Do demographic data support lower admission rates for Asian applicants to Harvard? Maybe not. | #IAmNotYourWedge

January 16, 2015
Photo credit: NY Times
Photo credit: NY Times

Last week, I posted a surprising finding with regard to the evidence — or lack thereof — of an anti-Asian American cap quota at Harvard. Spurred by the infamous New York Times infographic shown above, I asked whether Harvard’s published freshman enrollment data supported the popular assumption reinforced by the above graph: that Harvard’s Asian American population was stuck at approximately 20%, and had not increased despite increases in Asian American overall population size.

It turns out that when you do the math, this popular preconception turns out to be false: in actuality, when you crunch the numbers with regard to changing applicant pool and falling admission rate, you find that Harvard’s admitted Asian American student population has increased between 2000-2014 at almost exactly the same pace as our national population growth. In other words, admission data simply do not support the conclusion that Harvard’s Asian American student population has been artificially capped to resist the last decade’s increases in Asian American overall population size.

This is a problematic finding for Asian American opponents of affirmative action, because the belief that Harvard exercises an anti-Asian cap quota is one of the primary reasons they cite to argue that affirmative action is unconstitutional, and violates Fourteenth Amendment protections for Asian American students.

Another major argument that Asian American opponents of affirmative action cite is that Asian American students are being admitted into Harvard at a lower admission rate than non-Asian American students because we are overrepresented in the applicant pool.

Sounds like another testable hypothesis, albeit a harder one to really get at since the numbers aren’t published by Havard or any other private academic institution. Still, I asked myself today, is this also something we can crunch the numbers on?

harvard-affirmative-action-not-fair

What we’re really asking is whether there’s evidence that more than 20% of Harvard’s 34,295 applicants — or 6,859 applicants — are Asian American?

Edward Blum’s Students For Fair Admissions lawsuit against Havard cites an unpublished study by Richard Sander, who says that based on College Board data 27.3% of high school students who sent their scores to the top three Ivy League schools (presumably Harvard, Yale and Princeton) were Asian American. This, Blum  calculates, indicates that Harvard receives over 9,000 Asian American applicants every year; he further argues that this is evidence that Asian Americans are being admitted at lower rates than applicants of other races.

While this might be pretty compelling evidence for a lower admission rate for Asian American applicants to Harvard vs. non-Asian Americans, there is some concern regarding the data. First of all, Sander is reporting the numbers of students who send their SAT scores to Ivies, not those who send complete applications. Indeed, high school students are given four free score reports to send to schools at the time of SAT registration, before or within 9 days of taking the test and before they receive their scores. Students are encouraged to use up all four free score reports, even if they don’t have four schools in mind, and based on a prediction of how they might perform on the SATs.

Thus, the College Board metric of SAT score report demographics is heavily biased by the inclusion of score reports that are being sent to both “safety” and “reach” schools, and further will include scores sent to schools without subsequent completion of an application (which might happen for any number of legitimate reasons). Further, Asian American representation among score reports to the top three Ivies would be artificially high if Asian American students are more likely to concentrate their “reach” schools around the same choices whereas non-Asian American students distribute their “reach” school choices more broadly. And, there’s evidence to support this interpretation of the data: Jeff Yang speaks about the potent “Harvard” name recognition effect among first generation East Asian American parents (and by extension, their college-aged children) that we could easily hypothesize would lead an unexpectedly high number of Asian American kids with an extra score report slot to fill to semi-arbitrarily send it to Harvard or another top Ivy, whether they plan on actually applying to Harvard or not.

Our second cause for concern with regard to this statistic is that it comes from an unpublished paper by Mismatch Theory author Richard Sander, who has been repeatedly criticized by his scientific peers for shoddy and disingenuous scientific analysis. While the fact that Sander authored the work is not, per se, reason to dismiss the finding, the scientific community’s repeated concerns for Sander’s previous publication history demand a peer-review accounting for the conclusions published in the working paper Blum cites; yet, this source is neither peer-reviewed nor publicly accessible for additional consideration regarding the validity of its methodology, so at the very least must be considered with a grain of salt.

Given these concerns with Sander’s numbers, I decided to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on other available data to see if I could get a sense of how many Asian American applicants might be applying to Harvard in any given year, and my broad guesstimates are interesting to contemplate.

Here’s a breakdown of the math: the New York Times infographic included as a header of this post indicates that there are approximately 400,000 Asian Americans aged 18-21 in the United States; that means that there are 100,000 Asian American 18-year-olds applying to college in any given year. But, not all of these students are interested in applying to Harvard: in fact, studies show that only about 20% of Asian American students enroll in 4-year private undergraduate institutions; most, instead choose to attend two-year or four-year public colleges or universities. So, that means that approximately 20,000 Asian American high school students nation-wide will be applying to a private college or university every year.

