# Damuri Ajashi, you are a moronic troglodyte of a crackpot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 17, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099 "2012-02-17T03:28:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/41 "2012-02-17T17:32:24Z")
Admit it, this whole thread is just a stealth brag. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/42 "2012-02-17T17:40:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I saw. And I’m not saying it’s true- like I said, I’ve never heard of anything like that and it’s hard to swallow. I did want to make sure his statement was represented accurately: “Rice offered to fly me to their campus based on my SATs” may be hard to believe, but it’s less unbelievable than “Rice flew me out to their campus based on my SATs.” IMO this is just needlessly pedantic. Obviously what’s being questioned in the first place is the offer. Whether or not he actually took them up on that offer is an afterthought and not relevant to the initial skepticism. I don’t question someone’s ability to follow up on an offer. I question offers of dubious, bullshit nature. > [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t trust them either, since it’s human nature to lie about discrimination. An admissions officer will never say “We don’t want to admit too many Jews.” At best, they will say that they want “geographic diversity” so they give preference to applicants from Bismarck, ND over applicants from Scarsdale, NY. > > So too with Asians (I prefer to use the more traditional word “Oriental”). I will speculate that Harvard admissions officers don’t want too many freshmen from California who happen to play the violin and that they (the admissions officers) feel they have enough such people already. I wonder why that is. > > Yes, I’m just speculating but I’m pretty confident that the bar is higher for people from traditionally high-achieving groups. The point is that even if you want to assume they’re going to lie about discrimination, there’s just no proof of it in the data we have access to. It is true that they try to diversify by geographic location. This is because it becomes tricky to compare, say, a student from a public high school in WY against a kid from a top prep in NYC. It’s much easier (and arguably fairer) to assess the context of a student with respect to their environment. I wouldn’t call it “preference” though. It’s just that you are technically competing with a more localized crowd. > [@](#): > > I gave a much better and more relevant example. Lets say that someone did a study of the NFL draft and was able top prove that white quarterbacks were 3 times more likely to be drafted before black quarterbacks with the same vital statistics and college record. The federal government launches an investigation and the NFL team owners explained it away by saying the disparity was the result of differences in soft criteria like leadership and presence and shit like that. Don’t you think it would be reasonable for people to discount the NFL owner’s explanation of the disparity or are they just crackpots because the NFL team owners have said over and over again that they chose the white quatrterbacks oer the black quarterbacks because of “soft critieria” After all the NFL team owners would be in the best position to know. This example isn’t a good analogy. 1. Unlike your NFL example, you don’t have access to all the “vital” stats/records of college applicants. GPA, for instance, isn’t assessed in a vacuum. Things like rank, grades, school, number of courses taken, types of courses taken, rigor, honors, IB/AP, etc, are factored in. 2. “Leadership” and “presence” are hollow counter-examples. Soft criteria doesn’t exactly work that way in college admissions. A lot of soft criteria is assessed through things like essays, how many extracurricular activities you’re involved in and what TYPES of activities they are, performance in those activities, recommendation letters from faculty members, extra skills and abilities, awards, recognitions, geographic location, background, etc. A good rec letter, for instance, doesn’t just say “Person A is awesome!” A great rec letter is when the writer can drop lots of examples (showing is always better than telling when it comes to this stuff) to substantiate claims and opinions. “Soft criteria” is ultimately still backed up by lots of facts, anecdotes, and objective components. Writing skill is also considered important (writing is also assessed on, surprise surprise, your so-called objective SAT). It’s not just some super-arbitrary assessment out of thin air. Again, though, a lot of this is based on data _you do not have access to_. 3. The other point of diversity, as a side-benefit of holistic admissions, is not to give any one group too big an advantage. If you noticed a vastly disproportionate number of violin players being admitted, people would start jumping all over it just to game the process. You’ll see questions like these pop up all the time on college boards. Discrimination is always _possible_ to abuse through soft criteria. You _could_ discriminate against Asians and pretend like you were just diversifying against other things. But there’s no proof of this because there’s so much data you need and yet you’re trying to base your conclusion on such a small part of the process based on a relationship you don’t even apparently understand fully. The empirical evidence doesn’t seem to mesh well with it, and the data is more or less consistent with what we’d expect of holistic admissions. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/43 "2012-02-17T17:42:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Admit it, this whole thread is just a stealth brag. No doubt. Speaking as someone with an IQ of 207, with scores of 2400 on the SATs and 1600 on the GRE, no top-twenty college paid to fly me out for an interview — I mean, first-class tickets, anyway. I had to pony up for the upgrade myself. