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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People should get in based on merits and not race.

—Jew

+1

--Immigrant

[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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

[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.

You might be sick of it, but the numbers show that Asian American kids are disadvantaged to help African American kids and Hispanic kids get into Harvard. It doesn't matter what you include as preferences or disallow as preferences. The share of white kids remains roughly the same. If you disallow racial preferences and other preferences, the share of Asian American kids skyrockets and the share of African American kids and Hispanic kids plummets.

[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.

I don’t know that the math is that easy since the author doesn’t explain how the table is created - I don’t know how they get any of the numbers in the table so forgive if me I’m skeptical that your simple math is the right methodology. I’d prefer to see the author of the table had reached the number, assuming they are intellectually honest.

But assuming you are correct that Asians see more of the gains when all preferences are removed, why aren’t Asians at a higher raw number than whites when legacy and athlete preferences only are removed? It doesn’t make sense that the first group of admits are skewed towards whites but that the second group is skewed towards Asians.

I too am appalled at the culture of victimhood in this country, especially that perpetuated by middle class whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

Sigh. The claim above is that the table shows what happens when race only is removed. It shows what happens when all three are removed so you cannot isolate the effect of removing only race. That is not what the table shows. You white people are so f**king stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

Sigh. The claim above is that the table shows what happens when race only is removed. It shows what happens when all three are removed so you cannot isolate the effect of removing only race. That is not what the table shows. You white people are so f**king stupid.

First, I am not white.

Second, you still don't understand the data.

Third, you may want to finish middle school before engaging with adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know that the math is that easy since the author doesn’t explain how the table is created - I don’t know how they get any of the numbers in the table so forgive if me I’m skeptical that your simple math is the right methodology. I’d prefer to see the author of the table had reached the number, assuming they are intellectually honest.

But assuming you are correct that Asians see more of the gains when all preferences are removed, why aren’t Asians at a higher raw number than whites when legacy and athlete preferences only are removed? It doesn’t make sense that the first group of admits are skewed towards whites but that the second group is skewed towards Asians.

I'd like to answer your question but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There is no scenario where Asians become a higher raw number than whites due to the fact that so many more whites apply.

If legacy preference is removed: Whites -204, Asians +100, AA -56, Hispanics +63. As I mentioned previously, some of this imbalance reflects the racial makeup of the last 50 years of Harvard alumni and will naturally correct itself over time. I am certainly in favor of either removing legacy preference altogether (even though my kids would benefit from it) or imputing an equal advantage upon historically under-represented groups as a form of affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:I too am appalled at the culture of victimhood in this country, especially that perpetuated by middle class whites.

I don't see it in middle class families where I live, but I do see it in poorer communities. Both black and white. It is not an ideology confined by race. Where my family hails from in the rust belt, the traditional values of discipline and self-reliance are slowly being replaced by the same culture of victimhood that much of our african american inner city populations suffer from. Both populations have been criminally neglected, although inner city african americans have suffered longer and more visibly than others. I wish we had politicians who could inspire society to start to fix some of the real underlying systemic causes but unfortunately I see the opposite: politicians who want to amplify feelings of victimization. I won't name names but they lead on both sides of the aisle. What we are left with is the simple fact that if you want to improve your lot in life, the only person really interested in helping you is yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

Sigh. The claim above is that the table shows what happens when race only is removed. It shows what happens when all three are removed so you cannot isolate the effect of removing only race. That is not what the table shows. You white people are so f**king stupid.

First, I am not white.

Second, you still don't understand the data.

Third, you may want to finish middle school before engaging with adults.

Ok - since you're so smart - explain how this statement is supported by the data. "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"

[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

For people with $$$$, it's not really a game worth playing. I'm more concerned with my children growing up to be happy, well adjusted adults. Having a nerd child who is borderline mentally ill and contemplates suicide after doing 5 hours of homework every night isn't really something that I want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok - since you're so smart - explain how this statement is supported by the data. "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"

You are quoting another DCUM poster, not the report. That DCUM poster was incorrect. Whites gain 145 if all preferences are removed, not just racial preferences. Whites gain 652 if racial preferences are removed, but athlete and legacy preferences remain.

To isolate no legacy you subtract the no legacy preferences line from the model. Isolate no athletes in the same way. Once you have those two numbers, you subtract them from the "no race/legacy/athlete" number. In this way, you deduce the impact of racial preference by itself.

For whites this is

No legacy -204
No athletes -303

and then (4,947 - (-204) - (-303)) = 652

You can repeat the above for each of the racial groups which yields the results listed in the previous post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know that the math is that easy since the author doesn’t explain how the table is created - I don’t know how they get any of the numbers in the table so forgive if me I’m skeptical that your simple math is the right methodology. I’d prefer to see the author of the table had reached the number, assuming they are intellectually honest.

But assuming you are correct that Asians see more of the gains when all preferences are removed, why aren’t Asians at a higher raw number than whites when legacy and athlete preferences only are removed? It doesn’t make sense that the first group of admits are skewed towards whites but that the second group is skewed towards Asians.

I'd like to answer your question but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There is no scenario where Asians become a higher raw number than whites due to the fact that so many more whites apply.

If legacy preference is removed: Whites -204, Asians +100, AA -56, Hispanics +63. As I mentioned previously, some of this imbalance reflects the racial makeup of the last 50 years of Harvard alumni and will naturally correct itself over time. I am certainly in favor of either removing legacy preference altogether (even though my kids would benefit from it) or imputing an equal advantage upon historically under-represented groups as a form of affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:I too am appalled at the culture of victimhood in this country, especially that perpetuated by middle class whites.

I don't see it in middle class families where I live, but I do see it in poorer communities. Both black and white. It is not an ideology confined by race. Where my family hails from in the rust belt, the traditional values of discipline and self-reliance are slowly being replaced by the same culture of victimhood that much of our african american inner city populations suffer from. Both populations have been criminally neglected, although inner city african americans have suffered longer and more visibly than others. I wish we had politicians who could inspire society to start to fix some of the real underlying systemic causes but unfortunately I see the opposite: politicians who want to amplify feelings of victimization. I won't name names but they lead on both sides of the aisle. What we are left with is the simple fact that if you want to improve your lot in life, the only person really interested in helping you is yourself.

What I don't get is this:

Let's say that we did your math and removed both athletes and legacies. The breakdown by your method, I believe, would be 4295 whites and 2669 Asians. That's roughly 1.6 whites getting in for every Asian. This is based solely on whatever standards are left, presumably 'merit'.

so why, when you remove race, does the ratio suddenly shift to .72 white students for every Asian? It doesn't make sense that the ratios are so far off. If anything, according to your logic, more whites applying should mean that more whites are admitted in both groups. If more Asians are admitted in the second group because they are more qualified, then what explains the first group? I'm not saying the ratios need to be the same, but does it make intuitive sense that they are so far off?

Imagine you were able to line up every applicant to Harvard from 1-40000 in order of merit (which is what people who want to blow the system up think will magically happen). If that was the case, your analysis suggests that the front of the line be predominantly white but this one section of the line (spots 7000-8000) would be predominantly Asian. These are the students who are replacing the 'less qualified' AA and Hispanics who are now not getting in? does that make ssense to you, especially when the raw numbers of Asian to white applicants is so low?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

Sigh. The claim above is that the table shows what happens when race only is removed. It shows what happens when all three are removed so you cannot isolate the effect of removing only race. That is not what the table shows. You white people are so f**king stupid.

First, I am not white.

Second, you still don't understand the data.

Third, you may want to finish middle school before engaging with adults.

Ok - since you're so smart - explain how this statement is supported by the data. "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"

You still don't get it.

Ask a math tutor to show you how to read a table and how to do some simple substractions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is this:

Let's say that we did your math and removed both athletes and legacies. The breakdown by your method, I believe, would be 4295 whites and 2669 Asians. That's roughly 1.6 whites getting in for every Asian. This is based solely on whatever standards are left, presumably 'merit'.

so why, when you remove race, does the ratio suddenly shift to .72 white students for every Asian? It doesn't make sense that the ratios are so far off. If anything, according to your logic, more whites applying should mean that more whites are admitted in both groups. If more Asians are admitted in the second group because they are more qualified, then what explains the first group? I'm not saying the ratios need to be the same, but does it make intuitive sense that they are so far off?

Imagine you were able to line up every applicant to Harvard from 1-40000 in order of merit (which is what people who want to blow the system up think will magically happen). If that was the case, your analysis suggests that the front of the line be predominantly white but this one section of the line (spots 7000-8000) would be predominantly Asian. These are the students who are replacing the 'less qualified' AA and Hispanics who are now not getting in? does that make ssense to you, especially when the raw numbers of Asian to white applicants is so low?

Removing athlete and legacy preference, but keeping racial preference, total admits by race: 4,295 whites and 2,669 asians.

This is a white to asian admit ratio of 1.6 as you said.

Removing all preferences, total admits by race: 4,947 whites and 3,564 asians.

This lowers the ratio from 1.6 to 1.4. I'm not sure where the .72 number comes from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bottom line of that table shows what happens when all 3 preferences are removed.

Exactly.

So at least one Asian American on this thread IS stupid.

Sigh. The claim above is that the table shows what happens when race only is removed. It shows what happens when all three are removed so you cannot isolate the effect of removing only race. That is not what the table shows. You white people are so f**king stupid.

First, I am not white.

Second, you still don't understand the data.

Third, you may want to finish middle school before engaging with adults.

Ok - since you're so smart - explain how this statement is supported by the data. "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"

You still don't get it.

Ask a math tutor to show you how to read a table and how to do some simple substractions.

After you how to spell. If you do the math it doesn’t result in those numbers and it isn’t clear that this math is the right method.