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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

[b]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[/b].[/quote]

Thank you !!![/quote]

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[/quote]
DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

[b]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.[/b]

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).[/quote]
Then you are reading the paper wrong. If you removed Legacy and athletes, yes Asians would benefit, [b]but this preference doesn't disproportionally benefit whites[/b], 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. 
[/quote]

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?  [b]If so, where are all those whites going when the racial preference is removed?   [/b]

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.[/quote]

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 [b]all the preferences are removed[/b] 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. [/quote]

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.[/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