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/44 "2012-02-17T17:42:20Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Wait — it’s entirely possible I’m suffering from some kind of momentary lapse of reason, but why is the former statement more believable than the latter? The only difference I see between the two scenarios is that in the second he actuality takes them up on their offer. That’s the difference. He admitted the whole thing probably didn’t happen anyway, so I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic here - but I find it easier to imagine a college trying to impress a student by saying something like ‘Such are our resources that we are even able to cover the cost of air travel for students who are unable to afford or arrange a visit on their own’ (the promise itself would sound impressive even if they don’t keep it) as opposed to saying a college spent several hundred dollars or more on a student who wasn’t interested based solely on his SAT scores. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/45 "2012-02-17T17:49:13Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > And this is the kind of moronic reasoning being trashed. > > If athletics were no longer a factor in college admissions, this would adversely affect African-American admissions over other races. But it would NOT boil down to targeting African-American students in particular. > > This point has been brought up repeatedly. > > Try reading the rest of the thread before you post. For one, it would affect Whites the most, not African-Americans, as the majority of athlete (and legacy) applicants are White, but that’s just a minor quibble. Anyway, why am I not surprised? We’re not talking about athletics or whatever. We’re talking about a program which specifically “punishes” one group for being the “wrong” race. Assume we have two individuals who have the exact same qualifications across the board. The same test score, the same grades, the same activities, the same amount of community service at the same centers, etc. Just everything. Without knowing the two individual’s races, they would both have roughly an equal chance of being accepted into the same school. If, however, it was learned that one was Asian and one was Black, the Black student’s chances of being accepted _increase_ while the Asian student’s chances of being accepted _decrease_. But how can this be, unless the determining criteria is what your race is? Apparently, you would think that’s okay because it promotes diversity, but how does it do that? Is the Asian nerd more nerdier than the Black nerd? Is the Asian jock more nerdier than the Black jock? Is the Asian drummer more nerdier than the Black drummer? Is the Asian socialite more nerdier than the Black socialite? Etc. etc. etc. Diversity, it seems, is a code word for “lots of people of different races/ethnicity”. [Here is another study detailing what happened when affirmative-action requirements in the college admissions process were thrown out.](http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf#page-1) ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/46 "2012-02-17T17:49:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s the difference. He admitted the whole thing probably didn’t happen anyway, so I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic here - but I find it easier to imagine a college trying to impress a student by saying something like ‘Such are our resources that we are even able to cover the cost of air travel for students who are unable to afford or arrange a visit on their own’ (the promise itself would sound impressive even if they don’t keep it) as opposed to saying a college spent several hundred dollars or more on a student who wasn’t interested based solely on his SAT scores. So your point of contention here is that a school could plausibly make such a promise and then not actually back it up if accepted – and that the only way to truly solidify the BSitude of the claim is whether or not he’s actually claiming the promise was followed up on? I’d disagree with that pretty vehemently, but thanks for the elaboration. If a school is offering to fly someone out because of scores, that means they’re offering to fly someone out because of scores and I will assume they are good for it. By which I still mean the claim reeks of BS because I doubt such an offer was made to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/47 "2012-02-17T17:54:37Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > So your point of contention here is that a school could plausibly make such a promise and then not actually back it up if accepted – and that the only way to truly solidify the BSitude of the claim is whether or not he’s actually claiming the promise was followed up on? As a matter of fact, that’s not what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/48 "2012-02-17T17:55:52Z")
Please stop saying “more nerdier”. It’s redundant. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/49 "2012-02-17T18:00:28Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I don’t. I’m also Asian, so I get a say. If I’m Asian too, does that mean I get a say? > [@](#): > > People from the subcontinent were not typically called “oriental”, but they are Asian and are included as “Asian” in college demographics What about Israelis? What about Russians from Vladivostok? > [@](#): > > Enjoy your racism, you racist. At least you’re open about it. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Do you even read your asinine posts before submitting them? This just makes no fucking sense. Lol, I think the problem is more with your asinine reading skills. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/50 "2012-02-17T18:07:51Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Assume we have two individuals who have the exact same qualifications across the board. The same test score, the same grades, the same activities, the same amount of community service at the same centers, etc. Just everything. Without knowing the two individual’s races, they would both have roughly an equal chance of being accepted into the same school. If, however, it was learned that one was Asian and one was Black, the Black student’s chances of being accepted _increase_ while the Asian student’s chances of being accepted _decrease_. But how can this be, unless the determining criteria is what your race is? Apparently, you would think that’s okay because it promotes diversity, but how does it do that? You’re assuming that such cases occur often. Rarely do two applicants have the exact same qualifications across the board. There are so many variables in place here. A huge obvious counterpoint to your hypothetical: there is a large emphasis placed on being the first in your family to go to college. You’ll find a lot more of these among black applicants than Asian ones. _For the sake of argument, let’s assume two equal applicants, race aside_. Race is still part of the diversification metric. Yes, in this case, the Asian would be at a disadvantage. But this is just an unfortunate result of the desire for diversity. However, it’s still not the same as anti-Asian discrimination. It’s an important difference, even though it may still be the same in the end. It’s hugely different, morally. You may as well ask if diversification is unfair, because you could argue that spots going to other races = spots not going to your race. But then, is lack of diversity fair? And so on and so forth. Aiming to admit a wide variety of people is not the same as selecting against a specific group. You can easily flip it over to the other side: Would it be fairer to admit the Asian? What about the fact that Asian and black demographics have statistically significant differences in trends? Do you think it’s unfair to be born into a family that has college-educated parents if kids without college-educated parents are seen as having overcome a greater barrier? Ultimately, the goal is to try to fairly admit a diverse group of talented, intelligent people from all walks of life. I should also note that students are not compared pairwise. They’re assessed against everyone else from their geographic group in unison. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/51 "2012-02-17T18:11:50Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > For one, it would affect Whites the most, not African-Americans, as the majority of athlete (and legacy) applicants are White, but that’s just a minor quibble. So what? The majority of people in colleges are white. What does that have to do with proportionality? [From the NCAA](http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/SAEREP11.pdf): Division 1 African American Male Athletes (2009 - 2010): 24.9% Division 1 African American Female Athletes (2009 - 2010): 16.0% Are you claiming that a friggin’ QUARTER of all male college students are black? If not, then, yeah, getting rid of athletics WILL disproportionately affect African American students. > [@brazil84](#): > > What about Israelis? What about Russians from Vladivostok? Sure, why not? Bottom line: in the US, when you say Oriental, people are going to jump to East Asians directly. They won’t include the Indian subcontinent. You can prefer whatever the hell you want. It doesn’t make it right. Or inoffensive. > [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, I think the problem is more with your asinine reading skills. And not yours? Claiming universities discriminate against Asians or Jews is DIFFERENT from claiming they discriminate against high performers. In the first case, they are deliberately trying to keep certain groups out. In the second case, they are shooting themselves in the foot to keep high performers out. You claimed the second but meant the first. Back your stuff up with cites. **Damuri Ajashi** has been flailing about because he can’t. If you can actually piece together a cogent argument, congrats and good work. But I haven’t seen anything remotely resembling that either here or in the thread where you bizarrely claim removing/reducing student loans will lead to lower college tuition. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/52 "2012-02-17T18:14:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > As a matter of fact, that’s not what I said. Eh? Then you have not answered the question and I have to call you out on that one. You said that you could imagine a college trying to impress a student by basically offering to fly a student out and cover the cost, even if they don’t keep the promise. Somehow you think this is different from a student actually being flown out and paid for. The only real difference you’ve mentioned here is that the college may not keep the promise because it was just an attempt to impress the student. You’re therefore implying, from your quote, that it’s only significant if the college actually backed up its claim and flew out whoever accepted the offer (as opposed to the college just blowing smoke). I’m saying that this isn’t an important distinction because you’re assuming the college would lie about something like that (which is not realistic IMO). Therefore I don’t see the importance in the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/53 "2012-02-17T18:26:26Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Sure, why not? That’s not what most people have in mind when the word “Asian” is used. > [@](#): > > Bottom line: in the US, when you say Oriental, people are going to jump to East Asians directly. They won’t include the Indian subcontinent. I agree, I thought we were talking about Asians in the sense of East Asian. > [@](#): > > You can prefer whatever the hell you want. It doesn’t make it right. Or inoffensive. And the same goes for you. > [@](#): > > And not yours? Correct. > [@](#): > > Claiming universities discriminate against Asians or Jews is DIFFERENT from claiming they discriminate against high performers. I agree. > [@](#): > > You claimed the second but meant the first. Nonsense, here is what I said: > [@](#): > > Yes, I’m just speculating but I’m pretty confident that the bar is higher for **people from traditionally high-achieving groups.