Source for the "personality" language? In everything I've seen from US universities, they justify race-based admissions policies primarily with language about "diversity".
>One of the most striking revelations pertains to Harvard’s consideration of applicants’ soft skills—things like “likability,” “helpfulness,” “integrity,” and “courage”—in determining their acceptance. Despite boasting higher test scores, better grades, and stronger extracurricular resumes than applicants of any other racial group, Asian American applicants consistently received lower rankings on those personality traits, according to a statistical analysis conducted on behalf of SFFA of more than 160,000 student records. This emphasis on personality, the analysis concludes, significantly undermined otherwise-qualified Asian Americans’ chances of getting in.
This is the problem with assigning weight to subjective, hand-wavey categories. It becomes an easy way for bias (conscious or unconscious) to creep in. The same thing happens with "culture fit" evaluations at tech companies.
The alternative isn't that rosy - if you judge everyone by (objective) standard tests, Goodhart's Law takes effect, and we breed a generation of highly optimized test takers. Maybe I'm just exposing my Western bias, but I have a child and I don't want his adolescence to be continuous preparation for one academic test after another. Mine wasn't.
Combining standardized tests along with bias-ridden subjective measurements may just be the best solution among lots of imperfect solutions. We try to address egregious abuses when we find them, but "fair" will always be a goal, not a destination.
> if you judge everyone by (objective) standard tests, Goodhart's Law takes effect, and we breed a generation of highly optimized test takers.
As opposed to a generation of people highly optimized for a fuzzier metric that nevertheless exists. I know a bunch of graduates from elite universities who all just happened to be really into debate/mock trials/mock UN, competed at the national/international level at obscure sports, founded a school newspaper (we had five new school newspapers every year because everyone wanted to be a founder, few of them last once the founder graduates), "founded" a "business", etc in high school[1]. They're all in consulting/banking/law/ML now. Mildly obfuscating the metric doesn't actually make Goodhart's law go away, it just means you have to be in the right crowd to game the metric.
[1] I, on the other hand, actually liked maths and became one of your "highly optimized test takers". Funnily enough, all the elite American schools said no, while Oxford said yes. I am now a PhD student (in maths) at one of the elite American institutions that rejected me as a high school student.[2] If you have a scarce resource, and a system that distributes it, people are going to game the system. The trick is to have better tests so you can't study to the test without actually, you know, learning.
Take a look at the SAT (subject) math section. That's the test that should be distinguishing between the student that goes to Harvard and the student that "merely" goes to Georgia Tech. Obviously it can do no such thing, it's way too easy. This is by design. The American system does not want to distinguish between the top 3% and the 0.5%, because then Harvard would have to take the poor genius over the solidly talented but unexceptional rich legacy kid whose dad is worth billions and will donate tens of millions.
Now take a look at the MAT, the maths test that tells you if you'll be going to Oxford or Imperial. Or the STEP, the analogous test for Cambridge.
[2] Disclaimer: I may be a little bitter to this day. In my defence, I teach the wannabe consultants now, and while some of them are legitimately very competent, boy does the system have false positives.
Rice University had about 600 freshmen when I matriculated over 2 decades ago and they rejected 16 perfect SATs that year. I feel for you, though I know that if you really are so into math then maybe this was a much better path for you than doing undergrad at an American institution where the goals in undergrad are usually broader and fuzzier. Contrast that with grad school where I’d be more inclined to be biased for the top student in the specific subject. My alma mater is a top-20 school and as unfair as it might seem, I appreciated the fruit of their quest for diversity among matriculants. Not only ethnic diversity, but people of a slightly wider set of interests too. I felt interacting with the other students was the best part of my college experience. It’s true I don’t know all the stories of the people who weren’t admitted, but when dealing with such tiny acceptance percentages it really feels more like a lottery for a very scarce resource. So it’s definitely not fair, and they’re deliberately not always choosing the highest scores. My mother always said life isn’t fair and I’m not sure if the outcome would be what you or I would hope for if the process was made more “fair” for undergrad selection.
I remember looking into the STEP after graduating for "fun".
They were such classic Oxbridge style questions, sure you can probably game them but as you say, once you've done the graft to game those types of questions, you're pretty much qualified to be there because the rest of your degree will just be more of the same.
Playing devil's advocate a little... it seemed like it worked out ok for you? There are different universities with different selection criteria, and any particular university might have multiple selection pools. There's room for rich scions and math geniuses at Harvard. And in your case, Harvard's loss was Oxford's gain.
I feel like you're expecting some sort of clear stack ranking of students. Even if you take tests at face value, do you accept the student who aces math but bombs literature, or the student who is merely above average in both? See also: computer science, chemistry, biology, physics, history, physical fitness, social sciences, languages, music, art...
