Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Lawsuit Says

New York Times ^ | June 15, 2018 | Anemona Hartocollis

[reaganaut1]

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than any other race on personal traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday in federal court in Boston by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

“It turns out that the suspicions of Asian-American alumni, students and applicants were right all along,” the group, Students for Fair Admissions, said in a court document laying out the analysis. “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”

Harvard’s own researchers cited a bias against Asian-American applicants in a series of internal reports in 2013. But Harvard ignored the findings, the court papers said, and never publicly released them.

These and other details of Harvard’s closely guarded admissions process were unsealed Friday after the university fought furiously over the last few months to keep them secret.

They are part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit brought by Students for Fair Admissions says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend.

[reaganaut1]

Leftists favor discrimination to get equal results, except in areas like sports where blacks excel.

[Antoninus]

Bingo. In my college days, I recall talking to a friend who worked in the admissions office. She told me that they had a secret-not-so-secret scale when considering applicants which gave extra points based solely on race. Asian applicants received the least amount, even below "white" applicants. The reason given for this was that if they treated everyone the same, Asians would garner way more admission spots than their percentage of the population.

So much for merit. Diversity uber alles.

[RinaseaofDs]

I’m interviewing right now. If the interviewer is East Asian, the questions are completely technical.

However, if the interviewer is NOT Asian, or East Asian, then the questions are about whether you can actually interact cheerfully with the people you are trying to serve with the technology.

It’s striking. The premium for Asians is competency over actual delivery of value. That’s been the knock on admins - you know the software, but you suck at helping us unlock the value of it by being such an as**ole.

[bkopto]

I guess colleges would like their students to win likeability contests.

I would never, EVER send my children to an ivy league college.

I love them too much.

When are the Asians going to figure this out?

Asians like to go with the glamor brands (the Ivies, BMW, Rolex, etc), even if the product has become a forged, cheap knock-off (as the ivys have become), I guess.

[CaptainK]

Every person on the Harvard staff who is screwing these Asian students out of their rightful place in Harvard is a liberal Democrat.

Guaranteed

[IndispensableDestiny]

Back in 1982, between the end of exams and commencement, I noticed a lot of classmates emerge that I had never seen before. The were disproportionately Asian and foreign.

[Obadiah]

Thanks for your anecdotal experience. Your experience seems to bear out this article in that, in general, Asians value technical competency and success whereas their Western counterparts — particularly women — value likeability and personality traits.

It’s funny, because my high school aged daughter was just at a camp and made friends with a group of about half a dozen Asian girls. Just last night she remarked they were all very nice, and she bonded well with them, but she was surprised and specifically mentioned that they lacked real personality, such as a lack of smiling, not showing happiness, excitement, or other emotions. Really, a little culture shock to her.

My question is, is this really to be considered bias? What if it is really true that some cultures are simply... different? What if some cultures place more value on different traits? So what? Isn’t that why different cultures exist?

But the real point of this article I suppose is to demonstrate that liberals love free speech — but only if you agree with them. Liberal hate discrimination — unless it helps them. Liberals are open-minded and tolerant — as long as you hold positions similar to theirs.

[dfwgator]

Hope the Asians sue the crap out of Hah-vahd.

[mac_truck]

Good old thumb on the scale.

Can we guess which group(s) Harvard scored highest on these so-called personality traits?

[olepap]

very dull and empty people

[RinaseaofDs]

It shouldn’t be considered bias, but it is.

An admin who’s technically competent who has teaching ability is worth five with perfect technical acumen.

Extracting value from the tool is the goal. Asians aren’t known for their empathy.

Then again, neither are Norwegians.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Meanwhile, bitter, angry, racist, Safe Spacer “African Americans” were given the top scores for attitude and personality . . .

[jeannineinsd]

From the article:

Harvard vigorously defended its admissions process on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination. It lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard in an effort to orchestrate a challenge to race-conscious admissions that would go to the Supreme Court.

Well, that is interesting. It seems to be Harvard's opinion that setting up a court case, with the aim of changing public policy, perhaps even getting the Supreme Court to proclaim a new "constitutional right" is a tactic that is only to be used by the left. For this tactic to be used against Harvard is wrong!

Well, my opinion is that what's fair is fair. If a tactic can be used by one side, it can be used by another.

[Ohioan]

This gets into the more subtle methods of misdirecting attention from actual causation phenomena.

While as a Conservative libertarian, I would allow private colleges to discriminate on any basis they choose, in their admission policies; I will certainly deplore this fairly obvious misdirection from what actually indicates an ability to succeed in College.

Harvard is using a contrived formula to pretend an objectivity they do not have.

Misdirection: Familiar Leftist Tactic

Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education

Actually, the aptitude test scores may actually understate the likelihood of academic success by some of these students. The studies of Japanese Americans, affected by the World War II isolation policy, in 1947, showed a superb ability to respond positively to adversity. The right motivation amplifies aptitude.

[ifinnegan]

“as a Conservative libertarian, I would allow private colleges to discriminate on any basis they choose”

Yes.

Yet, these universities get billions in federal tax-payer originated funds. By their own standards and policies, these liberals are subject to oversight.

[tbw2]

That system discriminates against introverts.

[Ohioan]

Yes. They invite big Government meddling. But the Leftist faculty has for generations been hypocritically willing to attack Conservative spokesmen, for even the slightest hint of inconsistency. I was only 18, a long, long time ago, when I vowed never to allow them any basis for discrediting me, on that basis.

The Constitution left all moral/value questions to the States. The right to control, premised on a right to effectively bribe, is a dangerous & wrong-headed principle.

[Doctor Freeze]

Seems like it’s the liberals and their ivory tower institutions who need their own unconscious bias training.