# 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:** 4
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/61 "2012-02-17T19:13:45Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > 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. So how do you explain the fact that college enrollment rates of Asians went up in states who made it illegal for colleges to, for lack of a better word, discriminate based on race while the enrollment rates of Blacks and Hispanics (and Whites) went down? ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/62 "2012-02-17T19:16:35Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 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. No, I’ll cop to it. I think they went co-ed the year after I left. One of my roommates got the job of researching new furniture for the elevator lobbies. The sorts of questions he asked the furniture reps give you an idea of tone of Sid Rich at the time time: “How easy would it be to clean vomit out of this couch? How about urine?” ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/63 "2012-02-17T19:49:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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” It’s not _strictly_ soft criteria. There are many other metrics of “objective” criteria. I’ve already listed some basic examples in this thread while addressing your fallacious NFL analogy. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Do you ever listen? The “difference” you see in the AI is not hugely different from the “difference” you see in SAT scores. However, you are _MISINTERPRETING THAT RELATIONSHIP_. Sweet lord, I cannot make this any clearer: **The AI is correlation tool built from _historical data_ that relates overall numeric performance (via SAT1, SAT2, rank, etc) with admission rates _which include all other factors not encapsulated in the numeric component of the AI itself_.** In other words, the AI includes more data than the SAT alone because obviously the AI _includes_ the SAT. However, if you bothered to look at the **big fucking red warning next to the AI** on the site I gave you, it does NOT account for a huge number of variables you need. So acting like differences in SAT = your chances for admission improve significantly is just _fallacious logic and an abuse of statistical analysis_. It’s the same fundamental error you keep making throughout your argument. Many variables are involved in the process. You’re only looking at a select few and overemphasizing their weights. Why are you unable to put two and two together, here? Do you not understand the nature of your error? Honest question, because it’s bugging the hell out of me. I don’t understand why this is lost on you again and again and again. Do you not understand the problems of taking a correlated relationship and extrapolating a conclusion from that when you’re only looking at a few relevant variables? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. More or less. You don’t have access to all the relevant data. Argument from ignorance is not proof. Just because you only have a few variables at your disposal doesn’t mean you’re necessarily going to get any firm conclusion out of them. You need more data, especially since the admissions process is widely known to use more than just raw grade numbers/SAT scores. You can bitch and moan about how unfair that may be, but it doesn’t change the fact of the matter. You do not have proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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? I can admit I was sloppy with my word choice there, but it’s just one isolated instance. You’ve been conflating terms with misleading uses of words and then backpedaling on shit later all throughout the argument/thread. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/64 "2012-02-17T19:55:13Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Now with that said, I stopped arguing in that thread _precisely_ because, even though I provided a link to a study detailing how Asian’s college admissions would be affected by adopting a “race-blind” approach to admissions, some people were content to continue to assume that the college admissions process contained some grand, non-arbitrary factor for deciding who gets in which did not boil down to “we don’t want your kind around here!”. Do you realize how stupid this sounds? First, the conclusions you would like us to draw from your cite are not an agreement with what the author of the study thinks. Second, don’t you realize how absurd it is to act as though admission officers, who are arguably blatant racists in your example, really make this grand effort to limit Asian enrollment to, in the case of Berkeley, roughly 30% of the population instead of 32% (as we saw after they went race-blind). Does someone at the provost office go, man I can take 30% Asians, but 32% is fucking intolerable. Absolutely not. Does that sound plausible to you? Or are all these people just really, really ineffective racists? > [@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 are confusing many, many issues. First, the hypothetical Black student’s chances may improve as a result of Affirmative Action programs in an effort to promote diversity. Nowadays, those efforts typically don’t included adding to their scores; it’s more along the lines of outreach, summer program enrollment, internships, etc. that would establish a relationship between the university and the student that could be exploited come admission time. It’s generally not the mechanistic system you are implying it is. Second, the Asian student’s chances, relative to others (excluding