Harvard lets in more Asian-Americans

Harvard let in a record share of Asian-American students, 29.9 percent, in the class of 2027. Why? It’s probably the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit, which went before the Supreme Court last October.

William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admission, disagrees. He said: “It’s been part of a long-term trend. The percentages have been going up steadily. It’s not a surprise.”

It’s true that there is a trend. Harvard has been letting in more Asian-Americans, as a share of the admitted class, for more than a decade.

What explains those lumps, though?

Some large increases in the share of Asian-Americans in the admitted class at Harvard happen the year after events in this lawsuit.

• In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a complaint. In 2015, the Asian-American share in the admitted class grew by 7 percent.

• In 2018, the trial began in a Boston federal district court. In 2019, the share of Asian-Americans in the admitted class grew by 12 percent.

• In 2022, the SFFA lawsuit went to the Supreme Court. In 2023, the share of Asian-Americans in the admitted class grew by 8 percent.

Could those numbers happen by chance? Yes. But it seems like Harvard responds to increased scrutiny of its affirmative action practices by letting in more Asian-Americans. I don’t have access to Harvard’s current internal documents (yet), so I can’t tell you that for sure, but it is a plausible explanation.

We can also look at old internal documents to see that Harvard responds to this lawsuit. After SFFA filed a complaint in 2014, Harvard changed its internal instructions to admissions staff for assessing candidates. It probably feared—correctly—that it would have to start coughing up more internal documents.

Here’s the most obvious change to these instructions:

“The consideration of race or ethnicity may be considered only as one factor among many.” (emphasis in the original)

The SFFA complaint criticized Harvard admissions officers for stereotyping Asian-American applicants as “quiet,” “shy,” and “hard workers.”

So, Harvard adjusted its instructions to admissions officers:

“It is important to keep in mind that characteristics not always synonymous with extroversion are similarly valued. Applicants who seem to be particularly reflective, insightful and/or dedicated should receive higher personal ratings as well.”

…by disadvantaging Asian-Americans less

I don’t think Harvard has turned off its system of racial preferences. I think it has turned the dial down.

We can compare Harvard’s stats against UC ones to see that Harvard probably still has its racial preferences system on. California state law forbids the UCs from considering race in admissions. The most recent freshman class at UC Berkeley was about 37 percent Asian-American, compared to 29.9 percent admitted at Harvard.

Contra Park (sorry, Park)

Julie Park, a professor at the University of Maryland who studies race in higher education, is wrong about some things. NBC interviewed her for an article about affirmative action in this admission cycle at Harvard.

Dr. Park consulted for Harvard for this lawsuit. NBC didn’t mention that work, which was an oversight.

Let’s examine her comments to NBC.

Park: “Under race-conscious admissions, Harvard has a very sizable Asian American class.”

The critique of Harvard’s prejudice against Asian-Americans isn’t that Harvard doesn’t let “a very sizeable” number in. It’s that Harvard establishes a way higher bar for them, and so do a lot of other colleges.

Park: “We know from research that low-income Asian American students actually do receive a boost under these policies.”

Nope! Not at Harvard, at least. The regressions performed by SFFA’s expert witness, Duke economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, show that the coefficient for the interaction term of disadvantaged and Asian-American is not statistically significant. The marginal effect on admission rates of being both disadvantaged and Asian-American is nothing.

Here’s something even worse. For the interaction terms of disadvantaged-Hispanic and disadvantaged-Black, the coefficients are statistically significant and negative. That means Harvard gives Black and Hispanic applicants a boost in admissions because of their race, and then dials down that boost if the kid is poor.

Park: “They pay attention to not just race, but also ethnicity, to subgroups that have been historically underserved in education, like Southeast Asian Americans and the Pacific Islander community.”

In Harvard’s internal documents produced in this lawsuit, there is no indication that it considers Asian-Americans of different backgrounds differently. It appears to use the Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) racial classification methodology, which considers as Asian-American people with ancestors from anywhere in Asia: Afghanistan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan. The bulk of the world’s population.

Park is wrong about Pacific Islanders, too. IPEDS, Harvard, and most colleges consider Americans of Pacific Islander heritage as a separate racial category from Asian-Americans.

What does the changing landscape of race-based affirmative action mean for your child? Let’s talk about it. You can book a one-on-one session here. I look forward to working with your family!