5 ms·

The point of this law is to reward merit and hard work and discourage universities from offering back-doors for wealthy donors and alums. The point of it is to

The point of this law is to reward merit and hard work and discourage universities from offering back-doors for wealthy donors and alums. The point of it is to encourage fairness. Unless you're suggesting that Asians are overrepresented because their parents are part of an elite old-boys network that gives them an unfair advantage, I think you're missing the point here. If you want to suppress the number of Asians in school because their numbers at ivies are out of proportion with their numbers in the broader population, it sounds like you want more legacy-style admissions rules, not fewer. Maybe this is what you're suggesting and I just I'm just misunderstanding you.

like_any_other 2y ago
I'm not suggesting anything, just adding needed context to the discussion. E.g. if you want to suggest that these institutions are rife with systemic white supremacy, be my guest. Just include in your assertions explanations for why there are, per capita, 8x as many Asians, 11x as many Jews, and 1.4x as many Blacks, as there are non-Jewish Whites, in the Ivies, despite Whites' many privileges. Edit: Self-selection is at best an incomplete explanation. It fails to explain how, when comparing non-Jewish Whites vs Blacks, Whites' 177-point average SAT-score lead results in a 1.4x admission penalty. Meanwhile Asians' 73-point lead over Whites becomes an 8x admission advantage. Scoring well on the SAT is an advantage for other groups, but somehow a disadvantage for non-Jewish Whites.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  Legacies are not well allocated distributions either according to per capita numbers.
- bawolff 2y ago
  Arguments like this lead to universities severely discriminating against jews in the not so distant past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    I haven't made any arguments, I just presented the data.
    - drdeca 2y ago
      If you hadn't said "Before wringing our hands too much about antisemitism or anti-Asian prejudice in universities," that might have been true. If you had just said "here is this data", then you would have "just presented the data". You clearly expressed by that phrasing that you thought that the data in question would at least potentially be a reason to not wring hands about such things, and presented it for that reason.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        If implying that data might maybe potentially apply to the conversation is an "argument", then you got me.
        MadnessASAP 2y ago
        You didn't imply it might potentially maybe apply. You definitely, clearly, stated it not only applies but what the "correct" conclusion to come to was.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    A policy that would exclude all Jews would potentially affect some 8 million Americans, same as a policy that lowers White participation by 3%. Which would be worse, and why? I think the GP argument is that you can't argue going all on merit for Jews while demanding that Blacks and Whites are somehow equally represented.
- slt2021 2y ago
  self-selection. The population that applies to Ivies is completely different from the overall population, and different from the population that gets admitted to Ivies. If there were no requirements to be admitted to Harvard, any tom dick and harry could send his application - only then you can reasonably conclude that the admitted population should reflect the overall population. But because there are requirements like SAT GPA etc, there is some filtering happening and population that apply is slightly different. But the affirmative action zealots require that the admitted population must represent the overall population, despite the fact that incoming applications have completely different distribution IQ/SAT/GPA/race wise. This leads to discrimination, where White/Asian admits, who are overrepresented among applications with high scores, are clamped at certain threshold and then other races are selected with whatever grades they have
- thelock85 2y ago
  Just to add more context to the provided data. It provides mean nationwide SAT score numbers, and the provided comparison assumes that nationwide scores are reflective of Ivy applicant scores. Also a per capita comparison assumes that the number of qualified applications follows similar distribution, no? I'm not sure if this is reflected in the provided data. Also, the overall analysis assumes that per capita distribution is fair but that seems subjective. Even so, two schools skew the data for Black students (75% of Ivies are <1x per capita for Black students) and of course there is no mention of Hispanic students (one of the fastest growing demographics) which is mostly underrepresented on a per capita basis. And then it doesn't get into international students and if/how they assimilate into a "race". Nor does it reflect stickier topics such as whether Hispanic students culturally assimilate into "White", effectively lessening their numbers under a per capita comparison (it does this for Jewish students). I appreciate what the data brings to the conversation, but don't believe others' assertions have to take any of it into account considering the number of assumptions one must make to follow a "per capita" AND population SAT = sample SAT comparison.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    > It provides mean nationwide SAT score numbers, and the provided comparison assumes that nationwide scores are reflective of Ivy applicant scores. Does it really assume that? Suppose, for the sake of argument, one group had a nationwide average SAT score of 1500, and all other groups had an average SAT of just 500. Barring any bizarre distributions of those scores, we can infer from only the averages, that the 1500-SAT group would have more individuals that satisfy a university's academic criteria, than the 500-SAT groups. It's far from perfect, but does provide a hint. > Also, the overall analysis assumes that per capita distribution is fair but that seems subjective. I must have missed where in those charts a definition of 'fair' is given, and then relied on for further analysis. > of course there is no mention of Hispanic students Hispanic students are between Asian and Black on every chart. > And then it doesn't get into international students That is correct, international students are entirely excluded, in the sense that all the domestic students in a school are taken to represent 100%. I don't understand how not answering all these additional questions you raise makes the data irrelevant.
musicale 2y ago
> The point of this law is to reward merit and hard work and discourage universities from offering back-doors for wealthy donors and alums. The point of it is to encourage fairness. The point of donor child admissions, as I understand it, is to bring in additional money. Which could potentially enable more low-income students to attend. The reason why some universities have ended legacy admissions recently seems to be that they have concluded that it doesn't bring in enough money. But they usually still have donor admissions.