under-represented minorities) would not necessarily be any different. This what both you and Damuri do not understand. The disparities in admissions you see between Asians and Whites with the same score is largely because, at that range of the scoring chart, there are diminished returns that come from higher scores. Seeing as Asians, on average, have higher scores, it seems as though they are being docked for being Asian. The reality is the err in judgement is assuming that those extra points should represent a higher likelihood of admission. The point being that most schools have deemed both students competent enough to attend the university, and would then look away from scores, preferring to look at the softer variables. They don’t do this to hurt Asians, they do it as a result of having to deal with a generation of students who take every effort to “juke the stats” solely to appear more attractive to universities. They do things like, taking AP classes solely to boost their weighted GPAs, taking SAT/AP prep courses, arguing any grade that hurts their chances, and joining every club they can just for credit. It results in situations where valedictorians [sue](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937084/posts) their schools when they are forced/asked to share the honor, and students paying other people to take their SATs for them. These efforts, among other things, degrade the value of the metrics, and make students on the high end of the chart less differentiable qualitatively. To further illustrate my point. Let’s make up a hypothetical involving White and Asian students. The study claims a 140 SAT point disparity would even the chances of admission. So let’s say a group or 10 Asian students and 10 White students have the following scores: ``` White Asian ``` 1. **2400** 2400 2. 2350 **2400** 3. **2300** 2400 4. 2300 **2320** 5. **2300** \*\* 2320\*\* 6. 2340 2310 7. 2100 2200 8. **2100** 2200 9. 2100 **2140** 10. 2090 2080 Let’s pretend only the bolded students are admitted. Also, keep in mind we know nothing else about them besides that their other scores were roughly equal. First, notice that the same percentage of Whites and Asians were admitted (as we saw at Berkeley). Next, I am gonna say a bunch of true things that sound bad, but really don’t tell us much. 1. Whites with perfect scores with three times as likely to be admitted as Asians with perfect scores. 2. Asian students with perfect scores were as likely to get in as White students with 300 fewer points. That sounds really bad, but it really doesn’t tell us much for a few reasons: 1. We are only looking at a few of the large number of applicable metrics 2. We don’t know how the metrics we are looking at are weighted But you say, we how can I explain those factoids without it being discrimination. This is easy. As has been cited several times in the other thread, admissions people don’t really care too much about high scores after a certain point. Knowing that, let’s assume our hypothetical admission person says any score over 2100 doesn’t mean much to me. It might be a tie-breaker, but it won’t add much value in my eyes as both students can do well at our school. So all the underlined people are eliminated right off the bat. If we assume Asians and Whites other metrics are roughly equal, we would expect a equal percentage of Asians and Whites to be admitted. That is the case in this crude example, and it’s what we see at schools like Berkeley. This, in a nutshell is why there is probably not any knowing discrimination going on against Asians, and why your data doesn’t prove there is. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/65 "2012-02-17T20:04:19Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So how do you explain the fact that college enrollment rates of Asians went up in states who made it illegal for colleges to, for lack of a better word, discriminate based on race while the enrollment rates of Blacks and Hispanics (and Whites) went down? From the other thread: > [@](#): > > Not surprisingly, the lower admission rates for underrepresented minorities that followed Proposition 209 did have a significant impact on the racial diversity of UC Berkeley and UCLA undergraduate student enrollment. 16 In the year before the implementation of the anti-preference policy, student enrollment at UC Berkeley was 38%\* Asian, 28% White, 15%Latino and 8% Black. After the elimination of race-conscious admissions policies, significant decreases in African-American and Latino enrollment, a small increase in Asian enrollment and no change in White enrollment combined to result in less racial diversity in enrollment (40% Asian, 28% White, 8% Latino and 4% Black). From 1995 to 1998, UCLA’s racial diversity also decreased substantially from 36%\* Asian, 26% White, 22% Latino and 7% Black to 36% Asian, 30% White, 11% Latino and 11% Black. In other words, it really depends. It depends on the type of school, its location, what its metrics for admission are, and how the rates actually change. Upper-tier schools do discriminate by race, but it’s not meant to keep any one particular race out. It’s meant to bring in a wider base of different races, and it’s meant to be just one of many metrics for comparison within-groups, statistically-speaking. Less-selective schools also place a bit more weight on metrics like grades and SATs, which Asians tend to excel in relative to blacks. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/66 "2012-02-17T20:09:27Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Does Not Compute, much like your other posts. Perhaps you should pay closer attention. > [@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’m not sure why this is taking over the thread but the offer to fly me out wasn’t in the pre-acceptance letter, the offer came over the phone. And I don’t think they ever mentioned my being Asian. I wasn’t “pursued” they sent me a letter and I called them, several times. Money was an issue for me and I called to find out what they meant by their offer of financial aid. > [@brazil84](#): > > (I prefer to use the more traditional word “Oriental”) Are you whooshing us? > [@](#): > > Do you even read your asinine posts before submitting them? This just makes no fucking sense. I think by speculation, he means that he can’t prove it but he is confident anyway. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I see nothing pit worthy here. Just because you don’t believe someone’s claims about themselves or agree with someone doesn’t somehow make them a “moronic troglodyte of a crackpot” Well, some white boys don’t like admitting that anyone is more persectuted than they are. > [@](#): > > Now with that said, I stopped arguing in that thread _precisely_ because, even though I provided a link to a study detailing how Asian’s college admissions would be affected by adopting a “race-blind” approach to admissions, some people were content to continue to assume that the college admissions process contained some grand, non-arbitrary factor for deciding who gets in which did not boil down to “we don’t want your kind around here!”. Your cites don’t count, only their cites count. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > This example isn’t a good analogy. Its a hell of a lot better than yours. You might as well have used an anology describing the correlation between ice cream and the murder rate. > [@](#): > > “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_. OK, then give me the facts taht explain away the disparity. Oh you can’t because you don’t have access to the data? But you feel comfortable saying I must (simply must) be wrong because _I_ don’t have access to the data? > [@](#): > > 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. So you can’t opinion based on limited information? Putting aside these “soft criteria” you don’t think that a 3 to 1 disparity in favor of whites doesn’t support my position? Your position seems to be that I am not being nuanced or sophisticated enough in my analusis because i am not considering facts not in evidence. Facts that we know exist but are not in evidence. Well, I spoke to several college admissions consultants (they all had mroe than 10 years of experience) and they all agree that Asians (and women) suffer in the admissions process because of a desire for racial (and gender balance) and its not because whites (and males) tend to have more of some other good quality but because the schools are trying to balance racial (and gender) populations. Some of it was attributable to other factors such as geography but in the end there was racial and gender bias in the admissions process in order to achieve racial and gender balance. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/67 "2012-02-17T20:11:46Z")
You’re an idiot. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/68 "2012-02-17T20:20:20Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Next, I am gonna say a bunch of true things that sound bad, but really don’t tell us much. > > 1. Whites with perfect scores with three times as likely to be admitted as Asians with perfect scores. > > 2. Asian students with perfect scores were as likely to get in as White students with 300 fewer points. > > That sounds really bad, but it really doesn’t tell us much for a few reasons: > > 1. We are only looking at a few of the large number of applicable metrics > 2. We don’t know how the metrics we are looking at are weighted > > But you say, we how can I explain those factoids without it being discrimination. This is easy. As has been cited several times in the other thread, admissions people don’t really care too much about high scores after a certain point. Knowing that, let’s assume our hypothetical admission person says any score over 2100 doesn’t mean much to me. It might be a tie-breaker, but it won’t add much value in my eyes as both students can do well at our school. So all the underlined people are eliminated right off the bat. If we assume Asians and Whites other metrics are roughly equal, we would expect a equal percentage of Asians and Whites to be admitted. That is the case in this crude example, and it’s what we see at schools like Berkeley. This, in a nutshell is why there is probably not any knowing discrimination going on against Asians, and why your data doesn’t prove there is. The problem is that we are not talking about a sample set of 20 applications for admissions in one year. We are talking about tens of thousands of applciation over the course of multiple years. Understanding that there is diminishing amrginal utility to high SAT scores after say 2250 (although I don’t agree with this), there is STILL some utility to GPA and SAT scores even at the high end. Over a sample size this large, wouldn’t you expect this vector to remain fairly constant across all races (after correcting for athletes and legacies) rather than result in a 3 to 1 disparity? Doesn’t the law of large numbers start to kick in and make these vectors better predictors than you would imply? uless there is something else goi9ng on Something that would be easier to spot and describe than “soft critieria” I mean seriously what factors are Asians so deficient at or white students so awesome at that it would produce these results? ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/69 "2012-02-17T20:20:55Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Nope, as would reading the thread would indicate. :shrug: The OP in the other thread talked about a “Chinese-American” and a lot of people use the word “Asian” to mean “East Asian” Anyway, you haven’t answered my questions from before: 1. If I am Asian, do I get a say in what terms should be used? 2. Do you not understand that there is a difference between “high performers” and “people from traditionally high-achieving groups”? ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/70 "2012-02-17T20:21:13Z")
