Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 267 posts

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#241

Post by danieltillett »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #149
danieltillett wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could a lottery produce such an outcome with tens of thousand of people in the pool and thousands being chosen? Set a threshold to get into the lottery (say a SAT score of 1200) and then choose at random. Such an approach will likely encourage diversity as people who think they don't have a chance under the current system will apply.

In Harvard wanted to stay a top school, they wouldn’t set the lottery threshold to 1200, they’d set it to 1500, with minimum 4.0 GPA. They’d still have a huge pool of applicants, but it would likely end up with a class around half Asian, which is what they are explicitly trying to avoid.

If Harvard can be a top school despite accepting people with scores of 1200 (which it currently does) then why can't it come down to this level for everyone and run a lottery?

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#242

Post by danieltillett »

IvyAdmisions wrote: post #214
danieltillett wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lottery is such an obvious solution that we can only conclude that the people who developed the Harvard admission process are irredeemable racists.

A lottery among the academically qualified students would produce a class with many fewer African American, Native American and Latino students which would be politically untenable. Those cohorts score much worse than caucasians and asians on standardized tests. The data is pretty shocking and closely guarded by the testing people who believe they'd be asked to shut down altogether if it got out.

This would only happen if you set the threshold too high. If Harvard wants to be an institution with lots of AA, NA and LA students then just set the threshold at a level where these groups can enter the lottery.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#243

Post by cycrutchfield »

home_boi wrote: post #236
cycrutchfield wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to see how putting the entire admissions process on a single entrance exam will play out, look no further than the dystopian cram schools of China and India. Unless we want to train a generation of rote-memorizers and elite test takers, this is not a direction that should be pursued.

Those admissions processes are actually seen as very fair processes in those countries. IIRC, there is very high economic diversity in the top colleges in China and India which can't be said about the Ivy League schools.

Those admissions processes are actually well-known for producing excellent students of rote memorization and standardized tests. They are not well-known for producing well-rounded students that are capable of thinking outside of the box.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#244

Post by cycrutchfield »

home_boi wrote: post #235
cycrutchfield wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were downvoted probably because you could have stated it more tactfully. The real problem is that many Asian applicants tend to look similar on paper. There is a real problem among Asian families for hyper-optimizing on gaming the admissions system and overly trying to superficially hit all of the checkboxes for admissions (max out AP classes, start SAT test prep in middle school, play a musical instrument, etc.)…

Uniqueness and well-roundedness are traits of privilege. The activities typically used to signal "uniqueness" for college admissions like philanthropy and political activism have roots in privilege. If you're not from a rich, well-connected white family, the best chance for success is through the typical tryhard, academic STEM path. You can't afford to be unique. You don't have cronyism or money to fall back on.

This does not hold up at all to scrutiny, because Harvard accepts many students that do not come from privileged backgrounds. In fact, their lack of privilege and the challenges they overcame are seen as very "unique" and favorable by the admissions committees.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#245

Post by jancsika »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #224
jancsika wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course you don't do that. You look to see what orchestras they were in as a kid, what competitions they've won, etc. You'll immediately see that most people who list music as an extracurricular are decent, but nothing extraordinary. If you are really good then you can meet with someone at the music department at the university you're applying to, perform for them, and if they think you're good enough they'll tel…

That's not really a fair comparison. The equivalent would be someone listing writing as an extracurricular activity and then you look and see what novels they've published, what anthologies their poetry has appeared in, whether they've written essays or journalism that got published in the New Yorker or a similar, high quality publication. Again, I'm not sure what you're suggesting the OP do differently. It's not fea…

Regardless of what you think the fair comparison is, it wouldn't be serious to claim that the writing is unremarkable without... reading the writing.

Same goes for playing an instrument. You have to listen to the applicant to know whether their playing is remarkable or not.

To be as clear as possible: OP should have reserved judgment on the musical prowess of the applicants instead of claiming all 600-1000 applicants were unremarkable players without having listened to them.

tldr; "I didn't see any musical accolades listed in their packets" != "unremarkable players."

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#246

Post by home_boi »

speedplane wrote: post #53
home_boi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unlikely to be unintentional. Since Harvard is grading personality on a USA-centric scale, it would most likely accentuate the traits of the current USA leaders and executives who are overwhelmingly white. We would expect the white children to inherit, genetically and environmentally, these traits from their leader and executive parents and score the highest by a good margin and all other minorities to score…

If their only aim was to favor "the traits of the current USA leaders and executives", then that would indeed to a preference of white males, but they have other goals as well, and when taken together, do fall in line with expectations.

What "other goals" and "expectations"?

