The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html?fbclid=IwAR1rIja_w5l2GYZp9tcN5o0sdyhJ01IKtZnfarZ6ridBABkHREuuniQdr68

The paper is based on data that emerged during the controversial lawsuit that accused the university of discriminating against Asian applicants, which gave the public an unprecedented look behind the scenes of the school’s admissions process. (Closing arguments in that case wrapped in February, but the judge has not rendered a decision.) The study’s lead author, Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, served as an expert witness for the case’s plaintiffs, who are seeking to eliminate the consideration of race in university admissions. But the new research was conducted independently without any funding from the plaintiffs, according to a disclosure.

Whites were also far more likely to be recruited for sports: Jocks made up an additional 16 percent of the white students that Harvard admitted, versus roughly 9 percent among blacks and 4 percent among Hispanics and Asians. Overall, approximately 69 percent of athletes accepted to Harvard were Caucasian.

43 percent of the Caucasian applicants accepted at Harvard University were either athletes, legacies, or the children of donors and faculty. Only about a quarter of those students would have been accepted to the school, the study concludes, without those admissions advantage . . . if you took away the admissions advantages, only 26 percent of the white athletes, legacies, dean’s listers, and faculty children Harvard admitted between 2009 and 2014 would still make the cut based on, say, their grades. At most, the white legacy/dean’s list/faculty kid group would have an acceptance rate of about 14 percent.

Thank you !!!

Please. Table 11 is the real kicker here. If you removed Athletic and Legacy preferences, Table 11 tells you that rich whites will be replaced by poor whites, but they will still be whites, so the white population would decrease just slightly. The real kicker is to remove Racial preferences. Then the game would change totally. White and Asian would increase ( White a little bit, Asian a lot and it would all come at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics, which we already knew) The Legacy, Athlete screed from the left is just a red herring as this paper and Table 11 shows

DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

What I'm reading is that affirmative action for legacies and athletes disproportionately help white people at the expense of more qualified Asian American students.

OP posted that some white people claim that brown and black people are the recipients of affirmative action, but here in this article, we see that a large portion of white people are also big beneficiaries of affirmative action.

The biggest loser every which way you see it are Asian Americans -- the smallest minority group in the US (aside from Native Americans, of course).

Then you are reading the paper wrong. If you removed Legacy and athletes, yes Asians would benefit, but this preference doesn't disproportionally benefit whites, because when you remove it, the white enrollment doesn't plummet, instead one set of whites will replace another set of whites. Woke rich Whites from the coasts will be replaced by poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland. Not all white folks are the same. But now if you remove Affirmative action, Black and Brown enrollment would plummet and Asians would be the biggest beneficiaries, just as SFFA is claiming. Contrary to the false narrative on the left, the lawsuit is not shooting at blacks and browns using Asians for the benefit of whites. That is total nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why someone would think that whites' (or any other racial group's) motivation is racial solidarity. As a nonathletic, non-legacy white person, why would I be happy that white athletes and legacies are benefiting from preferences? As a non-athletic, non-legacy white person, I recognize that I am being screwed by athletic, legacy, and race preferences. I understand the motives behind these preferences: legacies and athletes make the university more profitable. Race preferences appeal to the racists on the left, Harvard's natural constituency.

[Anonymous]

Harvard is Harvard. Harvard's practices MIGHT be similar to those at other schools in that tier of schools, the schools that reject 90% of their applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

I work in higher education admin. in a finance area. Outside of the schools that have big teams that net revenues from TV, etc. Sports is a cost to schools not a money maker. Title IX expanded equity, so you have more sports to pay for. Facilities, scholarships, salaries. It all adds up.

So, no. Outside of the big 10 school I worked at, it's not a money maker. It's a student life benefit really. And a belief that sports adds to the educational experience for students as either participants or spectators. Also, to make donors happy.

All of the schools you mention lose money from having these sports. But they aren't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Asians should just play sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

What's on table 11? I don't see a table 11 on that site. Not OP.