You might want to match up the quote to the person who actually said it. ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/71 "2012-02-17T20:21:26Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > You’re an idiot. Your argument is very compelling, I will have to rethink my position. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/72 "2012-02-17T20:26:56Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Do you realize how stupid this sounds? I have cites. You don’t. Do you realize how stupid _that_ is? Me: “Hey, look at this!” You: “No, no, no!” > [@](#): > > First, the conclusions you would like us to draw from your cite are not an agreement with what the author of the study thinks. If you were to go back to the other thread, you would see I copied and pasted for you their conclusion _verbatim_. > [@](#): > > Second, don’t you realize how absurd it is to act as though admission officers, who are arguably blatant racists in your example, really make this grand effort to limit Asian enrollment to, in the case of Berkeley, roughly 30% of the population instead of 32% (as we saw after they went race-blind). There’s a difference is arguing that someone is a “blatant racist” and arguing that affirmative-action policies at the collegiate level harm Asian students. Now with that being said, I’m not even going to quote the rest of what you wrote out, because it’s ridiculous. If, as you purport, affirmative action policies do not harm Asians seeking enrollment at a certain college, assuming what you say is true, you should find that when a state makes it illegal for a school to take into account race in its admissions policies, that those colleges and universities who used to take into account race but no longer are able to do so should have admission rates for different races/ethnicities which mirror admission rates from prior years. If those colleges are admitting students based on something _other than_ race, the make-up of their student body should remain the same if those schools can no longer take into account race. But you find that they do not. What you find is that schools which previously had an affirmative action policy but were forced to drop it accepted more Asians while they accepted far fewer Blacks, Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, Whites. On the other hand, schools which had an affirmative action policy but were not forced forced to drop it showed much less demographic fluctuation as it pertained to race. **This is undisputable**. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to argue or what your argument is, as you’re not putting forth any kind of argument except to say that schools are taking into account some other, undefined factor that isn’t race while failing to describe for the rest of us what that factor is. I mean, if it’s not race, then what is it? And how, exactly, do you know it’s this other factor (meaning I would like to see some cites or something)? Anyway, apparently the link in my last post got broken, so let’s try this again. [Link is here](http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf#).) ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/73 "2012-02-17T20:47:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The problem is that we are not talking about a sample set of 20 applications for admissions in one year. We are talking about tens of thousands of applciation over the course of multiple years. Understanding that there is diminishing amrginal utility to high SAT scores after say 2250 (although I don’t agree with this), there is STILL some utility to GPA and SAT scores even at the high end. Over a sample size this large, wouldn’t you expect this vector to remain fairly constant across all races (after correcting for athletes and legacies) rather than result in a 3 to 1 disparity? > > Doesn’t the law of large numbers start to kick in and make these vectors better predictors than you would imply? uless there is something else goi9ng on Something that would be easier to spot and describe than “soft critieria” > > I mean seriously what factors are Asians so deficient at or white students so awesome at that it would produce these results? First, you quoted the wrong person. I have no idea how you managed to do this given it was only me you were quoting, but it speaks to your competence. Second, there is nothing in my example that is dependent upon the number of students we are looking at. While you can argue that the numbers would be closer given a bigger set of students, the reason WHY it doesn’t really matter is because the extra points Asians get does not mean much to admissions people. Why is this so hard for you to understand. Again, if Black NBA centers had to be 2 inches taller to have a equal chance of being on a team as White centers, would you assume there is discrimination against Black centers? No, because those two inches do not tell us anything when we are talking about guys who almost always over 7 feet tall, and when height is not the only requirement. But let’s assume you are right. Why are they going to all this trouble to stop their campuses from being 2% more Asian? Seriously, why would that make a difference to anyone in admissions? If there is a cap on Asians, why do we still see a variance in the number or Asians admitted every year? Do they not really keep track that closely? If this is a coordinated effort, why would a guy like Jian Li be rejected given that his scores were likely far better than the vast majority admitted to any school? ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/74 "2012-02-17T20:55:48Z")