We have examples of test-regime-driven educational advancement in Asia. From what I've read, it doesn't seem very appealing to me, either as a student or as a parent.
> Even if you take tests at face value, do you accept the student who aces math but bombs literature, or the student who is merely above average in both?
This is the kind of tradeoff I'd be happy to see colleges worried about. Complicating the fact is that US universities generally don't expect students to be set on a specific major while European ones do, making the US problem a bit harder. But I don't think this is what US unis are trading off on. I think they're trading off merit for parental wealth + future wealth (which is greatly effected by parental wealth).
Re: your comment about different unis with different criteria, I'd be a lot less worried if the diversity was evenly distributed geographically. I had the privilege of being able to choose from multiple countries. For the vast majority of high school students, studying abroad is not an option.
I'm venturing off into speculation here, but I don't think there's anything so organized or homogeneous about college admissions. Probably there are thousands of judges across various universities, each with their own biases, each trying to pick a hundreds of candidates among tens of thousands of applicants.
"US unis" don't seem like a homogenous block to me. But then, I went to a state school and received a fantastic CSc education that I would not trade for ivy league at any price. I've also interviewed/hired countless people and never even noticed what school they came from. I guess the policies of Yale don't bother me that much either way.
Added wrinkle is that for Oxbridge you'll get interviewed as well. I recall being asked interesting things that they didn't cover in class, things that are more deep understanding than parroting syllabus materials.
Certainly the test is not the be all end all, other factors are important. Grades, recommendation letters, activities, and an understanding of the students background.
However it can help us evaluate who is able to perform in a higher learning environment and that they have the knowledge to study advanced degrees.
I had 4 standardized tests in my educational career, 4th grade state test, 10th grade state test, ACT and GRE. Only 2 of those were non-repeatable.
How many do students take these days?
> if you judge everyone by (objective) standard tests
That's why I don't like standard tests. When I was studying, entrance exams were oral. You were given three problems (chosen at random), had some time to solve them, then presented your solutions to the examiner. Examiner would then ask follow-up questions.
There is no way to prepare for such test other than to learn the subject. No multiple-choice questions you can Kaplan.
What do you want your child selected on for an elite school then? The bedrock reality is that most children, by definition, won't make it into an elite school. How do we pick?
This question is phrased oddly. I want my child to enter an educational environment where he will flourish. It's not obvious to me that having the brand of an 'elite' school is all that significant.
We’re about to see an end to standardized tests for college admissions. This is paving the way for discrimination against good students who wish to attend elite universities. Currently elite universities ideas of diversity and “personality” are more important than upholding educational standards.
It is simply wrong to evaluate and condemn a person based on race. To justify any kind of discrimination on the idea that you are helping one person, you are hurting another. This an equally problematic, it’s taking us back to times before equal rights and for people to be judged on their abilities.
Hoping a brilliant student will apply to a university twice and deepfake their race in one of their admission interview videos.
How do you differentiate a good student as in a bright individual who has good grades but who doesn't "prepare" continuously versus a very good test taker and ambitions in this test taking sense and who is also able to prepare for any type of standardized test and ace them but, not as bright as the former? Surely not by race, that's no fun but standardized tests can be gamed and that was not their intention.
But how can they ensure that part cannot be gamed though? By choosing something non objective, this giving a little opening for inept but rich students? I understand that their funding is needed so why don’t they make a clear standard as in 1M donation or whatever is expected of these silverspoons?
Because it can't be elite its filled with people who are mediocre. It's in the name... elite. Everytime you just let someone in on some flimsy diversity grounds you debase degree.
It’s not in the name. The presumption is that elite means other good students, and not the school itself.
When I buy elite golf clubs, it means the clubs are elite not other people who buy it are.
Now you can argue part of the reason to attend college is because of your classmates. And then I’d ask is the best experience a bunch of kids who are simply good at school?
> The same thing happens with "culture fit" evaluations at tech companies.
I totally agree, this reminded me of culture fit interview questions as well. I think the evidence is very strong that almost any subjective evaluation is going to devolve down to the evaluator picking whatever confirms their subjective biases, then coming up with ex post facto rationalizations.
This to me says that assimilation doesn't work. The article states:
"boasting higher test scores, better grades, and stronger extracurricular resumes than applicants of any other racial group, Asian American applicants consistently received lower rankings on those personality traits"
The outcome was to move the bar to soft skills:
things like “likability,” “helpfulness,” “integrity,” and “courage”
This has happened to minority groups of all backgrounds in this country since its inception.
Except when alumni interviewed candidates, there was no such difference, only when university staff did. A pretty convincing smoking gun if you ask me.
