The affirmative action case involving Asian Americans against Harvard goes on trial this week. I would like to make couple of points here. Asian Americans are the only group that has decreased its support for affirmative action in recent years. For many this is a zero sum game where if a black or Latino student is admitted due to affirmative action, it is one less spot for an Asian with a higher score and grade. But this implies that if the spot is lost, you will suffer greatly. This is not the case. The advantage of the U.S. higher education system is that there are many great universities where one can earn a great degree which lead to a great career. Anyone not admitted to an Ivy League school but would have qualified for one, can go to a great school and do well. Too much is emphasized on the name of the school rather than what you accomplished there.
Having said that, I find Harvard and other elite schools' defense of their admission policy lacking. They always say that diversity is of utmost importance. But then they admit that legacy students have an advantage. Something like one eighth of the student at Harvard had at least one parent who went there. To me that is affirmative action for rich white people. So how is admitting children of alumni help diversity? I would argue that is the opposite of diversity.
The schools also say that they use an holistic approach to admission so that traits such as leadership and good personalities are parts of the evaluation. But if Asians are not admitted in the percentage that is expected based on grades and scores, then it must be concluded that the schools decided that on the average Asians are not as good leaders or as good people as other groups. In that case, I would think that there is racist undertone there.
So for those students with great credential who didn't get in their first choice school, I say it is not the end of the world. Go to your school and prove what great leaders and people you are. I do think this suit will force the schools to look at themselves in the mirror and realize that they are not as progressive as they think they are.
The truth is, most schools are more interested to look good statistically than to really have a great impact on minorities. Take the case of Elizabeth Warren. Harvard listed her as minority professor because she claimed to have Native American blood. This turns out to be true as proven by her DNA test. (By the way, President Trump, please fork over the million you promised to charity if Warren does do an DNA test. I am confident the president will keep his word. NOT!) But Harvard took Warren's word before any proof because having a Native American woman on staff makes their stats look better. Of course Warren would be hired regardless of her race or ethnicity because of her great credentials. But if there is a choice between a rich student that is say one sixteenth black vs an Asian, who do you think Harvard would choose?
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
2 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a tough issue to deal with. The Asian Americans who are suing Harvard are correct that admission is based on merit but I still think that a private institution like Harvard doesn't need to adhere to Affirmative Action guidelines. To me, it's a little different for public institutions. But I think that being able to attend Harvard is a lofty goal and understand that if you have the credentials to go there and don't get in, then it can be devastating. Of course, it's not the end of the world, but it does teach a life lesson that not everything is fair in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that if you don't get in, then prove yourself and become that leader elsewhere.
Now, I know you like to take jabs at POTUS and you didn't disappoint since you somehow were able to put the Warren situation in there. It is interesting that Harvard would classify her as Native American, which I guess, based on her DNA test, that it's not wrong, but do we really classify people when they are generations removed?
Also, not to defend POTUS, but maybe Warren should have let him administer the swab test in person and let some third party do the DNA test. I say who ever is wrong, gets to pay to have the test done and pay the million dollars!
Of course, we did know that whatever happened that either side would not fulfill their promise. The goalposts get moved once again.
I read today that there's an interesting race going down in Orange County between an Asian immigrant (R) and Hispanic (D). If I remember correctly, you live in SoCal, so I wonder if you know anything about this race.
-LBOAYM
It seems to me there are two ways to look at this: either the personality score, which is statistically much lower for Asian Americans than for other ethnic groups applying to Harvard, is due to good faith scoring or it is not. I think most people secretly believe it is probably bad faith for good reasons -- Harvard is trying to maintain some sort of quota-based diversity by giving Asians low personality scores to keep their admissions lower than test scores and grades would recommend, and do legacy admissions to make sure white quotas are higher than what test scores and grades would recommend. But the scarier not is #2) what if this is all done in good faith and Harvard admissions officers just think Asian Americans on average have uninteresting personalities. In any other situation, wouldn't we consider this bias? If Asians aren't hired into a tech company because they are rated as having bad personalities, we would certainly say the HR department at that company is biased against Asians. If women do not want to date Asian men because of their personalities, we would definitely say this is the result of cultural and media bias that portrays Asians in an unflattering light. So why would we think a 30 minute interview with an Admissions officer is any different? (sorry for waiting 3 years to comment. I love what you do here, AYM. be well.)
ReplyDelete