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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics