Damuri Ajashi, you are a moronic troglodyte of a crackpot

[FixMyIgnorance]

Harvard and Princeton Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe

It’s been a while since I’ve so dearly wished I could send someone careening into the nearest dungheap, Biff-style.

Your inability to put two and two together is sincerely baffling and I regret having wasted the time debating such a hopelessly narrowminded twat. You don’t understand statistics, you don’t understand college admissions, you don’t know how to put together a consistent argument, and you’re full of shit (especially your Rice story).

Arggg. Retarded. I pray I never have to debate you again.

[FinnAgain]

He combines the qualities of being powerfully stupid, invulnerable to introspection, militantly sure of his positions and utterly unable to manipulate even the simplest logical constructs. His contribution to the board is worth than worthless. The best bet is generally just to beat the hell out of him with facts and logic and then let him hang himself with a rope o’ dumb. Don’t let him get you upset though, he’s an intellectual flyweight and really is harmless. He just babbles, is all.

[Great_Antibob]

Pray don’t hold it against other Rice alums.

Sad to say he’s made me lose quite a bit of faith in my alma mater.

In the 80s, we tried to avoid admitting clueless douchebags. Not that his story makes any damned sense in any case.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, though. I have rarely seen anyone suffer from such a severe case of head-up-ass (Auto-proctology isn’t a Rice major) and opted out of that thread.

[voltaire]

A link to a whole thread with 236 posts with no quotes or even one specific example of what you’re pitting = FAIL.

When come back, bring quotes and/or direct links!

[FixMyIgnorance]

@voltaire

A link to a whole thread with 236 posts with no quotes or even one specific example of what you’re pitting = FAIL.

When come back, bring quotes and/or direct links!

The last half of the thread is full of quotes. I could quote but I’d basically be citing every post he’s made in that thread. Seriously. Almost every single point he tries to make is just a complete fail.

@Great_Antibob

Pray don’t hold it against other Rice alums.

Sad to say he’s made me lose quite a bit of faith in my alma mater.

In the 80s, we tried to avoid admitting clueless douchebags. Not that his story makes any damned sense in any case.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, though. I have rarely seen anyone suffer from such a severe case of head-up-ass (Auto-proctology isn’t a Rice major) and opted out of that thread.

He claimed to have a high enough SAT to be flown in on Rice’s dime, which is complete bullshit. He also lays claim to a high LSAT, which is also bullshit.

I have 2400 SAT1/2400SAT2/179 LSAT and there’s no way in hell a moron like that has the stats he’s claiming.

[Rhythmdvl]

@FixMyIgnorance

@voltaire

A link to a whole thread with 236 posts with no quotes or even one specific example of what you’re pitting = FAIL.

When come back, bring quotes and/or direct links!

The last half of the thread is full of quotes. I could quote but I’d basically be citing every post he’s made in that thread. Seriously. Almost every single point he tries to make is just a complete fail.

The Fail Remains the Same.

[Great_Antibob]

@FixMyIgnorance

He claimed to have a high enough SAT to be flown in on Rice’s dime, which is complete bullshit.

Yeah, I called him on that (I think that post got lost in the flood). The entire Rice administration, much less the admissions office, was only a handful of people well into the 80s.

The stench of BS rises mightily from all the bogus, unsubstantiated claims.

[voltaire]

@FixMyIgnorance

The last half of the thread is full of quotes. I could quote but I’d basically be citing every post he’s made in that thread. Seriously. Almost every single point he tries to make is just a complete fail.

In that case, the SOP (Standard Of Pitting) would be to quote the most egregious example so that anybody reading this thread could nod in agreement with your premise without having to wade through the thread.

Also, if you’re going to perpetrate a weak pitting, the least you could do is dress it up with some profanity and more cutting insults to disguise its shortcomings.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Here are a funny few:

FixMyIgnorance:
Sure, correlation doesn’t imply causation. You’re looking at a regression – a correlation – involving SAT scores and insisting that it’s the cause of the higher admission rates, and then, based on this, you’re concluding that Asians are disadvantaged by a ratio of 3 to 1 compared to whites. I’ve already explained to you the other more likely reason for the findings behind that regression.

I’m not concluding that there is a 3:1 disadvantage. I am saying that white kids with the same score/grades are 3 times more likely to be accepted to a top college than an Asian kid with those same scores and grades. You haven’t even come CLOSE to explaining away this difference.

Between Damuri and brickbacon:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I would like to see the context but I think that the evidence itself is irrefutable.

