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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be willing to bet Harvard's Admissions Office has a multiple regression model of the expected net present value of an applicant's donations to Harvard's endowment (now $39 billion)... and that those pesky white legs and jocks are the biggest donors.

Exactly this. Case in point - the Trinity College article in the NYT or the USC article in the LA Times. I don’t understand people who say schools need to get rid of Development/legacy/full pay, preppy sport candidates’ advantage and are serious. Colleges would literally never go to a true meritocracy by their own choice because they have bills to pay.

[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.

+1000
This is like data analysis as Rorshach test for what people want to see.

[Anonymous]

*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It could also suggest that something else is at work that favors white applicants and thus that it’s not so simple to assume that things would play out as the simple math suggests. It’s odd to think that for the first 7000 applicants you get one result but for this group you get a wildly different result. If Asians have a lower score for everything else it should manifest itself consistently throughout the process I think. I just don’t understand the disparity, which is why I think the simple subtraction methodology must be off somehow. That seems the simpler explanation than anything else.

I suppose the most obvious answer is that an unspoken cap exists on Asian admissions so even if you got rid of these preferences the ultimate beneficiaries would be white kids.

If you remove all preferences, Asians would be the primary beneficiaries with whites behind them. The Asian admit rate increases more than 2 absolute points from 6.5% to 8.6%. The white admit rate increases 1 absolute point from 6.9% to 7.9%. Asians have both a relative and absolute advantage in this case. Of course both groups gain at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics.

There may be an unspoken cap on Asian admissions as there was for Jews and other ethnic groups at certain times in the past. Evidence for such a cap prompted the lawsuit in the first place.

How did you arrive at those numbers?

My mistake, those numbers are actually if you move from ONLY racial preference (no athletes or legacies) to no preferences at all. If you remove ALL preferences, then the benefit to Asians is amplified and the benefit to white students almost entirely disappears:

Applicants: 62,586 white and 41,258 asian

Model (all preferences remain) admits and admit rate: 4,802 white (7.7%) and 2,358 asian (5.7%)

No-preferences admits and admit rate: 4,947 white (7.9%) and 3,564 asian (8.6%)

If you remove all preferences, the chance an Asian applicant is admitted to Harvard increases more than 50%. The chance a white applicant is admitted increases 2.5%. The chance an African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted presumably falls dramatically.

I cross-checked this with a few other data points and they all seemed to line up. For instance, Harvard's freshman class is about 43% white while the US under 18 population is about 50% white, so whites are not demographically over-represented. While some posters seemed to want to make this about the over-representation of white students, the data doesn't support that conclusion in any way. When Harvard shows a preference for well-connected white applicants, it appears to be at the expense of less well-connected white applicants, not minority applicants.

This does therefore appear to be a story about Asian admission capped to open up seats for other minorities. It will be fascinating to watch how SCOTUS - a court without any Asian American member, I will point out - handles this one.

Great analysis and comment, thank you.

Were I Asian American or low/ middle class white I would be irate about this.

Talk about systemic racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It could also suggest that something else is at work that favors white applicants and thus that it’s not so simple to assume that things would play out as the simple math suggests. It’s odd to think that for the first 7000 applicants you get one result but for this group you get a wildly different result. If Asians have a lower score for everything else it should manifest itself consistently throughout the process I think. I just don’t understand the disparity, which is why I think the simple subtraction methodology must be off somehow. That seems the simpler explanation than anything else.

I suppose the most obvious answer is that an unspoken cap exists on Asian admissions so even if you got rid of these preferences the ultimate beneficiaries would be white kids.

If you remove all preferences, Asians would be the primary beneficiaries with whites behind them. The Asian admit rate increases more than 2 absolute points from 6.5% to 8.6%. The white admit rate increases 1 absolute point from 6.9% to 7.9%. Asians have both a relative and absolute advantage in this case. Of course both groups gain at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics.

There may be an unspoken cap on Asian admissions as there was for Jews and other ethnic groups at certain times in the past. Evidence for such a cap prompted the lawsuit in the first place.

How did you arrive at those numbers?