I am glad I studied in France, where admission to elite schools is based purely on objective entrance exams (emphasis on Math). It’s not a perfect system, rich parents can afford tutors and teachers can tutor their kids, but it’s a hella fairer than the system in the US, corrupted by legacy admissions, sports scholarships and racial quotas that purposefully ignore socioeconomic disparity, because it’s easier for the powers-that-be to throw poor rural white kids under the bus than something that might adversely impact their own children.
I think you got just about everything correct except for just one nitpick —- the alumni actually interviewed the candidates in person, and the university staff did not and assigned personality score purely based on the application.
I'm from the Netherlands. I feel like the US admission proces is more like job interview, while in Europe it is more like multi year internship. Secondary education is divided into levels. If you pass all classes on the highest level and pass the final exam, you are guaranteed university admission. If you were a late bloomer and you started at a lower level, there are of course proceses to go up.
> This is ironic because in the U.S. most people believe the S.A.T. is the most biased portion of the college entrance criteria.
I don't see any evidence either that most people believe that or that it's true.
I personally find it more likely that high school grades and extracurriculars are probably the most biased portions (grades because a large portion of them usually depends on assignments with loose grading rubrics, which are empirically linked to greater racial and other bias for otherwise similar responses, and extracurriculars because both access and evaluation of them is impacted by cultural factors of both the student, the evaluators, and other members of society.
Do you have a link to the this study? All I can find is this 2019 quote from the UC commission investigating this that indicates otherwise:
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol T. Christ, along with the UC system’s chief academic officer, Provost Michael Brown, said Friday that research has convinced them that performance on the tests is so strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race...
The Chancellor and chief academic officer are politicians not academics. The academics voted to keep the SAT and ACT.
> UC should keep SAT and ACT as admission requirements, faculty report says
> University of California faculty leaders are recommending the continued use of the controversial SAT and ACT as an admission requirement for now, citing UC data showing the standardized tests may actually help boost enrollment of disadvantaged students, according to a highly anticipated report released Monday
From the article you posted, the faculty senate found that it was fine to keep the SAT and ACT because admissions officers were already correcting for racial and socioeconomic bias, not that bias doesn't exist. It says nothing about a study that finds no racial bias in the test, which is what I'm asking for.
"The new yearlong faculty review found evidence that most UC admissions officers offset much of the bias against disadvantaged students by evaluating standardized test scores in the context of their high schools and neighborhoods."
"Among students with SAT scores of 1000 — the 40th percentile — half of Latinos were admitted compared to less than one-third of whites."
Perhaps the current SAT is, but remember SAT I and the "oarsman–regatta analogy" question? That could explain why some people continue to suspect it's racially biased against non-whites.
To make a target race to score higher, fill the test with things the target race tends to be disproportionally familiar with (owing to culture, relative affluence, etc.) To bump up the average Black score, for instance, fill the test with word problems involving rappers.
1) Is that actually "most" people?
2) Is the belief that it's the "most" biased?
I've heard the claim that the SAT is biased against lower SES for a while now, but more on the left than the right, and I've never heard "most" biased.
We need to intervene much much earlier than college admissions if we want to fix that. But it's a really difficult problem because cultures in low SES areas like where I grew up tend to shame and beat the shit out of smart kids, and one culture's "intervention" is another's "unwelcome interference".
Even the whole argument about success rates of assimilation aside, this doesn't seem to check out.
How does this whole "assimilation doesn't work" argument even flow from the statement? Asian Americans referenced were all born in the US, grew up here, went through the education system here, etc. There is nowhere they need to assimilate to, they were born Americans and grew up here. This is their primary culture, not that of a country where their ancestors were born.
I am leaving a big possibility that I completely misunderstood your comment, so please correct me if my interpretation of it was incorrect.
so you meant to say assimilation doesn't work for them ? Makes me see your statement in a completely different light so you may want to qualify that :)
The most obvious course of action would be to deny the school any knowledge of an applicants race. Assign them a random number instead of a name and only conduct text-based interviews.
When I was in university I remember being somewhat intimidated by the asian students because I knew that while other white students had an even chance of being smarter or dumber than me, the asian ones were all probably smarter than me just to get in.
That does not show, however, that "personality" is used as a "cover" for discrimination. That argument, in fact, implicitly assumes equalism (i.e. that all groups have equal distributions of traits), which in turn justifies representation-based admissions. It is self-defeating in that regard.
Essentially "personality" appears a very pretextual criteria along with the goalposts mounted on rails. It is an infamous pattern of behavior of bigots that when they present some nominal objection they keep on changing it whenever it can actually be fulfilled. If they keep on changing the game it becomes clear that they just don't want to let them win no matter what and aren't acting in good faith.