Brickbacon:
Is this a joke? You just said:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I never said that this is conclusive proof that there is discrimination? I am saying that this presents a prima facie case of discrimination.

Are you high or something?

[FixMyIgnorance]

Some examples of pettifogging and backpedaling/conflating language.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The debate is whether or not top universities discriminate against Asians and I think the evidence is irrefutable.

The question is whether or not there is systematic discrimination against Asians and I am sure that there is.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
But there are other types of discrimination and they can be proven statistically.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes thanks, sorry about the confusuion. I meant that the fact that there is evidence is irrefutable. You can’t pretend that whites don’t enjoy a 3 to 1 advantage in the admissions process when you look at objective critieria. I called it a “rebuttable presumption” in the past; a Prima Facie case. If I thought the conclusion was irrefutable i would not have called it a rebuttable presumption or prima facie case. I don’t think it irregfutably proves discrimiantion I think that the evidence itself is not disputable.

BS score claims:

So are you saying that you agree that there is discrimination now or not? I am not especially bothered by unrealistic hypotheticals because they are not selecting Asians over better qualified whites. I remember getting pre-acceptance letters from places like Rice back in the late 1980’s, it came with an offer of full ride (based on need) and and offer to fly me out to Houston for a visit. Sure they were recruiting and Asian but they were not recruiting me because I was Asian, they were recruiting an SAT score and that resulted in them recruiting a lot of Asians.

I also had one of the the highest LSAT in my law school (I got 3 questions wrong) and I suspect that if I had applied to schools with smaller Asian populations, my acceptance ratio would have more closely aligned with what you would have expected with my combination of grades and LSAT scores. As it happens, top law schools reject a lot of people and at some point, being Asian becomes a reason to reject you over a similar white males because there are simply too many Asians attending that school. I don’t mind that a poor black kid gets into Columbia instead of Fordham on the basis of race, I do mind that a rich white kid gets into Columbia instead of Fordham on the basis of his Columbia alumni parents.

[FixMyIgnorance]

FixMyIgnorance:
You’re simply looking for an attribute that crops up more often and then assuming that attribute was used in the judgment process in a more profound way than it actually was.

Are you saying that correlation /= causation? You see, thats part of what regression analysis does. I gear you but you keep ignoring the fact taht I am presenting you with a peer reviewed study while you are presenting me with corner cases that might explain this sort of disparity.

A more obvious example – if you don’t understand it this time, so help you: Let’s say I want to hire people on a team. I hire people who have dark skin – my goal is dark skin only. I hire many black people, and maybe a few dark-skinned asians/whites/etc. You decide to look at the data. You notice that 95% of the applicants have brown eyes and 5% have green or blue eyes. You erroneously conclude that I am selecting against people with light eyes and claim that if your eyes were dark, your chances would improve multiple times over.

The reality: When news of this gets out and many light-skinned people with dark eyes apply, they find that they get rejected just the same.

Well unless you’re saying that SATs and GPA are not factors considered in admission I don’t think your analogy is aprticularly useful. And if you corrected your analogy you would have to show that white applicants have some other quality in greater amount to jsutify the disparity in admissions along two other admissions vectors.

No, they’re factors – they just stop mattering past a certain point due to tail variance (as well as dubious marginal value). The central question over the years has been “What exactly is the SAT measuring?” Admissions officers have been trying to water it down in importance for a while now because it’s not particularly useful for their purposes.

And yes, the analogy is useful because it’s revealing the sort of erroneous logic you’re using, here.

At least I’m using SOME form of logic. You seem to keep falling back to "that doesn’t prove anything because correlation doesn’t prove causation.

Drops direct evidence from an admissions officer that scores stop mattering so much at upper thresholds: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14773256&postcount=206

Sorry, I missed this. How could I argue with a blog by an MIT admissions counselor. Every school used to say the same thing and then we found out about the academic index calculator which shows that there is a difference in how colleges view a 750 student versus an 800 student.

The only reason I showed you the AI was to show you that hairs don’t get split. This is further substantiated by the link I just showed you. The AI is just a rough heuristic tool built from correlations. By itself, it still doesn’t factor in a huge number of variables that are included in admission. It was probably a mistake to show it to you because you misinterpreted the results just like you misinterpreted the SAT results.

[FixMyIgnorance]

FixMyIgnorance: I don’t think you understand the concept of burden of proof. You’re the one claiming something exists (anti-Asian discrimination). The onus is therefore on you to prove that it exists. The onus is not on everyone else to prove a negative (which, in many cases, cannot be done). There has been, however, lots of evidence to suggest that your claims are baseless, and there is no evidence in your favor directly indicating your position.