like_any_other 2y ago

I'm not suggesting anything, just adding needed context to the discussion. E.g. if you want to suggest that these institutions are rife with systemic white supremacy, be my guest. Just include in your assertions explanations for why there are, per capita, 8x as many Asians, 11x as many Jews, and 1.4x as many Blacks, as there are non-Jewish Whites, in the Ivies, despite Whites' many privileges. Edit: Self-selection is at best an incomplete explanation. It fails to explain how, when comparing non-Jewish Whites vs Blacks, Whites' 177-point average SAT-score lead results in a 1.4x admission penalty. Meanwhile Asians' 73-point lead over Whites becomes an 8x admission advantage. Scoring well on the SAT is an advantage for other groups, but somehow a disadvantage for non-Jewish Whites.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Legacies are not well allocated distributions either according to per capita numbers.
bawolff 2y ago
Arguments like this lead to universities severely discriminating against jews in the not so distant past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
- like_any_other 2y ago
  I haven't made any arguments, I just presented the data.
  - drdeca 2y ago
    If you hadn't said "Before wringing our hands too much about antisemitism or anti-Asian prejudice in universities," that might have been true. If you had just said "here is this data", then you would have "just presented the data". You clearly expressed by that phrasing that you thought that the data in question would at least potentially be a reason to not wring hands about such things, and presented it for that reason.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      If implying that data might maybe potentially apply to the conversation is an "argument", then you got me.
      - MadnessASAP 2y ago
        You didn't imply it might potentially maybe apply. You definitely, clearly, stated it not only applies but what the "correct" conclusion to come to was.
- jojobas 2y ago
  A policy that would exclude all Jews would potentially affect some 8 million Americans, same as a policy that lowers White participation by 3%. Which would be worse, and why? I think the GP argument is that you can't argue going all on merit for Jews while demanding that Blacks and Whites are somehow equally represented.
slt2021 2y ago
self-selection. The population that applies to Ivies is completely different from the overall population, and different from the population that gets admitted to Ivies. If there were no requirements to be admitted to Harvard, any tom dick and harry could send his application - only then you can reasonably conclude that the admitted population should reflect the overall population. But because there are requirements like SAT GPA etc, there is some filtering happening and population that apply is slightly different. But the affirmative action zealots require that the admitted population must represent the overall population, despite the fact that incoming applications have completely different distribution IQ/SAT/GPA/race wise. This leads to discrimination, where White/Asian admits, who are overrepresented among applications with high scores, are clamped at certain threshold and then other races are selected with whatever grades they have
thelock85 2y ago
Just to add more context to the provided data. It provides mean nationwide SAT score numbers, and the provided comparison assumes that nationwide scores are reflective of Ivy applicant scores. Also a per capita comparison assumes that the number of qualified applications follows similar distribution, no? I'm not sure if this is reflected in the provided data. Also, the overall analysis assumes that per capita distribution is fair but that seems subjective. Even so, two schools skew the data for Black students (75% of Ivies are <1x per capita for Black students) and of course there is no mention of Hispanic students (one of the fastest growing demographics) which is mostly underrepresented on a per capita basis. And then it doesn't get into international students and if/how they assimilate into a "race". Nor does it reflect stickier topics such as whether Hispanic students culturally assimilate into "White", effectively lessening their numbers under a per capita comparison (it does this for Jewish students). I appreciate what the data brings to the conversation, but don't believe others' assertions have to take any of it into account considering the number of assumptions one must make to follow a "per capita" AND population SAT = sample SAT comparison.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > It provides mean nationwide SAT score numbers, and the provided comparison assumes that nationwide scores are reflective of Ivy applicant scores. Does it really assume that? Suppose, for the sake of argument, one group had a nationwide average SAT score of 1500, and all other groups had an average SAT of just 500. Barring any bizarre distributions of those scores, we can infer from only the averages, that the 1500-SAT group would have more individuals that satisfy a university's academic criteria, than the 500-SAT groups. It's far from perfect, but does provide a hint. > Also, the overall analysis assumes that per capita distribution is fair but that seems subjective. I must have missed where in those charts a definition of 'fair' is given, and then relied on for further analysis. > of course there is no mention of Hispanic students Hispanic students are between Asian and Black on every chart. > And then it doesn't get into international students That is correct, international students are entirely excluded, in the sense that all the domestic students in a school are taken to represent 100%. I don't understand how not answering all these additional questions you raise makes the data irrelevant.

musicale 2y ago

> The point of this law is to reward merit and hard work and discourage universities from offering back-doors for wealthy donors and alums. The point of it is to encourage fairness. The point of donor child admissions, as I understand it, is to bring in additional money. Which could potentially enable more low-income students to attend. The reason why some universities have ended legacy admissions recently seems to be that they have concluded that it doesn't bring in enough money. But they usually still have donor admissions.