How many of these students are going to apply to Harvard? Richard Sander would have us believe that based on College Board numbers, (34,295 x 27%) 9,362, or nearly half of all Asian American high school seniors eyeing a four-year degree at a private institution, are submitting a competitive application to Harvard. While possible, it’s not likely. Again, it’s quite possible this number is inflated by how the system encourages students to submit their scores to “reach” schools, and doesn’t include an assessment of how many students are actually completing an application to that “reach” school once they receive their scores back.

In addition, most Asian Americans aren’t living in states where applications to Harvard are either typical or often successful: 40% of Harvard’s incoming freshmen hail from the Northeast or mid-Atlantic states. Yet, only 16% — 9% from New York, 4.5% from New Jersey, and 3% from Virginia — live in this region. On the other hand, 32% of Asian American applicants are graduating out of a California high school, and therefore are most likely to want to stay on the West Coast; related to this point, only 17% of Harvard’s incoming freshman call a West Coast state home. Asian American applicant geography is a significant complicating factor that Richard Sander and Edward Blum rarely take into account in their calculations. In addition, there are several other reasons that might make a student interested in a bachelor’s degree from a private 4-year institution might choose not to apply to Harvard.

So, let’s make a more realistic estimate that 30% to 35% of these 20,000 Asian American students who are interested in a 4-year private undergraduate education are actually deciding to apply to Harvard and actually complete an application, even if they live in California, Washington or some other West Coast state. That comes out to approximately 6,000 to 7,000 Asian American completed applications every year to Harvard.

By the way, what number of Asian American applicants should we expect if Harvard’s 409 incoming Asian American freshmen were admitted at the same 5.9% rate as all other students in 2014? 6,932, or ~20% of 2014’s total applicant pool.

While none of this is direct evidence for how many Asian Americans apply to Harvard every year, or proves Richard Sander (or Edward Blum) is wrong in arguing that this number is 27.3% (or 9,632), it certainly provides some context to the numbers being thrown around. These back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that Sander and Blum’s numbers may be artificially high based on the fudge factor related to Sander’s use of SAT score report patterns as a proxy for completed applications. They further show that to believe that Asian American applicants to Harvard are being admitted at a rate lower than 5.9%, we must also believe that nearly half (or more) of all Asian American applicants to private universities annually are both competitive to Harvard, and have set their sights on that school regardless of family income, geography or academic interests.

Again, that’s not an impossible thing to believe. But, it’s certainly a little improbable, absent any direct data.

Meanwhile, temper your estimates to a far more realistic one-third, and you arrive at an applicant number that reflects an Asian American Harvard admission rate of about 6%, almost exactly at parity with non-Asian American Harvard applicants.

Did you like this content? Please consider becoming a patron of Reappropriate and get exclusive access to the brand new Reappropriate vlog!

  • Heteronormative Cisgender Man

    Strange….

    There are lots of comments in the many threads below giving you undeniable proof that affirmative action hurts Asians yet you continue to pedantically post these anti-Asian articles to deny the facts and spread falsehoods.

    Do demographic data support lower admission rates for Asian applicants to Harvard? Maybe not. | #IAmNotYourWedge
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7742
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    How holistic review in college admissions works, and why we need it | #IAmNotYourWedge
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7309
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Most AAPI actually DON’T think affirmative action hurts us in college admissions | #BlockBlum #IAmNotYourWedge
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7526
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Filipinos are underrepresented at most selective of UC campuses | #BlockBlum #IAmNotYourWedge
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7476
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    #AAPI groups & writing in support of affirmative action | #IAmNotYourWedge #BlockBlum
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7232
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    #IAmNotYourWedge: Lawsuits against Harvard & UNC assert anti-Asian discrimination in admissions
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=7197
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Asian Americans would not lose out under affirmative action
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=6878
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Majority of AAPI voters in CA support affirmative action — so, who are the ones that don’t?
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=6812
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Reappropriate: The Podcast – Ep. 3 | #AAPI and affirmative action
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=6455
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Proof that UCLA’s race-blind holistic review admissions is inadequate for campus diversity
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=6205
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Reappropriate: The Podcast – Ep. 1 | Affirmative Action
    http://reappropriate.co/?p=6160
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    From your comment policy

    “Don’t be pedantic: Listen to those debating you not just for places to attack, but also where you might learn and even change your own opinion. **Repeatedly arguing the same point irrespective of presented counterfacts will now be considered a violation of this site’s comment policy**.”

    I’d hate to see you ban yourself. I kid, of course!…….

    Most Sincerely,
    Heteronormative Cisgender Man

  • MelaninManson

    Hey, we needed a good collection of all the Reappropriate affirmative action posts! They are super useful when refuting anti-affirmative action rhetoric. Thanks, Het Cis Man! Way to help out!

  • I know, right? That was really thoughtful of HCM to take so much time on a Friday night to exhaustively compile all my writing on this topic and link them here for reference! I know I wouldn’t have time to do something like that — especially not on date night!!!

    But I appreciate that he’s been following my writing so closely that he immediately set to work linking my other writing within an hour of publication of this post, and that he thought my overall work on this topic was of such value as to share it with other readers! This is a great resource!

    Thanks HCM!

  • yellowprivilege

    “in fact, studies show that only about 20% of Asian American students
    enroll in 4-year private undergraduate institutions; most, instead
    choose to attend two-year or four-year public colleges or universities.
    So, that means that approximately 20,000 Asian American high school
    students nation-wide will be applying to a private college or university
    every year.”

    I think you’ve confused the last instance of “applying” with “enrolling.”

  • It’s reasonable to assume that since school choice is self-selected based on both income and perceived self-qualification, that enrollment more or less reflects application. In that, students who apply to four-year private institutions are limiting themselves mostly to four-year institutions, and those who apply mostly to public institutions are limiting themselves mostly to public institutions; what differs is WHICH specific institution they end up at. There’s no real reason to imagine that there’s a bulk of students applying to four-year private institutions who are going to public institutions instead, particularly since there are data out there showing that something like 80-90% of students who score well on the SATs and who apply to a few will get into a selective 4-year college, although not necessarily to all their selective colleges. There’s simply little evidence for a huge trend of Asian Americans (or any other group) applying to 4-year colleges but enrolling in public universities.

    Even with this current affirmative action debate, if you look where the students who claim discrimination against a school like Harvard end up, it is typically still a 4-year private institution.

  • yellowprivilege

    “if you look where the students who claim discrimination against a school
    like Harvard end up, it is typically still a 4-year private
    institution.”

    Have wondered about this. Are there data for this or are you extrapolating?

  • students who apply to Harvard are going to be students who believe they are reasonably qualified as well as students who believe they can afford it, or any other private institution. We also know that with the Common App, students are applying more broadly to schools. This means that there aren’t going to be large numbers of students who are applying only to Harvard and a public university. There are a few studies out there now that further show that 60-80% of top students get into elite schools.

    The students behind the SFFA lawsuit against Harvard is currently in Stanford.

    Sure, this is all circumstantial evidence, but this is better than the zero evidence of a trend of Asian American student applying to Harvard, being rejected, and going to the University of Idaho.

Comment Policy

Before posting, please review the following guidelines:

  • No ad hominem attacks: A person's identity, personal history, or background is not up for debate. Talk about ideas, not people.
  • Be courteous: Respect everyone else in this space.
  • Present evidence: This space endeavours to encourage academic and rational debate around identity politics. Do your best to build an argument backed not just with your own ideas, but also with science.
  • Don't be pedantic: Listen to those debating you not just for places to attack, but also where you might learn and even change your own opinion. Repeatedly arguing the same point irrespective of presented counterfacts will now be considered a violation of this site's comment policy.
  • Respect the humanity of all groups: To elevate the quality of debate, this site will no longer tolerate (racial, cultural, gender, etc.) supremacist or inferiority lines of argumentation. There are other places on the internet where nationalist arguments can be expressed; this blog is not those places.
  • Don't be an asshole: If you think your behaviour would get you punched in the face outside of the internets, don't say it on the internets.
  • Don't abuse Disqus features: Don't upvote your own comments. Don't flag other people's comments without reasonable cause. Basically, don't try to game the system. You are not being slick.

Is your comment not approved, unpublished, or deleted? Here are some common reasons why:

  • Did you sign in? You are required to register an account with Disqus or one of your social media accounts in order to comment.
  • Did your comment get caught in the spam filter? Disqus is set to automatically detect and filter out spam comments. Sometimes, its algorithm gets over-zealous, particularly if you post multiple comments in rapid succession, if your comment contains keywords often associated with spam, and/or if your comment contains multiple links. If your comment has been erroneously caught in the spam filter, contact me and I will retrieve it.
  • Did a comment get flagged? Comments will be default be published but flagged comments will be temporarily removed from view until they are reviewed by me.
  • Did you not play nice? You may have gotten banned and a bunch of your comments may have been therefore deleted. Sorry.

I monitor all comment threads, and try to address comments requiring moderation within 24-48 hours. Comments that violate this comment policy may receive a warning and removal of offensive content; overt or repeat violations are subject to deletion and/or banning of comment authors without warning.

I reserve final decision over how this comment policy will be enforced.

Summary:

Play nice and don't be a jerk, and you'll do just fine.