Table 11 tells you that if you removed Legacy, Recruited Athlete, etc (called ALDC)+AA, the White and Asian enrollment would in fact increase. Asian by a lot

If you only removed only Athletes and Legacy, White enrollment would only decrease slightly, but Asian enrollment would increase even with that. Racial preference is key here. Lets not kid ourselves. The other ones will have marginal impact. Its just a lot of noise from the left to distract from the real issue

White enrollment if you removed ALDC only would drop, if you believe the numbers, about 10%. I'm not sure that's 'decrease slightly' - that's just a lot of lies from the right to distract from what is at least an equally important issue. You can't say one preference is the key over another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would think that whites' (or any other racial group's) motivation is racial solidarity. As a nonathletic, non-legacy white person, why would I be happy that white athletes and legacies are benefiting from preferences? As a non-athletic, non-legacy white person, I recognize that I am being screwed by athletic, legacy, and race preferences. I understand the motives behind these preferences: legacies and athletes make the university more profitable. Race preferences appeal to the racists on the left, Harvard's natural constituency.

Neither legacy nor athletic preferences make the university more profitable. Studies show that eliminating legacy preferences has no impact on alumni giving, and Harvard's athletic department most assuredly does not make money. You expose your own not-so-closeted bias with that statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

Collegiate sports should NOT be money making endeavors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html?fbclid=IwAR1rIja_w5l2GYZp9tcN5o0sdyhJ01IKtZnfarZ6ridBABkHREuuniQdr68

The paper is based on data that emerged during the controversial lawsuit that accused the university of discriminating against Asian applicants, which gave the public an unprecedented look behind the scenes of the school’s admissions process. (Closing arguments in that case wrapped in February, but the judge has not rendered a decision.) The study’s lead author, Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, served as an expert witness for the case’s plaintiffs, who are seeking to eliminate the consideration of race in university admissions. But the new research was conducted independently without any funding from the plaintiffs, according to a disclosure.

Whites were also far more likely to be recruited for sports: Jocks made up an additional 16 percent of the white students that Harvard admitted, versus roughly 9 percent among blacks and 4 percent among Hispanics and Asians. Overall, approximately 69 percent of athletes accepted to Harvard were Caucasian.

43 percent of the Caucasian applicants accepted at Harvard University were either athletes, legacies, or the children of donors and faculty. Only about a quarter of those students would have been accepted to the school, the study concludes, without those admissions advantage . . . if you took away the admissions advantages, only 26 percent of the white athletes, legacies, dean’s listers, and faculty children Harvard admitted between 2009 and 2014 would still make the cut based on, say, their grades. At most, the white legacy/dean’s list/faculty kid group would have an acceptance rate of about 14 percent.

Thank you !!!

Please. Table 11 is the real kicker here. If you removed Athletic and Legacy preferences, Table 11 tells you that rich whites will be replaced by poor whites, but they will still be whites, so the white population would decrease just slightly. The real kicker is to remove Racial preferences. Then the game would change totally. White and Asian would increase ( White a little bit, Asian a lot and it would all come at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics, which we already knew) The Legacy, Athlete screed from the left is just a red herring as this paper and Table 11 shows

DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

What I'm reading is that affirmative action for legacies and athletes disproportionately help white people at the expense of more qualified Asian American students.

OP posted that some white people claim that brown and black people are the recipients of affirmative action, but here in this article, we see that a large portion of white people are also big beneficiaries of affirmative action.

The biggest loser every which way you see it are Asian Americans -- the smallest minority group in the US (aside from Native Americans, of course).

Then you are reading the paper wrong. If you removed Legacy and athletes, yes Asians would benefit, but this preference doesn't disproportionally benefit whites, because when you remove it, the white enrollment doesn't plummet, instead one set of whites will replace another set of whites. Woke rich Whites from the coasts will be replaced by poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland. Not all white folks are the same. But now if you remove Affirmative action, Black and Brown enrollment would plummet and Asians would be the biggest beneficiaries, just as SFFA is claiming. Contrary to the false narrative on the left, the lawsuit is not shooting at blacks and browns using Asians for the benefit of whites. That is total nonsense.

The bolded statement is just wrong.

When you remove legacy and athletes, white enrollment does drop, by about 8-10% and most of the gains go to Asian student enrollment, not whites.

