# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/101 "2012-02-20T21:41:31Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > 1. But, also, who cares? Apparently [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14792719&postcount=91) ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/102 "2012-02-20T22:46:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Apparently [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14792719&postcount=91) That isn’t proof of me caring about whatever silly semantic quibbling you guys are involved with. That’s between you and antibob. I was asking about your stance on this entire topic at large. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/103 "2012-02-20T23:14:21Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > That isn’t proof of me caring about whatever silly semantic quibbling you guys are involved with. That’s between you and antibob. > > I was asking about your stance on this entire topic at large. Oh, it seemed to me that you were asking about our “quibble” As far as the entire topic goes, am I correct in understanding your position is as follows: University admissions departments engage in activities designed to promote various kinds of diversity in their classes; these activities have the effect but not the purpose of limiting the number of Asian students. Is that basically your position? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/104 "2012-02-20T23:25:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Oh, it seemed to me that you were asking about our “quibble” > > As far as the entire topic goes, am I correct in understanding your position is as follows: University admissions departments engage in activities designed to promote various kinds of diversity in their classes; these activities have the effect but not the purpose of limiting the number of Asian students. Is that basically your position? They _can_ have that effect, depending on circumstances, but yes. The idea is that there is no proof that colleges are trying to discriminate against any one particular group. We don’t have all the data we need. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/105 "2012-02-21T02:03:26Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > The idea is that there is no proof that colleges are trying to discriminate against any one particular group. We don’t have all the data we need. Well, it’s not as if colleges are going to come out and admit that their purpose is to limit the number of Asian students. What data would satisfy you that elite colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? Besides which, as a practical matter, I don’t see that it makes much difference since the goal of promoting diversity necessarily entails opening the door wider for people from lower achieving groups and doing the opposite for people from higher-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 21, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/106 "2012-02-21T05:41:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well, it’s not as if colleges are going to come out and admit that their purpose is to limit the number of Asian students. What data would satisfy you that elite colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? > > Besides which, as a practical matter, I don’t see that it makes much difference since the goal of promoting diversity necessarily entails opening the door wider for people from lower achieving groups and doing the opposite for people from higher-achieving groups. Whether they discriminate or not, whether they admit it or not, etc, however you want to slice it, there’s no proof. We’d need a LOT more data before we could normalize against the race variable to see if there was any systematic discrimination. As a practical matter, I personally don’t think diversity admissions helps more than in hurts. URM’s are a very small percentage of the overall base, really. I also think it’s very justifiable to want a study body full of skilled, diversified people. Otherwise your schools become filled with the same type of student through-and-through, and this has all sorts of problems. I think it’s laudable that schools try to focus on a core academic strength but with an emphasis on doing what you do best as your own person. There are many ways to be a successful student and many different possible walks of life to come from, and it’s good that colleges are recognizing that. So I mean I have no sympathy for guys like Jian Li who feel entitled to a seat at the Ivy League just because they’ve focused way too much on their GPA/SATs, especially when they blame their race for it. He comes across as bitter, arrogant, whiny fellow to me, and his peers seem to think so too. Seems pretty open-and-shut to me. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/107 "2012-02-21T05:44:48Z")
Jeez I typo’d that sentence hard. Should be “I personally think diversity admissions helps more than it hurts.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/108 "2012-02-21T09:19:01Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > We’d need a LOT more data before we could normalize against the race variable to see if there was any systematic discrimination. Again my question: What data would satisfy you that elite colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? > [@](#): > > As a practical matter, I personally don’t think diversity admissions helps more than in hurts. That’s a different question, and the answer depends on your personal values. > [@](#): > > URM’s are a very small percentage of the overall base, really. I also think it’s very justifiable to want a study body full of skilled, diversified people. Otherwise your schools become filled with the same type of student through-and-through, and this has all sorts of problems. What problems? From what I hear, in the 50s and 60s, CCNY did admissions strictly by test scores. There ended up being a lot of Jewish students but the sky didn’t fall. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/109 "2012-02-21T16:58:01Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Again my question: What data would satisfy you that elite colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? > > That’s a different question, and the answer depends on your personal values. > > What problems? From what I hear, in the 50s and 60s, CCNY did admissions strictly by test scores. There ended up being a lot of Jewish students but the sky didn’t fall. 1. Again, as I said earlier in the thread, admissions requires a lot of information. Grades, EC’s, rec letters, school info, geography and all inclusive demographics, athletic status, legacy status, essays, class types, rank, SATs, type of SAT2s taken, etc. I would want access to a fair chunk of this kind of data before I was reasonably confident that discrimination was going on (after baselining for race). 2. I agree. 3. In general, you widen socioeconomic gaps by creating criteria that is more easily leveraged by people with certain types of advantages (esp. money). You also make for a more homogeneous school environment, which means less cross-pollination between different backgrounds and ideas. I can tell you from my experience at Harvard that I learned a _ton_ from people of different backgrounds that I wouldn’t have learned had everyone been the same. ---
**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 21, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/110 "2012-02-21T23:15:28Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > This is why you’re a blithering moron. > > You. Do. Not. Get. It. > > And you resist every attempt made to educate you on this subject. You ignore real-life cases where your beliefs are not supported/upheld in practice. You ignore the words of admissions officers and act like they’re all “in on it.” You don’t understand the basic statistical problems involved in trying to analyze a complex decision-making model with only a couple of variables. You keep repeating the same points even after they’ve been torn apart and exposed as severely flawed. > > You’re hopelessly retarded. “Congenitally stupid” is right on the money, here. Listen you waste of sperm, you act like I’m this lonely voice in the wildness yelling conspiracy theories. Media outlets from National Review to USA today to the Washington Post and the NY Times have all had articles on this subject and the issue does not seem nearly as clear to them as it seems to you. If you want to keep pretending that there is no real room for reasonable people to disagree on this topic and that’s your choice but credibility is earned not shouted into existence. ALL you have on your side are statements by the same admissions committees (some of whicha re under federal investigation for discrimination) that “they didn’t do it” Now tell us your SAT scores again. ---
**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 21, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/111 "2012-02-21T23:27:21Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > It’s not that your opinion is as stupid as the birthers, it’s that you live in the same bubble of ignorance, immune to any logic and counter evidence. Well I would submit that say comparisons to birthers carries baggage. Its a form of Godwinization. I could say that you have been just as immune to logic, facts and cites and simply choose to believe your preferred conclusion. I asked you what would convince you that you were wrong and you said a fwe more studies and a confession. A FUCKING CONFESSION!!! SO I showed you where these schools had confessed to this sort of shit in the past when their stated policies were almsot exactly the same. And your response has been somewhere in the neighborhood of “well, maybe back then but certainly not now” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You do realize a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION means very little. Planned parenthood is under federal investigation. Its more than you got. > [@](#): > > seeing that the disparities you suggest exist would have to be a coordinated, intentional process, it’s implied that there must be some sort a conspiracy. I’m not ALLEGING ANYTHING. The disparities exist. You’re saying that discrim iantion doesn’t exist bdespite the disparity because, well, you know, “soft factors” And conspiracy is not necessary for discrimination to occur. > [@](#): > > The fact that you can think a year to year systemic program to limit Asians at nearly every elite university would be anything but a conspiracy makes me question if you just don’t understand what a [conspiracy](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy) is. I linked to the definition for you. How is what you are suggesting not a conspiracy? Because each university can independently reach the conclusion that they have too many Asians for their taste. Is there a conspiracy to increase the black population at these schools? > [@](#): > > I think you are playing the “dumbfuck who cannot understand basic stuff” card. Seriously, I don’t care that you are Asian, and I doubt your opinion is based solely on being Asian. I don’t think you are playing the race card, I just think you may be too close to the issue to see that you argument has little merit. You just don’t get it. I really don’t know what else to say. I have literally wasted hours reading your nonsense and responding, because on some level, I would like to see you understand. But it’s pretty clear to me you have neither the capacity, nor the inclination to do so. I don’t think your arguments are nearly as convincing as you have convinced yourself that they must be. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/112 "2012-02-22T01:06:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well I would submit that say comparisons to birthers carries baggage. Its a form of Godwinization. If the shoe fits… and by the way, I didn’t make the comparison. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not ALLEGING ANYTHING. You have, several times. I am not going to bother to find the quotes again. Just as you said you never claimed the evidence of discrimination was irrefutable, you are now gonna change your position when confronted with the absurdity of it. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The disparities exist. You’re saying that discrim iantion doesn’t exist bdespite the disparity because, well, you know, “soft factors” Geez. The fact that you keep saying this must come down to soft factors indicates to me that you not only did not read what I have said, but that you also didn’t read your own cite. Espenshade did not even look at all the quantitative factors. Many things that are evaluated in the admission process were not included. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And conspiracy is not necessary for discrimination to occur. Again, it would be to achieve the sorts of disparities you are alleging exist. Explain to me how you can limit Asian enrollment without the coordination and, at the very least, tacit agreement of large numbers of people all working toward that goal? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because each university can independently reach the conclusion that they have too many Asians for their taste. Whether the schools are independent is irrelevant. The point is that you contend there is systemic racial discrimination at several schools. One school could be explain by some rogue, racist admissions officer, or a few bad apples. When you broaden your scope to include at least a dozen schools, you have a much larger burden of proof. If what you are alleging is happening, there must be dozens of people working in either small groups, or independently who have all decided not only to systematically discriminate against Asian students in the most ineffectual and ineffective way possible (prevent an extra 2% of students form being Asian), but to do so in predictable and consistent manner. All of these people would have to decide that the mild discrimination they champion is worth breaking the law, and risking substantial liability for their employer. Do you realize how unlikely that is? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Is there a conspiracy to increase the black population at these schools? Yes, there is. That is why many schools have outreach programs and summer programs to achieve those ends. Why is this so hard for you to understand? A conspiracy doesn’t need to be some shifty group meeting in a smoky room discussing world domination, it’s just a group of people deciding to engage in a particular act. There is NO WAY what you are alleging could occur without their being a conspiracy or conspiracies. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/113 "2012-02-22T01:24:51Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > 1. Again, as I said earlier in the thread, admissions requires a lot of information. Grades, EC’s, rec letters, school info, geography and all inclusive demographics, athletic status, legacy status, essays, class types, rank, SATs, type of SAT2s taken, etc. I would want access to a fair chunk of this kind of data before I was reasonably confident that discrimination was going on (after baselining for race). And generally speaking what pattern would you need to see in this data to satisfy you that colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? > [@](#): > > In general, you widen socioeconomic gaps by creating criteria that is more easily leveraged by people with certain types of advantages (esp. money). You also make for a more homogeneous school environment, which means less cross-pollination between different backgrounds and ideas. I can tell you from my experience at Harvard that I learned a _ton_ from people of different backgrounds that I wouldn’t have learned had everyone been the same. Ok, so your position is that the “all sorts of problems” you referred to are primarily (1) the lack of opportunity to interact with classmates from different backgrounds and learn from them; and (2) the diminished chances for admission for students from relatively poorer backgrounds. Is that pretty much it? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/114 "2012-02-22T02:17:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Listen you waste of sperm, you act like I’m this lonely voice in the wildness yelling conspiracy theories. Media outlets from National Review to USA today to the Washington Post and the NY Times have all had articles on this subject and the issue does not seem nearly as clear to them as it seems to you. There are a lot of people who aren’t alone in, for instance, believing that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. There are a lot of people who think Obama is some secret Muslim or that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Doesn’t make them right, nor any less stupid. I’m not arguing that you’re some lone voice in the masses. I’m arguing that you’re an idiotic crackpot bullshitter who can’t generate a brain synapse to save his life. AGAIN, you ignore why media outlets are not the best source of information on this matter. Media sources are rarely rigorous and tend to oversimplify complex issues. Remember WSJ’s article on Amy Chua? “[Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html)?” Just because we can point to a bunch of articles from well-known sources doesn’t always mean they are necessarily beacons of truth (more hilariously, if you read her book, this is made even more true to form). Just because an article raises questions about discrimination doesn’t necessarily mean there is discrimination actually happening. It just means a lot of people are confused about the admissions process and mistakenly think race is what’s keeping perfect-scorers like Jian Li out of the Ivies, and people want to understand why this sort of thing happens. A lot of people don’t fully understand holistic admissions and think scores matter more than they do. When you do a bit of digging, you find this line of reasoning to be misguided. It’s amazing to me that you have this unwillingness to concede ANY point, no matter how badly I have to paddle your ass. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you want to keep pretending that there is no real room for reasonable people to disagree on this topic and that’s your choice but credibility is earned not shouted into existence. You can disagree on this topic all you want. Like brickbacon, I know plenty of people who hold your position. Except they actually do it intelligently and with a consistent position, and they don’t try to skew data to say things that it doesn’t or make assertions that are ignorant/without justification. They also aren’t so pigheaded that they refuse to concede points they are obviously misguided about. You fail on every mark, and that’s why you’re a waste of carbon. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > ALL you have on your side are statements by the same admissions committees (some of whicha re under federal investigation for discrimination) that “they didn’t do it” > > Now tell us your SAT scores again. You seem to forget that the burden of proof is on _you_. _You_ are arguing that something exists. The burden is on _you_ to prove it. This is like if you were a dogsitter I accused you of fucking dogs behind closed doors. Your only response, really, would be “Hey, look man, I don’t do that! There’s no proof of that!” And yet imagine if my response was, “All you have are statements saying you didn’t do it! You keep dogs at your place well into the night – that is prima facie evidence that you fuck dogs! Dogfucker!” > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And conspiracy is not necessary for discrimination to occur. So everyone involved in admissions just-so-happens to have a secret agenda to discriminate against Asians? And you’re wondering why I am calling you a crackpot? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because each university can independently reach the conclusion that they have too many Asians for their taste. This is just ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many top schools there are that use holistic admissions? You’re going to seriously take the position that each one of them decided to, independently, outwardly “pretend” to use holistic admissions but, without any smoking-gun evidence whatsoever, choose to break laws for the sake of oppressing Asians a few percentage points? This has got to be the most asinine, vapid, thickheaded argument I’ve come across this year. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Is there a conspiracy to increase the black population at these schools? Yes, you moron, yes! > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not ALLEGING ANYTHING. The disparities exist. You’re saying that discrim iantion doesn’t exist bdespite the disparity because, well, you know, “soft factors” Except you HAVE alleged things. Constantly. Your position is all over the place. You say your claims are only prima facie evidence, but then you say you can prove things statistically and that you’re sure discrimination going on. You act like you’re only saying the _evidence_ is irrefutable (i.e. factual), but then act like your evidence is irrefutably supporting the conclusion of discrimination. You say you don’t think there’s a conspiracy, but then you refuse to trust anything coming out of the admissions office and think they’re all “pretending” to have holistic admissions across the board (your words!). You say you understand burden of proof, but then you don’t understand why people aren’t “proving you wrong” outside a confession, and you don’t seem to understand why your “3 to 1” disparity is such weak evidence. You say you understand the problems of correlation vs. causation, but then you commit those very same fallacies. You say you aren’t alleging anything, but then go on to do just that. SMH. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/115 "2012-02-22T02:54:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And generally speaking what pattern would you need to see in this data to satisfy you that colleges are intentionally discriminating against Asians? You would need enough data to reasonably encapsulate most of the variance of an application profile. SAT and GPA alone don’t come anywhere close. With enough data you could take everything into account and be able to show that race matters more than what we’d expect under the null hypothesis. > [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so your position is that the “all sorts of problems” you referred to are primarily (1) the lack of opportunity to interact with classmates from different backgrounds and learn from them; and (2) the diminished chances for admission for students from relatively poorer backgrounds. Is that pretty much it? I echo pretty much the sentiments expressed here: [In Praise Of Holistic Admissions | MIT Admissions](http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/in-praise-of-holistic-admissions) Some quotes worth mentioning: > [@](#): > > We could build a working admissions system around this premise. A very simple version might look something like this: create an index by multiplying SAT score and GPA. Rank-order the list by the highest product of the two, admit the top 1,000 students automatically and deny the rest. > > Would this really be a better admissions process? Well, I guess I could go home pretty early to get a full night’s rest after turning on the Admissions Machine the day after applications are due. Then again, I’d probably not sleep very well if this is all I did. And the students we admitted wouldn’t feel as home here. Because what we try to do is build a community, and an admissions machine cannot produce a community. It can only produce a bunch of test scores and GPAs crammed into classrooms. > > Even worse, such a system would produce a very thin slice of the population, because the segment of students perched atop the SATs are a comparatively homogenous bunch. SAT scores are strongly correlated with parent income, and parent income is strongly correlated with their parent’s income. Now obviously there are many factors at play here, but the trend is clear: the (multigenerationally) wealthier you are, the higher you score. All of this is to say that, if scores were all we cared about, our campus would be overwhelmingly socioeconomically similar. > > That’s limiting. It’s limiting because of the scope of issues and problems which people have experienced, and it’s limiting because of the solutions which are likely to come to the minds of people. In short, it lends itself to group think and experential echo chambers. At that point, it’s not a college as a socializing institution: it’s a Great Gatsby garden party. > [@](#): > > In fact, in a certain sense you could say that our job, as an admissions office, is emphatically not to admit the “best students” to MIT, but rather to admit those applicants who will become the best MIT students. We are selecting the right mix of ingredients from which MIT graduates will be produced. This is why, incidentally, David put so much emphasis on making the most of your opportunities. Because we don’t care about what you’ve done so far as much as we care about what you’re going to do at MIT. > [@](#): > > Standardized tests don’t, and never have, created a level playing field. As I pointed out above - the greatest predictor of performance on standardized tests is parental income. In other words, there is certainly not a “level playing field” on standardized tests for rich and poor applicants. > > The way that we use standardized tests is as one of several factors - along with grades, letters, and other things - to establish an applicant’s preparation for MIT. And once we are convinced that an applicant is sufficiently prepared for MIT, we look at a myriad of other things in a holistic process to determine our admission. > > I’m very, very proud of our process. I think we bring terrific students to MIT. There are always great students for whom we don’t have room, and that makes me sad. But overall, our student body, our community, is tremendously better off being constituted by our holistic admissions process. > [@](#): > > The point I was trying to make with scores is essentially that there exists a point after which we basically think you can do the work at MIT and so the returns accrued by each marginal point on the SAT diminish markedly. It’s not to say there isn’t a difference between a 2400 and a 2100 as much as it is to say that that difference doesn’t matter as much as, say, the difference between an 1800 and a 2100, even though they are both 300 points apart. > [@](#): > > But we have a lot of different people in the office, from many different backgrounds. And anyone who has been admitted to MIT has been seen, via our multiple levels of multiple committees, by almost everyone who works for us. So the process is subjective, but it is redundantly subjective. When a student has been admitted to MIT, it means that just about everyone in the office thinks they are awesome. And we basically trust that if all of the highly-trained, experienced folks in our office, all of whom have particular interests and expertise, agree that someone is awesome, than we should do everything we can to admit them. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/116 "2012-02-22T08:20:49Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > You would need enough data to reasonably encapsulate most of the variance of an application profile. SAT and GPA alone don’t come anywhere close. With enough data you could take everything into account and be able to show that race matters more than what we’d expect under the null hypothesis. Let’s assume that there is “enough data.” What pattern would you have to see in that “enough data” to satisfy you that there is intentional discrimination going on against Asians? What pattern would you have to see in order to satisfy you that “race matters more than what we’d expect under the null hypothesis?” > [@](#): > > I echo pretty much the sentiments expressed here: Does that mean yes or no? ---
**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 22, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/117 "2012-02-22T14:31:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > If the shoe fits… and by the way, I didn’t make the comparison. Yeah, it was your fellow traveler FMI. > [@](#): > > You have, several times. I am not going to bother to find the quotes again. Just as you said you never claimed the evidence of discrimination was irrefutable, you are now gonna change your position when confronted with the absurdity of it. I think you’re misreading me again. I’m not alleging that there is a disparity, its a fact. you