Here's how much legacy/athlete preferences matter at Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

It's not trope but the reality of the racial politics of the day. You may be sick of it but I'm sure the Asians are sick of it too, especially hearing all the time how they really don't count towards diversity and a school with a large Asian heritage population isn't diverse just because there aren't many AAs.

We live in funny times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

Asians are taking the seats of White students. There are very little Blacks and Hispanics in higher education to make any difference to Asians or Whites, and no one in power would care if Asians took the place of Blacks and Hispanics and vice versa.

The whole discrimination effort is due to Asians taking seats from so-called "bright" snowflake White students, who were actually quite inferior. Blacks and Hispanics are just the excuse the Whites give to deflect anger from themselves. Its the tried and tested divide and conquer of the White people.

- Asian-American

+1000. Although when pressed, whites will show their prejudice against Asians. Funny how some white people deemphasize standardized test scores when their kids are pitted against Asian American students (at least, the Asian subgroups who traditionally perform well), yet play up the importance of test scores when discussing black or Latino kids. Just check out this thread on Asian-bashing by white families who want to deemphasize a focus on academics—some would say it’s because whites are no longer on top more than concern about pressure/stress.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/822890.page

-a black and Asian parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

Asians are taking the seats of White students. There are very little Blacks and Hispanics in higher education to make any difference to Asians or Whites, and no one in power would care if Asians took the place of Blacks and Hispanics and vice versa.

The whole discrimination effort is due to Asians taking seats from so-called "bright" snowflake White students, who were actually quite inferior. Blacks and Hispanics are just the excuse the Whites give to deflect anger from themselves. Its the tried and tested divide and conquer of the White people.

- Asian-American

+1000. Although when pressed, whites will show their prejudice against Asians. Funny how some white people deemphasize standardized test scores when their kids are pitted against Asian American students (at least, the Asian subgroups who traditionally perform well), yet play up the importance of test scores when discussing black or Latino kids. Just check out this thread on Asian-bashing by white families who want to deemphasize a focus on academics—some would say it’s because whites are no longer on top more than concern about pressure/stress.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/822890.page

-a black and Asian parent

White people will say and do anything to maintain their privileged position. Logic, consistency and honesty are worthless concepts when arguing with them on this point. All that matters is what helps them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White people will say and do anything to maintain their privileged position. Logic, consistency and honesty are worthless concepts when arguing with them on this point. All that matters is what helps them.

[Anonymous]

cross posted from the other thread (Why are there two threads on this in the same forum?)

The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:cross posted from the other thread (Why are there two threads on this in the same forum?)

The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

That isn’t what the table shows. That table shows what happens if race, legacy and athletics are removed. Does anyone believe that will happen? That athletes won’t get preferences?

The table does not show what happens if only race is removed. The real outcome that should be shown is where only race is removed. In that case based on the study whites will see most of the gains because they get most of the legacy and athletic boost.

Asians are not stupid. We can read the table and understand it. All whites are trying to do is force non whites to fight over the scraps whites deign to leave them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Indeed.

And the AA numbers are incredible. If you get rid of race as a factor, only 400+ black students would have got in, instead of 1,300+.

And the beneficiaries from those open slots would have been, wait for it...Asian Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Indeed.

And the AA numbers are incredible. If you get rid of race as a factor, only 400+ black students would have got in, instead of 1,300+.

And the beneficiaries from those open slots would have been, wait for it...Asian Americans.

This board needs a lesson in how to read tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Indeed.

And the AA numbers are incredible. If you get rid of race as a factor, only 400+ black students would have got in, instead of 1,300+.

And the beneficiaries from those open slots would have been, wait for it...Asian Americans.

This board needs a lesson in how to read tables.

Indeed.

Half the previous posters couldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cross posted from the other thread (Why are there two threads on this in the same forum?)

The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

That isn’t what the table shows. That table shows what happens if race, legacy and athletics are removed. Does anyone believe that will happen? That athletes won’t get preferences?

The table does not show what happens if only race is removed. The real outcome that should be shown is where only race is removed. In that case based on the study whites will see most of the gains because they get most of the legacy and athletic boost.

Asians are not stupid. We can read the table and understand it. All whites are trying to do is force non whites to fight over the scraps whites deign to leave them.

Stone cold truth.

[Anonymous]

People should get in based on merits and not race.

—Jew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

I'm sorry that you are sick of it but it's reality. Affirmative action disadvantages Asian Americans, Indian Americans (from the Indian subcontinent, not Native Americans), and Whites. In that order. This common experience of being disadvantaged against has created a racial coalition on the other side of affirmative action. The lawsuit against Harvard was brought forward by Asian political advocacy groups.

Anonymous wrote:Asians are taking the seats of White students. There are very little Blacks and Hispanics in higher education to make any difference to Asians or Whites, and no one in power would care if Asians took the place of Blacks and Hispanics and vice versa.

Neither the numbers in the report nor the political advocacy of the day support your claim.

Bill DeBlasio, the mayor of NYC, is pushing forward a plan that would see NYC's best public schools replace their entrance exams with a subjective admissions model. Why? Because Asians are vastly over-represented. At Stuyvesant high school, Asians represent 75% of the student body even though they are only 15% of the population of New York City. Asians are literally taking the most seats away from African American and Hispanic students and the mayor of America's largest city has made it one of his top social justice issues.

