I’m not sure what your point is here. I asked you some simple, reasonable questions so that I can understand exactly what your position is.
For example, if the ending of affirmative action at an elite college results in significantly higher Asian enrollment, it is an important piece of evidence the discussion.
And yet you will not say whether you agree that this piece of evidence actually exists. Instead, you state that “Asian admittees don’t necessarily go skyrocketing.” Sort of a non-denial denial.
I’m interested in having an actual discussion – not in playing a game of “hide the ball.”
Again, I’m not sure what your point is. I can accept that (perhaps) from a college’s point of view, the difference between 1550 and 1600 on the SAT’s is not so important compared to other issues, for example extra-curriculars. And I can accept that this is a valid explanation for why an extremely high-scoring Asian student might be rejected even in the absence of racial discrimination. But I don’t see how this issue could account for higher SAT scores among Asians admittees at elite colleges. After all, if a Chinese-American with perfect SATs is rejected from Harvard in favor of Mr. X who has near perfect SATs and good extracurriculars, there is no a priori reason to think that Mr. X is non-Asian.
Anyway, I really would like answers to my questions. They are simple and reasonable and fair.
It also largely depends on how admissions are conducted. If all your school cares about are grades and SATs, then yes, you’ll see higher populations of Asians/Jews/etc assuming they want to go to that particular school. But most top schools don’t admit solely by grades/SATs.
No. There is plenty of proof that smoking causes life expectancy to drop. We have access to more data, more of the variables involved, well-randomized test groups, and plenty of highly-successful prediction models that can explain a vast majority of the variance and reveal significant relations between smoking and damage to health.
Just because you can always point to a nonzero gap in variance doesn’t mean what you can explain suddenly goes out the window. There can always be missing variables. The point is whether or not the variables you do have are sufficient in capturing enough to yield predictive results. There’s a big difference between a model that captures 10% of the variance and one that captures, say, 95%.
Except the common-sense conclusion is not necessarily well-grounded because “common sense” would tell most people that higher test scores always = higher chance of admission, when this is not the case.
Diminishing marginal utility = the gains with each increase matter less and less. The “gain” in admissions chances is greater between a 2000 and a 2100 versus a 2300 and a 2400. This also makes sense because of the way the test is curved. At the upper end, the slightest mistakes can tank your score. As you get lower and lower on the chain, mistakes are easier to absorb without the same loss in score. It’s curved.
The point being made here is that for top schools, the fact that Asians have higher scores doesn’t necessarily mean much. The marginal gains are tiny, so it doesn’t make much sense to just naively hold SAT levels constant and compare admission rates between races. You’ll get really misleading results that way that in no way necessarily imply anti-Asian discrimination. It just means the extra points Asians get on the SAT don’t help their chances all that much when both Asians and whites alike have great scores. Admissions officers aren’t going to split hairs over the difference.
Not necessarily. But that still doesn’t imply anti-Asian discrimination.
For instance, if I am a white person in a largely Asian population, I could be of similar socioeconomic status but have an easier time with admissions because I’m on the under-represented side from a less-diverse region. That would be a homogenous trend selected against for the sake of diversity.
Homogenous in terms of any trend you could lace through a particular race or any other clustered metric for that matter.
Already answered this like 2-3 times.
No.
This is the BBQ Pit. You’re supposed to call each other names here, twat.
You’re quibbling over a simple yes/no while claiming to want to understand the position more. It would have been misleading to say “no, that’s pretty much not it” because it implies that your answer was wrong. It wasn’t wrong, it was just incomplete. That’s why I said “Sort of/yes and no” and gave more detail which is by no means evasion and you’d have to be a pretty thickskulled fuckup to think that.
Well do you agree that according to this study, Asian enrollment went from 1277 to 1632 at the University of California at Berekley around the years that (public) affirmative action was banned in California (an increase of 27%) while at the same time, the total number of slots increased by only 9%?
If so, are you claiming that the study is flat out wrong? Or are you claiming that a 27% increase in Asian students during a period when enrollment increased by 9% is not significant?
So if all we had were (1) epidemilogical studies which showed that smokers had significantly shorter life expectancies; (2) studies which showed that those who quit smoking enjoyed increased life expectancies; and (3) knowledge that cigarette smoke contains harmful chemicals, you would not accept that the most likely explanation is that smoking in fact causes harm to one’s body, resulting in a reduction in life expectancy?
If you have a choice between (1) explanation A which is supported by Occam’s Razor and common sense; and (2) explanation B which is not supported by Occam’s Razor or common sense, which (if any) would you choose?
Well do you agree that Asians have higher SAT scores than other (major) groups at all levels and not just at the very top?
And that would be intentional racial discrimination by any reasonable definition of “intentional” “racial” and “discrimination.” You are getting more favorable treatment specifically because of your race.
Please quote yourself where you believe you answered it. TIA.
And yet you have many posts responding to me which are insult-free.
You could have easily communicated that in a non-misleading, non-evasive manner.
In post #135, I asked the following:
You could have easily said “Yes it does, it also includes X” But you chose not to. Your response did not contain a yes or no. Your response was evasive. And you still continue to be evasive.
If “acting like a moron” means “pointing out the flaws in FixMyIgnorance’s position,” then yes.
Suit yourself, but if you really want to learn something, you might try answering my questions. It might just lead you to realize that your position is flawed and help make you less ignorant.
And I would add that you are engaging in almost EXACTLY the sort of behavior you decried in the ATMB thread you started. In that thread, you complained about posters who simply ignore evidence which contradicts their position.
So now, I post a link to a study which shows a substantial increase in Asian enrollment at UC Berekley right after affirmative action is banned there. This is obviously important evidence in this discussion. And your response?
Unless you concede this point here and prove to me that you’re capable of backing down on a point you are retardedly wrong about, we have nothing further to discuss. There’s no point in arguing back against your other points if you’re not able to handle something as simple as this. If you wish to have a reasonable debate, it’s not possible if you’re going to be an unreasonable person.
From what I can gather, he is saying that you can’t make the claim until you eliminated all possible alternative explanations and there are sufficent vairables that another explanation could reasonably exist so that makes you a crackpot.
Well, thats the analogy I presented earlier but it didn’t take the first time. Apparently, it was a horrible analogy that makes no sense to anyone but me.
The real answer is there are too many of qualified Asians and if they put whites on an even playing field with Asians, they would have a student body that more looks like Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, or Berkeley than Princeton, Harvard or Yale.
What they have been trying very hard to avoid saying is that they think Asian applicants are homogenous one dimensional group of applicants who have nothing to offer colleges but high grades and SAT scores (which they got only got because they are the only people in the country who have access to Princteon Review). They also all have the same long list of extracurriculars and interests. IOW, they all look alike.
Starting?
The notion is that non-Asians that score 1550 on the SATs are much more likely to have better extracurriculars because they are real and interesting individuals who happen to get 1550 on their SATs while Asians are more likely to have had lives engineered from birth to score well on the SATs but have nothing else going for them. At least that seems to be the implication.
Apparently its because well qualified whites stopped applying to Berkeley because they saw it as an Asian school so even as the applicant pool between whites and Asians increased at comparable rates during those years, the pool of white applicants was worse because the really good white students didn’t apply there.
I hope you are ready for a screed on correlation vs. causation because apparently one never has any bearing on the other.
Depends on which explanation he liked before the evidence was presented to him.
Well, THATS your problem right there. The evidence always supports FMI’s beliefs. He knows this before he has even seen the evidence. THATS how strong his beliefs are.
Well, you’re wrong. I mean it is sort of amusing you’re now possibly the greatest threat to human existence. But this is not a good place. Speaking as a really, really old poster that hates what a hell in a hand basket our little world has become, I deeply dislike this new-fangled notion of omnibus Pit threads. I am sick and tired of these old threads being dredged up to rehash old, stale vitriol, when we should have shiny and fresh vitriol each and every time.
Back in my day people started fresh Pit threads for each new pitting experience! You didn’t even start this one! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
I just can’t help it. Every post, every word even, just exudes danger, and I CAN’T STOP WON’T STOP! Look at –> this <–… is that not the most dangerous “this” you’ve ever seen? Better watch out!
I can’t say I disagree. iiandyiiii displays a narcissistic style of advocacy which disregards concerns of other disadvantaged groups who don’t align with his prejudices. As a recent example, his participation in a thread that included Huey Freeman ridiculing much of the autistic spectrum as the new great white hope hoisted by its own petard shows us where his priorities are. The question is what can’t Huey get away with with someone like this beyond offending the obvious classes. That is why I treat him (andy) like a young child and never attempt to reason with him.
Or consider his thread last year on transgender folks in the military. He said banning them from service is dangerous for national security. I respect that opinion. But where in the several pages of that thread was any mention on behalf of all the people who have minor physical or mental flaws who are still often capable yet discriminated against and not permitted to serve? He wants the military to be inclusive as possible. I’ll eat my hat if he has ever made a single post in his history here about those folks!
