# Harvard and Princeton Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636 "2012-02-03T06:06:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/182 "2012-02-09T20:22:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > :smack: > > WTF!?! > > So significant disparities based on obective critieria is “absolutely no evidence” > > And vague references to how race is a proxy (stereotyping) and how Asians are actually less interesting and stuff than white applicants is evidence that shouldn’t be ignored? > > I’ve asked you before if you think the “evidence” you have presented accounts for the signficant disparities and you respond by refusing to admit taht SAT scores and GPAS are valid metric to make comparisons. :dubious: > > So tell me. Based on your experience as an ivy league student. Did you notice the social retardadion of teh Asian students? Were they boring enough to jstuify the 3 to one preference for white students over Asian students? > > I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said it did. No, I’m saying “objective disparities” don’t mean it is necessarily anti-Asian discrimination when there are multiple possible sources for the disparity. You keep looking at this thing as an extremely black/white issue. GPA and SAT are valuable metrics, but only up until a certain point. They have to be assessed in context. SAT score drops are hyper-sensitive towards the upper end. And I’m not really putting words in your mouth. You’re pointing to a diversification objective and saying it’s anti-Asian discrimination/bigotry. The fact that you keep bringing up this “3 to one preference for white students over Asian students” thing indicates that you aren’t really listening to the counter-points, here. It was already explained why this is a misleading way to look at things. ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/183 "2012-02-09T20:42:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So tell me. Based on your experience as an ivy league student. Did you notice the social retardadion of teh Asian students? Were they boring enough to jstuify the 3 to one preference for white students over Asian students? In my experience the only students who weren’t as broadly social as others were Asian international students, but that was because of the language barrier, not because of any personality fault. And many of them were still active in organizations that catered to them (Asian student organizations and churches for example). ---
**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 9, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/184 "2012-02-09T21:02:22Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Is this really that complicated for you? I don’t know if I’m just being dense, Youa re being dense, I am having trouble understanding you or you are having trouble understanding me. Can someone else try to summarize Brickbacon’s argument and how he addresses the SAT gap and how he addresses the fact that white students are three times as likely to be admitted as an asian student with the same GPA/SAT. Is his explanation satisfying? I feel like (a) we’re talking past each other, (b) one of us doesn’t see how weakt their argument is or (c) one of us doesn’t appreciate the argument the other side is making. > [@](#): > > Schools that don’t discriminate against Asians. Or, knowing that most do in your opinion, you can decline to use college as a filter. So I should accomodate the discrimination rather than complain about it? Its not easy to correct for discrimination that occurs before college because the end products are different than the raw materials. [quote] You have not proved there is discrimination against Asians.[/quotr] What would convince you of this discrimination short of a confession by the colleges themselves. > [@](#): > > I did hazard a guess. I would not be surprised if many Whites thought the two schools in question were becoming too Asian. Then why do white applications seem to track Asian applciations over the last 20 years? > [@](#): > > it makes me wonder why you support affirmative action given that you seem to think under-represented minority literally cannot compete. So much so that you have to use a completely different pool of spots. I don’t think they can compete in the admissions process. I think they can keep up once they are admitted. > [@](#): > > Not particularly. I can understand how people are wary to use race to discriminate, as it’s been used for evil far too many times, but I think the principle is basically the same., Assuming one’s motives are pure, and the metric is used in a positive sense, I don’t see the problem. I keep getting turned around by your argument. Sometimes it sounds like youare saying that there is discrimiantion going on but that race is being used as a proxy for some other characteristics and other times it seems like youa re denying that discrimiantion is occurring at all. > [@](#): > > No, I am not. That said, this one case is sour grapes. Can you admit that? No, unless you are saying that any lawsuit like this is sour grapes, I don’t see how you canundercut the legitimacy of the claims by saying “sour grapes” > [@](#): > > The two pieces of info you are resting your opinion on are largely in opposition. So I don’t see how you can pretend like both papers are true. The first says Asians are discriminated against because of affirmative action. The second claims it’s mostly negative action. Which supposition do you support? The second. They are not in opposition so much as the second presents an alternative (and IMO better explanation of the data). I am not concerned about racial preferences for underrepresented minorities. I am concerned about (non-malicious) discrimination against Asians. You asked earlier what the difference is between affirmative action and race blind. Affirmative action gives a preference to underrepresented minorities. Race blind removes all race indicators in an application. I would be OK with a race blind admissions process that permitted race identification for underrepresented minorities. When you go from a system that favors underrepresented minorities and handicaps Asians then getting rid of all race indicators will raise the Asian population while lowering the population of underrepresented minorities. but the two don’t have to hang together. you can preference underrepresented minorities without handicapping Asians and vice versa. > [@](#): > > Wow. Your paper on negative action is largely based on this discrepancy. That why they care claiming there is negative action. To quote: I don’t think the article says what you think it says. Are you talking about the Kidder article? I suggest you read it again. the Kidder article quotes those stats from teh Espenshade article to say he agrees that Asians are discriminated against but that Espenshades attribution of this disparity to affirmative action is wrong. It is largely a semantic disagreement. Espenshade calls the dsicrimination against Asians “affirmative action” along with preferencing of underrepresented minorities while Kidder says that they are distinct phenomena that shouldn’t be aggregated because it allows the opponents of affirmative action to connect a harm to another minority to the preference towards underrepresented minorities when the two are distinct and separable phenomena. > [@](#): > > The model predicted 3,141, the saw 2,369. That failure is why they say there is negative action. So, you can argue the model was right, and there is negative action. Or you can reject the model. Given that is seems to suck at predicting things, and because the metrics they used were woefully inadequate, I think rejecting the model is more appropriate. Especially since it’s hard to imagine how a **race-blind** admissions policy still somehow manages to discriminate against one race. I don’t think that they are talking about different years, I think theya re talking about yearas under which the regression was performed. They are citing two numbers from table two of the Espenshade article that compared how many students were actually admitted WITHOUT the race blind rules and how many WOULD HAVE BEEN admitted under a race blind scenario. Page 299 of the Social Science Quarterly volume 86 number 2. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/185 "2012-02-09T21:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Can someone else try to summarize Brickbacon’s argument and how he addresses the SAT gap and how he addresses the fact that white students are three times as likely to be admitted as an asian student with the same GPA/SAT. It would be like looking at two pools of applicants and then exclaiming, “Look! This group was admitted at a 3 to 1 ratio to this group, and notice how they all play tennis! Tennis makes you three times more likely to be admitted!” Again, the SAT doesn’t help your chances much past a certain point, and it’s only _part_ of the entire application. You can’t just take any attribute you want, naively compare frequencies, and conclude something after the fact about chances. It’s a similar fallacy to looking at a school’s X% admission rate and assuming that means you have an X% chance of getting in. More generally, you need to look at statistics in context, always. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/186 "2012-02-09T21:41:54Z")
> [@](#): > > I keep getting turned around by your argument. Sometimes it sounds like youare saying that there is discrimiantion going on but that race is being used as a proxy for some other characteristics and other times it seems like youa re denying that discrimiantion is occurring at all. Let’s get down to brass tacks, here: Selective schools don’t have many spots. Many, many applicants of all races are going to get canned. Tons of \*unqualified \*people from all races will get rejected. A sizable chunk of \*qualified \*people from all races will get rejected. Chances are tough for _everyone_ and, pragmatically speaking, quibbling over a few striations of difference among admitted applicants, mathematically, is negligible. In the end, the prioritization on diversity inherently means you will get a smaller frequency of certain clusters by definition. Yes, on a by-race basis, some races will have more of a mathematical burden than others in terms of raw ratios alone with respect to whatever sub-metric you choose. But is this anti-Asian discrimination? No. Does this mean Asians will have a tougher time getting admitted? Possibly, but it’s marginal, and yet not the result of anti-Asian discrimination. Anti-Asian discrimination would mean that an applicant is rejected solely because they are Asian. There is no evidence to suggest this. It’s just that many people are confused by the application process and don’t understand how a 2150-SAT 3.8 GPA black male can gain admission over a 2380-SAT 4.0 GPA Asian male. The latter guy may claim that there’s no reason he should have been denied admission because his application has stronger numbers over the former guy’s. The underlying reason here is that admissions _are not objective_ and adcoms don’t care much about a few extra points on a test. And they shouldn’t, because comparing students by GPA and SAT alone is not useful in promoting a campus of diverse skills and abilities. A vast majority of admitted applicants already have great scores/grades and it’s practically taken as a given. There is reason to help the financially disadvantaged over the advantaged. There is reason to promote different students of different skillsets. There is reason to promote racial diversity. Are the methods in place – the ones that respond to these pressures – infallibly perfect? No. But it’s the result of an attempt to admit people from all walks of life who show academic prowess and have something great to contribute. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/187 "2012-02-10T06:24:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Can someone else try to summarize Brickbacon’s argument and how he addresses the SAT gap and how he addresses the fact that white students are three times as likely to be admitted as an asian student with the same GPA/SAT. Ok, let me make this as clear as possible. The 3-1 disparity was a stat measured by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford when they looked at students applying to schools in 1997. The disparity was based on the following the differing acceptance rates when students with equal scores were compared. So far so good? To quote them: > [@](#): > > They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans. This means that if you took an White guy with a score of 1400, he was 3 times more likely to get into the school as an Asian kid with that score. They go one step further, saying that that in order for the Asian to have the same chance of getting in, she would have to have an SAT score 140 points higher. Now, here is the problem with that. They assume a _quantitative_ difference (140 points) translated to a _qualitative_ difference in the eyes of the school. This may or may not be the case. To pick an easy hypothetical. If we assume that a scores of 1350 or above are all given the same weight, then those extra points Asian applicants might have are meaningless wrt to admission. I suspect the situation is more complicated than my example, but the objection obtains. Next, they used data from thousands of students applying to multiple schools. To quote: > [@](#): > > Using a database of 45,500 freshmen applications to the 1997 entering class at three of the most selective research universities in America, Espenshade and Chung set out to answer this key research question: “First, what is the impact of affirmative action on the profile of students admitted to elite universities? In other words, who gains and who loses as a result of admission preferences for underrepresented minority students?”27 Espenshade and Chung test this research question by employing a logistic regression model to predict a probability of admission28, first confirming that their simulation was in close agreement with the actual admission decisions made at the three institutions Each institution likely has it’s own admissions criteria. The issue is that there doesn’t appear to be any differentiation for the relative weight each school gives each metric. For example, all schools may reject a student, but they may do so for different reasons. It’s possible to control for much of that, but it becomes extremely difficult when you are only differentiating using a small set of what are, in actuality, a large set of relevant criteria. That brings us to the next problem. According to the paper about negative action against Asians (Kidder), the following criteria were used in the Espenshade study: > [@](#): > > Espenshade and Chung’s logistic regression model included the following predictor variables: sex, citizenship status, SAT scores, race/ethnicity, recruited athlete status and legacy status (i.e., a plus factor for relatives of alumni). Hardly a comprehensive list. Even Kidder acknowledges this: > [@](#): > > While Espenshade and Chung did not control for every variable that an admissions office might take into account (e.g., a plus factor for students from rural backgrounds),… Now with so few variables being measured, it’s pretty clear that the model will be far more crude than it should be. Even so, you might say that if there seems to be a clear relationship between the model and the admissions results, there must have stumbled upon some truth. The problem with that they were constructing a model to match data for **one year** that they already had. This is the equivalent of tracing a drawing. They were, as I stated before, predicting the past. Alone, such a model has little value. The real test comes when you project into the future. Their model when used to project the fall out of going race-blind, or in the case below, post-affirmative action was wildly off the mark, hence the negative action hypothesis by Kidder. That said, the next year comes and we have a chance to see how predictive Espenshade’s model is: > [@](#): > > Table 1 displays pre and post-affirmative action enrollment percentages for APAs at five highly selective law schools between 1993 and 2005: UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, University of Washington, and the University of Texas. I am unaware of any credible evidence indicating that these public law schools practiced negative action against APAs in 1993–96, prior to affirmative action bans. **Note then the marked contrast between the real data and the “yellow peril” prediction made by Espenshade and Chung.