My mistake, those numbers are actually if you move from ONLY racial preference (no athletes or legacies) to no preferences at all. If you remove ALL preferences, then the benefit to Asians is amplified and the benefit to white students almost entirely disappears:

Applicants: 62,586 white and 41,258 asian

Model (all preferences remain) admits and admit rate: 4,802 white (7.7%) and 2,358 asian (5.7%)

No-preferences admits and admit rate: 4,947 white (7.9%) and 3,564 asian (8.6%)

If you remove all preferences, the chance an Asian applicant is admitted to Harvard increases more than 50%. The chance a white applicant is admitted increases 2.5%. The chance an African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted presumably falls dramatically.

I cross-checked this with a few other data points and they all seemed to line up. For instance, Harvard's freshman class is about 43% white while the US under 18 population is about 50% white, so whites are not demographically over-represented. While some posters seemed to want to make this about the over-representation of white students, the data doesn't support that conclusion in any way. When Harvard shows a preference for well-connected white applicants, it appears to be at the expense of less well-connected white applicants, not minority applicants.

This does therefore appear to be a story about Asian admission capped to open up seats for other minorities. It will be fascinating to watch how SCOTUS - a court without any Asian American member, I will point out - handles this one.

Great analysis and comment, thank you.

Were I Asian American or low/ middle class white I would be irate about this.

Talk about systemic racism.

This is where you lose me. It’s not just race. It’s legacy and athletics, too. You want to know who is screwing the white middle class? The white upper class.
But you want to reduce it simply to race to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It could also suggest that something else is at work that favors white applicants and thus that it’s not so simple to assume that things would play out as the simple math suggests. It’s odd to think that for the first 7000 applicants you get one result but for this group you get a wildly different result. If Asians have a lower score for everything else it should manifest itself consistently throughout the process I think. I just don’t understand the disparity, which is why I think the simple subtraction methodology must be off somehow. That seems the simpler explanation than anything else.

I suppose the most obvious answer is that an unspoken cap exists on Asian admissions so even if you got rid of these preferences the ultimate beneficiaries would be white kids.

If you remove all preferences, Asians would be the primary beneficiaries with whites behind them. The Asian admit rate increases more than 2 absolute points from 6.5% to 8.6%. The white admit rate increases 1 absolute point from 6.9% to 7.9%. Asians have both a relative and absolute advantage in this case. Of course both groups gain at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics.

There may be an unspoken cap on Asian admissions as there was for Jews and other ethnic groups at certain times in the past. Evidence for such a cap prompted the lawsuit in the first place.

How did you arrive at those numbers?

My mistake, those numbers are actually if you move from ONLY racial preference (no athletes or legacies) to no preferences at all. If you remove ALL preferences, then the benefit to Asians is amplified and the benefit to white students almost entirely disappears:

Applicants: 62,586 white and 41,258 asian

Model (all preferences remain) admits and admit rate: 4,802 white (7.7%) and 2,358 asian (5.7%)

No-preferences admits and admit rate: 4,947 white (7.9%) and 3,564 asian (8.6%)

If you remove all preferences, the chance an Asian applicant is admitted to Harvard increases more than 50%. The chance a white applicant is admitted increases 2.5%. The chance an African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted presumably falls dramatically.

I cross-checked this with a few other data points and they all seemed to line up. For instance, Harvard's freshman class is about 43% white while the US under 18 population is about 50% white, so whites are not demographically over-represented. While some posters seemed to want to make this about the over-representation of white students, the data doesn't support that conclusion in any way. When Harvard shows a preference for well-connected white applicants, it appears to be at the expense of less well-connected white applicants, not minority applicants.

This does therefore appear to be a story about Asian admission capped to open up seats for other minorities. It will be fascinating to watch how SCOTUS - a court without any Asian American member, I will point out - handles this one.

Great analysis and comment, thank you.

Were I Asian American or low/ middle class white I would be irate about this.

Talk about systemic racism.

This is where you lose me. It’s not just race. It’s legacy and athletics, too. You want to know who is screwing the white middle class? The white upper class.
But you want to reduce it simply to race to fit your narrative.

Funny you mention that, since it's you ignoring the elephant in the room in order to fit your narrative.

Yes, let's get rid of legacy and athletics and racial discrimination. But the numbers don't lie -- it is that third factor which has the largest impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It could also suggest that something else is at work that favors white applicants and thus that it’s not so simple to assume that things would play out as the simple math suggests. It’s odd to think that for the first 7000 applicants you get one result but for this group you get a wildly different result. If Asians have a lower score for everything else it should manifest itself consistently throughout the process I think. I just don’t understand the disparity, which is why I think the simple subtraction methodology must be off somehow. That seems the simpler explanation than anything else.

I suppose the most obvious answer is that an unspoken cap exists on Asian admissions so even if you got rid of these preferences the ultimate beneficiaries would be white kids.

If you remove all preferences, Asians would be the primary beneficiaries with whites behind them. The Asian admit rate increases more than 2 absolute points from 6.5% to 8.6%. The white admit rate increases 1 absolute point from 6.9% to 7.9%. Asians have both a relative and absolute advantage in this case. Of course both groups gain at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics.

There may be an unspoken cap on Asian admissions as there was for Jews and other ethnic groups at certain times in the past. Evidence for such a cap prompted the lawsuit in the first place.

How did you arrive at those numbers?

My mistake, those numbers are actually if you move from ONLY racial preference (no athletes or legacies) to no preferences at all. If you remove ALL preferences, then the benefit to Asians is amplified and the benefit to white students almost entirely disappears:

Applicants: 62,586 white and 41,258 asian

Model (all preferences remain) admits and admit rate: 4,802 white (7.7%) and 2,358 asian (5.7%)

No-preferences admits and admit rate: 4,947 white (7.9%) and 3,564 asian (8.6%)

If you remove all preferences, the chance an Asian applicant is admitted to Harvard increases more than 50%. The chance a white applicant is admitted increases 2.5%. The chance an African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted presumably falls dramatically.

I cross-checked this with a few other data points and they all seemed to line up. For instance, Harvard's freshman class is about 43% white while the US under 18 population is about 50% white, so whites are not demographically over-represented. While some posters seemed to want to make this about the over-representation of white students, the data doesn't support that conclusion in any way. When Harvard shows a preference for well-connected white applicants, it appears to be at the expense of less well-connected white applicants, not minority applicants.

This does therefore appear to be a story about Asian admission capped to open up seats for other minorities. It will be fascinating to watch how SCOTUS - a court without any Asian American member, I will point out - handles this one.

You’re missing my original point. You based these percentages on the numbers in the table and I don’t, and still don’t, see how they make intuitive sense. You can either believe that somehow racial preferences have a varying effect on members of the same other category (Asians or whites) or that the simple subtraction exercise doesn’t work. It makes no sense that whites, with the legacy and athlete preferences removed, are admitted at a higher rate but for the spots that can be reclaimed once race preferences go away that Asians flip the ratio on its head. Absent a explanation, I think those numbers are off. Whites clearly enjoy some advantage in the process all the way up to that point and it makes no sense that it suddenly shifts the other way for this small group.

I do think there is a cap in Asian admissions but I also think the most likely outcome is that racial preferences are struck down but not any of the ALDC preferences that favor white applicants. Asians see some gains but whites see most of them and the rich white people will say “we’ve done all we can and I do believe In holistic admissions “. They’ll trot out the robot stereotype and how colleges should have well rounded students, etc.

None of this debate is about intrinsic merit or fairness. It’s about maximizing the share of the pie for one’s own group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. It could also suggest that something else is at work that favors white applicants and thus that it’s not so simple to assume that things would play out as the simple math suggests. It’s odd to think that for the first 7000 applicants you get one result but for this group you get a wildly different result. If Asians have a lower score for everything else it should manifest itself consistently throughout the process I think. I just don’t understand the disparity, which is why I think the simple subtraction methodology must be off somehow. That seems the simpler explanation than anything else.

I suppose the most obvious answer is that an unspoken cap exists on Asian admissions so even if you got rid of these preferences the ultimate beneficiaries would be white kids.

