Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

Exactly, math is so racist

No - the test is. Duh

? how is a math test racist? Can you give me an example of a racist math question on the SAT?

So if the origin of the test is racist and 50% of the test is culturally biased keep the entire test and make it a high stakes factor for admissions.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

? If you want to talk about cultural differences, generations of African Americans have way more cultural commonalities with American culture than a 2nd gen Asian American.

And if these tests were implemented by racists, do you think those racists weren't racist against Asian people? Did you know that segregation laws applied to Asian Americans as well?

Have you seen the latest SATs? Form the college board's own study guide: In the complex number system, which of the following is equal to
(14 − 2i)(7 + 12i)? (Note: _i = √−1) How can people not realize how racially biased that question is?

"Math" is much more than pulling a random question from a test.

There are many steps required to get to the point of answering that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

and you think an Asian American would know that more than an African American? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

are Asians purposefully pitting themselves against AA? I never see any mentions of Hispanics or Native Americans or Pacific Islanders....

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

DP. indeed, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and neither should any institution, especially one that does receive some public money.

Companies are not allow to violate laws. Nor are colleges.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment

It is not discriminatory to one race to ensure other races are not discriminated against, even in a zero-sum process like admissions or hiring. It is only when those policies are enforced against a particular race uniformly that it is illegal, and immoral.

Seeking balance that reflects the general population is the best way to ensure there are not any explicit or implicit prejudices against a particular URM group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

None of this adds up to 100% If you include white, asian, blacks, hispanics = > 100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

are Asians purposefully pitting themselves against AA? I never see any mentions of Hispanics or Native Americans or Pacific Islanders....

Yes

no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

None of this adds up to 100% If you include white, asian, blacks, hispanics = > 100

And accounting for only white black asian = 84.1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

_________________________________
You are a white UMC family that prioritizes athletics and family time, what is wrong with Asians focusing on education. BTW, now most UMC Asian families are also focused on athletics or other EC in addition to academics because they know they have to be better that all other races to get into the colleges of their choice. In NYC, it is many low income Asian families who attend cram schools to get out of poverty. I don't see anything wrong with it. My parents sacrificed a lot to send me to a top college, I hold them in the highest regard for affording me all the opportunities. Even today despite being modestly off, my parents never ask me for money and are there for childcare at any time. I have never cried about lost childhood or filling out bubbles - I am just grateful for their dedication. Today I can send me kids to private schools only because they sacrificed for me. My children have the luxury of exploring different EC because money is no longer a constraint. They do not need to go to cram schools because my husband and I are well educated and provide a home environment which is already enriched.

Get rid of non-revenue sports and legacy - we will see how many UMC white families will focus on those sports once they no longer factor into admissions.

Also, Asians score higher on every measure, including EC, interview and recommendations when compared to whites. The only place they score lower is in "personality" which is a Harvard made up section by admissions officer who has never even met the kid. See the link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

"Based on the original source
, the overall rejection rate for Asian Americans and White students is almost identical, 95%.

A (very) slightly higher proportion of Asian American applicants receive an overall score of 1 or 2 (the top categories) than White American applicants (4.84% vs. 4.43%). Of those with a score of 1 or 2, 66% of Asian American student and 66% of White students are accepted.

In short, White and Asian American students have similar score distributions and acceptance rates (even when you condition on overall score).

Among Asian American applicants, 82% have a "poor" personal rating score (>=3), while 79% of White applicants are in the same category. Nevertheless, Asian American students with a poor personal rating make up 27% of accepted Asian American students, while White students with a poor personal rating score only make up 16% of accepted White students. To put that another way, if you have a poor personal rating score, you're 65% more likely to get accepted if you are Asian American than if you are White. I would assume that this is because poorly rated Asian American students are more likely to have higher scores in the other categories.

As I stated in a previous comment, the personal rating is based on
teacher recommendations, counselor ratings, and student essays (which don't appear elsewhere on the chart). So it seems likely to me that the difference in personal rating is based on how admissions committee members are rating essays. That doesn't mean racial bias isn't responsible for this difference, but it also don't mean that it definitely is."

from your reddit link.

I would also be interested to know who is interviewing the candidates....are kids interviewed by alumnis who meet their same demographic? Ive seen plenty of Ivy interviews and they all seem to match.....white women with white girl, white men with white boy, Asian male with asian boy.

This is so fascinating. From reading this thread, I would have thought the differences between Asian candidates and white candidates were dramatic. This paints an entirely different picture. I will fully admit that I am white and in favor of affirmative action, but I was way more on the fence before seeing this data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

It's interest that the top academic African Applicant's have a better than 50% chance of admission, but that it's still long odds for white and asians and somehow that isn't evidence of racial discrimination

It's pretty amazing that even presented with the numbers people still come up with lame arguments but par for the course with this ideology I guess.

We don’t have numbers actually, we have percentages. What are the numbers?

Are there 2 AA students and 50% were accepted? Were there 10,000 and 5,000 were accepted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

DP. indeed, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and neither should any institution, especially one that does receive some public money.

Companies are not allow to violate laws. Nor are colleges.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment

It is not discriminatory to one race to ensure other races are not discriminated against, even in a zero-sum process like admissions or hiring. It is only when those policies are enforced against a particular race uniformly that it is illegal, and immoral.

Seeking balance that reflects the general population is the best way to ensure there are not any explicit or implicit prejudices against a particular URM group.

Really? Tell that to the NBA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

are Asians purposefully pitting themselves against AA? I never see any mentions of Hispanics or Native Americans or Pacific Islanders....

Asian Americans aren't purposefully pitting themselves against anyone. They just want to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Way to use MLK speech.

well sure. You know that the civil rights movement also applied to Asian Americans who were also subjected to segregationist polices, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

And baseball itself wasn't integrated until the late 1940's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

_________________________________
You are a white UMC family that prioritizes athletics and family time, what is wrong with Asians focusing on education. BTW, now most UMC Asian families are also focused on athletics or other EC in addition to academics because they know they have to be better that all other races to get into the colleges of their choice. In NYC, it is many low income Asian families who attend cram schools to get out of poverty. I don't see anything wrong with it. My parents sacrificed a lot to send me to a top college, I hold them in the highest regard for affording me all the opportunities. Even today despite being modestly off, my parents never ask me for money and are there for childcare at any time. I have never cried about lost childhood or filling out bubbles - I am just grateful for their dedication. Today I can send me kids to private schools only because they sacrificed for me. My children have the luxury of exploring different EC because money is no longer a constraint. They do not need to go to cram schools because my husband and I are well educated and provide a home environment which is already enriched.

Get rid of non-revenue sports and legacy - we will see how many UMC white families will focus on those sports once they no longer factor into admissions.

Also, Asians score higher on every measure, including EC, interview and recommendations when compared to whites. The only place they score lower is in "personality" which is a Harvard made up section by admissions officer who has never even met the kid. See the link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

"Based on the original source
, the overall rejection rate for Asian Americans and White students is almost identical, 95%.

A (very) slightly higher proportion of Asian American applicants receive an overall score of 1 or 2 (the top categories) than White American applicants (4.84% vs. 4.43%). Of those with a score of 1 or 2, 66% of Asian American student and 66% of White students are accepted.

In short, White and Asian American students have similar score distributions and acceptance rates (even when you condition on overall score).

Among Asian American applicants, 82% have a "poor" personal rating score (>=3), while 79% of White applicants are in the same category. Nevertheless, Asian American students with a poor personal rating make up 27% of accepted Asian American students, while White students with a poor personal rating score only make up 16% of accepted White students. To put that another way, if you have a poor personal rating score, you're 65% more likely to get accepted if you are Asian American than if you are White. I would assume that this is because poorly rated Asian American students are more likely to have higher scores in the other categories.

As I stated in a previous comment, the personal rating is based on
teacher recommendations, counselor ratings, and student essays (which don't appear elsewhere on the chart). So it seems likely to me that the difference in personal rating is based on how admissions committee members are rating essays. That doesn't mean racial bias isn't responsible for this difference, but it also don't mean that it definitely is."

from your reddit link.

I would also be interested to know who is interviewing the candidates....are kids interviewed by alumnis who meet their same demographic? Ive seen plenty of Ivy interviews and they all seem to match.....white women with white girl, white men with white boy, Asian male with asian boy.

This is so fascinating. From reading this thread, I would have thought the differences between Asian candidates and white candidates were dramatic. This paints an entirely different picture. I will fully admit that I am white and in favor of affirmative action, but I was way more on the fence before seeing this data.

White admissions look better because of legacy and sports. For an unhooked white student, they are SOL. It isn't surprising to me at all that the most subjective scores are where the schools boost URM applicants. Admissions teams have diversity goals to hit and they know they need to dock over represented groups somewhere in order to do it- something subjective like an essay is the perfect way to do it.