** APA enrollments actually declined at UCLA (from 19.4% to 18.1%) and at Washington (from 17.8% to 15.2%). APA enrollments increased somewhat at Boalt Hall (from 15.5% to 17.9%) and UC Davis (from 17.1% to 20.6%) and increased marginally at University of Texas (from 5.7% to 6.3%). Across the five schools, APAs were 12.9% of the student body with affirmative action and 14.3% without affirmative action. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So I should accomodate the discrimination rather than complain about it? Its not easy to correct for discrimination that occurs before college because the end products are different than the raw materials. You are accommodating the discrimination. By treating a Harvard diploma, as if the students they select are truly the best of the best, is accommodating them. Seeing as you believe voluntary, systemic discrimination results in elite universities having inferior entering classes, the correct response would have been one of two things. First, you could have said that despite their discriminatory admissions polices, they do the best job training and educating students, so that even if students didn’t go in as the most qualified people, they emerge that way. Second, you could have acknowledged that systemic discrimination and preference is given in such a way that makes college admissions a decision largely divorced from qualitative judgements, and as such, I am going to decline to use it as an employment filter. Your answer seems to be, well I rely on them to filter for me, and even though I know they do a bad job doing that, I don’t really feel like bothering to question their judgement because it means extra work for me. Sorry, I think that’s a cop out given your strong stance against what you see as blatant discrimination. Furthermore, given that you see (at the very least) a small practical or qualitative difference between who Harvard would have admitted over who they should have admitted, I don’t know why you condemn Harvard for taking the same stance. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What would convince you of this discrimination short of a confession by the colleges themselves. A smoking gun of some sort. I don’t want to speculate too much, but if such discrimination occurs at multiple universities, with dozens of people, all consciously steering towards a certain result, and engaging in what would likely be illegal, I would think someone would have broken ranks by now. If for no other reason than there might be a substantial financial award for doing so. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then why do white applications seem to track Asian applciations over the last 20 years? They didn’t over that entire time. > [@](#): > > Because it is the most popular campus, UC Berkeley admits the lowest percentage of freshman applicants-currently about 40 percent-compared with 49 percent at UCLA, 64 percent at San Diego and larger percentages at Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Riverside and Santa Cruz. Of 20,814 applicants for last fall’s Berkeley freshman class, 8,419 were admitted and 3,344 actually enrolled. (Students usually apply simultaneously to several campuses, both within and outside the UC system.) > > **A 40-percent drop in white applicants over the past decade helped ease the pressure, but that may have ended.** White freshman applicants for next fall increased ten percent-part of an 8.6 percent increase overall in freshman applicants who want to enroll at Berkeley. “That means 14,000 applicants (almost all of them UC-eligible) must be rejected,” said Admissions Director Bob Laird. Now, they have climbed in recent years, tracking Asian increases more closely, but that alone would not be particular relevant if we don’t know the demographic trends to ascertain the number of students who could apply. Given that Whites outnumber Asians in raw numbers by a lot, you would think the number of applications would be higher. Looking at the raw data, you can see that they weren’t. That said, given what we see in models of racial segregation wrt to housing and other things (eg. Schelling segregation model) I would not be surprised to see anti-Asian biases dampening the numbers of White applications to predominately Asian schools. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think they can compete in the admissions process. I think they can keep up once they are admitted. Why? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I keep getting turned around by your argument. Sometimes it sounds like youare saying that there is discrimiantion going on but that race is being used as a proxy for some other characteristics and other times it seems like youa re denying that discrimiantion is occurring at all. Discrimination is being used. If in no other case, it’s being used in affirmative action. In those cases, and probably some others, race can be effectively used as a proxy for other germane criteria. I don’t think there is compelling evidence to say that Asians are being discriminated against solely because they are Asian. While the data may appear that way, I think that’s largely because we make unsubstantiated assumptions. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, unless you are saying that any lawsuit like this is sour grapes, I don’t see how you canundercut the legitimacy of the claims by saying “sour grapes” I explained to you why it’s sour grapes. In short, if we are to assume, as Li is, that he was rejected because he was Asian, we have to assume he was passed over by less qualified minorities, but no more qualified Asians. Given that the basis for that belief is his superior scores, scores that were almost assuredly superior to many minorities admitted to Princeton, we have to confront that fact that his scores also almost assuredly greater than other Asians admitted. He was such an outlier score-wise that using them solely as a basis for comparison puts him at odds with everyone admitted regardless of race. So to assume that was the rationale for his rejection is foolish. Especially since he was rejected from 5 other schools, yet only sued one. To [quote] ([http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/11/13/16544/](http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/11/13/16544/)) some peers of his: > [@](#): > > Princeton students from Li’s high school, Livingston High School, in Livingston, N.J., argued that the complaint was unnecessary. > > “ **I think it’s absolutely ludicrous, considering that in the past few years the people that my high school has sent to Princeton are 50 percent Asian,** ” Chen Zhang '08 said. “I think it’s ridiculous.” > > Angela Wu '10, one of Li’s high school classmates who read the Journal story over the weekend, agreed. “ **I think it’s completely unwarranted** ,” she said. > > Li and Wu both emigrated from China to the United States when they were four and attended the same high school. While Wu was admitted to the University, however, Li was not. > > “ **You could basically replace my name in the sentence, and I did come to Princeton,** ” Wu said. “ **That’s what really struck me when I read it**.” > > Carra Glatt '09, who also attended high school with Li, said he contacted her over the summer as he was collecting GPA and SAT scores from fellow high school students. Li told her that he intended to use the information to show discrimination had taken place, but Glatt refused to provide the data. > > “ **I felt like it just played into the idea that all that mattered in the process was SAT scores and GPAs, and I felt that that wasn’t accurate in my case," Glatt said. "I didn’t want to perpetuate that idea**.” > > Glatt said that while she understands Li’s concerns, she disagrees with his reasoning. “ **I think the approach he is taking to assume that he is entitled to admission to a particular school is inherently flawed. I don’t think on an individual level he was discriminated against.** ” Seems pretty clear cut to me. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The second. They are not in opposition so much as the second presents an alternative (and IMO better explanation of the data). I am not concerned about racial preferences for underrepresented minorities. I am concerned about (non-malicious) discrimination against Asians. First, they are in opposition. Second, how does non-malicious discrimination against Asians occur with race-blind and post-affirmative action school admissions? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think the article says what you think it says. Are you talking about the Kidder article? I suggest you read it again. the Kidder article quotes those stats from teh Espenshade article to say he agrees that Asians are discriminated against but that Espenshades attribution of this disparity to affirmative action is wrong. Correct. But he only comes to this conclusion by comparing race-blind vs. pre-post affirmative action schools. Here are my problem with his assumptions. One is he estimates using data he doesn’t have: > [@](#): > > Chart 2 provides ballpark estimates of what the results would look like if Espenshade and Chung had separately estimated the effects of ending negative action and affirmative action (I say “ballpark” because the dataset is not yet publicly available). Second, he makes a large, unsubstantiated claim that no negative action occurred at the law schools he uses as a natural experiment: > [@](#): > > I am unaware of any credible evidence indicating that these public law schools practiced negative action against APAs in 1993–96, prior to affirmative action bans. He also makes the assumption that the two cohorts (undergraduate and law students) are identical in terms of race and qualifications. There is also the fact that some of the law schools he cited were in CA, where the race-blind criteria would presumably apply, meaning he wasn’t comparing race-blind to post-AA. Lastly, I don’t see an explanation of the mechanism by which Asians are discriminated against in post-affirmative action schools, but not race-blind schools. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think that they are talking about different years… You are correct. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/188 "2012-02-10T14:12:33Z")
Great post, brickbacon. ---
**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 10, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/189 "2012-02-10T19:51:00Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > It would be like looking at two pools of applicants and then exclaiming, “Look! This group was admitted at a 3 to 1 ratio to this group, and notice how they all play tennis! Tennis makes you three times more likely to be admitted!” > > Again, the SAT doesn’t help your chances much past a certain point, and it’s only _part_ of the entire application. You can’t just take any attribute you want, naively compare frequencies, and conclude something after the fact about chances. > > It’s a similar fallacy to looking at a school’s X% admission rate and assuming that means you have an X% chance of getting in. > > More generally, you need to look at statistics in context, always. I’ve given you one peer reviewed study and a law journal article that say you are full of shit. You have given me your interpretation of how the admissions process works. If playing tennis made you three times more likely to be accepted into a top school versus similarly credentialed non-tennis players year after year after year, I would say that the school selects for tennis players or against non-tennis players. Similarly if being white made you three times more like to be accepted over Asians with similar credentials, I would say that the school selects for whites or against Asians. You just keep saying the same things and they didn’t make sense the first time you said them and they don’t make sense now. ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/190 "2012-02-10T20:02:34Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Chances are tough for _everyone_ and, pragmatically speaking, quibbling over a few striations of difference among admitted applicants, mathematically, is negligible. A 3 to 1 advantage is mathematically negligible? > [@](#): > > But is this anti-Asian discrimination? No. Does this mean Asians will have a tougher time getting admitted? Possibly, but it’s marginal, and yet not the result of anti-Asian discrimination. You keep stating this but provide no support other than you half baked theories about how the admissions process works. I provide a peer reviewed study that says that you are wrong and i am correct (actually I am just repeating what was stated in the study, so I am agreeing with the study rather than the other way around). > [@](#): > > Anti-Asian discrimination would mean that an applicant is rejected solely because they are Asian. There is no evidence to suggest this. :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack: Why do I even bother providing cites? > [@](#): > > It’s just that many people are confused by the application process and don’t understand how a 2150-SAT 3.8 GPA black male can gain admission over a 2380-SAT 4.0 GPA Asian male. I’m not talking about a black guy versus an asian guy. i can understand affirmative action. I have no problem with it. > [@](#): > > The underlying reason here is that admissions _are not objective_ Thats right and i’m saying that they are subjective in a way that discrimiantes against Asians because top schools feel they already have too many. > [@](#): > > There is reason to help the financially disadvantaged over the advantaged. There is reason to promote different students of different skillsets. There is reason to promote racial diversity. Are the methods in place – the ones that respond to these pressures – infallibly perfect? No. But it’s the result of an attempt to admit people from all walks of life who show academic prowess and have something great to contribute. And in what way does selecting against Asians promote racial diversity? I’ve asked you several times before but in what way have you found the Asian population at your school to be deficient in some way compared to whites (other than the fact that they are Asian)? Does it really bother you that much to acknowledge that others faced an higher burden than you did to get into the same schoolas you? This is starting to get pointless. I provide cites and stuies and articles and you simply ignore them and state that its not discrimination. This is getting very discouraging. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/191 "2012-02-10T20:21:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’ve given you one peer reviewed study and a law journal article that say you are full of shit. You have given me your interpretation of how the admissions process works. > > If playing tennis made you three times more likely to be accepted into a top school versus similarly credentialed non-tennis players year after year after year, I would say that the school selects for tennis players or against non-tennis players. Similarly if being white made you three times more like to be accepted over Asians with similar credentials, I would say that the school selects for whites or against Asians. > > You just keep saying the same things and they didn’t make sense the first time you said them and they don’t make sense now. No, your analysis is still flawed. You missed the point of the analogy and exposed your same error again: You have absolutely no idea whether or not tennis is what got them in or how important tennis was. It’s a fallacy of data mining. You’re simply looking for an attribute that crops up more often and then assuming that attribute was used in the judgment process in a more profound way than it actually was. **A more obvious example – if you don’t understand it this time, so help you** : Let’s say I want to hire people on a team. I hire people who have dark skin – my goal is dark skin only. I hire many black people, and maybe a few dark-skinned asians/whites/etc. You decide to look at the data. You notice that 95% of the applicants have brown eyes and 5% have green or blue eyes. You erroneously conclude that I am selecting against people with light eyes and claim that if your eyes were dark, your chances would improve multiple times over. The reality: When news of this gets out and many light-skinned people with dark eyes apply, they find that they get rejected just the same. Do you see, from this example, why your conclusion is not necessarily compelling? You’re assuming that the SAT is tied closely to chances when it’s not the integral part of the application – it just happens to be a byproduct. Asians have higher SAT scores on average compared to whites, but the SAT stops mattering after a particular threshold anyway. As denoted earlier, even at the 25th percentile at Harvard, a 2100 is still 95th+ of the nation. EVERYONE has a high SAT score, and they aren’t going to bother splitting hairs for higher levels of SAT scores where the variances become less stable anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/192 "2012-02-10T20:32:33Z")
How can the schools be discriminating based on race if they don’t know the races of their applicants? Are they figuring it out based on language skills or names? Or is the difference based on other factors that happen to correlate with race? Like hypothetically whites play tennis more often and asians play violin more often, and the school values tennis playing more than violin playing. (Sorry if someone already answered this and I missed it as I skimmed the thread.) ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/193 "2012-02-10T20:39:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > A 3 to 1 advantage is mathematically negligible? It’s not a three to one advantage, dude. Will you at least acknowledge the reasons put forth against you here so that we know you’re not just ignoring things and repeating the same point over and over again? Whites do not have a 3-to-1 advantage over Asians; your metric of comparison is erroneous for reasons already stated, very clearly. Concede the point or at least admit you don’t understand the counter-reasoning so I can explain it a different way to address the confusion. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats right and i’m saying that they are subjective in a way that discrimiantes against Asians because top schools feel they already have too many. And I am saying that just because there are subjective components to the admissions process, that doesn’t mean you suddenly have proof that there is anti-Asian discrimination. You have yet to prove this. Pointing to a data-mined 3-to-1 metric via SAT is not compelling evidence. It’s been explained time and time again why that comparison is flawed. I think the reality is that people dislike the idea that admissions is subjective. They _want_ the SAT to be weighed highly because it’s a simple metric. People think that by achieving a score few others achieve, it means you should get admissions to schools few others get into. However, this doesn’t translate into the optimal type of student body. This is why the SAT stops mattering past a certain point. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’ve asked you several times before but in what way have you found the Asian population at your school to be deficient in some way compared to whites (other than the fact that they are Asian)? They’re not. Most people at Harvard are honestly very intelligent, and many are very interesting. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Does it really bother you that much to acknowledge that others faced an higher burden than you did to get into the same schoolas you? I came from a very, very, very disadvantaged background. I had plenty of burdens to overcome. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is starting to get pointless. I provide cites and stuies and articles and you simply ignore them and state that its not discrimination. This is getting very discouraging. The studies and articles aren’t being ignored. You’re ignoring the responses to your points which leverage fallacious reasoning. It’s getting discouraging because you aren’t acknowledging the responses. You’re assuming anti-Asian discrimination where no direct evidence of this exists. You don’t seem to understand why your evidence is not compelling support, and I think that may be the problem, here. > [@Pleonast](#): > > How can the schools be discriminating based on race if they don’t know the races of their applicants? Are they figuring it out based on language skills or names? > > Or is the difference based on other factors that happen to correlate with race? Like hypothetically whites play tennis more often and asians play violin more often, and the school values tennis playing more than violin playing. > > (Sorry if someone already answered this and I missed it as I skimmed the thread.) You can mark your race on the application. However, there are instances where you can decline to submit. ---
**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 10, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/194 "2012-02-10T21:15:35Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Ok, let me make this as clear as possible. The 3-1 disparity was a stat measured by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford when they looked at students applying to schools in 1997. The disparity was based on the following the differing acceptance rates when students with equal scores were compared. So far so good? Yep, I get it, not every conceivable variable was considered in the study. We’re on the same page so far. > [@](#): > > This means that if you took an White guy with a score of 1400, he was 3 times more likely to get into the school as an Asian kid with that score. They go one step further, saying that that in order for the Asian to have the same chance of getting in, she would have to have an SAT score 140 points higher. > > Now, here is the problem with that. They assume a _quantitative_ difference (140 points) translated to a _qualitative_ difference in the eyes of the school. This may or may not be the case. To pick an easy hypothetical. If we assume that a scores of 1350 or above are all given the same weight, then those extra points Asian applicants might have are meaningless wrt to admission. I suspect the situation is more complicated than my example, but the objection obtains. OK so what you are saying is that at the high end higher SAT scores don’t really help very much anymore. That the marginal utility of high SAT scores drop as you approach 2400? Can you present any evidence for this position because the Espenshade study shows that SAT scores impact acceptance rates right up to 2400. > [@](#): > > Hardly a comprehensive list. Even Kidder acknowledges this: I think everyone ackowledges this. You seem to think that the failure to account for all variables make conclusions invalid in this arena. Social scientists are fairly comfortable reaching pretty firm conclusions based on a limited number of vectors. This isn’t math, this is social science. You can reach conclusions despite the fact that every human being is a snowflake. > [@](#): > > The problem with that they were constructing a model to match data for **one year** that they already had. All regression analysis is done this way. Are you saying that regression analysis is invalid? That you can’t reach conclusions based on regressions? > [@](#): > > The real test comes when you project into the future. Their model when used to project the fall out of going race-blind, or in the case below, post-affirmative action was wildly off the mark, hence the negative action hypothesis by Kidder. I think you are missing the fact that Kidder is comparing law schools to colleges. Law schools don’t have the same sort of white/Asian disparity that Espenshade was talking about at the college level. They do this by year and having been on admissions committee, they do it by race as well. The disparity between whites and asians aren’t as pronounced in law school as they are at the college level to begin with and frankly the disparity didn’t start to show up until Asian law school population started to rise. You can find grids for every top law school with GPA along one axis and LSAT scores along another axis and your LSAT score and GPA are higly predictive of your chances of entry. The kidder article was in response to an attempt to piggyback the discrimination against Asians shown at the college level to gather support for eliminating affirmative action at the law school level so it was relevant to their discussion but it is comparing apples to oranges because you won’t see the same sort of disparities in law school as you do at the college level. > [@](#): > > First, you could have said that despite their discriminatory admissions polices, they do the best job training and educating students, so that even if students didn’t go in as the most qualified people, they emerge that way. I thought that was (in part) what i was saying when i said what goes in is not the same as what comes out. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, given that you see (at the very least) a small practical or qualitative difference between who Harvard would have admitted over who they should have admitted, I don’t know why you condemn Harvard for taking the same stance. Admissions to a top college is one of the corridors along which social mobility occurs. The differences between a 2350 student and a 2250 student might not be enough to present performance differences in the workplace (physical stamina is a lto more important than you would think) but if you are going to say that this avenue for social mobility is going to be three times more available to whties than asians, I am bothered. I’m not marching the streets over this and I wouldn’t sue over this but I can see why someone would. > [@](#): > > I would think someone would have broken ranks by now. If for no other reason than there might be a substantial financial award for doing so. Whistleblowers are not rewarded nearly as often as they should be, in fact they seem to consistently get punished for their efforts. Is there some sort of monetary award for this type of whistleblowing? Back in the 80’s someone leaked documents that showed a bias against Asians at Harvard. Nothing changed. > [@](#): > > They didn’t over that entire time. Since 1994 they seem to have. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there is compelling evidence to say that Asians are being discriminated against solely because they are Asian. While the data may appear that way, I think that’s largely because we make unsubstantiated assumptions. short of a confession by these colleges, what would you consider compelling evidence? > [@](#): > > In short, if we are to assume, as Li is, that he was rejected because he was Asian, we have to assume he was passed over by less qualified minorities, but no more qualified Asians. No we don’t. We have to assume that he would have had a better chance of admission if he wasn’t asian. > [@](#): > > Seems pretty clear cut to me. Yeah I guess their anecdote would be more convincing to you than a peer reviewed study. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > First, they are in opposition. You’re wrong. Kidder agrees that there is discrimination against Asians int he admissions process. Kidder argues that affirmative action isnot the cause of this discrimination. > [@](#): > > Correct. But he only comes to this conclusion by comparing race-blind vs. pre-post affirmative action schools. Here are my problem with his assumptions. One is he estimates using data he doesn’t have: What is a pre-post affirmative action school? > [@](#): > > Second, he makes a large, unsubstantiated claim that no negative action occurred at the law schools he uses as a natural experiment: The disparity in GPA/LSAT doesn’t exist at the law school level like it does at the college level. Its there but its not as dramatic a difference. > [@](#): > > Lastly, I don’t see an explanation of the mechanism by which Asians are discriminated against in post-affirmative action schools, but not race-blind schools. By race. ---
**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 10, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/195 "2012-02-10T21:29:40Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > You’re simply looking for an attribute that crops up more often and then assuming that attribute was used in the judgment process in a more profound way than it actually was. Are you saying that correlation /= causation? You see, thats part of what regression analysis does. I gear you but you keep ignoring the fact taht I am presenting you with a peer reviewed study while you are presenting me with corner cases that might explain this sort of disparity. > [@](#): > > **A more obvious example – if you don’t understand it this time, so help you** : Let’s say I want to hire people on a team. I hire people who have dark skin – my goal is dark skin only. I hire many black people, and maybe a few dark-skinned asians/whites/etc. You decide to look at the data. You notice that 95% of the applicants have brown eyes and 5% have green or blue eyes. You erroneously conclude that I am selecting against people with light eyes and claim that if your eyes were dark, your chances would improve multiple times over. > > The reality: When news of this gets out and many light-skinned people with dark eyes apply, they find that they get rejected just the same. Well unless you’re saying that SATs and GPA are not factors considered in admission I don’t think your analogy is aprticularly useful. And if you corrected your analogy you would have to show that white applicants have some other quality in greater amount to jsutify the disparity in admissions along two other admissions vectors. So lets say break down all admissions criteria into SATs, GPA, athletic ability, legacy status and Other. Your point seems to be that there is enough a difference in Other between the Asian pool of applicants and the white pool of applicants that it justifies a three to one disparity in admissions. So what the fuck is this Other and did you notice this disparity while attneind school because I sure as fuck didn’t. > [@](#): > > Do you see, from this example, why your conclusion is not necessarily compelling? I don’t see how the Espenshade paper is not compelling. I can see how you can make excuses to explain away the disparity with corner cases but in the end, you have to find a large robust difference between the Asian and whtie applicant pool to jsutify the disparity in admission rates. > [@](#): > > EVERYONE has a high SAT score, and they aren’t going to bother splitting hairs for higher levels of SAT scores where the variances become less stable anyway. Then why does high SAT scores above 2100 STILL seem to correlate well with admission rates all the way up to 2400 if they a ren’t splitting these hairs? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/196 "2012-02-10T21:47:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you saying that correlation /= causation? You see, thats part of what regression analysis does. I gear you but you keep ignoring the fact taht I am presenting you with a peer reviewed study while you are presenting me with corner cases that might explain this sort of disparity. Regression analysis doesn’t always give you the whole story. Just because you see two variables go up with each other doesn’t mean you can necessarily draw firm conclusions from it. Consider the example I put up there earlier. If you regressed eye color with admission chances, you’d see absurd relations that gave strong “proof” that eye color was what gets people admitted. But, as I just showed you, in my case I was actually looking at skin color, not eye color. You’d use a strong regression to arrive at an erroneous result. Like I said before, context _matters._ > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well unless you’re saying that SATs and GPA are not factors considered in admission I don’t think your analogy is aprticularly useful. And if you corrected your analogy you would have to show that white applicants have some other quality in greater amount to jsutify the disparity in admissions along two other admissions vectors. > > So lets say break down all admissions criteria into SATs, GPA, athletic ability, legacy status and Other. Your point seems to be that there is enough a difference in Other between the Asian pool of applicants and the white pool of applicants that it justifies a three to one disparity in admissions. So what the fuck is this Other and did you notice this disparity while attneind school because I sure as fuck didn’t. No, they’re factors – they just stop mattering past a certain point due to tail variance (as well as dubious marginal value). The central question over the years has been “What exactly is the SAT measuring?” Admissions officers have been trying to water it down in importance for a while now because it’s not particularly useful for their purposes. And yes, the analogy is useful because it’s revealing the sort of erroneous logic you’re using, here. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then why does high SAT scores above 2100 STILL seem to correlate well with admission rates all the way up to 2400 if they a ren’t splitting these hairs? Again, this is why the analogy is useful. You’re looking at one variable instead of the others that matter that happen to correlate with that variable. It may very well be the case that we see plenty of 2400’s correlate to high admission chances, but it’s not because of the SAT score. It’s because the type of student who has a 2400 also happens to have a great profile everywhere else (grades, EC’s, essays, recs, etc), and THOSE are the factors that really helped get them in. This is the same error Li made. He assumed that high scores/GPA meant he should have a fantastic chance of admission at top schools. But the evidence shows otherwise. You don’t need a perfect GPA or SAT to get in (as evidenced by many of his Asian peers who did get admitted to Princeton) – you need other factors present. ---
**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 10, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/197 "2012-02-10T21:50:25Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > It’s not a three to one advantage, dude. Will you at least acknowledge the reasons put forth against you here so that we know you’re not just ignoring things and repeating the same point over and over again? Whites do not have a 3-to-1 advantage over Asians; your metric of comparison is erroneous for reasons already stated, very clearly. Concede the point or at least admit you don’t understand the counter-reasoning so I can explain it a different way to address the confusion. Stop it. I’ve caveated the 3 to 1 advantage with the language that it is based only on GAP and SAT dozens of times. I recognized that there may be other factors. In fact I have challeneged you several times to tell me what factors would explain the 3 to 1 advantage the white applicant pool have over the asian applicant pool. What great strength does the white applicant pool have at all levels of GPA/SAT over the asian applicant pool that would explain the disparity. You went to one of these schools. Surely if the X factor is so signficant, you would have noticed it in the student body. > [@](#): > > And I am saying that just because there are subjective components to the admissions process, that doesn’t mean you suddenly have proof that there is anti-Asian discrimination. You have yet to prove this. Pointing to a data-mined 3-to-1 metric via SAT is not compelling evidence. It’s been explained time and time again why that comparison is flawed. Dude, I didn’t cherry pick data. Its a peer reviewed study conducted by a professor of sociology from Princeton. Now I’m not saying that this must mean he is right but you keep acting like I am making some baseless comments. So given the controversial nature of this article which was written 7 years ago. Please cite to the studies or articles that say that the discrimiantion against Asians is bullshit. > [@](#): > > They’re not. Most people at Harvard are honestly very intelligent, and many are very interesting. So then what is this mysterious soft factor that results in making Harvard choosing whites over asians with similar SAT and GPA scores by a factor of 3 to 1. > [@](#): > > I came from a very, very, very disadvantaged background. I had plenty of burdens to overcome. and you are three tiems as likely to be admitted as an Asian kid coming from the same background. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming anti-Asian discrimination where no direct evidence of this exists. I’m saying that the evidence presented by the Espenshade srticle provides prima facie proof of discrimiantion and you have to refute it. I don’t have to prove to an ever greater level of certainty that the study is incorrect until you run out of unfounded alternative theories. > [@](#): > > You don’t seem to understand why your evidence is not compelling support, and I think that may be the problem, here. I think the problem is that you don’t feel the need to address the study. At all. At least brickbacon TRIES to address the study. You simply brush it aside with unsupported theories. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/198 "2012-02-10T22:02:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Stop it. I’ve caveated the 3 to 1 advantage with the language that it is based only on GAP and SAT dozens of times. I recognized that there may be other factors. In fact I have challeneged you several times to tell me what factors would explain the 3 to 1 advantage the white applicant pool have over the asian applicant pool. What great strength does the white applicant pool have at all levels of GPA/SAT over the asian applicant pool that would explain the disparity. > > You went to one of these schools. Surely if the X factor is so signficant, you would have noticed it in the student body. You’re committing such a basic misunderstanding of statistics here and I’ve even given you extremely easy, intuitive examples to show you why those kind of analyses do not necessarily lead to the correct conclusions. You need to seriously stop and read what’s being said to you instead of just ignoring it and repeating the same mantra over and over. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So then what is this mysterious soft factor that results in making Harvard choosing whites over asians with similar SAT and GPA scores by a factor of 3 to 1. The “soft factors” are everything else: EC’s, recs, essays, awards, background, etc. You really need to get off this 3-to-1 fallacy, though. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > and you are three tiems as likely to be admitted as an Asian kid coming from the same background. False. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m saying that the evidence presented by the Espenshade srticle provides prima facie proof of discrimiantion and you have to refute it. I don’t have to prove to an ever greater level of certainty that the study is incorrect until you run out of unfounded alternative theories. > > I think the problem is that you don’t feel the need to address the study. At all. At least brickbacon TRIES to address the study. You simply brush it aside with unsupported theories. Your “proof of discrimination” isn’t proof of what you think it is. It’s speculative. I don’t know why you aren’t understanding this. Do you understand how, in my analogy, the stats wouldn’t be “proof of eye color discrimination” even though you could point to all sorts of stats that suggest a 10 to 1 success ratio by eye color? I’m not going to go any further with this until you show that you understand the analogy before we move onto the real thing. As for the specifics of the study there’s nothing I can really add that brickbacon hasn’t already said about it. We’re in full agreement on that front. ---
**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 10, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/199 "2012-02-10T22:19:05Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Regression analysis doesn’t always give you the whole story. Just because you see two variables go up with each other doesn’t mean you can necessarily draw firm conclusions from it. And you think that this Princeton sociology professor has reqached conclusions without considering this? > [@](#): > > Consider the example I put up there earlier. No, its stupid, because you’re just trying to say correlation /= causation in different ways. That there may be something else that correlates to “asian” that explains away the difference in SAT scores. Well what the fuck is it? > [@](#): > > Like I said before, context _matters._ And what context am I missing? You seem to want to muddy the waters to reach a place where you could justify almost anything. This vagueness has made your position unfalsifiable. > [@](#): > > And yes, the analogy is useful because it’s revealing the sort of erroneous logic you’re using, here. At least I’m using SOME form of logic. You seem to keep falling back to "that doesn’t prove anything because correlation doesn’t prove causation. Well wtf would prove it? Short of a confession, WTF would prove it? > [@](#): > > It may very well be the case that we see plenty of 2400’s correlate to high admission chances, but it’s not because of the SAT score. It’s because the type of student who has a 2400 also happens to have a great profile everywhere else (grades, EC’s, essays, recs, etc), and THOSE are the factors that really helped get them in. Grades are included in the study as well as athletics and legacies. GPA/SAT is highly predictive of admissions within a race. Why are they so much less predictive across races? Why is it that the cohort of 4.0/2200 white students seem to do consistently do poorly in admissions cmpared to 4.2/2300 white students but not do nearly as poorly against 4.2/2300 Asian students? Maybe you don’t understand the significance of peer review. Your argument is pretty basic. Correlation /= causation. Peer review of a study guards against this sort of error more than almost any other type of error. And yet you seem to hang your hat on it. We’re not talking about a couple of yahoos who saw that murder rates increased as the sale of ice cream went up and concluded that ice cream caused people to commit murder. These are social scientists who presented a peer reviewed study. You primary argument appears to be based on the notion that you are detecting an error in a study about college admissions that academics who tend to work at these colleges overlooked. ---
**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 10, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/200 "2012-02-10T22:31:25Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > You’re committing such a basic misunderstanding of statistics here and I’ve even given you extremely easy, intuitive examples to show you why those kind of analyses do not necessarily lead to the correct conclusions. Wait. If you are saying something other than correlation/= causation and specifically in this case there are other admission factors so the 3 to 1 ratio is not relevant. I’m not sure what it is. > [@](#): > > You need to seriously stop and read what’s being said to you instead of just ignoring it and repeating the same mantra over and over. Well, if you would understand the implication of a 3 to 1 ratio, I could stop repeating it. Just like global warming folks could stop repeating the scientific evidence supporting global warming if people didn’t keep ignoring it. > [@](#): > > You really need to get off this 3-to-1 fallacy, though. Fallcay? Its a fact. A fact on which trained sociologists place some amount of significance in. You can’t keep talking out of your ass while ignoring peer reviewed studies and expect people to consider you credible. > [@](#): > > False. True. Wow that was easy. > [@](#): > > Your “proof of discrimination” isn’t proof of what you think it is. It’s speculative. I don’t know why you aren’t understanding this. Do you understand how, in my analogy, the stats wouldn’t be “proof of eye color discrimination” even though you could point to all sorts of stats that suggest a 10 to 1 success ratio by eye color? I’m not going to go any further with this until you show that you understand the analogy before we move onto the real thing. Stop it with your analogy. Your analogy sucks. Its just another way of saying correlation /= causation. The study isn’t “speculative” the fact that you think it is reveals either ignorance or obstinance. These are not stats the I pulled out of thin air, these are findings by Princeton professors in a peer reviewed study. These are not MY cherrypicked facts, these are THE facts. > [@](#): > > As for the specifics of the study there’s nothing I can really add that brickbacon hasn’t already said about it. We’re in full agreement on that front. I’m not sure what you have added on any front other than offering moral support to brickbacon. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636/201 "2012-02-10T22:57:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, its stupid, because you’re just trying to say correlation /= causation in different ways. That there may be something else that correlates to “asian” that explains away the difference in SAT scores. Well what the fuck is it? Sure, correlation doesn’t imply causation. You’re looking at a regression – a \*correlation \*-- involving SAT scores and insisting that it’s the \*cause \*of the higher admission rates, and then, based on this, you’re concluding that Asians are disadvantaged by a ratio of 3 to 1 compared to whites. I’ve already explained to you the other more likely reason for the findings behind that regression. Asians have higher SAT scores on average. However, since SAT stops mattering as much past a certain point, the extra points Asians get on the SAT doesn’t help them all that much. Furthermore, people who have higher SAT scores tend to be stronger students anyway along all the other metrics for admission, and it’s those metrics that are the real underlying “cause” for their successful admission chances. It’s not necessarily because of the SAT. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > At least I’m using SOME form of logic. You seem to keep falling back to "that doesn’t prove anything because correlation doesn’t prove causation. Well wtf would prove it? Short of a confession, WTF would prove it? It’s not something you can prove unless you have, as brickbacon said, a smoking gun. Right now, the best you can do is speculate. You have zero evidence that there is anti-Asian discrimination. Is it possible? Yes. But you have no direct proof. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Grades are included in the study as well as athletics and legacies. GPA/SAT is highly predictive of admissions within a race. Why are they so much less predictive across races? Why is it that the cohort of 4.0/2200 white students seem to do consistently do poorly in admissions cmpared to 4.2/2300 white students but not do nearly as poorly against 4.2/2300 Asian students? I don’t know why you acknowledge that correlation doesn’t equate to causation but then immediately fall back to “GPA/SAT is highly predictive of admissions.” It’s not a perfect predictor. It’s a rough correlation tool because it tends to correlate with the other factors of the application that help get the student admitted. But this doesn’t mean the SAT is a huge factor here. To get a better model, you would need a LOT more variables to take into account before doing your factor analysis. You’d also need access to lots of admissions profiles. Your article mentions this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harvard-and-princeton-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe/611636.md?page=11)