Asians at Harvard undergrad are represented at roughly 4x their proportion of the general US population. Assuming that Harvard undergrad values “holistic qualities” (I think it does), then the answer to that may be yes.
Is this the argument that the folks in the lawsuit are making? I don’t think so. The argument to me sounds more like “why can’t Harvard make admissions just based just on a test?”
Short answer: There isn’t a standardized test that does a good job of selecting for the “holistic qualities” that certain schools want. Hence the admissions system that most elite schools use.
If these "holistic qualities" can't be detailed or measured, they may become merely a reflection of the interviewer's personal bias.
> On average, alumni give white and Asian American applicants similar ratings, but Harvard staff give whites substantially better reviews than they give Asian Americans.
Actually, no, it is not a coincidence that holistic qualities are not uniformly distributed across every social group. For example, a member of a historically privileged group is less likely to be the first member of their family to attend college than a member of a historically disadvantaged group.
Maybe extremely high SAT and grades are correlated with poor 'holistic' qualities such as social skills, communication, leadership, creativity, 'round character' (i.e. athleticism, disposition, generosity, musicianship).
I'm not saying they are - I'm saying it wouldn't really surprise me if they were, and then we have to think about it a little bit!
> Maybe extremely high SAT and grades are correlated with poor 'holistic' qualities such as social skills, communication, leadership, creativity, 'round character' (i.e. athleticism, disposition, generosity, musicianship).
If that were so, it would affect members of all ethnicities who had the same high SAT scores and grades equally.
Good point, but those 'other qualities' may not be distributed very evenly among the remaining applicants. This is an ugly problem to have. I don't envy anyone in this situation.
Many of those "poor 'holistic' qualities" can be code words for discrimination. "Social skills" for neurotypical, "leadership" for attractive, "athleticism" for not disabled, "disposition" for obedient.
Even if you're right and extremely high SAT and grades are correlated with neurodiversity, physical problems, or rebelliousness, are those qualities colleges should be discriminating against?
There's certainly a heap of evidence of discrimination against neurodiversity, physical problems, and rebelliousness. It's certainly been talked about enough. If you're not aware of it that's only because you've chosen to ignore it.
I don't think it's a tricky subject in the way that fluid dynamics is tricky. I do think it is difficult to communicate openly about because systemic favor and disfavor lie so close to individual identity that those favored have a hard time acknowledging it and those disfavored have a hard time being listened to. The ego is super enmeshed.
Is this the argument that the folks in the lawsuit are making? I don’t think so. The argument to me sounds more like “why can’t Harvard make admissions just based just on a test?”
Short answer: There isn’t a standardized test that does a good job of selecting for the “holistic qualities” that certain schools want. Hence the admissions system that most elite schools use.