5 ms·

Given the recent data on racial admission percentages [1], it appears that out of all the demographics non-elite non-legacy whites face the hardest time getting

Given the recent data on racial admission percentages [1], it appears that out of all the demographics non-elite non-legacy whites face the hardest time getting into Harvard, due to half of the already below societally-proportionate spots being reserved for legacy admissions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080

taurath 7y ago
So... everyone's right. The strata being argued about isn't primarily about race, its economic and social class. We are super good at avoiding this in the US.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I was just about to point out, but I didn't know if people would take it the wrong way, that the number of blacks who are non-rich and non-athlete is vanishingly small. Not only at Harvard, but I'm pretty sure this is the case at most universities. The point being that whether you're white or black, being rich or being an athlete is the best way into Harvard. If you're neither, I think you're pretty much screwed. There really are just way too many intelligent students out there these days, you need something more than just a test score. Just the sad reality nowadays.
  - aetherson 7y ago
    Let's be careful about what we mean by "rich" here. Just being in a top 1% kind of level of wealth isn't enough, you need to be able to make 7+ figure donations.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Well, just going by the article, they defined it as 500 grand a year. Not sure how they got that number, (?), but that's the number they gave. I'm just pointing out that the percentage of whites who are not athletes, and whose parents make less than 500 grand is pretty small. And the percentage of blacks matching that profile is even smaller. And if you really want to see some depressing numbers, factor out the females. That is, count up the number of white males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. Or for a real laugh, count up the number of black males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. This is just the ugly reality of how our society is currently structured. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that in this society, these sorts of things have a lot to do with money. More to do with money than race even, which is saying something.
      - aetherson 7y ago
        There's two different things: Rich enough to make the Dean's List, and then their comment about how rich legacies and athletes are. Legacies and athletes are, per the article, 43.2% and 20% likely (respectively) to have parents who make more than $500k/year. But a "mere" $500k/year is not going to get you enough money to donate enough to get your kid on the dean's list. That's going to take donations of more than $1M. Quite possibly more than $5M, or at least a teaser donation of $1M and some plausible belief from Harvard that you have the means to make more donations than that. This is why there was that scandal with the fake athletes -- because just paying the $150k or so to get your kid a fake record as a polo player or whatever is very cheap compared to the amount of money you need to donate to a top-tier college before they'll give your kid significant admissions preference. For the most part, dean's list donations are out of reach of all but the ultra-rich, maybe the 0.1% or so.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    It's a natural outcome of the limited space I think. Given loads of plain smart people and limited ability to measure the difference between them what measures can you use? Extra curricular activities seem like a decent measure simply because they take up time so all other things being equal the student who had a time consuming extra curricular activity was probably either a) better at time management, b) harder working, or c) smarter and able to complete the same work in a shorter amount of time.
    - keenmaster 7y ago
      A substantial percentage of legacy and athlete admits had grades which were too low for regular admission.
    - taurath 7y ago
      Or extra curriculars mean you were rich, or at least your parents were enough to afford you doing other things.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        That really depends on the extra curricular though. There's plenty that aren't expensive at all: Scouting, (most) sports, and volunteering. Those all demand mostly time commitments with small outlays for relatively cheap equipment.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    "There really are just way too many intelligent students out there these days" Why can't they simply ratchet up the difficulty level? Sort students by ability, take top N, however many needed to fill the seats. Like grading on a curve, but the right way.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      The good students already saturate the bullshit metrics. We would need a pipeline of way more extra hard high schools, and that's another ethics problem. It would be harder to justify the legacy students then, that's a plus. Also, let's be real, jobs are too moronic for all this. The American economy is a joke that doesn't deserve a more vicious rat race, and that's all we'd get from this. There's no "talented (10^-n)the" way out of our current predicament.
jlawson 7y ago
Even if you ignore the legacy admissions issue, if you count Jews as a separate group, gentile whites are the most underrepresented group at Harvard.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

taurath 7y ago

So... everyone's right. The strata being argued about isn't primarily about race, its economic and social class. We are super good at avoiding this in the US.

bilbo0s 7y ago
I was just about to point out, but I didn't know if people would take it the wrong way, that the number of blacks who are non-rich and non-athlete is vanishingly small. Not only at Harvard, but I'm pretty sure this is the case at most universities. The point being that whether you're white or black, being rich or being an athlete is the best way into Harvard. If you're neither, I think you're pretty much screwed. There really are just way too many intelligent students out there these days, you need something more than just a test score. Just the sad reality nowadays.
- aetherson 7y ago
  Let's be careful about what we mean by "rich" here. Just being in a top 1% kind of level of wealth isn't enough, you need to be able to make 7+ figure donations.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Well, just going by the article, they defined it as 500 grand a year. Not sure how they got that number, (?), but that's the number they gave. I'm just pointing out that the percentage of whites who are not athletes, and whose parents make less than 500 grand is pretty small. And the percentage of blacks matching that profile is even smaller. And if you really want to see some depressing numbers, factor out the females. That is, count up the number of white males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. Or for a real laugh, count up the number of black males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. This is just the ugly reality of how our society is currently structured. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that in this society, these sorts of things have a lot to do with money. More to do with money than race even, which is saying something.
    - aetherson 7y ago
      There's two different things: Rich enough to make the Dean's List, and then their comment about how rich legacies and athletes are. Legacies and athletes are, per the article, 43.2% and 20% likely (respectively) to have parents who make more than $500k/year. But a "mere" $500k/year is not going to get you enough money to donate enough to get your kid on the dean's list. That's going to take donations of more than $1M. Quite possibly more than $5M, or at least a teaser donation of $1M and some plausible belief from Harvard that you have the means to make more donations than that. This is why there was that scandal with the fake athletes -- because just paying the $150k or so to get your kid a fake record as a polo player or whatever is very cheap compared to the amount of money you need to donate to a top-tier college before they'll give your kid significant admissions preference. For the most part, dean's list donations are out of reach of all but the ultra-rich, maybe the 0.1% or so.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  It's a natural outcome of the limited space I think. Given loads of plain smart people and limited ability to measure the difference between them what measures can you use? Extra curricular activities seem like a decent measure simply because they take up time so all other things being equal the student who had a time consuming extra curricular activity was probably either a) better at time management, b) harder working, or c) smarter and able to complete the same work in a shorter amount of time.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    A substantial percentage of legacy and athlete admits had grades which were too low for regular admission.
  - taurath 7y ago
    Or extra curriculars mean you were rich, or at least your parents were enough to afford you doing other things.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      That really depends on the extra curricular though. There's plenty that aren't expensive at all: Scouting, (most) sports, and volunteering. Those all demand mostly time commitments with small outlays for relatively cheap equipment.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  "There really are just way too many intelligent students out there these days" Why can't they simply ratchet up the difficulty level? Sort students by ability, take top N, however many needed to fill the seats. Like grading on a curve, but the right way.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    The good students already saturate the bullshit metrics. We would need a pipeline of way more extra hard high schools, and that's another ethics problem. It would be harder to justify the legacy students then, that's a plus. Also, let's be real, jobs are too moronic for all this. The American economy is a joke that doesn't deserve a more vicious rat race, and that's all we'd get from this. There's no "talented (10^-n)the" way out of our current predicament.

jlawson 7y ago

Even if you ignore the legacy admissions issue, if you count Jews as a separate group, gentile whites are the most underrepresented group at Harvard.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]