I suppose it's approximately as "obvious" as the phenomenon that's actually being litigated, that Asian Americans have to somehow be "extra qualified." By that I mean that both are taken as given regardless of actual truth.
The "dean's interest list" mentioned in the article is interesting. Specifically, I'm surprised that it's as secret as it is. I don't think any highly selective process run by humans doesn't have a backdoor like that, to the extent that when you're applying for things like schools, jobs, incubators, etc. it's just sort of assumed that one must figure out how to get in via the backdoor.
Short answer: no. If you aren't part of the club, or if you don't go out of your way to find out these things, this is not particularly well-known. And honestly, I could flip this pretty easily: there are lots of narratives out there by people who for whatever reason weren't privy to this fact who made it into some of the big name schools and saw how daddy's ability to buy a new building beats out perfect grades, describing their shock at seeing some of these systems up-close and learning the rules. That should also be approximately as "obvious". It depends where you're looking, and whether or not you know to look there and care enough to actually look.
It's pretty obvious that certain groups are trying to draw the focus of the public away from the Asian American discrimination scandal at Harvard and other top schools and instead dangling these stories of preferential treatment being given to a few children of mega donors as a distraction.
Of course the difference in scale of discrimination between these two cases is huge, but it's convenient for certain groups to be able to say "hey, hey, look at how Harvard is favoring these predominately white students! Forget about how they're discriminating against orders of magnitude more Asian Americans!"
I suspect this is because the uncomfortable fact of affirmative action policies actually causing discrimination against racial minorities is a significant source of cognitive dissonance in the minds of many, and it's easier for them to just focus on preferential treatment being given to children of the mega rich than focus on the problematic aspects of racialized admission in the first place.
I've had the same suspicion as you regarding these stories, and I suspect most people are much more "okay" with the idea of people who donate tens of thousands of dollars getting preferential treatment when their kids apply than racial discrimination.
"It's pretty obvious that certain groups are trying to draw the focus of the public away from the socioeconomic rich-get-richer phenomenon at Harvard and other top schools, instead dangling these stories of preferential treatment between the poorer 99% as a distraction."
I would agree with you however the stories focused on the super rich only began coming out after the story about Asian American discrimination broke, not the other way around.
I don't think you need groups actively working against you to have a lot of stories about admissions right now. Any story about it will get attention right now so while some may groups doing stories purposefully there's also probably journalists just cashing in on a trend.
I think it’s a reasonable argument that if Harvard takes society’s tax dollars, they should take anyone from society that scores highest in objective metrics.
If they stop taking tax dollars, perhaps making up for the loss of tax dollars with their $39 billion endowment, then they should be able to discriminate based on race as they do now.
I live in Boston, my wife is Vietnamese, and I have a lot of Asian friends in the upper-echelon phd crowd. No one I know is supporting Harvard and their bias.
Speaking as an Asian immigrant who grew up entirely in the US system and competed in this system, I have very mixed feelings about the lawsuit. There are several problems that I see as common threads in the overarching discussion.
1. You will never be able to find a set of objective metrics that feel both holistically fair and are objective to measure. As an example, most top universities' admissions processes weigh your achievements against your family conditions. Single mother, and you grew up taking care of your younger siblings? Yeah, you won't need as good grades and you won't need to be president of five clubs.
2. Let's say you do try to establish objective metrics. What happens is that the same groups of people who currently do well in the college admissions game will just learn to play the new "objectively measured" college admissions game. Once again, the ones who are able to spend money on college consulting and who are able to practice for the test will do better. That's just status quo with a different yardstick.
My own opinion... I would have supported having a lawsuit like this in a different political climate. I do think that Asians get an unfair deal that should be examined, already discounting for just the fact that with a 6% acceptance rate and the fact that it's Harvard, you will always feel shafted for wanting to and not getting in regardless of actual qualification.
However, right now I absolutely detest that people in my community are letting the conservative segment of America use this issue to drive a wedge between Asians and other minorities. That's not what Asians in the US need right now when the fight is more about protecting minority rights in a democracy. Wrong fight at the wrong time.
11 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 21.2 ms ] threadI suppose it's approximately as "obvious" as the phenomenon that's actually being litigated, that Asian Americans have to somehow be "extra qualified." By that I mean that both are taken as given regardless of actual truth.
The "dean's interest list" mentioned in the article is interesting. Specifically, I'm surprised that it's as secret as it is. I don't think any highly selective process run by humans doesn't have a backdoor like that, to the extent that when you're applying for things like schools, jobs, incubators, etc. it's just sort of assumed that one must figure out how to get in via the backdoor.
Of course the difference in scale of discrimination between these two cases is huge, but it's convenient for certain groups to be able to say "hey, hey, look at how Harvard is favoring these predominately white students! Forget about how they're discriminating against orders of magnitude more Asian Americans!"
I suspect this is because the uncomfortable fact of affirmative action policies actually causing discrimination against racial minorities is a significant source of cognitive dissonance in the minds of many, and it's easier for them to just focus on preferential treatment being given to children of the mega rich than focus on the problematic aspects of racialized admission in the first place.
"It's pretty obvious that certain groups are trying to draw the focus of the public away from the socioeconomic rich-get-richer phenomenon at Harvard and other top schools, instead dangling these stories of preferential treatment between the poorer 99% as a distraction."
If they stop taking tax dollars, perhaps making up for the loss of tax dollars with their $39 billion endowment, then they should be able to discriminate based on race as they do now.
I live in Boston, my wife is Vietnamese, and I have a lot of Asian friends in the upper-echelon phd crowd. No one I know is supporting Harvard and their bias.
1. You will never be able to find a set of objective metrics that feel both holistically fair and are objective to measure. As an example, most top universities' admissions processes weigh your achievements against your family conditions. Single mother, and you grew up taking care of your younger siblings? Yeah, you won't need as good grades and you won't need to be president of five clubs.
2. Let's say you do try to establish objective metrics. What happens is that the same groups of people who currently do well in the college admissions game will just learn to play the new "objectively measured" college admissions game. Once again, the ones who are able to spend money on college consulting and who are able to practice for the test will do better. That's just status quo with a different yardstick.
My own opinion... I would have supported having a lawsuit like this in a different political climate. I do think that Asians get an unfair deal that should be examined, already discounting for just the fact that with a 6% acceptance rate and the fact that it's Harvard, you will always feel shafted for wanting to and not getting in regardless of actual qualification.
However, right now I absolutely detest that people in my community are letting the conservative segment of America use this issue to drive a wedge between Asians and other minorities. That's not what Asians in the US need right now when the fight is more about protecting minority rights in a democracy. Wrong fight at the wrong time.