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

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?

Not at all. If you disallow all of the preferences, the number for whites don't change much. It might be different white kids, but there's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Does the table take into account preference for affluent white families?

Court documents show that Harvard maintains a list of candidates of special interest to the admissions dean, and accepted 42.2 percent of them. The dean’s interest list includes “all applicants who the Dean of Admissions wishes to keep track of during the admissions process, whether they be children of donors, or an applicant the Dean met at some point in their high school career and wished to keep an eye on,” said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane.

For example, Harvard accepted Jared Kushner despite an undistinguished high school record after his father, who was not an alumnus, pledged a $2.5 million gift.

[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

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?

Not at all. If you disallow all of the preferences, the number for whites don't change much. It might be different white kids, but there's nothing wrong with that.

So because the numbers wouldn’t change you’re ok with it. So it’s not the meritocracy or lack thereof that bothers you it’s anything that lowers the number of white people.

[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

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.

So, you're saying that all HBCUs should be abolished, as by design they fail to offer a critical, racially diverse education.

[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

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.

So, you're saying that all HBCUs should be abolished, as by design they fail to offer a critical, racially diverse education.

This is a very stupid statement, and I recommend you just withdraw it instead of making me counter it with logic. But by bringing up HBCUs, you actually help my point. First HBCUs admit students of all races. Not many apply, and that is exactly the point. They don't apply because they don't want to be the only person of their race on campus.

Which is exactly the problem Ivies have trying to attract top minority students. They cannot if there is not a reasonable racial balance. Read
The Shape Of The River" and you will understand.

Also, it is shameful for you to bring up HBCUs in that way. You know why they even exist, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the table take into account preference for affluent white families?

Court documents show that Harvard maintains a list of candidates of special interest to the admissions dean, and accepted 42.2 percent of them. The dean’s interest list includes “all applicants who the Dean of Admissions wishes to keep track of during the admissions process, whether they be children of donors, or an applicant the Dean met at some point in their high school career and wished to keep an eye on,” said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane.

For example, Harvard accepted Jared Kushner despite an undistinguished high school record after his father, who was not an alumnus, pledged a $2.5 million gift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the table take into account preference for affluent white families?

Court documents show that Harvard maintains a list of candidates of special interest to the admissions dean, and accepted 42.2 percent of them. The dean’s interest list includes “all applicants who the Dean of Admissions wishes to keep track of during the admissions process, whether they be children of donors, or an applicant the Dean met at some point in their high school career and wished to keep an eye on,” said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane.

For example, Harvard accepted Jared Kushner despite an undistinguished high school record after his father, who was not an alumnus, pledged a $2.5 million gift.

[Anonymous]

Just curious. Do anyone believe that all admissions offices operate like one that rejects 95% of applicants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the table take into account preference for affluent white families?

Court documents show that Harvard maintains a list of candidates of special interest to the admissions dean, and accepted 42.2 percent of them. The dean’s interest list includes “all applicants who the Dean of Admissions wishes to keep track of during the admissions process, whether they be children of donors, or an applicant the Dean met at some point in their high school career and wished to keep an eye on,” said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane.

For example, Harvard accepted Jared Kushner despite an undistinguished high school record after his father, who was not an alumnus, pledged a $2.5 million gift.

Please consider clicking on the link and reading this significant and well researched study before mocking it with a meme.

Literally the ENTIRE study is about the relative advantages of “ALDC” status, which refers to Athlete, Legacy, Dean’s interest list (which is the rich people you are talking about) and Children of faculty or staff. There is literally one footnote about race. These researchers AGREE with you that preferences provide a way outsized advantage.

[Anonymous]

So because the numbers wouldn’t change you’re ok with it. So it’s not the meritocracy or lack thereof that bothers you it’s anything that lowers the number of white people.

The US college age population is roughly 51% white, 14% black, 25% Hispanic, 5% Asian.

Harvard said that in the class of 2022, "46 percent said they are white, 18.1 percent of surveyed students identified as Asian, 14.3 percent as multiracial, 10.7 percent as Black or African American, 6.5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3.8 percent as South Asian"

On grounds of fairness and to make Harvard representative of the overall population, there is no case for reducing white numbers. If they wanted to raise black and Hispanic numbers that would have to come at the expense of Asians and "multiracials".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So because the numbers wouldn’t change you’re ok with it. So it’s not the meritocracy or lack thereof that bothers you it’s anything that lowers the number of white people.

The US college age population is roughly 51% white, 14% black, 25% Hispanic, 5% Asian.

Harvard said that in the class of 2022, "46 percent said they are white, 18.1 percent of surveyed students identified as Asian, 14.3 percent as multiracial, 10.7 percent as Black or African American, 6.5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3.8 percent as South Asian"

On grounds of fairness and to make Harvard representative of the overall population, there is no case for reducing white numbers. If they wanted to raise black and Hispanic numbers that would have to come at the expense of Asians and "multiracials".

The problem with that comparison is how to treat those who self-describe as multiracial, because that isn't in the population statistics. Neither is South Asian. If you just ignore the multiracial and lump the South Asians with the Asians, you get:

US college age population:
White 51%
Black 14%
Hispanic 25%
Asian 5%

Harvard:
White 53%
Black 12.4%
Hispanic 7.6%
Asian 25.5%

[Anonymous]

Location, location, location too. From a 2015 article:

“According to The Crimson, one out of every 20 Harvard freshman attended one of only seven high schools: Boston Latin, Phillips Academy's Andover and Phillips Exeter, Stuyvesant High School in New York, Noble and Greenough School in Massachusetts, Trinity School in New York and Lexington High School in Massachusetts.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Location, location, location too. From a 2015 article:

“According to The Crimson, one out of every 20 Harvard freshman attended one of only seven high schools: Boston Latin, Phillips Academy's Andover and Phillips Exeter, Stuyvesant High School in New York, Noble and Greenough School in Massachusetts, Trinity School in New York and Lexington High School in Massachusetts.“

Clearly there is discrimination against TJ.

[Anonymous]

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.

Such a scam. Why even engage with smut?

[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

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?

Not at all. If you disallow all of the preferences, the number for whites don't change much. It might be different white kids, but there's nothing wrong with that.

+1

We should get out of the skin color business.