There have already been references to material in this thread that indicate no proof of such discrimination.

brickbacon: Because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Is this really such an alien concept to you?

Damuri’s response
I can prove to you that a donut does not exist in my left front pocket.

I will post more later if anyone asks… there are just too many. He also gave a cite whose author didn’t even support his view:

What do you say to people who try to look at your research as a guide to understanding admission practices and decisions at highly selective institutions?

Our findings attempt to compile a composite picture drawn from the experiences of eight academically selective colleges and universities. They should not be interpreted as describing the situation at any particular institution in the data set.

The book that we’ve done does, of course, focus on the admission process, but it is not just a story about admission. It’s also about what happens prior to being admitted. In other words, we have a chapter about preparing for college. But most of the book talks about various issues of campus life: What happens after the admission people do their work and students arrive on campus?

In the chapter on admission, we do a lot of statistical modeling of the admission process. We develop equations that link the probability of being admitted to such things as SAT scores, to whether you’re a recruited athlete, to what social class background you’re from, to what racial or ethnic group you belong to, to whether you’re a U.S. citizen, what kind of high school you attended and so forth. And people have a tendency to look at these results and say, “Aha! That is how the admission process at these elite schools works!” It’s not necessarily true.

What we have done through these statistical equations is to say it’s AS IF this is how admission officers were deciding whom to admit. We don’t have the experience of knowing precisely how these admission committees work, because I’ve never actually sat in on an admission committee. But I’m convinced they don’t have an equation like this and say, “OK, if you are Hispanic, you get a certain number of points; if your SAT scores are in this category, you get a certain number of points,” right down the list.

People may read this and want to say, “Oh, because I’m Asian American, my SAT scores have been downgraded.” That is not really the way to interpret these data. Many times people will ask me, “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.

[voltaire]

<nods in agreement with the premise of this pitting>

Better late, than never!

[FixMyIgnorance]

Yep. It’s like arguing with a lemon.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Great_Antibob

Pray don’t hold it against other Rice alums.

Sad to say he’s made me lose quite a bit of faith in my alma mater.

In the 80s, we tried to avoid admitting clueless douchebags. Not that his story makes any damned sense in any case.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, though. I have rarely seen anyone suffer from such a severe case of head-up-ass (Auto-proctology isn’t a Rice major) and opted out of that thread.

Why would you lose faith in your alma mater? Are you under the impression that Rice (or any school for that matter) doesn’t admit the ocassional clueless douchebag (I mean Harvard admitted Fix My Ignorance after all). I didn’t end up going to Rice but perhaps they sent me that unsolicited admission letter to fill their clueless douchebag quota.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FixMyIgnorance

He claimed to have a high enough SAT to be flown in on Rice’s dime, which is complete bullshit. He also lays claim to a high LSAT, which is also bullshit.

I have 2400 SAT1/2400SAT2/179 LSAT and there’s no way in hell a moron like that has the stats he’s claiming.

For a guy who seems to think that SAT scores don’t really mean very much, you certainly mention them a LOT.

[FinnAgain]

Oh yeah, and he’s still too stupid to figure out how to multiquote.
After years of posting here.

[Tom_Scud]

@FixMyIgnorance

He claimed to have a high enough SAT to be flown in on Rice’s dime, which is complete bullshit. He also lays claim to a high LSAT, which is also bullshit.

I have 2400 SAT1/2400SAT2/179 LSAT and there’s no way in hell a moron like that has the stats he’s claiming.

I don’t give a shit about the original pitting, but the above is prima facie evidence that you can have high SAT scores and still be a complete dumbass.

[FixMyIgnorance]

@Tom_Scud

I don’t give a shit about the original pitting, but the above is prima facie evidence that you can have high SAT scores and still be a complete dumbass.

Dumbasses = people that argue for unfalsifiable nonsense without proof.

@Damuri_Ajashi

For a guy who seems to think that SAT scores don’t really mean very much, you certainly mention them a LOT.

The reason I mention them is because I know how useless they are. High scores are a dime a dozen at Harvard. The entire thread you’re acting like they’re the key to admissions when they are just a baseline screen prerequisite. That being said, it’s pretty hard to get those scores/get into a top school if you’re a massive dumbass. Hence my point.

[Cheshire_Human]

@Tom_Scud

I don’t give a shit about the original pitting, but the above is prima facie evidence that you can have high SAT scores and still be a complete dumbass.

It also doesn’t rule out the possibility of lying about high SAT scores and being a complete dumbass. I just mention that hypothesis for completeness sake.