The lawsuit against admissions to Harvard turns into a battle of economists in court

Courtesy of Peter Arcidiacono

Peter Arcidiacono, an economist at Duke U., said Thursday that there "exists a penalty for Asian-American applicants" at Harvard.

The Harvard College admissions process favors African American, Latino and Latin students at the expense of white and American candidates of Asian descent. Duke University economist Peter S. Arcidiacono testified Thursday in federal court. He had been hired to analyze data on admissions to Harvard for six years by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative-action organization that sued college in 2014, claiming that it discriminated against Americans from all walks of life. Asian origin.

Students for Fair Admissions does not plan to testify with American students of Asian descent who have been rejected by Harvard. Arcidiacono is therefore the key witness of the organization. He exposed the bulk of the case against Harvard, relying on his analysis of the data to show that US Asian claimants are treated unfairly.

Although they routinely get better results on academic and extracurricular metrics, he said: "Asian American candidates are subject to a penalty" at Harvard.

While Americans of Asian descent are losers, candidates from other racial groups benefit, according to his analysis. He said that "two-thirds of African-Americans admitted are admitted because of racial preferences and about half of Hispanics".

Harvard officials categorically deny that admissions officials discriminate against US applicants of Asian descent. They say that, although they take race into account in their admissions process, this can only help a candidate.

David Card, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, will testify for Harvard Friday or next week. His analysis of the same data revealed no evidence of discrimination. According to Card, Arcidiacono's analysis is based on "misunderstandings about the workings of the Harvard process, the factors that value Harvard in the admissions process, and how candidates are admitted."

As part of the Harvard process, admissions officers classify candidates into four categories: academic achievement, extracurricular activities, athletic ability, and personal suitability. They also give each candidate a global score.

The central argument of the Arcidiacono is that admissions officers at Harvard discriminate against US applicants of Asian origin: the personal note and the overall rating. Earlier in the trial, Harvard admissions officials said they considered the plaintiff's race solely in the final score. They also said that the scores are preliminary, given at the beginning of the process by several months.

But Arcidiacono said he found that the successful candidates were usually the ones with the best personal and overall ratings.

"You see the same systematic patterns," said Arcidiacono, "African Americans getting the best results, followed by Hispanics, then whites, then Americans of Asian descent".

The list of excluded

The main difference between the two economists' analyzes lies in the type of candidates they have included. Arcidiacono excluded recruited athletes, alumni children, children of Harvard faculty and staff, and students on a "dean list" made up in part of children of donors. These candidates – about 7,000 out of about 150,000 students in the six-year data set – are admitted at a much higher rate than the rest of the group, which, according to Arcidiacono, makes them hard to compare with the other candidates.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the Federal District Court asked questions about the decision not to include this group. She wondered how many American applicants of Asian and Asian origin were admitted in these categories. In fact, they are admitted to higher rates than white candidates.

"It seems to me that what you are saying is that you have an admissions office discriminating against Asians, but they only do it in certain places," she said. Arcidiacono has accepted.

"If you discriminate against a group, do not you expect that they will discriminate at all levels?", She asked. Arcidiacono did not agree with that one.

For most of the day, J. Scott McBride, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, presented dozens of slides to Arcidiacono illustrating graphs and simplified equations illustrating how he conducted his analysis. Arcidiacono seemed relaxed and almost gleeful on the stand. He sat back in his chair, waved his hand and took frequent sips of water and coffee. He added that he does not usually work with such a rich and detailed data set.

"This data is fantastic," he said. "That's part of the reason why I'm interested in that."

He also stated in his testimony that he had been paid $ 450 an hour for his pre-trial work. He charged a lump sum of $ 5,000 for the trial itself.

During his cross-examination, William F. Lee, a Harvard lawyer, explained in more detail the history of Arcidiacono, including a controversial article he had written on positive action. In 2012, he concluded in his article that the grades of African-American students improved as they studied, partly because they tended to leave the majors. During McBride's interrogation, he acknowledged that at Duke, "African-American students felt isolated" because of the newspaper. He said that for him, the experience was "scary".

Lee noted that Students for Fair Admissions and Arcidiacono had received funding from the same source, the Searle Freedom Trust, a libertarian-oriented foundation that supports conservative causes. Lee asked Arcidiacono if he could appoint a single member of Students for Fair Admissions who had been rejected by Harvard.

"I guess not," he said.

The testimony of Arcidiacono will continue Friday.

Nell Gluckman writes on issues relating to faculty and other subjects in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email him at [email protected].