If you remove all preferences, Asians would be the primary beneficiaries with whites behind them. The Asian admit rate increases more than 2 absolute points from 6.5% to 8.6%. The white admit rate increases 1 absolute point from 6.9% to 7.9%. Asians have both a relative and absolute advantage in this case. Of course both groups gain at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics.

There may be an unspoken cap on Asian admissions as there was for Jews and other ethnic groups at certain times in the past. Evidence for such a cap prompted the lawsuit in the first place.

How did you arrive at those numbers?

My mistake, those numbers are actually if you move from ONLY racial preference (no athletes or legacies) to no preferences at all. If you remove ALL preferences, then the benefit to Asians is amplified and the benefit to white students almost entirely disappears:

Applicants: 62,586 white and 41,258 asian

Model (all preferences remain) admits and admit rate: 4,802 white (7.7%) and 2,358 asian (5.7%)

No-preferences admits and admit rate: 4,947 white (7.9%) and 3,564 asian (8.6%)

If you remove all preferences, the chance an Asian applicant is admitted to Harvard increases more than 50%. The chance a white applicant is admitted increases 2.5%. The chance an African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted presumably falls dramatically.

I cross-checked this with a few other data points and they all seemed to line up. For instance, Harvard's freshman class is about 43% white while the US under 18 population is about 50% white, so whites are not demographically over-represented. While some posters seemed to want to make this about the over-representation of white students, the data doesn't support that conclusion in any way. When Harvard shows a preference for well-connected white applicants, it appears to be at the expense of less well-connected white applicants, not minority applicants.

This does therefore appear to be a story about Asian admission capped to open up seats for other minorities. It will be fascinating to watch how SCOTUS - a court without any Asian American member, I will point out - handles this one.

Great analysis and comment, thank you.

Were I Asian American or low/ middle class white I would be irate about this.

Talk about systemic racism.

This is where you lose me. It’s not just race. It’s legacy and athletics, too. You want to know who is screwing the white middle class? The white upper class.
But you want to reduce it simply to race to fit your narrative.

Funny you mention that, since it's you ignoring the elephant in the room in order to fit your narrative.

Yes, let's get rid of legacy and athletics and racial discrimination. But the numbers don't lie -- it is that third factor which has the largest impact.

I’m not ignoring the elephant in the room - where did I say that removing racial preferences had no effect?I’m just saying that calling it systemic racism when it’s not just about race is incorrect. It’s a system of preferences. You want to reduce everything to race, go ahead, but it says more about you than the system.


As far as whether the numbers lie or. I don’t know. This is one poorly sourced footnote with no explanation or data. The number itself and the conclusions people are drawing here are suspect for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere. But I’m not going to say it’s wrong because I don’t actually know.

By the way if the numbers are accurate, then removing racial preferences results in 60% of the opened spots going to Asians. The number of whites admitted once the racial preference is not much larger than those admitted by legacy and athletics. Note that this number does not include development and faculty which also favors rich whites. Which means my original statement that middle class whites are screwed by rich whites is just as accurate as yours laying all the blame at the feet of race. The study itself says that the ALDC preferences largely help the affluent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not ignoring the elephant in the room - where did I say that removing racial preferences had no effect?I’m just saying that calling it systemic racism when it’s not just about race is incorrect. It’s a system of preferences. You want to reduce everything to race, go ahead, but it says more about you than the system.


As far as whether the numbers lie or. I don’t know. This is one poorly sourced footnote with no explanation or data. The number itself and the conclusions people are drawing here are suspect for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere. But I’m not going to say it’s wrong because I don’t actually know.

By the way if the numbers are accurate, then removing racial preferences results in 60% of the opened spots going to Asians. The number of whites admitted once the racial preference is not much larger than those admitted by legacy and athletics. Note that this number does not include development and faculty which also favors rich whites. Which means my original statement that middle class whites are screwed by rich whites is just as accurate as yours laying all the blame at the feet of race. The study itself says that the ALDC preferences largely help the affluent.

Omnibus pp here. I've done a lot of data science and statistical analysis professionally and I spent a lot of time with the numbers in the Harvard lawsuit yesterday. It took awhile to unravel the real story but it's all there in black and white (pardon the pun).

The best way I can summarize it is that Harvard makes whites compete against each other in a racial silo. When Harvard helps an ALDC white, it's at the expense of a non-ALDC white. As you say: "middle class whites are screwed by rich whites". Put another way, when Harvard admits a less academically qualified white legacy or white athlete, a more academically qualified white applicant is rejected. This is why if you remove ALDC preferences, while the type of white students admitted would change, the number of white students admitted does not change.

On the other hand, Asians, african americans, and hispanics are forced to compete against each other in a multi-racial competition. In this multi-racial competition, Harvard has applied a substantial affirmative action advantage to african americans and somewhat less of an advantage to hispanics. As a result, academically more qualified Asians are being rejected to make room for less academically qualified african americans and hispanics, and in very large numbers. Personally, I'm not totally against this, because I think diversity is important. But if I were Asian, which I am not, I might have a different view.

It's ironic because so much of the daily political discussion around me is about the search for institutional racism or systemic bias. I think that, perhaps except for certain examples in law enforcement, this Harvard admissions policy is the clearest example of institutional racism that I have seen in the last decade. My perception is that people don't seem to care as much because it involves Asians and they are perceived to be very successful and therefore not in need of any advocacy. I do not envy the Supreme Court is needing to figure this one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not ignoring the elephant in the room - where did I say that removing racial preferences had no effect?I’m just saying that calling it systemic racism when it’s not just about race is incorrect. It’s a system of preferences. You want to reduce everything to race, go ahead, but it says more about you than the system.


As far as whether the numbers lie or. I don’t know. This is one poorly sourced footnote with no explanation or data. The number itself and the conclusions people are drawing here are suspect for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere. But I’m not going to say it’s wrong because I don’t actually know.

By the way if the numbers are accurate, then removing racial preferences results in 60% of the opened spots going to Asians. The number of whites admitted once the racial preference is not much larger than those admitted by legacy and athletics. Note that this number does not include development and faculty which also favors rich whites. Which means my original statement that middle class whites are screwed by rich whites is just as accurate as yours laying all the blame at the feet of race. The study itself says that the ALDC preferences largely help the affluent.

Omnibus pp here. I've done a lot of data science and statistical analysis professionally and I spent a lot of time with the numbers in the Harvard lawsuit yesterday. It took awhile to unravel the real story but it's all there in black and white (pardon the pun).

The best way I can summarize it is that Harvard makes whites compete against each other in a racial silo. When Harvard helps an ALDC white, it's at the expense of a non-ALDC white. As you say: "middle class whites are screwed by rich whites". Put another way, when Harvard admits a less academically qualified white legacy or white athlete, a more academically qualified white applicant is rejected. This is why if you remove ALDC preferences, while the type of white students admitted would change, the number of white students admitted does not change.

On the other hand, Asians, african americans, and hispanics are forced to compete against each other in a multi-racial competition. In this multi-racial competition, Harvard has applied a substantial affirmative action advantage to african americans and somewhat less of an advantage to hispanics. As a result, academically more qualified Asians are being rejected to make room for less academically qualified african americans and hispanics, and in very large numbers. Personally, I'm not totally against this, because I think diversity is important. But if I were Asian, which I am not, I might have a different view.

It's ironic because so much of the daily political discussion around me is about the search for institutional racism or systemic bias. I think that, perhaps except for certain examples in law enforcement, this Harvard admissions policy is the clearest example of institutional racism that I have seen in the last decade. My perception is that people don't seem to care as much because it involves Asians and they are perceived to be very successful and therefore not in need of any advocacy. I do not envy the Supreme Court is needing to figure this one out.

Then the answer might be to keep Aa and Hispanics as under represented and let whites and Asians into the same pool with no preferences and let them fight it out. When the number of Asians exceeds the number of whites because they have better grades and scores, I’m sure we would hear about robots and cheaters and how holistic admissions are vital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not ignoring the elephant in the room - where did I say that removing racial preferences had no effect?I’m just saying that calling it systemic racism when it’s not just about race is incorrect. It’s a system of preferences. You want to reduce everything to race, go ahead, but it says more about you than the system.


As far as whether the numbers lie or. I don’t know. This is one poorly sourced footnote with no explanation or data. The number itself and the conclusions people are drawing here are suspect for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere. But I’m not going to say it’s wrong because I don’t actually know.

By the way if the numbers are accurate, then removing racial preferences results in 60% of the opened spots going to Asians. The number of whites admitted once the racial preference is not much larger than those admitted by legacy and athletics. Note that this number does not include development and faculty which also favors rich whites. Which means my original statement that middle class whites are screwed by rich whites is just as accurate as yours laying all the blame at the feet of race. The study itself says that the ALDC preferences largely help the affluent.

Omnibus pp here. I've done a lot of data science and statistical analysis professionally and I spent a lot of time with the numbers in the Harvard lawsuit yesterday. It took awhile to unravel the real story but it's all there in black and white (pardon the pun).

The best way I can summarize it is that Harvard makes whites compete against each other in a racial silo. When Harvard helps an ALDC white, it's at the expense of a non-ALDC white. As you say: "middle class whites are screwed by rich whites". Put another way, when Harvard admits a less academically qualified white legacy or white athlete, a more academically qualified white applicant is rejected. This is why if you remove ALDC preferences, while the type of white students admitted would change, the number of white students admitted does not change.

On the other hand, Asians, african americans, and hispanics are forced to compete against each other in a multi-racial competition. In this multi-racial competition, Harvard has applied a substantial affirmative action advantage to african americans and somewhat less of an advantage to hispanics. As a result, academically more qualified Asians are being rejected to make room for less academically qualified african americans and hispanics, and in very large numbers. Personally, I'm not totally against this, because I think diversity is important. But if I were Asian, which I am not, I might have a different view.

It's ironic because so much of the daily political discussion around me is about the search for institutional racism or systemic bias. I think that, perhaps except for certain examples in law enforcement, this Harvard admissions policy is the clearest example of institutional racism that I have seen in the last decade. My perception is that people don't seem to care as much because it involves Asians and they are perceived to be very successful and therefore not in need of any advocacy. I do not envy the Supreme Court is needing to figure this one out.

Btw if you remove the ALDC preference it doesn’t just affect the mix, the number of white students does change. It drops by 500 or so just for legacy and athletics. Development cases are about 100 per year of which 70-75 are white. I think this is a four year table so that’s another 250-300. Which means that white numbers would go down somewhat, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Btw if you remove the ALDC preference it doesn’t just affect the mix, the number of white students does change. It drops by 500 or so just for legacy and athletics. Development cases are about 100 per year of which 70-75 are white. I think this is a four year table so that’s another 250-300. Which means that white numbers would go down somewhat, no?

No, if you remove all ALDC preferences, the number of admitted white students doesn't meaningfully change. Hence the statement that whites are really just competing with other whites. Also remember that whites are (very slightly) demographically under-represented.

Anonymous wrote:Then the answer might be to keep Aa and Hispanics as under represented and let whites and Asians into the same pool with no preferences and let them fight it out. When the number of Asians exceeds the number of whites because they have better grades and scores, I’m sure we would hear about robots and cheaters and how holistic admissions are vital.

I don't mean to offend you but there there seems to be a consistent anti-white sentiment in what you write. The narrative you seem to want to believe simply isn't backed up by the data. I would challenge you to examine your conscious and unconscious bias in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw if you remove the ALDC preference it doesn’t just affect the mix, the number of white students does change. It drops by 500 or so just for legacy and athletics. Development cases are about 100 per year of which 70-75 are white. I think this is a four year table so that’s another 250-300. Which means that white numbers would go down somewhat, no?

No, if you remove all ALDC preferences, the number of admitted white students doesn't meaningfully change. Hence the statement that whites are really just competing with other whites. Also remember that whites are (very slightly) demographically under-represented.

Anonymous wrote:Then the answer might be to keep Aa and Hispanics as under represented and let whites and Asians into the same pool with no preferences and let them fight it out. When the number of Asians exceeds the number of whites because they have better grades and scores, I’m sure we would hear about robots and cheaters and how holistic admissions are vital.

I don't mean to offend you but there there seems to be a consistent anti-white sentiment in what you write. The narrative you seem to want to believe simply isn't backed up by the data. I would challenge you to examine your conscious and unconscious bias in this regard.

On the first point, how do you make the argument that the number of admitted white students doesn't meaningfully change if you remove all ALDC preferences?

On the table, it shows that removing the A (athlete) preference lowers white admissions by 204, or about 4%.

Removing the L (legacy preference) lowers white admissions by 303, or about 6%.

If you removed A and L, you would lower white admissions by 507, or about 10%.

Remember, this does not include D (development) or C (faculty). As I noted earlier, Harvard has stated that the development cases are about 100 admits per year, or which 70-75% are white. So, conservatively, that's another 250 white admits not getting in. Now, we don't know where those spots will go, but some of them aren't going to whites.

I just don't see how you come to the statement that it wouldn't meaningfully change. It could.

As far as the second point, I see your conclusion but I see how you think it isn't backed up by the data. I agree - it's a theory, but your position that it's siloed isn't necessarily supported by the data either. These are all theories and predictions because nothing has actually happened.

As far as the anti-white sentiment you perceive, you're blind if you haven't been on this board and seen the hypocritical position that whites take on this issue. It's all test scores and merit when they're talking about AA and Hispanics, but then they turn around and scream about robots and test takers who cheat when talking about Asians. Even the data you so lovingly cite suggests something else is at play. If Asians are being discriminated against because whites are being siloed off, how is it that this is only the fault of race preferences? It's equally being caused by whites getting a fixed percentage of the class (as you clearly already admit). Why is that fair?

Moreover, my theory that they'll get rid of racial preferences but not ALDC ones is actually playing out right now. The SFFA lawsuit is only about race and if you think that lawsuit is being run by Asian Americans, I've got bridge to sell to you. Maybe you shouldn't be so reflexively defensive, ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the first point, how do you make the argument that the number of admitted white students doesn't meaningfully change if you remove all ALDC preferences?

On the table, it shows that removing the A (athlete) preference lowers white admissions by 204, or about 4%.

Removing the L (legacy preference) lowers white admissions by 303, or about 6%.

If you removed A and L, you would lower white admissions by 507, or about 10%.

Remember, this does not include D (development) or C (faculty). As I noted earlier, Harvard has stated that the development cases are about 100 admits per year, or which 70-75% are white. So, conservatively, that's another 250 white admits not getting in. Now, we don't know where those spots will go, but some of them aren't going to whites.

I just don't see how you come to the statement that it wouldn't meaningfully change. It could.

On page 49, table 11, "no race/legacy/athlete" line: removing these preferences results in +145 white admits. That's about a 3% increase. Removing legacy and athlete preference decreases white admits but removing race preference increases white admits to an even greater degree, more than cancelling out the impact of legacies and athletes.

Meanwhile for asians the number of admits increases by 1206. That's more than a 50% increase. These numbers are the basis for my statement that there's no meaningful change in white admission numbers. You're correct that there are edge cases (dean's list and faculty children) that are unaccounted for that are presumably majority white, but even if that's another 150 white kids in total (a high estimate), it still doesn't move the needle much.

Anonymous wrote:As far as the anti-white sentiment you perceive, you're blind if you haven't been on this board and seen the hypocritical position that whites take on this issue. It's all test scores and merit when they're talking about AA and Hispanics, but then they turn around and scream about robots and test takers who cheat when talking about Asians. Even the data you so lovingly cite suggests something else is at play. If Asians are being discriminated against because whites are being siloed off, how is it that this is only the fault of race preferences? It's equally being caused by whites getting a fixed percentage of the class (as you clearly already admit). Why is that fair?