can quibble about my intetrchangable use of teh words disparity and disadvantage but I don’t think I ever backed away from the notion that the disparity is evidence of discrimination. > [@](#): > > Geez. The fact that you keep saying this must come down to soft factors indicates to me that you not only did not read what I have said, but that you also didn’t read your own cite. Espenshade did not even look at all the quantitative factors. Many things that are evaluated in the admission process were not included. Those were all described as “soft criteria” by your side in the past. Sure many things are not considered in the study but once you control of r test scorews and grades, with a large enough sample size you do not expect to see large disparities in acceptance rates unless you see some other difference in the qualifications between these populations. What are these differences that explain a three to one disparity. I keep asking this question and i keep getting bullshit answers. Just fucking come out and say why you think whites get admitted three times more frequently and then back it up with some cites. > [@](#): > > Again, it would be to achieve the sorts of disparities you are alleging exist. Explain to me how you can limit Asian enrollment without the coordination and, at the very least, tacit agreement of large numbers of people all working toward that goal? If all the schools decide that they want to maintain some sort of racial balance. They look around at the Asian population at other schools and start to develop a sense of norms and try to achieve it. > [@](#): > > Whether the schools are independent is irrelevant. The point is that you contend there is systemic racial discrimination at several schools. One school could be explain by some rogue, racist admissions officer, or a few bad apples. When you broaden your scope to include at least a dozen schools, you have a much larger burden of proof. I guess it depends. If alll teh schools that were the subject of teh Espenshade study had the same sort of disparity then I think that is evidence. Not conlusive evidence but still evidence. > [@](#): > > A conspiracy doesn’t need to be some shifty group meeting in a smoky room discussing world domination, it’s just a group of people deciding to engage in a particular act. There is NO WAY what you are alleging could occur without their being a conspiracy or conspiracies. So wait, affirmative action is a conspiracy? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/118 "2012-02-22T14:41:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Let’s assume that there is “enough data.” What pattern would you have to see in that “enough data” to satisfy you that there is intentional discrimination going on against Asians? What pattern would you have to see in order to satisfy you that “race matters more than what we’d expect under the null hypothesis?” > > Does that mean yes or no? 1. I already explained this. It’s just a matter of showing that race matters in a nontrivial way. This is just simple statistics, here. > **[Regression analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis)** > > In statistical modeling, regression analysis is a set of statistical processes for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (often called the outcome or response variable, or a label in machine learning parlance) and one or more error-free independent variables (often called regressors, predictors, covariates, explanatory variables or features). > The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) th... > **[Analysis of variance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance)** > > Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a family of statistical methods used to compare the means of two or more groups by analyzing variance. Specifically, ANOVA compares the amount of variation between the group means to the amount of variation within each group. If the between-group variation is substantially larger than the within-group variation, it suggests that the group means are likely different. This comparison is done using an F-test. The underlying principle of ANOVA is based on the law of ... Are some basic stat analysis methods, but you need to do them properly Long story short, you would be able to look at how admission rates change as you shift from one race to another after determining the relative weights of all the variables involved. It’s _sort of_ like seasonal adjustment: > **[Seasonal adjustment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_adjustment)** > > Seasonal adjustment or deseasonalization is a statistical method for removing the seasonal component of a time series. It is usually done when wanting to analyse the trend, and cyclical deviations from trend, of a time series independently of the seasonal components. Many economic phenomena have seasonal cycles, such as agricultural production, (crop yields fluctuate with the seasons) and consumer consumption (increased personal spending leading up to Christmas). It is necessary to adjust for thi... Only in this case you’re “adjusting” for a large number of variables to look at the underlying trends with respect to race and admission rates. Of course, to get a more accurate reading for this, you need to have enough to explain a good chunk of the variance. Generally speaking if you go by GPA/SAT alone, your prediction rates will be abysmally off when it comes to top schools. 