Ok, this thread is veering way too close to GD territory. I’ll admit to helping hijack things so pooh on me. Back to the relevant idea: **Damuri Ajashi** : you are a moronic troglodyte of a crackpot. It should tell you something that the closest thing you have to supporters in this Pitting or in that other thread are **brazil84** and **OMG**. Maybe you really think you’re speaking with the one of the only sane, rational voices around, but I personally wouldn’t take any odds on that in your shoes. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/75 "2012-02-17T20:56:34Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > There’s a difference is arguing that someone is a “blatant racist” and arguing that affirmative-action policies at the collegiate level harm Asian students. Another fucking retard. You do realize that most everyone in both threads has admitted as much. That is not the argument. The question is whether admission people go out of their way to cap Asian enrollment, and/or discriminate against Asians because of their race. I don’t buy is that there is active discrimination AGAINST Asians. Do you not understand the difference between trying to help, say, Native Americans, vs. trying to hurt Asian people? Yes, the impact, given that it’s a near zero-sum game, might be similar, but the ethical and practical differences are great. What has been alleged is that admissions people don’t want to admit Asian students. There is no proof of that, and the data suggest otherwise. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/76 "2012-02-17T21:14:58Z")
Back on topic: Damuri is a fuckwitted, slackjawed, mouthbreathing crackpot. If you’re too damned pigheaded to actually listen to why your points are wrong, you have no business being in a debate. Bill O’Reilly, is that you? Tide goes in, stain comes out. You can’t explain that! ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/77 "2012-02-17T22:54:29Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Secbecause the extra points Asians get does not mean much to admissions people. Why is this so hard for you to understand. And yet the academic index calculator says otehrwise. Why am i able to get he damn thing to spit out an 8 for 800 SATs and a 6 for 750 SATs and you are not? > [@](#): > > But let’s assume you are right. Why are they going to all this trouble to stop their campuses from being 2% more Asian? Seriously, why would that make a difference to anyone in admissions? If there is a cap on Asians, why do we still see a variance in the number or Asians admitted every year? Do they not really keep track that closely? If this is a coordinated effort, why would a guy like Jian Li be rejected given that his scores were likely far better than the vast majority admitted to any school? I don’t think its 2% I think that if things were admissions were race blind we might see Asian acceptance rates at other top schools approach what we see at places like Berkeley. I think you mistake my position. I don’t think that scores and grades are or even should be the only criteria that is considered? I am saying that withb a large enough sample set, you should see proportional distribution along racial lines unless there is some sort of advantage one race has over another in the admissions process. One advantage whites have is geographical diversity which leads to soem diversity in extracurriculars (I explain it in this post) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14781434&postcount=224](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14781434&postcount=224) "A lot of Asian applicants come from a handful of states where academic competition is fairly high to begin with. So while there is a huge disparity between the average successful Asian applicant and the average successful white applicant the disparity narrowed considerably if you compared the Asian applicants from San Francisco or New York with white applicants from San Francisco or New York. And the lack of diversity in the geography leads to lack of diversity in other areas. If you just look at white applications from Connecticut, they are going to look a lot like each other. The white applicants from Connecticut are not snowflakes but if you mix them up with all the other white applicants from across the country, the lacrosee playing, French speaking, 4.0 2200 SAT white Connecticut student looks a lot less cookie cutter. Asian tennis players don’t have the advantage of being compared to the hockey players from the northern plains or the football players from Texas (well you get the idea) so while people try to be race neutral, you can’t help but notice the similarities between Asian students compared to the diversity presented by a geographically diverse white applicant pool. And you get the impression that Asians are a somehwat homogenous group. A race blind admission policy might help with some of that lack of geographic diversity but in the end, they are still competing with other highly competitive students in highly competitive states. When asked if this explained the disparity they said “probably not” There are other factors but after all is said and done, some people trying to achieve some sort of racial balance and race works against Asians. So there you have it (from someone trying to sell my Asian cousin college consulting services), notions of race balancing probably hurts Asians but not as badly as Espenshade’s study makes out because he doesn’t take at least one pretty obvious objective factors into account. Short of further study, its hard to say exactly how much but you can improve your chances by moving to Nebraska." This is the sort of thing that explains some of the disparioty but so far all your side has offered are veiled allusions to racial stereotypes and talking points from the very admission commiittees that are being charged with discrimination. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > **Damuri Ajashi** : you are a moronic troglodyte of a crackpot. > > It should tell you something that the closest thing you have to supporters in this Pitting or in that other thread are **brazil84** and **OMG**. > > Maybe you really think you’re speaking with the one of the only sane, rational voices around, but I personally wouldn’t take any odds on that in your shoes. Of course I believe I am right and that Brickbacon and FMI are presentiog weak and exceedingly weak arguments, respectively. I don’t really care if I consistently have the same people on my side of teh argument all the time. Don’t you ever find yourself on different sides of teh argument with Der Trihs or Bricker? I know I do I’m a little bit concerend about being on teh same side of an argument as Brazil 84 but I take some comfort in knowing that he thinks I’m an idiot. OMG is a lot more conservative than me but I’m probably a bit more conservative than you. > [@brickbacon](#): > > The question is whether admission people go out of their way to cap Asian enrollment, and/or discriminate against Asians because of their race. I don’t buy is that there is active discrimination AGAINST Asians. Do you not understand the difference between trying to help, say, Native Americans, vs. trying to hurt Asian people? Yes, the impact, given that it’s a near zero-sum game, might be similar, but the ethical and practical differences are great. What has been alleged is that admissions people don’t want to admit Asian students. There is no proof of that, and the data suggest otherwise. What data are you talking about because data denotes fact rather than opinions or statements by admissions officers (now to be fair, every admissions consultant I talked to said that MIT doesn’t seem to engage in this sort of discrimination either at all or to any noticable degree, but they are also do not seem to be as interested in a well rounded student body). I understand that you can help underrepresented minorities and I’m all for it, I think it is poor form when Asians complain about affirmative action and pretend that Affirmative Action wan’t instrumental in getting us where we are today and it almost seems like they want to close the door behind them now that we have gotten in the door. I don’t know if blacks are ever going to reach parity but blacks were denied the right to vote in my lifetime (with things like literacy tests and poll taxes, which didn’t affect illiterate, poor whites because of “grandfather clauses”) so I’m not particularly impatient with the fact that it has taken so long to reverse the effects of 400 years of slavery and a century of Jim Crow (same for the American Indians). but I think that all other applciants should play on a level playing field and my sense is that the playing field is not level, I see article after article (in reputable papers and periodical) telling me that it isn’t level, I have college admissions consultants telling me that it isn’t level, I have a study telling me that ther is a significant disparity in acceptance rates between whites and Asians with teh same SAT/GPA. The counterargument seems to be some nebulous soft factors that people are either too embarassed to idnetify or can’t identify if the reason for the disparity. They just cite “soft factors” and list a litany of things that are included in teh definition of “soft factors” but I have to go to a college consultant to tell me about geography and why geography leads to racial skews that have nothing to do with race and a bit more to do with the migration patterns of Asians. Break it down for me the way that the college consultant broke down how geography works against Asians, because I found THAT argument compelling, I think THAT argument does explain some significant amount of the disparity but that SAME consultant said it doesn’t explain away the disparity and told me that the playing filed is tilted against asians. Break it down for me in a way that you think would explain a 3 to 1 disparity. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/78 "2012-02-17T23:10:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And yet the academic index calculator says otehrwise. Why am i able to get he damn thing to spit out an 8 for 800 SATs and a 6 for 750 SATs and you are not? For one thing, playing around with lower ranks severely diminishes chances _anyway_. At Harvard-worthy ranks, having 750 SAT’s by no means makes you an academic 6. Furthermore, this is the sort of shit I mean. I explained _exactly_ how the AI data is determined and you _still_ say shit like this. I literally explained, right on this page, why you can’t make that claim. See the big red font up on my post up there? _READ IT_. I’ll even link it for your dumb ass: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14785039&postcount=63](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14785039&postcount=63) There are only three conclusions. 1. You don’t understand the explanation given to you because you’re a fucking retard. 2. You don’t understand statistical concepts and are too embarrassed to admit it. 3. You’re intentionally ignoring the explanation because it doesn’t support your stance. Either way, you’re a retard. _ **YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ACADEMIC INDEX. QUIT PRETENDING THAT IT SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW.** _ ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/79 "2012-02-17T23:35:19Z")
