Except being a URM (under represented minority) individual is one of the most beneficial factors for admission at elite colleges.

The statistics clearly show this.

On the other side of "social invisibility" lies life of being "trophy" talent/socialite acquaintance/romantic partner, and, the most dreaded one, the life of diversity hire.

The "statistics" don't show any such thing.

You do have to admire the intense racial resentment at work here. There's no evidence at all that these Asian Americans aren't boring cookie-cutter kids when compared to the broader pool of applicants. The headline literally reads 'Harvard admissions have a broader perspective than Alumni interviewers' ... duh. But this non-story is enough to summon up all sorts of wild accusations and intense paranoia that somehow, somewhere the blacks are being given an unfair advantage.

Of course they do. Consider this research:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new-research-...

Among elite Universities that initially do a holistic review of applicants to narrow down the applicant pool, URM status is viewed as the most important factor for an applicant by 42% of the universities, equal to the number of schools that view "exceptional talent" as the most important factor. Being a URM is basically equivalent to being an "exceptionally talented" non-URM in the eyes of many elite colleges' admissions boards.

Look up average SAT scores of different ethnic groups admitted to elite colleges as well. The disparity is glaring.

Now, we can argue that giving URM's a leg up in admissions is justified. I'm willing to have that discussion. But let's be realistic about the facts here.

> Look up average SAT scores of different ethnic groups admitted to elite colleges as well. The disparity is glaring.

Yes, everybody appeals to SAT scores. SAT scores are easily gamed. That's why more and more colleges are deprioritizing or abandoning them completely.

What American colleges are increasingly uninterested in are excellent test-takers. Nobody is persuaded that students who are able to grind out excellent numbers (usually with the help of an army of private tutors) will actually add anything new to the university. This "anti-number bias" as I've heard it called is just that -- an anti-number bias. There's absolutely no evidence that minorities are gaining some extraordinary advantage from this process.

> But let's be realistic about the facts here.

There are no "facts" here. This story and your link introduce nothing new. You're making a circular argument: "Going by the SAT scores which colleges are discounting more and more the best test takers are being discounted more and more." Duh.

“Research suggests that the SAT, widely used in college admissions, is primarily a measure of g. A correlation of .82 has been found between g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores. In a study of 165,000 students at 41 U.S. colleges, SAT scores were found to be correlated at .47 with first-year college grade-point average after correcting for range restriction in SAT scores (the correlation rises to .55 when course difficulty is held constant, i.e., if all students attended the same set of classes). [1][2]”

[1] Sackett et al. 2008

[2] Frey & Detterman 2003

>g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores.

That's the problem IQ tests can be gamed as well. There's ample research showing you can study to improve your score on IQ tests.

And yet...

“Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time.”

“Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy."”

None of what you cited has anything to do with sustained practice.

IQ tests are generally accurate across a large population because very few people are practicing them, not because practice doesn't improve scores.

If you provided widespread incentive for people to practice IQ tests like colleges do for the SAT, they would cease to be an accurate measure of intelligence.

You admit IQ tests are generally accurate, and I showed that SAT scores are strongly correlated with IQ. Thus SAT scores are also generally accurate. So what’s your point?

You're conspicuously ignoring the initial point I made in my post, that being a URM is valued more highly than being an "exceptional talent" at a number of elite Universities. And at those where it's not the most important factor, it's very likely one of the most important factors.

Test scores are just used as a proxy for overall application quality. If you are a URM, it's much easier to get into elite colleges.

Then only problem with saying "everybody is the same" is that its not true, but when you say everybody is not the same, people use it to discriminate against them.

“There's no evidence at all that these Asian Americans aren't boring cookie-cutter kids”

Ah yes, a classic case of proving the negative. What about extracurriculars? What’s your criterion?

There’s no evidence at all that other races “aren't boring cookie-cutter kids”, as you put it. Yet the fact that Asian Americans perform better academically implies you are claiming otherwise:

“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.”

So enlighten us.

“Make your children interesting,” Faust said, while rubbing her thumb against her index and middle fingers and winking at the audience.

The thing is Harvard doesn't need your money. If your non-legacy family has the resources to make a big enough donation to move to move the needle, your likely to either: 1) get in anyway just based on who you are, or 2) not really care whether you go to Harvard or not because you're the scion of generational wealth.

I think this is incorrect. It reminds me of The Simpsons' joke about Bill Gates, ("buy him out boys ... what, did you think I got rich by writing a bunch of checks?").

Harvard doesn't need anybody's money, but they sure aren't going to use endowment money to make things free. They want your money, regardless of whether or not they need it, whether it's a huge status-signaling donation or a drop in the ocean semester's worth of tuition. They absolutely are trying to optimize how to get that money, now and in the future.

I also think you underestimate how much big scions of generational wealth compete for status symbols like Harvard degrees. Once things become decoupled from money, that type of status signaling only increases in importance, lending legitimacy to the children of foreign rulers and diplomats, acting as a currency to normalize political relations with western countries or between corporations with vastly different political party affiliations.

Harvard sells status, and absolutely is looking at how to monetize that. If offering a pittance of tuition relief to underrepresented groups helps maintain their entrenched brand status, they'll do it because of the long term effect on their ability to monetize reputation, not in spite of.

It also reminds me of how Harvard absolutely hounds graduates for donations, despite utterly not needing them by comparison to what Harvard Management Corporation does. Mike Reiss (Simpsons writer and Harvard alum) skewered this in [0], saying among other things,

> "Harvard is like a bum who starts bugging you for spare change on the bus. And then follows you around for the rest of your life. Oh, and that bum already has $40 billion in the bank."

[0]: < https://features.thecrimson.com/2014/fm-comedy-issue/article... >

"Harvard doesn't need anybody's money, but they sure aren't going to use endowment money to make things free."

I thought Harvard did make it essentially free to attend if your parents have a middle class income.

Around 20% don’t pay tuition I believe. But keep in mind that Harvard tilts heavy toward grad student population, and selects heavily for students that win fellowships and this brings in outside money (that is how I got to attend) and master’s students who typically pay full tuition. Among my PhD cohort, it was a common joke to say that 1 graduate student was funding X free undergrads in the department (given that we were all supported fully, including insurance, by outside funding).

20% of undergrads going tuition-free is just part of Harvard’s marketing budget. It’s not philanthropy, just the cost of doing business if your business is elite status signaling.

I thought it was funny