3 ms·

I'd like to see further breakdowns. Asian to Indian, Chinese, Korean, other White to WASP and other -- maybe geographical Jewish to observant and n

I'd like to see further breakdowns. Asian to Indian, Chinese, Korean, other White to WASP and other -- maybe geographical Jewish to observant and non-observant Hispanic to ?? It's a loose category it seems to me. Is DeSantis Hispanic? Also how many are here on educational visas?

BoorishBears 3y ago
I was trying to find where this graph actually came from until I stumbled across the methodology section's... interesting approaches. It reads like something someone on 4chan would make to backup their soapbox, not an actual scientific study. (If you think assuming 100% of college students applied to Yale is sound methodology, maybe you don't need to worry about who goes to what Ivy.)
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Which part of the methodology do you think is suspect?
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    "Mean SAT score for non-Jewish Whites was derived by assuming the mean Jewish SAT score is a generous 1268." Very scientific. And the conclusion: "Their 100- and 177-point SAT score lead over Hispanic and Black students seems to have hurt, not helped, their chances of admission. On the other hand, the smaller 73-point lead of Asian students over Whites helped greatly." They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. If they had used more natural language I'd be charitable and say they didn't know better, but not after they went out of their way to invent numbers to... separate out Jewish people from whites? While also insisting they're a small group so it doesn't matter? I'm going to guess the admissions numbers didn't show the kind of dramatic gap they wanted so off to town they went.
    - the_lego 3y ago
      > While also insisting they're a small group so it doesn't matter? Doesn't matter for calculating the non-Jewish White SAT is how I interpreted that. Since white_SAT = (2.4*jewish_SAT + 55.4*non_jewish_white_SAT) / (2.4 + 55.4), it means that even if your Jewish SAT estimate is off by ~100 points, it will only change the non-Jewish White SAT estimate by ~4 points. Is there something non-scientific about estimates? Or do you think this is not a reasonable estimate, i.e. it may be significantly off? The charge of "non-scientific" is very vague - can you be more specific? What do you think is wrong, and by how much?
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        Specific to the estimate... it's not scientific to guess a number because you proved guessing isn't a risk because it's such a non-factor. In general you just remove the non-factor. But, realizing you're OP... > They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. Respectfully, you need to go back to high school stats if you're trying to salvage this. Or maybe a bit earlier, since I'm pretty sure my 8 year old niece could see what's wrong there.
        the_lego 3y ago
        > it's not scientific to guess a number because you proved guessing isn't a risk because it's such a non-factor. In general you just remove the non-factor. But then you don't have a reasonable lower bound, and someone trying to debunk the analysis could, instead of throwing un-falsifiable claims of un-scientificness, make the much stronger accusation that the combined white+Jewish mean SAT score is being unfairly attributed to non-Jewish whites alone. > They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. Seems relevant to me - it would be very surprising if the mean of the SAT score distribution didn't strongly affect its top percentile. If you're not satisfied with reasonable extrapolation, you can find what the SAT scores are for the top percentile of white/Hispanic/Black students. I wager that sorting the SAT scores by mean or by top percentile gives the same order. But as you say, I failed high school stats, so I'm probably wrong.
GloomyBoots 3y ago
Hispanic is one of those really funny ones. A catchall for people with wildly different backgrounds. My wife and I are both eligible for to tick that box due to Spanish ancestry, but everyone understands that it’s basically a proxy for mestizo. I’ve heard that a lot of African-descended people from Spanish colonies do identify as Hispanic though. I don’t know about Indios.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I always liked how one option can contain half the world’s population, including two of the world’s most populous countries with very, very different cultures, looks, and basically everything. And then there would be 5 different options for various Native American tribes.
- strikelaserclaw 3y ago
  Hispanic is the native farm laborers kid and the kid of those white people from Mexican soap operas
- sn9 3y ago
  Asian as a category represents literally over half the entire human population. It's the most linguistically, ethnically, and religiously diverse bucket imaginable.
neltnerb 3y ago
You might have twice as many overall openings for non-legacy students if you brought that into balance. Or you can complain that one subcategory of asian has a disparity from others and dig into it. That takes time and energy and publicity that is better spent on the real issue. This is a distraction.

BoorishBears 3y ago

I was trying to find where this graph actually came from until I stumbled across the methodology section's... interesting approaches. It reads like something someone on 4chan would make to backup their soapbox, not an actual scientific study. (If you think assuming 100% of college students applied to Yale is sound methodology, maybe you don't need to worry about who goes to what Ivy.)

kevinventullo 3y ago
Which part of the methodology do you think is suspect?
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  "Mean SAT score for non-Jewish Whites was derived by assuming the mean Jewish SAT score is a generous 1268." Very scientific. And the conclusion: "Their 100- and 177-point SAT score lead over Hispanic and Black students seems to have hurt, not helped, their chances of admission. On the other hand, the smaller 73-point lead of Asian students over Whites helped greatly." They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. If they had used more natural language I'd be charitable and say they didn't know better, but not after they went out of their way to invent numbers to... separate out Jewish people from whites? While also insisting they're a small group so it doesn't matter? I'm going to guess the admissions numbers didn't show the kind of dramatic gap they wanted so off to town they went.
  - the_lego 3y ago
    > While also insisting they're a small group so it doesn't matter? Doesn't matter for calculating the non-Jewish White SAT is how I interpreted that. Since white_SAT = (2.4*jewish_SAT + 55.4*non_jewish_white_SAT) / (2.4 + 55.4), it means that even if your Jewish SAT estimate is off by ~100 points, it will only change the non-Jewish White SAT estimate by ~4 points. Is there something non-scientific about estimates? Or do you think this is not a reasonable estimate, i.e. it may be significantly off? The charge of "non-scientific" is very vague - can you be more specific? What do you think is wrong, and by how much?
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      Specific to the estimate... it's not scientific to guess a number because you proved guessing isn't a risk because it's such a non-factor. In general you just remove the non-factor. But, realizing you're OP... > They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. Respectfully, you need to go back to high school stats if you're trying to salvage this. Or maybe a bit earlier, since I'm pretty sure my 8 year old niece could see what's wrong there.
      - the_lego 3y ago
        > it's not scientific to guess a number because you proved guessing isn't a risk because it's such a non-factor. In general you just remove the non-factor. But then you don't have a reasonable lower bound, and someone trying to debunk the analysis could, instead of throwing un-falsifiable claims of un-scientificness, make the much stronger accusation that the combined white+Jewish mean SAT score is being unfairly attributed to non-Jewish whites alone. > They're using scores from across the 100% of college applicants when less than 1% of them apply to Ivy League schools. Seems relevant to me - it would be very surprising if the mean of the SAT score distribution didn't strongly affect its top percentile. If you're not satisfied with reasonable extrapolation, you can find what the SAT scores are for the top percentile of white/Hispanic/Black students. I wager that sorting the SAT scores by mean or by top percentile gives the same order. But as you say, I failed high school stats, so I'm probably wrong.

GloomyBoots 3y ago

Hispanic is one of those really funny ones. A catchall for people with wildly different backgrounds. My wife and I are both eligible for to tick that box due to Spanish ancestry, but everyone understands that it’s basically a proxy for mestizo. I’ve heard that a lot of African-descended people from Spanish colonies do identify as Hispanic though. I don’t know about Indios.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
I always liked how one option can contain half the world’s population, including two of the world’s most populous countries with very, very different cultures, looks, and basically everything. And then there would be 5 different options for various Native American tribes.
strikelaserclaw 3y ago
Hispanic is the native farm laborers kid and the kid of those white people from Mexican soap operas
sn9 3y ago
Asian as a category represents literally over half the entire human population. It's the most linguistically, ethnically, and religiously diverse bucket imaginable.

neltnerb 3y ago

You might have twice as many overall openings for non-legacy students if you brought that into balance. Or you can complain that one subcategory of asian has a disparity from others and dig into it. That takes time and energy and publicity that is better spent on the real issue. This is a distraction.