Damuri has never let a complete lack of understanding get in his way. He also views changing his claims based on factual refutations as a sign of weakness. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/80 "2012-02-17T23:43:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And yet the academic index calculator says otehrwise. Why am i able to get he damn thing to spit out an 8 for 800 SATs and a 6 for 750 SATs and you are not? The index you found out about 15 minutes ago, and now is the last straw you cling to. That said, you do not understand how it is used, or it’s value. Despite several attempts to educate you. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think its 2% I think that if things were admissions were race blind we might see Asian acceptance rates at other top schools approach what we see at places like Berkeley. We wouldn’t given that the Berkeley rate is high because there are lots of Asians in CA taking advantage of in-state tuition and location. These trends are heavily tied to demographics. And if you want, crunch the numbers yourself. From 97 to 98, the percentage of those admitted to Berkeley that are Asian went from 29.48% to 31.51%. A change of 2.03%. For percentages for those that actually enrolled went from 35.93% to 36.51%. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you mistake my position. I don’t think that scores and grades are or even should be the only criteria that is considered? I am saying that withb a large enough sample set, you should see proportional distribution along racial lines unless there is some sort of advantage one race has over another in the admissions process. One advantage whites have is geographical diversity which leads to soem diversity in extracurriculars (I explain it in this post). Which is not discrimination against Asians. I got what you were saying, but it still doesn’t prove colleges discriminate against Asians. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Asian tennis players don’t have the advantage of being compared to the hockey players from the northern plains or the football players from Texas (well you get the idea) so while people try to be race neutral, you can’t help but notice the similarities between Asian students compared to the diversity presented by a geographically diverse white applicant pool. And you get the impression that Asians are a somehwat homogenous group. It’s not just an appearance, that is often the case. Again, that doesn’t mean college are actively discriminating against Asians. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > A race blind admission policy might help with some of that lack of geographic diversity but in the end, they are still competing with other highly competitive students in highly competitive states. More evidence that points to a non-racial bias. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > When asked if this explained the disparity they said “probably not” First, given your passing acquaintance with the truth, I do not believe your story about your cousin. Second, even if a HS counselor said that, I don’t think that carries any more weight than any study presented. Maybe you missed the fact that I have told you that I deal with these things, and tangential issues for a living. Most of my family is in higher ed in one form or another. Which in most senses means nothing on the internet, but your appeal to outside authority, when you have been speaking to several people involved in these things, who have explained it to you in detail, and cited several studies is less than compelling. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There are other factors but after all is said and done, some people trying to achieve some sort of racial balance and race works against Asians. This is not what you said. If the debate was just college do things that ultimately work against Asians, we wouldn’t be arguing. You said they were actively discriminating against them. There is no proof of that. Now, I bet you are gonna say you didn’t say that. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Break it down for me the way that the college consultant broke down how geography works against Asians, because I found THAT argument compelling, I think THAT argument does explain some significant amount of the disparity but that SAME consultant said it doesn’t explain away the disparity and told me that the playing filed is tilted against asians. Break it down for me in a way that you think would explain a 3 to 1 disparity. We have. You cannot understand it because you are either willfully obtuse, or congenitally stupid. I don’t know how much clearer it can be made for you. Just give up. PS. For your own sake, stop fucking lying about shit, then acting like a little bitch by reporting it when you get called on your bullshit. It makes you look like a joke. Especially when you had the temerity to call a number of people racists in the same thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=5)