New study on relative impact of Harvard Admissions Preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Maybe because the title of the article is 'Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard'.

If anything, the inclusion of the last line on Table 11, which was totally superfluous to the analysis in the article, was the entire point of the article. They don't need to analyze or defend it because it's presented as a throwaway footnote. People like you can seize upon the conclusion but no one can do a thoughtful critique of it because they never discuss it.

Color me confused.

What's your take when you see the huge racial disparities shown in table 11?

I don’t care. The myth that college admissions is a pure meritocracy is inane. No other institution in this country is a meritocracy. You think all these folks when they leave college are going to get jobs and promotions based on merit? White kids will more than catch up then because the inherent advantages of being white come back into play. This is all just white people whining because they aren’t consuming 80% of the pie anymore.

And as far as Asians go, we are not so stupid to think that once you get rid racial preferences (and the Harvard case was ONLY about those preferences) that everything will be better. the legacy and athlete preferences will remain in place and whites will get the lion’s share of the gains.

The table needed to show no racial preference but keeping the ALDC preference as well because rest assured white people know how to game the system to maintain their disproportionate share.

White people are just greedy. So greedy that now they’re trying to claim racism is against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Maybe because the title of the article is 'Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard'.

If anything, the inclusion of the last line on Table 11, which was totally superfluous to the analysis in the article, was the entire point of the article. They don't need to analyze or defend it because it's presented as a throwaway footnote. People like you can seize upon the conclusion but no one can do a thoughtful critique of it because they never discuss it.

Color me confused.

What's your take when you see the huge racial disparities shown in table 11?

I don’t care. The myth that college admissions is a pure meritocracy is inane. No other institution in this country is a meritocracy. You think all these folks when they leave college are going to get jobs and promotions based on merit? White kids will more than catch up then because the inherent advantages of being white come back into play. This is all just white people whining because they aren’t consuming 80% of the pie anymore.

And as far as Asians go, we are not so stupid to think that once you get rid racial preferences (and the Harvard case was ONLY about those preferences) that everything will be better. the legacy and athlete preferences will remain in place and whites will get the lion’s share of the gains.

The table needed to show no racial preference but keeping the ALDC preference as well because rest assured white people know how to game the system to maintain their disproportionate share.

White people are just greedy. So greedy that now they’re trying to claim racism is against them.

Wow.

4 paragraphs of blahblahblah and not a single insight based on the data available there.

Do you even understand the table?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Maybe because the title of the article is 'Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard'.

If anything, the inclusion of the last line on Table 11, which was totally superfluous to the analysis in the article, was the entire point of the article. They don't need to analyze or defend it because it's presented as a throwaway footnote. People like you can seize upon the conclusion but no one can do a thoughtful critique of it because they never discuss it.

Color me confused.

What's your take when you see the huge racial disparities shown in table 11?

I don’t care. The myth that college admissions is a pure meritocracy is inane. No other institution in this country is a meritocracy. You think all these folks when they leave college are going to get jobs and promotions based on merit? White kids will more than catch up then because the inherent advantages of being white come back into play. This is all just white people whining because they aren’t consuming 80% of the pie anymore.

And as far as Asians go, we are not so stupid to think that once you get rid racial preferences (and the Harvard case was ONLY about those preferences) that everything will be better. the legacy and athlete preferences will remain in place and whites will get the lion’s share of the gains.

The table needed to show no racial preference but keeping the ALDC preference as well because rest assured white people know how to game the system to maintain their disproportionate share.

White people are just greedy. So greedy that now they’re trying to claim racism is against them.

Wow.

4 paragraphs of blahblahblah and not a single insight based on the data available there.

Do you even understand the table?

Did you? The last line people cite removes race, legacy and athletes. I don’t think that is the point of the SFFA case nor do I think white people will give up the legacy advantage nor will the athlete preference ever be seriously threatened. So the table is, as I pointed out, flawed because it doesn’t show the mostly likely immediate outcome. No race but continued ALDC preferences. Based on the study that will overwhelmingly favor white applicants.

Nice try with the insults. It doesn’t fit your little white victim narrative, but the SFFA case and most of the handwringing on these forums is intended to recreate the huge advantages that whites have over non whites in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

That makes no sense, since academic record alone has never been a criteria for admission, and there is no minimum threshold. They can admit someone who never attended high school and didn't take the SAT if they want to.

It makes sense to me. There are probably at least four qualified applicants for every seat. So if you take any random group of people accepted at Harvard because of a special status and put them back in the pool that is more or less random chance, then 3/4 of them would not be accepted, right?
I didn’t go to Harvard though, so maybe I am off.

[Anonymous]

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: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.

See the other thread for why this is a flawed conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

Idiot agrees with idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

Idiot agrees with idiot.

...says the Chief Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

Idiot agrees with idiot.

...says the Chief Idiot.

You're incapable of understanding that the table shows what happens if race AND legacy AND athlete preferences are removed. It patently does not show what the PP claimed, namely that it shows what happens if race (and race only) is removed as a consideration..

I can't even make logical sense of it if it was true. The assumption you're reaching is that AA and Hispanics are less qualified. So if you take them out of the equation, the next 1350 kids who are qualified are 1206 Asians and 145 whites? In other words, of the first say 4000 kids who are at the 'top' of the heap, the distribution is 50% white, 40% Asian and 10% everyone else. But of the next 1000 most qualified kids (the ones getting shut out), 90% of those kids are Asian? I don't see how that is even remotely possible.

Are you white people just 4000 qualified kids and then a bunch of idiots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Does it bother you that plenty of whites wouldn’t get in if they weren’t legacies or athletes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Does it bother you that plenty of whites wouldn’t get in if they weren’t legacies or athletes?

Actually that table shows that if race, legacy, and athletic preferences were removed, slightly more white students would get in than do now.

The catch is, these would be different white students than those who are currently getting in — i.e., not legacy or athletes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Yup.

Which is why so many prefer to hide those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Yup.

Which is why so many prefer to hide those numbers.

You people have no idea if this is true.

The full statement is "Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences if only stats mattered".

Which is not the case.

Colleges feel racial diversity that reflects the overall population better helps them solve their mission. Why is that so hard to understand? And it benefits all races at different colleges. That fact gets ignored, always.