You should further consider the logical implication of your statement. When you remove one type of preference it helps Asians. When you remove another type, it helps whites. Why would that be?

Are those 'poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland' more qualified than Asians? If so, where are all those whites going when the racial preference is removed?

If your statement is true, then it suggests that whites have a reserved percentage at Harvard and non-whites fight over the rest. Boy, that looks like a set aside to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative Action is racially based (and I also believe gender based for women, at least it was in some form).

Legacy/athlete admissions is NOT racially based, contrary to what some of you want to think. That's why this rant is falling on deaf ears. Trying to throw out phrases like affirmative action for legacies and athletes is not only insulting to the original premise of affirmative action, it also makes you seem childish.

The universities are not using legacy/athlete admissions to deliberately bolster their white student numbers. They use the admissions preferences for quite different reasons (and you ignore that legacy/athlete admissions include people of color these days and their share is only increasing as time goes on).

You really think the admissions committees at the Ivies, bastions of liberalism and progressiveness, are sitting around a table saying, oh, look, we need another 50 white students, quick, let's call the athletic department or the alumni office and see what applicants we can drum up.

Wait, I thought we were talking about creating a meritocracy here. I guess that concept goes out the window when it comes to legacies and athletes who, if the preferences were removed, would see their admittance rates plummet because they get in at a far higher rate than their 'qualifications' would otherwise predict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would think that whites' (or any other racial group's) motivation is racial solidarity. As a nonathletic, non-legacy white person, why would I be happy that white athletes and legacies are benefiting from preferences? As a non-athletic, non-legacy white person, I recognize that I am being screwed by athletic, legacy, and race preferences. I understand the motives behind these preferences: legacies and athletes make the university more profitable. Race preferences appeal to the racists on the left, Harvard's natural constituency.

The thing is ... you "understand the motives" behind the preferences that overwhelmingly benefit white applicants. You see an arguable value to that. You apparently don't see a value to race-based weighting. Other reasonable minds value things differently. A lot of people see a value to racial diversity and avoiding student populations that are too unbalanced. They also see value to the different point of view and cultural background brought by students of different races.

The larger point, the reality that these numbers reveal is that admissions to super competitive schools are not merit-based in the way that some people define merit. They cannot be because schools receive so many more similarly qualified applicants than they can take. They need to consider other factors beyond grades and scores, which are not really the objective standard a lot of people thing they are, anyway. Rejected applicants that file lawsuits because they "should've" gotten in have a misplaced sense of entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would think that whites' (or any other racial group's) motivation is racial solidarity. As a nonathletic, non-legacy white person, why would I be happy that white athletes and legacies are benefiting from preferences? As a non-athletic, non-legacy white person, I recognize that I am being screwed by athletic, legacy, and race preferences. I understand the motives behind these preferences: legacies and athletes make the university more profitable. Race preferences appeal to the racists on the left, Harvard's natural constituency.

The thing is ... you "understand the motives" behind the preferences that overwhelmingly benefit white applicants. You see an arguable value to that. You apparently don't see a value to race-based weighting. Other reasonable minds value things differently. A lot of people see a value to racial diversity and avoiding student populations that are too unbalanced. They also see value to the different point of view and cultural background brought by students of different races.

The larger point, the reality that these numbers reveal is that admissions to super competitive schools are not merit-based in the way that some people define merit. They cannot be because schools receive so many more similarly qualified applicants than they can take. They need to consider other factors beyond grades and scores, which are not really the objective standard a lot of people thing they are, anyway. Rejected applicants that file lawsuits because they "should've" gotten in have a misplaced sense of entitlement.

Exactly. It's specious to argue that you could order every single applicant to these schools by how much they 'deserve' to get in. Deserve has nothing to do with it. These schools could replace their entire admitted class with other applicants and see no drop in the overall academic quality of the students.

Viewing the admissions process at these schools simply by looking at a single school's admissions yields a distorted view. Every qualified student gets in somewhere, very few of them get in everywhere. Once you see a kid get rejected by Cornell and accepted by Harvard, that should tell you how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

Then you don't read enough.