Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Yup.

Which is why so many prefer to hide those numbers.

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

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

Does it bother you that plenty of whites wouldn’t get in if they weren’t legacies or athletes?

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

I’m usually a supporter of affirmative action but if this analysis is true it’s pretty damning. Half of Hispanic Harvard students and 2/3 of Harvard African American students wouldn’t have been admitted without racial preferences? Those numbers are high. People definitely find it offensive to be told “you wouldn’t be here without affirmative action, but these numbers say that is true much of the time.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

Exactly.

Idiot agrees with idiot.

...says the Chief Idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

Exactly.

Idiot agrees with idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

Anonymous wrote:The table doesn't suggest that white people will get the lion's share of the gains if race is removed as a consideration. Whites gained 145 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. Asian/Asian American gained 1206 admissions if race was removed as a consideration. The admissions for African American and Hispanic Americans were cut in half.

Race based considerations in admissions benefits African American and Hispanic kids. It disadvantages Asian American kids. It barely effects the admission rate for white kids at all.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t care. The myth that college admissions is a pure meritocracy is inane. No other institution in this country is a meritocracy. You think all these folks when they leave college are going to get jobs and promotions based on merit? White kids will more than catch up then because the inherent advantages of being white come back into play. This is all just white people whining because they aren’t consuming 80% of the pie anymore.

And as far as Asians go, we are not so stupid to think that once you get rid racial preferences (and the Harvard case was ONLY about those preferences) that everything will be better. the legacy and athlete preferences will remain in place and whites will get the lion’s share of the gains.

The table needed to show no racial preference but keeping the ALDC preference as well because rest assured white people know how to game the system to maintain their disproportionate share.

White people are just greedy. So greedy that now they’re trying to claim racism is against them.

Wow.

4 paragraphs of blahblahblah and not a single insight based on the data available there.

Do you even understand the table?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t care. The myth that college admissions is a pure meritocracy is inane. No other institution in this country is a meritocracy. You think all these folks when they leave college are going to get jobs and promotions based on merit? White kids will more than catch up then because the inherent advantages of being white come back into play. This is all just white people whining because they aren’t consuming 80% of the pie anymore.

And as far as Asians go, we are not so stupid to think that once you get rid racial preferences (and the Harvard case was ONLY about those preferences) that everything will be better. the legacy and athlete preferences will remain in place and whites will get the lion’s share of the gains.

The table needed to show no racial preference but keeping the ALDC preference as well because rest assured white people know how to game the system to maintain their disproportionate share.

White people are just greedy. So greedy that now they’re trying to claim racism is against them.

Anonymous wrote:

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?