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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Thank you !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you reconcile your bolded statement with the following footnote from the study (emphasis added)?

"We focus on whites because they make up the vast majority of ALDC applicants and admits"

I don't know what you mean disproportionately, but I'm guessing 'vast majority' has kind of the same meaning.

Your replacement argument doesn't make sense, nor does it accurately reflect what happens - removing these specific preferences would see white enrollment drop by 10-15%.

[Anonymous]

Whites are shielded to race preference because of legacy admits. There will be more Asian legacy admits over time.

Lots of people actually LIKE having sports at their college. I doubt any Duke basketball fan is opposed to special selection of top athletes for the basketball team. It creates a richer environment for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Thank you !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bolded statement is just wrong.

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

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

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

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

This is simple to answer. They are going nowhere. There are enough well qualified Whites in the applicant pool right now that are getting rejected so they get a modest bump when all the preferences are removed and they compete on a level playing field. Now obviously, the Asians who are getting screwed right now due to blatant discrimination will get the lions share of the benefits, because pound for pound, their applicant pool is much stronger and it is not just because of their scores. They also have great EC's and if Harvard did not deliberately ding them on the personal ratings to keep their numbers low and give those seats to blacks and Hispanics, they would score high on the personal ratings as well and occupy most of the slots that the URM's take.

You are missing my question, I think. Why are the 'Asian' seats, and only the Asian seats, being given to blacks and Hispanics? Why aren't white seats, which are already more numerous, affected in the same proportion. Are whites shielded to a greater extent from the effect of the race preference? If so, why? If Asians are considered only relative to other non-white applicants, does it not suggest that white students receive a fixed percentage of the spots at the school, regardless of relative merit?

The point I'm making is that if Asians are as stronger as you say, then it doesn't matter whether the seat they should be occupying is taken by a black, Hispanic or white student. All of three groups are benefiting from a race preference, are they not?

This is answered in Table 11. Whites are clearly not benefiting from a racial preference. Blacks and Hispanics are. Some Whites are benefiting form legacy and Athletic preferences, but if you remove such preferences totally, other qualified whites who are getting rejected now and who might be as strong or stronger than some of 16% or so of the Asians, Blacks and Hispanics who are also getting in with legacy and athletic preferences will get in and so their numbers will actually increase some if all preferences are eliminated according to the paper. This means on balance it is the racial preference given to Blacks and Hispanics that is killing Asians right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whites are shielded to race preference because of legacy admits. There will be more Asian legacy admits over time.

Lots of people actually LIKE having sports at their college. I doubt any Duke basketball fan is opposed to special selection of top athletes for the basketball team. It creates a richer environment for everyone.

This is a total red herring. You can have sports and yet not have such a high preference given to recruited athletes. Most Div III schools are this way. These are student athletes. They can be good but don't have to play at a professional level. It can be done if the colleges put their heads to it. MIT does it now, and so to many other Div III schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Thank you !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you reconcile your bolded statement with the following footnote from the study (emphasis added)?

"We focus on whites because they make up the vast majority of ALDC applicants and admits"

I don't know what you mean disproportionately, but I'm guessing 'vast majority' has kind of the same meaning.

Your replacement argument doesn't make sense, nor does it accurately reflect what happens - removing these specific preferences would see white enrollment drop by 10-15%.

That is true, but the white pool is so large and there are so many qualified whites that are getting rejected right now that if you removed all preferences, whites as a race would actually do better, even though it will be non hooked whites. Racially removing all preferences will not harm whites as a race. And there is no way that colleges will remove Legacy and recruited athlete and be able to justify racial preferences. So the 10% drop in white enrollment that occurs only if legacy and athletic preference is removed but racial preference is kept is practically untenable. If Legacy goes, AA will definitely go, but if AA goes, it is not clear that legacy and Athletic preference will go.

[Anonymous]

I’m not white so I only have a stake in this because I’m curious about the issue. At highly selective schools, roughly 50% of the student body is engineered to be non-domestic and non-white....URM, Asian, international, etc. Of the remaining 50% allocating to domestic whites, roughly half are Jewish. Of the remaining 25% allocated to non-Jewish, domestic whites, half are legacies and its likely another 5-10% are recruited athletes. So the sixty percent of the country that identify as non-Hispanic whites are fighting for less than 10% of the allotted spaces. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not white so I only have a stake in this because I’m curious about the issue. At highly selective schools, roughly 50% of the student body is engineered to be non-domestic and non-white....URM, Asian, international, etc. Of the remaining 50% allocating to domestic whites, roughly half are Jewish. Of the remaining 25% allocated to non-Jewish, domestic whites, half are legacies and its likely another 5-10% are recruited athletes. So the sixty percent of the country that identify as non-Hispanic whites are fighting for less than 10% of the allotted spaces. Interesting.

Um, no. I'm not checking the accuracy of your numbers, but there's an error in your logic. The 60% that identifies as non-Hispanic whites includes Jewish whites, legacies, and recruited athletes. So, assuming your numbers, the 60% are vying for the 50% of the spots. To figure out what percentage of seats the non-hooked, non-Jewish whites are vying for you'd have to figure out what percentage the non-hooked, non-Jewish are of the total non-Hispanic white 60%. Plus, technically, to be more accurate, you should be looking at the college-eligible, college-age high-school grad non-Hispanic whites, not the general population.

[Anonymous]

Hate to say this but this has been the prep school recipe sauce for their students. Saw it at our private school that school abolished high distinction/high honors/honors recognition as kids with lower/no recognition getting into ivies through sports. Harvard recruiting a field hockey kid! The sports like tennis/squash/ice hockey/crew are predominantly white rich kids sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this but this has been the prep school recipe sauce for their students. Saw it at our private school that school abolished high distinction/high honors/honors recognition as kids with lower/no recognition getting into ivies through sports. Harvard recruiting a field hockey kid! The sports like tennis/squash/ice hockey/crew are predominantly white rich kids sports.

I would argue you have that reversed. It’s not that private school parents choose preppy sports because they get them into college. It’s that colleges focus on preppy sports as a way to admit (rich) private school kids. They can’t just directly admit kids based on their parents’ income. But golf and crew are a perfect proxy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not white so I only have a stake in this because I’m curious about the issue. At highly selective schools, roughly 50% of the student body is engineered to be non-domestic and non-white....URM, Asian, international, etc. Of the remaining 50% allocating to domestic whites, roughly half are Jewish. Of the remaining 25% allocated to non-Jewish, domestic whites, half are legacies and its likely another 5-10% are recruited athletes. So the sixty percent of the country that identify as non-Hispanic whites are fighting for less than 10% of the allotted spaces. Interesting.

Um, no. I'm not checking the accuracy of your numbers, but there's an error in your logic. The 60% that identifies as non-Hispanic whites includes Jewish whites, legacies, and recruited athletes. So, assuming your numbers, the 60% are vying for the 50% of the spots. To figure out what percentage of seats the non-hooked, non-Jewish whites are vying for you'd have to figure out what percentage the non-hooked, non-Jewish are of the total non-Hispanic white 60%. Plus, technically, to be more accurate, you should be looking at the college-eligible, college-age high-school grad non-Hispanic whites, not the general population.

Do ivies really ask your religion?
And how do they define Hispanic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this but this has been the prep school recipe sauce for their students. Saw it at our private school that school abolished high distinction/high honors/honors recognition as kids with lower/no recognition getting into ivies through sports. Harvard recruiting a field hockey kid! The sports like tennis/squash/ice hockey/crew are predominantly white rich kids sports.

And that's why my kid does fencing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whites are shielded to race preference because of legacy admits. There will be more Asian legacy admits over time.

Lots of people actually LIKE having sports at their college. I doubt any Duke basketball fan is opposed to special selection of top athletes for the basketball team. It creates a richer environment for everyone.

This is a total red herring. You can have sports and yet not have such a high preference given to recruited athletes. Most Div III schools are this way. These are student athletes. They can be good but don't have to play at a professional level. It can be done if the colleges put their heads to it. MIT does it now, and so to many other Div III schools

I think that they prefer Division I level competition, though. Division III simply isn’t the same. The point of recruiting is to attract higher level athletes because the school values athletes who can compete at the Division I level. Sure, they could switch to Div III, but that is not their preference.

Sports are part of the college experience at many US schools. There are plenty of schools that don’t value sports as highly, so there are options out there for students who dont care about higher level sports. There are lots of people who like the idea of high level academics and higher level sports at the same school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That is true, but the white pool is so large and there are so many qualified whites that are getting rejected right now that if you removed all preferences, whites as a race would actually do better, even though it will be non hooked whites. Racially removing all preferences will not harm whites as a race. And there is no way that colleges will remove Legacy and recruited athlete and be able to justify racial preferences. So the 10% drop in white enrollment that occurs only if legacy and athletic preference is removed but racial preference is kept is practically untenable. If Legacy goes, AA will definitely go, but if AA goes, it is not clear that legacy and Athletic preference will go.

DP.. yes, but clearly, Table 11 shows that whites get some kind of affirmative action in the form of legacy and athletes. I think the point is that in this way, whites also do get some form of affirmative action.

Again, the *ONLY* group that doesn't get any kind of affirmative action is Asian American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That is true, but the white pool is so large and there are so many qualified whites that are getting rejected right now that if you removed all preferences, whites as a race would actually do better, even though it will be non hooked whites. Racially removing all preferences will not harm whites as a race. And there is no way that colleges will remove Legacy and recruited athlete and be able to justify racial preferences. So the 10% drop in white enrollment that occurs only if legacy and athletic preference is removed but racial preference is kept is practically untenable. If Legacy goes, AA will definitely go, but if AA goes, it is not clear that legacy and Athletic preference will go.

DP.. yes, but clearly, Table 11 shows that whites get some kind of affirmative action in the form of legacy and athletes. I think the point is that in this way, whites also do get some form of affirmative action.

Again, the *ONLY* group that doesn't get any kind of affirmative action is Asian American.

This is false.

Asian Americans benefit from racial balance at the colleges where they are also URMs. A (tiny) partial list of them is above in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this but this has been the prep school recipe sauce for their students. Saw it at our private school that school abolished high distinction/high honors/honors recognition as kids with lower/no recognition getting into ivies through sports. Harvard recruiting a field hockey kid! The sports like tennis/squash/ice hockey/crew are predominantly white rich kids sports.

And that's why my kid does fencing.

Yup. There are definitely rich kid sports. My college roommate was a pretty poor student but a legacy and rowed crew. She had a 2.5 GPA in her first year at my Ivy league college.