** (my bolding) Does that really not make sense to you? Do you not understand that there is a difference between “high performers” and “people from traditionally high-achieving groups”? > [@](#): > > Back your stuff up with cites. :shrug: I made it completely clear that I was basing my claim on speculation. But if I have time, I will look into it. > [@](#): > > **Damuri Ajashi** has been flailing about because he can’t. Well he’s an idiot so that doesn’t surprise me. > [@](#): > > But I haven’t seen anything remotely resembling that either here or in the thread where you bizarrely claim removing/reducing student loans will lead to lower college tuition. Lol, yes it’s really bizarre to belief that a reduction in economic demand will lead to lower prices. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/54 "2012-02-17T18:28:50Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > You said that you could imagine a college trying to impress a student by basically offering to fly a student out and cover the cost, even if they don’t keep the promise. Somehow you think this is different from a student actually being flown out and paid for. They are different. One is an offer or an implication that they might do something, and the other is actually doing something. > [@](#): > > You’re therefore implying, from your quote, that it’s only significant if the college actually backed up its claim and flew out whoever accepted the offer (as opposed to the college just blowing smoke). I’m not saying it’s only significant if the college backed up the claim. I’m just pointing out that the two statements are not the same. He didn’t say Rice flew him out to their campus. He said they offered to do so, and then said they probably didn’t even do that. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/55 "2012-02-17T18:31:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > They are different. One is an offer or an implication that they might do something, and the other is actually doing something. > I’m not saying it’s only significant if the college backed up the claim. I’m just pointing out that the two statements are not the same. He didn’t say Rice flew him out to their campus. He said they offered to do so, and then said they probably didn’t even do that. Okay but my point is that this distinction is useless when the skepticism was obviously aimed at the offer to begin with. Whether or not he claims to have taken up the offer is not important. My question is why accepting such an offer is even relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/56 "2012-02-17T18:35:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not saying it’s only significant if the college backed up the claim. I’m just pointing out that the two statements are not the same. He didn’t say Rice flew him out to their campus. He said they offered to do so, and then said they probably didn’t even do that. Eh, well, a college intimating that they _might possibly_ fly an applicant out under certain circumstances is not the same as actually making such an offer, which I took to be the original claim. That is, someone at Rice saying “Hey, **Damuri Ajashi** , we’d love to have you come here for a chat — why don’t we send you a plane ticket?” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/57 "2012-02-17T18:43:22Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > For whatever it’s worth, he said Rice _offered_ (in a pre-acceptance letter) to fly him out on their dime. You can offer something to impress people without actually doing it and still get your message across. I’ve never heard of that kind of thing, but I was also never an Asian student being pursued by colleges in the late '80s. I was at Rice from '82 to '87. (Sid Rich). My incoming SATs were above 1500. I was a National Merit Scholar. When I was applying to colleges, Rice’s attitude was “Cool. If you’re interested, come on down and check us out.” There was no attempt to court me at all. And it runs counter to everything I know about Rice’s admissions process from that time. (FWIW … Harvard courted me more than Rice did. Since I was from Oklahoma, Harvard admissions clearly saw me as a diversity admission. So when I turned them down in favor of Rice I got a phone call along the lines of “You’re turning us down? Are you crazy? No one turns us down! We urge you to reconsider!” Still no plane ticket though.) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/58 "2012-02-17T19:03:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > and **Damuri Ajashi** , while I disagreed with you in the first place and I think your opponents might be being a little too strict in interpreting the data, they are doing a much better job than you are at making and supporting their arguments. I think your initial position might be affecting your opinion of who is making the better argument. I think their position is getting better with time as they work their arguments out but I still think it boils down to waving away this rather large disparity with claims of “soft criteria” > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I figure better a self-deluded and self-important windbag than a latent pedophile. In what way am I self deluded or self important in a way that FMI has not been? > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Might as well summarize why your stance is retarded here: > > This is why you don’t get it. > > You claimed this disparity was in the 1300-1400 old-SAT range, right? Did you read the study? Or are you getting all your information about it from me? The disparity included scores in that range. That is not the range that was being studied. The entire applicant pool at these schools in 1983, 1993 and 1997 was being studied. They concluded that at the same SAT/GPA, white applicants were 3 times more likely to be accepted than Asian applciants. Your argument seem to be that schools were actually looking at something else that sometimes correlates with SAT scores and GPAs that is more common in white applicants than Asian applicants. I asked you to provide proof of this other than race and geography. Your answer has consistently been “soft critieria” > [@](#): > > Even if you’re looking at a disparity at higher score thresholds, you continue to ignore the fact that SAT scores simply _stop mattering_ past a certain point. And your support for that is a blog by an admissions officer? Asking a college admissions officer about discrimiantion