1. Sort of/yes and no – which is why I gave the more detailed explanation. I think the primary problem is that without diversity-based admissions, you are pretty much catering to rich people. You wind up with a class that is socioeconomically homogenous, and you don’t necessarily get an environment full of diverse ideas. Problemsolving in itself becomes tunnelvisioned. You also don’t necessarily get the types of students who will best contribute something back to the school/to society or who will be able to use the school’s resources to their fullest. Lastly, the process becomes flipped against those who are very bright and able but simply unable to attend because they can’t buy their way through. By mixing together people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, you foster a lot more interpersonal learning, growth, societal health, critical thinking, communication, community, complexity, teamwork, mutual respect, etc. It also makes the process more accessible regardless of your origin. It’s not a perfect process (I still think there are many flaws) but I think it’s a huge step up from simply going by raw numbers alone. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/119 "2012-02-22T15:53:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you’re misreading me again. I’m not alleging that there is a disparity, its a fact. you can quibble about my intetrchangable use of teh words disparity and disadvantage but I don’t think I ever backed away from the notion that the disparity is evidence of discrimination. And this is precisely the kind of crap I mean. There is a difference between a fact and what that fact is evidence of. You’re saying “there is a disparity, it’s right here in the data, it’s irrefutable” but then turn around and say “therefore it’s irrefutable evidence of anti-Asian discrimination” and act confused when people call you out for making such an obvious fuckup. Those two are completely different things and you don’t seem to understand why. I think you refuse to touch on this key point because you can’t do it without admitting how stupid your argument is here. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I keep asking this question and i keep getting bullshit answers. Just fucking come out and say why you think whites get admitted three times more frequently and then back it up with some cites. You’ve been given explicit answers to this question MANY times. You’re too thickheaded. All you do is handwave the explanations away with “No, that’s bullshit. I don’t believe any of it.” Well, what the fuck do you expect when you have such blatant confirmation bias and just dismiss everything said to you? You’ve been given many good reasons. One of the biggest contributors is the diminishing marginal utility of the SAT coupled with higher Asian averages. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If all the schools decide that they want to maintain some sort of racial balance. They look around at the Asian population at other schools and start to develop a sense of norms and try to achieve it. It’s just pure stupidity, lol. You’re bending the evidence to fit your bias and trying to think of any bullshit method you can think of that allows you to claim that admissions officers are discriminating, no matter how unlikely the methods would have to be. Your stance has gotten to the point where now you’re accusing a huge number of people at a huge number of schools to all, indepedently, and silently, come to the conclusion that they must “pretend” to operate with holistic admissions policies and discriminate against Asians instead for a few extra percentage points. You just aren’t that bright, dude. ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/120 "2012-02-22T16:10:07Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > There are a lot of people who aren’t alone in, for instance, believing that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. OK cite the Natioanal review articles, the USA today articles, the Washington Post articles and the NY Times articles that say that teh earth is a few thousand years old. > [@](#): > > This is like if you were a dogsitter I accused you of fucking dogs behind closed doors. Your only response, really, would be “Hey, look man, I don’t do that! There’s no proof of that!” And yet imagine if my response was, “All you have are statements saying you didn’t do it! You keep dogs at your place well into the night – that is prima facie evidence that you fuck dogs! Dogfucker!” What is your reason to suspect dogfucking. This case is more like finding dogshit covered condoms containing your semen and dogs with prolapsed rectums and accusing you of fucking dogs up the ass. > [@](#): > > You say you understand burden of proof, but then you don’t understand why people aren’t “proving you wrong” outside a confession, and you don’t seem to understand why your “3 to 1” disparity is such weak evidence. You say you understand the problems of correlation vs. causation, but then you commit those very same fallacies. You say you aren’t alleging anything, but then go on to do just that. I think that burden of proof was met with the Espenshade study. You seem to be the only one (along with brickbacon) who thinks that a 3 to 1 disparity is weak evidence. Itsw almost as if you think that correlation and causation are mutally exclusive. What if I told you that people who consumed a product was 3 times more likely to get cancer and the manufacturer of the product told you that there were other variables that were not being considered but didn’t tell you how those other variables explained away this disparity. Then, I told you that the manufacturer in question had made the same claims 20 yearas ago about another product whereh they eventually admitted the causal link between their product and cancer. You seem to think we should just take the manufacturer’s word for it that it is these other variables that is causing teh cancer (in some unknown way) until you have conclusive proof of the causal link. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099.md?page=7)