scores based on race alone and all he did was say yes the Asians have low numbers.

 

[texasvandy]

I was holding my off from saying this for over a year. But this is appropriate time I believe.

This is actually how holistic admissions work in America. There is no elaborate science behind it.

We have only one state medical school and I collected the demographics of accepted students for six years or so. For the first four years, the demographic split of accepted applicants were 40% Asian Americans, 10% black, 10% Hispanics, 37% whites (approximately ). The numbers held steady for four years. Two years back Asian Americans became 30% and black Americans 20%. The numbers of other groups didn’t change. Do anyone know the reason? Did Asian Americans fall short holistically all of a sudden? No. According to an insider, a person was hired for an influential position according to the latest recruitment trend. He pulled the med school dean into his office and told, “I keep giving you the funds. But you are not showing me the results” !! You know what he meant. Of course, the dean complied.

The same person said if an instate applicant went out of state for undergrad, the medical school won’t touch his application because of their ego. I didn’t believe this at first. But he gave 15-20 of such cases, all with 520+ and all are asian american citizens. It did hit close to home too. Medical school Adcoms and others say, people with high stats don’t necessarily have empathy, sympathy, etc to make a good doctor , they lack humility etc. But, how about the medical schools? Are they allowed to have different standards? They can reject applicants but the applicants can’t choose to go to different schools? How about the taxes those family paid all their life? Are they going to return them?

Of course, people will ask me for proof. Because they clearly know I don’t have .

Someone analyzed numbers for UCLA medicine and found that Asians went down from 85 to 45 over a 4-5 year admission cycles - 2018 to 2022. Wonder how the judgement affects medical schools.