Anonymous wrote:That isn’t what the table shows. That table shows what happens if race, legacy and athletics are removed. Does anyone believe that will happen? That athletes won’t get preferences?

The table does not show what happens if only race is removed. The real outcome that should be shown is where only race is removed. In that case based on the study whites will see most of the gains because they get most of the legacy and athletic boost.

The table does show what happens if only race is removed, but not explicitly; you have to complete the calculation yourself.

You can extract the exact admissions benefit due to racial preference, for each racial group, by comparing "Model" to the two lines beneath it. Removing racial preference but retaining legacy and athlete preference, the change would be:

+652 white
-994 african american
-733 hispanic
+895 asian american

On a % basis this is a much greater improvement for the Asian American group.

I'll make three observations in closing.

First, I'm surprised the net benefit to African Americans from the athletic preference is effective zero while for Hispanics it's +97. Can't Harvard do a better job of recruiting competitive African American student athletes? The data would suggest a possible bias among coaches that is worth examining.

Second, I view legacy preference as a form of racial preference, given that it definitionally perpetuates racial privilege. I have no problem using affirmative action preferences to provide some advantage to historically under-represented groups. How much of a preference there should be is and should be up for debate. I would also note that within a generation, Asian Americans will start to benefit hugely from legacy preferences as well.

Third, I am appalled at the current state of racial politics in this country. The discourse has become about blaming others, blaming yourself, and embracing victimhood. No people in history - ever - have succeeded by embracing victimhood as their self-image. Lowering the bar the way DeBlasio wants to in NYC is the laziest form of self-destruction. There is no heroism there. Only decay. You can acknowledge the injustices of the past and work to correct them in much more meaningful and effective ways.

[Anonymous]

That isn’t what the table shows. That table shows what happens if race, legacy and athletics are removed. Does anyone believe that will happen? That athletes won’t get preferences?

Yeah. In fact it is easier to believe athletes will go away than either race or legacy admits. The only inhibition on doing that is that athletics is often also a racial admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check table 11, buried on page 49. I guess they didn't want to talk about that.

What’s your point?

NP here so I'm not sure what PP meant but it's "Table 11: Total Admits by Race under Different Admissions Policies, Expanded Sample" that jumped out at me. If you remove all preferences, about the same number of white students are admitted, but way more asians are admitted, at the expense of african americans and hispanics. Politics of the moment aside, this is really a story about asians versus those other two minority groups.

Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

Agreed.

Especially when you consider that the study abstract states the following:

“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop trying to pit Asians against other minority groups. I am black and SO sick of this trope.

I'm sorry that you are sick of it but it's reality. Affirmative action disadvantages Asian Americans, Indian Americans (from the Indian subcontinent, not Native Americans), and Whites. In that order. This common experience of being disadvantaged against has created a racial coalition on the other side of affirmative action. The lawsuit against Harvard was brought forward by Asian political advocacy groups.

Anonymous wrote:Asians are taking the seats of White students. There are very little Blacks and Hispanics in higher education to make any difference to Asians or Whites, and no one in power would care if Asians took the place of Blacks and Hispanics and vice versa.

Neither the numbers in the report nor the political advocacy of the day support your claim.

Bill DeBlasio, the mayor of NYC, is pushing forward a plan that would see NYC's best public schools replace their entrance exams with a subjective admissions model. Why? Because Asians are vastly over-represented. At Stuyvesant high school, Asians represent 75% of the student body even though they are only 15% of the population of New York City. Asians are literally taking the most seats away from African American and Hispanic students and the mayor of America's largest city has made it one of his top social justice issues.

Anonymous wrote:That isn’t what the table shows. That table shows what happens if race, legacy and athletics are removed. Does anyone believe that will happen? That athletes won’t get preferences?

The table does not show what happens if only race is removed. The real outcome that should be shown is where only race is removed. In that case based on the study whites will see most of the gains because they get most of the legacy and athletic boost.

The table does show what happens if only race is removed, but not explicitly; you have to complete the calculation yourself.

You can extract the exact admissions benefit due to racial preference, for each racial group, by comparing "Model" to the two lines beneath it. Removing racial preference but retaining legacy and athlete preference, the change would be:

+652 white
-994 african american
-733 hispanic
+895 asian american

On a % basis this is a much greater improvement for the Asian American group.

I'll make three observations in closing.

First, I'm surprised the net benefit to African Americans from the athletic preference is effective zero while for Hispanics it's +97. Can't Harvard do a better job of recruiting competitive African American student athletes? The data would suggest a possible bias among coaches that is worth examining.

Second, I view legacy preference as a form of racial preference, given that it definitionally perpetuates racial privilege. I have no problem using affirmative action preferences to provide some advantage to historically under-represented groups. How much of a preference there should be is and should be up for debate. I would also note that within a generation, Asian Americans will start to benefit hugely from legacy preferences as well.

Third, I am appalled at the current state of racial politics in this country. The discourse has become about blaming others, blaming yourself, and embracing victimhood. No people in history - ever - have succeeded by embracing victimhood as their self-image. Lowering the bar the way DeBlasio wants to in NYC is the laziest form of self-destruction. There is no heroism there. Only decay. You can acknowledge the injustices of the past and work to correct them in much more meaningful and effective ways.

+ a million.

And good that someone else can dcum can understand a table. Amazing how abundant and arrogant the fools are.