7 ms·
But admissions to Harvard is a zero sum game. It’s not like they say before admissions starts “everyone with 210 points gets in” and then gives 80 points for SA
by fipple 8y ago
But admissions to Harvard is a zero sum game. It’s not like they say before admissions starts “everyone with 210 points gets in” and then gives 80 points for SAT score, 80 points for GPA, and 25 points for race. It’s like an Olympic race where they let the Athlete from the host country start the race 10 seconds early. If the other athletes complained I don’t think “we’re not hurting you, we’re just helping them” would be very satisfying.
- rayiner 8y agoSay there are 100 people racing, and the top 25% get to advance to the next round. "We're hurting you" is that you have to start 10 seconds late. "We're helping them" is that a few people get to start 10 seconds early. Would you assert that the two scenarios are equivalent?
- fipple 8y agoYes, they’re entirely equivalent. I can win the race by 9 seconds and still lose.
- rayiner 8y agoIn this hypothetical, 25% of people advance. If you have to start 10 seconds late, you almost certainly finish outside the top 25% no matter where you were going to finish otherwise. But if a few people get to start 10 seconds early, you'll probably still finish in the top 25% unless you were going to be marginal to begin with.
- fipple 8y agoWhat does it matter how marginal I was? Either I earned it, or I didn’t. Does a team only get a Super Bowl parade if they win by 14 points?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- randyrand 8y ago> unless you were going to be marginal to begin with. Which is a nice way of saying unless you would have advanced and now you're not. Clearly in this scenario helping a few is the same as hurting a few. Helping many is the same as hurting many. Harvard has ~2000 slots a year. How many of those would be asian if not for this discrimination?
- solveit 8y agoIt's alleged that it would be 40% as opposed to the 20% it is now.
- chrchang523 8y agofipple, you need to look more carefully at the math for rayiner's hypothetical. When the top 25% advance, there is a difference between 10% of competitors being given an unfair advantage over you, and 100% of competitors being given that advantage. This isn't to say that the former scenario is acceptable; I certainly do not appreciate the typical level of intellectual dishonesty surrounding endorsement of the status quo. But it is important to be precise regarding what we are talking about. You are making a mathematical error, and you need to correct it before this discussion can usefully proceed.
- fipple 8y agoYes, it was a very good point but I wasn’t allowed to reply to his/her post.