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

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

And let me add... Cambridge produces some top talent in theatre.

Oxford and Cambridge also have had a long tradition of "gentleman athletes." Have you seen Chariots of Fire? If you want to look at universities that are all work and no play, look at the top universities in Asia.

Indeed.. and they are not admitted *because* of their athleticism. They don't have "holistic" admissions. Yet, they still produce some fine talent even without holistic admissions.

Top unis in Asia produce some smart people, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If a school can value Division I athletics why can’t it decide to value a diverse student body?

Because athletics bring in the $$$$$$

No university is getting rich from the royalties of having their fencing or crew team televised. Those sports are there for historical reasons.

My guess is that these types of sports (even if people aren't personally interested/able to participate) are part of what makes an "ivy" feel like an ivy. Kind of like how people feel better belonging to a gym they never use. Or they feel richer having a country club nearby that they have no intention of making real use of.

Being an elite athlete is not the same as being born with a certain color of one’s skin. Athletic preference for academic scholars counts for something. That’s not the same as using the color of one’s skin to compensate for lower academics.

Why should a university care at all about athletic ability? It's both not the same thing and exactly the same thing in that it's a non-academic trait being used to compensate for lower academics. The only difference is that you personally value one and not the other.

There are only two logically defensible positions: all preferences are bad or all preferences are acceptable. Picking and choosing between them is just hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 !!!

How is affirmative action benefiting blacks and Hispanics? With affirmative action, they have lower reputation. When was the last time you sought out a black or Hispanic doctor or lawyer? Or did you avoid them based on their reputation?

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.

This is completely incorrect. You should stop saying this. White enrollment drops 10% just with the elimination of the athlete and legacy preference. Since development cases are more than 70% white, if you eliminate that, this would increase the percentage even more. You're citing the numbers once all preferences (including race) are eliminated and fraudulently claiming this shows what happens when legacy and athletic preferences ONLY are removed.

On balance, maybe you're correct (although the implied disparate gains for Asians shown in the table when only the race preference is removed is completely illogical, inexplicable and completely unsupported in the table or the study), but the fact that it's a larger percentage doesn't eliminate the actual reality that the ALDC preferences, which we can rename the 'white preferences', harm Asian applicants. Try to obfuscate all you want, but the table you love so dearly shows this.

[Anonymous]

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.

They're going somewhere. When white applicants and Asian applicants are admitted absent all preferences excluding race, according to that table, 1.6 whites are admitted for every 1 Asian. That makes sense, since the number of white applicants is greater than the number of Asian applicants. However, if you keep all the preferences other than race, of the 1500 or so spots that formerly went to black and Hispanic applicants, 900 go to Asian applicants and 600 go to white applicants, despite the number of applicants not changing. Why? Where are all the white kids here? They just disappear. This makes absolutely no sense unless you accept one of three things:

1. The numbers are absolute BS. This calculation is not explained or defined in the table or larger study. So the author could have pulled it out of thin air for all we know.
2. White applicants are in their own category where they only are judged against white applicants, while nonwhite applicants are judged against nonwhite applicants. This is, for all intents and purposes, affirmative action for whites or at the very least a set aside.
3. That for the first 6000 or so spots for acceptance the percentage of more qualified white students in the pool is greater, but that in the layer just below that, Asians students are greater. In other words, Asian students are more numerous in just this band of the applicant pool. If you can explain why the distribution of students looks like this, with an inexplicable bulge in just this area, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it.

otherwise, the only correct interpretation of this data is that blacks, Hispanics and whites all benefit from preferences that unambiguously disproportionately favor applicants from their group and that all of these preferences suppress Asian enrollment to varying degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

It does certainly hurt the blacks and Hispanics who got in because of their merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your problem is that you’re too stupid to realize how stupid you truly are. Imbecile.

ad ho·mi·nem
/?ad ?häm?n?m/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

Type again when you can refute a point properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh Lordy.

There's stupidity, and then there's dcum stupidity.

See post above.

And again, post when you can refute the point.

(but you can't which is why you went ad hominem)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

We're talking about Harvard. Harvard could have no sports teams and still attract applicants and fundraising. This is a strawman argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If a school can value Division I athletics why can’t it decide to value a diverse student body?

Because athletics bring in the $$$$$$

No university is getting rich from the royalties of having their fencing or crew team televised. Those sports are there for historical reasons.

My guess is that these types of sports (even if people aren't personally interested/able to participate) are part of what makes an "ivy" feel like an ivy. Kind of like how people feel better belonging to a gym they never use. Or they feel richer having a country club nearby that they have no intention of making real use of.

These sports do not bring in money themselves but the parents of the wealthy athletes donate money to the school and build buildings and sports facilities. Check out Princeton soccer stadium. Has Princeton soccer team produced world class soccer players? No.

[Anonymous]

Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?