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.