Indeed, Harvard's own internal study determined that if academics were all that mattered, 43% of admitted students would be Asian.

The major factors pushing down that percentage are legacy admissions and the vague "personal rating," which seems to be the knob Harvard admissions turns to get the demographic ratios it desires. Asians are systematically given a far lower "personal rating" than other demographics.

Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissio...

"Well it's simple you see, Asians are simply less personable, as a group, than white folk. No no no, it's not blatant discrimination at all, I assure you! It's just science, I swear!"

I really don't see how anyone justifies this kind of thing in 2019. This is like the barest possible fig leaf over obvious prejudice. They could rename it to "Cromulence Factor" and it'd make as much sense.

It's a personal rating not a personable rating.

The smoking gun is that Asians were doing just fine on personal ratings given by Harvard alumni, but were doing poorly specifically on the personal ratings given by Harvard admissions officers.

I don't see why academic performance, beyond an institution's decided-upon base threshold, should be the sole or even dominant admissions factor. Especially at a liberals arts college like Harvard.

It shouldn't be. Admission should be a lottery passed a base SAT score. That score should be based on analysis of how capable of Harvard's existing course load a student who receives a given score is, rather than, say, calibrating it specifically to cause the rejection of the majority of a given protected class. Suddenly, you achieve demographic near-parity.

Kid didn't get into Harvard? Donate to the school he or she did get into.