in the admissions process is like asking an oil company about global warming. WTF do you expect them to say? Heck you provided me the academic index calculator that shows that there is a signficant difference between how admissions officers view a 750 SAT student and a 800 SAt student. > [@](#): > > A few extra questions past a 2300 or even a 2250 is not going to make up for an otherwise lacking soft-profile. And I keep asking why you assume that Asians are so deficient in these “soft skills” rather than wonder if there isn’t something else going on. > [@](#): > > Seriously. Go pick up a phone. Get up off your ass. Call an admissions officer. I called a couple of private college admissions consultants (both are members of [http://www.iecaonline.com/](http://www.iecaonline.com/)) and they told me right off the bat that Asian students and women suffer a disadvantage in the process to white and males at some schools. One described it as an open secret. Why don’t you call one of these guys or do you think it comtinues to make sense to just keep taking the admissions committee’s word that they don’t discriminate? > [@](#): > > I guess Harvard rejects 2400’s all the time just for shits and giggles to throw people off. No, but they seem to reject Asians with 2400 SATs at three times the rate that they reject whites with 2400 SATs. > [@](#): > > However, you make the same error in assuming that correlation is causation. And you keep assuming that conjecture is good enough to wave away this disturbing correlation. > [@](#): > > When’s the last time you saw a slacker pull off Harvard-worthy SAT scores? You’ll find a lot more super-high SAT scores among people who are very active in their academic communities. I saw it with some frequency when I was in high school (I went to a magnet school that admitted purely based on a standardized test). Lots of kids with crappy grades and low motivation but great SATs. > [@](#): > > You _don’t have all the data you need_ and yet you keep harping on the SAT like it’s far more relevant than it actually is, and then you use this skewed interpretation to act like colleges are using soft criteria to keep Asians out when they have higher SAT scores on average. It is impossible to have all the data I need unless the admissions offices release them. So under your theory, I can never never justified in claiming discrimination unless these colleges give me the rope to hang them with. > [@](#): > > What I meant here is that if you went by grades/SAT scores, you’d largely see Asians and Jews get admitted. Oh, so when I use the phrase 3 to 1 advantage interchangably throughout the conversation with 3 to 1 disparity (and I used BOTH), I’m guilty of pittable conflation of terms but when you use the word merit, I should loook behind what you said to what you actually meant? It seems like you are comfortable with double standards in areas outside of college admissions. > [@](#): > > crackpot And another article today in the washington post that subscribes to these crackpot theories: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-jeremy-lin-a-stereotype-that-should-be-celebrated/2012/02/15/gIQAEynYHR\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-jeremy-lin-a-stereotype-that-should-be-celebrated/2012/02/15/gIQAEynYHR_story.html) You may be right, you may be wrong in your underlying position but when you whine about how you are forced to debate with crackpots who have these crackpot theories, and I can show you article after article from resepctable media outlets that seem to take the same position, it really seems like youa re trying to shout down your opposition with insults. But of course you know better than them don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/59 "2012-02-17T19:04:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I agree, I thought we were talking about Asians in the sense of East Asian. Nope, as would reading the thread would indicate. Try to keep up. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I was at Rice from '82 to '87. (Sid Rich). My incoming SATs were above 1500. I was a National Merit Scholar. When I was applying to colleges, Rice’s attitude was “Cool. If you’re interested, come on down and check us out.” There was no attempt to court me at all. And it runs counter to everything I know about Rice’s admissions process from that time. “Death from Above”, eh? This is still largely the case, though Rice puts more of an emphasis now (vs the 80s) on Ivy type students. And it really pisses me off that the school is being characterized like this. Aside: I don’t recall, but did Sid Rich go co-ed while you were there or was it after '87? I remember that first group of women to go over must have had the patience of saints. You guys (in general, not necessarily you in particular) were a bunch of animals. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/60 "2012-02-17T19:05:16Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > So what? The majority of people in colleges are white. > > What does that have to do with proportionality? Everything. A greater percentage of college athletes are white than are the percentage of college goers who are White. > [@](#): > > [From the NCAA](http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/SAEREP11.pdf): > Division 1 African American Male Athletes (2009 - 2010): 24.9% > Division 1 African American Female Athletes (2009 - 2010): 16.0% One, Div1 is not “all of college”. Two, you clearly did not read your own cite. > [@](#): > > As with the previous years, in 2009-10 the highest percentage of male and female student-athletes were white (70.4 and 77.2 percent respectively) with the next highest percentage of student-athletes being black (18.7 percent for male student-athletes and 11.6 percent for female student athletes). > [@](#): > > Are you claiming that a friggin’ QUARTER of all male college students are black? No, because they are not. > [@](#): > > If not, then, yeah, getting rid of athletics WILL disproportionately affect African American students. It would affect Whites _more_, which is what I said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=4)