Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Maybe because the title of the article is 'Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard'.

If anything, the inclusion of the last line on Table 11, which was totally superfluous to the analysis in the article, was the entire point of the article. They don't need to analyze or defend it because it's presented as a throwaway footnote. People like you can seize upon the conclusion but no one can do a thoughtful critique of it because they never discuss it.

Color me confused.

What's your take when you see the huge racial disparities shown in table 11?

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of legacy preferences but the data are complex. Consistent with many previous studies, this analysis reports that on average, legacy/donor/children of faculty are rated more highly on every dimension, including academics. And, Asian-American LDCs according to the authors' model, receive the highest boost in admission rates compared to other racial groups (Table 9). Asian-Americans get a 9x "tip" for legacy and nearly a 5x "tip" for being disadvantaged compared to a non-ALDC applicant with a 5% chance of admission.

I agree that the data are complex. For instance, Asian-American LDCs may get a big boost, but only 1.77 percent of applicants and 11.53 percent of admits are LDC; among whites, it's 6.61 percent and 32.61(!) percent.

I absolutely agree that legacy preferences should be abolished - and my kids are double Harvard legacies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

That makes no sense, since academic record alone has never been a criteria for admission, and there is no minimum threshold. They can admit someone who never attended high school and didn't take the SAT if they want to.

+1, I think that's what infuriates people so much--the schools can put together any kind of class they want based on interests, demographics, etc. They consider academic accolades and test scores, but aren't bound by them. They of course will try to ensure that the kids can do the work, but they're also trying to put together an overall mix that they think will be dynamic and enriching.

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

That makes no sense, since academic record alone has never been a criteria for admission, and there is no minimum threshold. They can admit someone who never attended high school and didn't take the SAT if they want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I read somewhere that at Brown U., if you take out all the spots for legacies, donors, athletes, international students, that leaves something like 10% of the spots open for the general public.

What you say only makes sense if you add underrepresented minorities to that list and the general public = unhooked white/asians.

But it is the case for all the top colleges the student body is heavily engineered to achieve a certain demographic breakdown. There are winners and losers.

+1 White does not equal "general public." A little over 50% of American children are non-white. 55% of high school students play sports. The outliers are students who whites and non-athletes

I'm not a fan of legacy preferences but the data are complex. Consistent with many previous studies, this analysis reports that on average, legacy/donor/children of faculty are rated more highly on every dimension, including academics. And, Asian-American LDCs according to the authors' model, receive the highest boost in admission rates compared to other racial groups (Table 9). Asian-Americans get a 9x "tip" for legacy and nearly a 5x "tip" for being disadvantaged compared to a non-ALDC applicant with a 5% chance of admission.

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Wow.

Two thirds of black students wouldn't have been admitted if they weren't black.

Only one third got in because of their merits.

Explains much.

Anonymous wrote:More likely the authors didn't discuss or highlight it because that would sic the PC crowd on them and get them fired from their job. Critiquing legacy admissions on the other hand win them plaudits from the woke crowd. There are simply some subjects in academia that have become too dangerous to touch, even when they are true.

+1

Which makes this "scientific" study a joke.

It's a political leaflet.

What exactly is the problem?

This is the opening statement:

Using publicly released reports, we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each.

If you look up national racial demographics for college bound students, white students make up around 49% of students as of 2015 (and likely slightly less now). AAs are 15%, Hispanics are 25% and Asians 5%. Seems like the white share of ALDCs and AA share of ALDCs are roughly approximate to their national demographics. There are less Hispanics, but Hispanics are also a relatively new demographic that has only recently become prominent (working their way up the system, so to speak). Asians are greatly overrepresented as per national demographics.

So I am not clutching my pearls at the Harvard numbers.

What I do see in both this report and other posters on this thread are people reaching for the statistics that favors them and trying to bolster their case by comparing them to different statistics to somehow make their case seem stronger. At the end of the day, Harvard does what Harvard wants to do.

I suppose the real crime, insofar as there is one, are institutions that preach meritocracy and the crime of judging or discriminating on the basis of race on one hand and on the other hand practicing an admissions policy that is very racially driven in order to achieve its ideal diversity.

Anonymous wrote:I think I read somewhere that at Brown U., if you take out all the spots for legacies, donors, athletes, international students, that leaves something like 10% of the spots open for the general public.

What you say only makes sense if you add underrepresented minorities to that list and the general public = unhooked white/asians.

But it is the case for all the top colleges the student body is heavily engineered to achieve a certain demographic breakdown. There are winners and losers.

Anonymous wrote:More likely the authors didn't discuss or highlight it because that would sic the PC crowd on them and get them fired from their job. Critiquing legacy admissions on the other hand win them plaudits from the woke crowd. There are simply some subjects in academia that have become too dangerous to touch, even when they are true.

Nice try.

The author of the article is the guy who served as a expert for SFFA, and explicitly critiqued racial preferences in admissions policies at the trial. He doesn't care.

You really should check your victimization syndrome at the door.

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

Three types of people are accepted.

1. Legacy.
2. First in their family to attend college.
3. A kid who is the best at something (best at soccer, softball, whatever).

Harvard accepted someone from my hs class with a high B average. Legacy.

That said, I have 0 interest in Harvard. Too many feelings around it without an associated improvement in life.

More likely the authors didn't discuss or highlight it because that would sic the PC crowd on them and get them fired from their job. Critiquing legacy admissions on the other hand win them plaudits from the woke crowd. There are simply some subjects in academia that have become too dangerous to touch, even when they are true.

Anonymous wrote:Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Maybe because the title of the article is 'Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard'.

If anything, the inclusion of the last line on Table 11, which was totally superfluous to the analysis in the article, was the entire point of the article. They don't need to analyze or defend it because it's presented as a throwaway footnote. People like you can seize upon the conclusion but no one can do a thoughtful critique of it because they never discuss it.

Go look at table 11 on page 49. I guess there is one admissions preference the authors don't want to talk about.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf