Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tabthough OP t1_iu1uqw8 wrote

Reply to comment by MakeTotalDestr0i in [OC] Racial breakdown of students at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford compared to students scoring 1400+ on the SAT by tabthough

This is correct: 33% of the HYPMS domestic student population is URMs

178

waypastyouall t1_iu2xlnt wrote

That is messed up that their race is a factor in their admissions

261

Jorge5934 t1_iu31p2l wrote

I got invited to apply to an ivy leage university after my not very high ACT. I'm sure was because I'm Ecuadorian, and US universities crave to collect nationalities like if we were Pokémon, just so they can print that they represent 77 nationalities on their brochures.

377

hiricinee t1_iu32xd5 wrote

Harvard said in court it was because Asians did worse in the interview process. Interestingly enough, they almost categorically scored lower in "likeability"- essentially that the interviewers liked URMs better than Asian students, on average- which is literally (not figuratively) racist.

358

SchoolboyBlue t1_iu3cf5t wrote

My Harvard interviewer literally asked me to draw a godamn elephant in my interview … literally ignored my entire resume (sports, leadership, work, APs) and just opted to zero in on an art class I took. I’m East Asian.

201

OftenTouchesGrass t1_iu3b552 wrote

Huh? I would imagine different economic backgrounds could cause the students to have different attitudes towards education and why they want to attend the university. This could factor in.

And either way, SAT scores are already biased towards the economic background of whites, Asians, and other middle and upper class demographics.

−82

CannedApples13 t1_iu3assr wrote

No it‘s not.

Passing on a student because they aren’t likable doesn’t make the recruiter or the institution racist. It just means they weren’t likable. Get a personality.

−157

mkaszycki81 t1_iu3cubd wrote

Individuals? Sure. But if the average for a specific racial group is systemically higher, then there's clear bias.

131

Top_Election3816 t1_iu3bpst wrote

No its not. Keeping data for scientific and socioeconomic purposes are very important. What if 60% of 1400 SATs were black people, but only 3% of Harvard students were black? You could point it out with data but without data we’d never know.

61

joeschmoe86 t1_iu2ycy4 wrote

It was a factor in their non-admission long enough, I'm okay with them making up ground.

−81

ackermann t1_iu2zy3b wrote

It’s at Asians’ expense though.

Not all Asians are wealthy. Especially those from Laos, Vietnam, or other poorer countries.
Lower income Asian kids are really getting screwed here. Why should they have to score much higher than others, to get to the same colleges?

If we need to discriminate at all, if anything, it should be based purely on wealth/income, not race. To somewhat counter wealthy peoples ability to afford expensive schools, private tutors, and SAT prep classes.

This would still indirectly favor URM, since they tend to be lower income. But it would better handle cases like poor Asian kids, or rich black kids.

95

craftmacaro t1_iu38j1n wrote

these are Ivies. Where massive amounts of the most populace ethicity on the planet are applying and pretty much every applicant is 1400 plus if not 1500 plus… there are schools in china and japan that are more prolific in many areas than the US schools and the high school prep of certain asian countries is directly geared towards high SAT scores, along with cultural emphasis that is lacking in many communities urm… i’m a professor as well as defender of my PhD at a college that sucks compared to harvard in rankings but is massively better recognized in snake venom research which is all i care about as a venom a researcher… harvard can keep its endowment. they don’t have 209 venomous snakes i can extract 5 minutes from my lab.

The truth is that a lot more than sat scores and grades are taken into account including relative performance amoung those of similar background and personal desire to go to this school for this reason apart from “you are the most prestigious”. I guarantee that those who had reached out to, and won over a faculty member. demonstrating why THAT school and THAT lab interested them, race was less of a factor among those that did that.

not saying it’s not still fucked up… but admissions are not based on morality police. they are based on statistical evaluations of many factors by people who understand the cost/benefit analysis and how to do the best with very limited info we have… and until we have less limited information… that really is the best we can do

−22

685327593 t1_iu31y99 wrote

I just honestly can't wrap my head around how a person could logically think the solution to racism is... more racism. This world is so fucked with that sort of logic.

78

pickettfury t1_iu33iz0 wrote

I think the idea is to even up the societal balance by giving this generational a handicap. Just imagine starting a game of monopoly mid way through with a bunch of players that already own half the board. It's impossible to compete, right?

−45

685327593 t1_iu34s8k wrote

Make affirmative action about socioeconomic status instead of skin color then. The moral problem here is that you can't fix the past. You're punishing people who didn't have anything to do with the injustices of the past. That's doubly true for Asians whose ancestors were often ALSO victims of colonialism.

73

Thorusss t1_iu38uuv wrote

Imagine the UN decides that all Americans now have to live in severe poverty (global poor - famines, etc.) for two generation, because their grandparents were born in a rich country.

Makes sense also?

26

Thorusss t1_iu38nmv wrote

So because black people in the past were unfairly treated, the solution is to treat other races unfairly now? Especially the young people now, who in no shape were responsible for the past?

42

waypastyouall t1_iu2yl37 wrote

Ah, reverse racism, fight fire with fire

24

Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu307r6 wrote

As opposed to accepting a permanent racial underclass based on previous racist policies with broad based socioeconomic implications.

−35

Ark-kun t1_iu37py5 wrote

Underclass is poor people.

Discriminating poor people by race is racist.

27

Independent-Bike8810 t1_iu31y0c wrote

like when welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household causing marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage to risk a mother’s economic well-being

12

Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu32y5z wrote

Ya, bad policy is bad policy? I think this is not the gotcha you think it is.

−10

waypastyouall t1_iu31kze wrote

That's some funky propaganda you've been reading

−8

Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu32s9j wrote

So you believe that current socioeconomic disparities in the in the U.S. just naturally resolve themselves over time? And I’m the one brainwashed by propaganda…

−17

songpeng_zhang t1_iu38jy1 wrote

You should make a point to only send your kids, or loved ones, to URM physicians for life saving care.

4