It conveniently falls in line with racial diversity goals but it is unclear what other goals it accomplishes. The reasonable assumption is that any soft skill goals or measures will have a high preference for white males. It is very suspect that this isn't true.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#247

Post by home_boi »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #244
home_boi wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uniqueness and well-roundedness are traits of privilege. The activities typically used to signal "uniqueness" for college admissions like philanthropy and political activism have roots in privilege. If you're not from a rich, well-connected white family, the best chance for success is through the typical tryhard, academic STEM path. You can't afford to be unique. You don't have cronyism or money to fall back on.

This does not hold up at all to scrutiny, because Harvard accepts many students that do not come from privileged backgrounds. In fact, their lack of privilege and the challenges they overcame are seen as very "unique" and favorable by the admissions committees.

Look up the income statistics. There are very few low income students at Harvard and similar "holistic" universities. It's a school for rich people.

MIT cares more about scores and STEM and MIT actually has around the lowest family income and lowest percent of rich people in the Ivy League tier.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#248

Post by justin66 »

aiyodev wrote: post #233
justin66 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Students used to get accepted on academic merit alone. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. Nepotism is not a recent innovation.

Did you read my post? Legacy admission was started at Harvard as a means of ethnic discrimination. Before then, a large percentage of students at Harvard were Jewish because they ignored the social convention that only the elites applied to Harvard. When students are judged only on academic merit, nepotism is not an issue.

Of course I read your post. I don't believe "judged only on academic merit" was ever how Harvard operated, and the IMO naive statement Students used to get accepted on academic merit alone was what I initially objected to. I'm not disagreeing with the point that that they might have engaged in some targetted anti-Semitic discrimination.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#249

Post by paidleaf »

forapurpose wrote: post #197
paidleaf wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harvard insists this was unbiased, but it's pretty incredible that Asians score so low on these measures and African-Americans so highly. Considering asians are considered "model minorities" and the best "assimilated" minority group in the US, it does seem odd. Also considering harvard alumni interviewers generally rated asian personalities just as high as everyone else's, I wonder why there is such a divergence fr…

> asians are considered "model minorities" and the best "assimilated" minority By who? What data is there? A stereotype is not evidence; repetition doesn't make it more likely. Nor can we infer from a stereotype - or even real data about assimilation - something about the personalities of individuals.

> By who?

"whom". By us? By our culture? By the media?

> What data is there? A stereotype is not evidence;

Education attainment? Income? Interracial Marriage? Sure a stereotype isn't evidence. But my point is that both the nation at large "stereotypically" and alumni ( after interviewing asians ) both rated asian personalities at the same level or better than other races. Given that evidence, why did admissions officers rate asians a couple of standard deviations below other races?

> something about the personalities of individuals.

But we aren't inferring personalities of individuals. We are inferring personalities of racial groups.

Re: ‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions

#250

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

Veelox wrote: post #229
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think it is okay to elevate underrepresented minorities despite a lack of objectively measurable merit? In the sense that you mean it - yes. But I would say that there is no such thing as 'objectively measurable merit' and that frequently the type of merit we measure when admitting applicants to the Ivy League isn't really merit at all but instead laundered privilege (whether on race or class or anything else…

I think we are disagreeing about what it means to be meritorious. Both people should have equal work ethic. I would say that the person who has been to private school, taken hard classes, is physically fit, and a practiced debater has a higher chance to succeed at Harvard and afterward due to having better cognitive skills. >And then to the extent that there are lots of white and Asian kids who have grown up in circu…

>Both people should have equal work ethic. I would say that the person who has been to private school, taken hard classes, is physically fit, and a practiced debater has a higher chance to succeed at Harvard and afterward due to having better cognitive skills.

The whole point of my example was to pose two people of equal intelligence with equal work ethic. I'll admit the Asian girl has a higher chance to succeed at Harvard but I don't believe that's due to her merit, it's due to being placed in a more challenging environment, something that is completely out of her control.

>I would say that Asian culture has done a better job, on average, of preparing its children with good study habits, work ethic, and cognitive skills than Black culture has.

1. Culture doesn't just emerge spontaneously, it's a response to environment. Asians and blacks have very different historical circumstances thus different cultures.

2. It's completely unfair to hold an 18 year old accountable to the 'culture of their race' (if there is such a thing). The 18 year old black girl didn't choose to be born into her culture any more than the 18 year old Asian girl chose to be born into hers. The black girl didn't choose to live in a poor area or have poor parents or go to a bad school just like the Asian girl didn't choose to live in a good area or have middle/upper-class parents or go to a good school. These things are irrelevant to merit and yet they all count for one girl and against the other. That's not really a merit-based system.

Post reply on HN