I agree with you that parents who feel their kids can't compete will hypocritically complain and try to move the goal posts and this is absolutely happening as asian students out-compete white students on standardized tests. I call this out every time I see it. I've heard many middle class white parents complain about this, but really it can be parents of any race. As I mentioned earlier, the loudest voice in this issue is the mayor of NYC who wants to create racial quotas for NYC's best performing public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the first point, how do you make the argument that the number of admitted white students doesn't meaningfully change if you remove all ALDC preferences?

On the table, it shows that removing the A (athlete) preference lowers white admissions by 204, or about 4%.

Removing the L (legacy preference) lowers white admissions by 303, or about 6%.

If you removed A and L, you would lower white admissions by 507, or about 10%.

Remember, this does not include D (development) or C (faculty). As I noted earlier, Harvard has stated that the development cases are about 100 admits per year, or which 70-75% are white. So, conservatively, that's another 250 white admits not getting in. Now, we don't know where those spots will go, but some of them aren't going to whites.

I just don't see how you come to the statement that it wouldn't meaningfully change. It could.

On page 49, table 11, "no race/legacy/athlete" line: removing these preferences results in +145 white admits. That's about a 3% increase. Removing legacy and athlete preference decreases white admits but removing race preference increases white admits to an even greater degree, more than cancelling out the impact of legacies and athletes.

Meanwhile for asians the number of admits increases by 1206. That's more than a 50% increase. These numbers are the basis for my statement that there's no meaningful change in white admission numbers. You're correct that there are edge cases (dean's list and faculty children) that are unaccounted for that are presumably majority white, but even if that's another 150 white kids in total (a high estimate), it still doesn't move the needle much.

Anonymous wrote:As far as the anti-white sentiment you perceive, you're blind if you haven't been on this board and seen the hypocritical position that whites take on this issue. It's all test scores and merit when they're talking about AA and Hispanics, but then they turn around and scream about robots and test takers who cheat when talking about Asians. Even the data you so lovingly cite suggests something else is at play. If Asians are being discriminated against because whites are being siloed off, how is it that this is only the fault of race preferences? It's equally being caused by whites getting a fixed percentage of the class (as you clearly already admit). Why is that fair?

I agree with you that parents who feel their kids can't compete will hypocritically complain and try to move the goal posts and this is absolutely happening as asian students out-compete white students on standardized tests. I call this out every time I see it. I've heard many middle class white parents complain about this, but really it can be parents of any race. As I mentioned earlier, the loudest voice in this issue is the mayor of NYC who wants to create racial quotas for NYC's best performing public schools.

Well, that's the problem. Race is NOT an ALDC category. ALDC is only athletic, legacy, development and faculty. So when you said when removing the ALDC preferences meant that white admits wouldn't change, I assumed you weren't including race.

Now, if you include race, the numbers look as you say, but even there, I have two issues. One - I don't understand how those numbers work such that Asians see the larger share of new admits once AA and Hispanic students are not admitted. It makes no sense, unless your silo theory is correct. Two - in your original theory, whites were siloed. That's how rich and poor whites compete with each other. If that theory is correct, then 100% of the gains should be Asian. But the numbers don't bear that out since 600 more white students are admitted. It just makes no sense. The silo theory doesn't fit these number. (Not for nothing, but the silo theory, if true, would be even more problematic than race preferences by the way because what it the silo theory other than a set aside for whites?)

I suspect the last line in the table is pure fudge. This study is written by one of the experts in the Harvard trial. He must reach the conclusion that removing racial preferences increases Asian enrollment, otherwise, Asian groups wouldn't sign on to a lawsuit if removing the race preference just meant the same 1.6 to 1 admittance ratio of whites to Asians remained. But there's no reasonable explanation why the gains in admittance in this one limited situation flow to Asians when all other admittance data favors whites. No back-up or explanation is provided either. It's just tossed in there. I think this study is interesting, but I don't necessarily trust it.

DeBlasio is an idiot. He's going to screw up the one shining jewel of the NYC public school system.

That being said, what you perceive as anti-white bias is me just not being, dare I say, politically correct. I was just predicting what would (and frankly is) happening based on available evidence. I would also find your admonition more credible if you were calling out some of the posters on this forum who post stuff a lot worse than what I wrote.