Harvard and Princeton Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@brickbacon

But there is no irrefutable evidence that you have presented.

Yes there is. Do you deny that that whites were accepted at three times the rate of asians with the same gpa/SAT scores? This is irrefutable.

More importantly, no reasonable person would parse what you said the way you are now saying you meant it.

If I thought it was conclusive irrrefutable evidence of the discrimination itself, then why do I use phrases like rebuttable presumption and prima facie case?

Again, they don’t enjoy a 3-1 advantage in the admissions process. That disparity exist when you compare Asians and Whites at the same specific score.

Great so we agree that whites with the same scores are selected three times more frequently. I call it an advantage. We can call it a dispaarity if you like, I have called it a disparity in the past.

Not to mention, it is irrelevant given that admissions are not only based on “objective criteria”. Just as height and jumping ability are not all it takes to be an NBA player, grades are not all it takes to be an ivy league student.

Irrelevant? Are you serious? You think that SAT scores and GPA are irrelevant to admission arates because they are not the ONLY criteria used in teh admissions decision?

What people have been objecting to is your use of that “evidence” in service of a conclusion for which the data is clearly in conflict with.

And how is teh data “clearly in conflict” with the position that white enjoy and advantage over asians? You seem to be saying that the advantage is superficial because… you know… “soft factors”

No, it’s a statistical anomaly because the data we have doesn’t back it up at all. More importantly, it doesn’t represent a real world scenario at all. Again to quote the author once more:

Why do you stop there? He goes on to say “Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.”

He is clearly not saying that discrimiantion doesn’t exist, merely that this data standing by itself is not enough to prove that discrimination. Top Universisties havea dmitted to using these “soft factors” in the past to disadvantage Asians. Why is it so hard for you to believe that other universities may still be doing so?

You claimed Rice offered you a pre-acceptance and a free flight out to Houston based on your SAT scores. DO you expect anyone to buy that? I know “corrected” the record, just as you have done many times in this thread, but let’s not pretend you were not caught saying something entirely implausible.

Now you are just calling me a liar, which is funny because you have no fucking idea whether or not its true. When you applied to college, did you get unsolicited offers of acceptance to colleges with full financial aid? No? Well, I did, I got several of them. Rice, was the only one that was from a reasonably good school so I called them and they offered to show me around on their dime. When did I ever “correct” that?

Every college pretends that they have this holistic approach, that they treat every applicant as an individual. They pretend to recognize the unique snowflake within but the fact of the matter is that they get tens of thousands of applciations from a self selected group of applicants and they have a few months to to select 5 to 10% of those applicants. They use something called the academic index. They put that acadmeic index on the front cover of the application file. You keep using the same argument that “soft critieria” are the reason for teh white asian disparity and I have asked you time and time again why you think Asians are so deficient in areas outside of grades and SAT scores that it would justify this sort of disparity and your answer has been … YOU KNOW “SOFT CRITERIA”… GEEZ!

Is this clear enough for you?

No its not. Not at all. You interpret this statement to emant aht discrimination probably doesn’t exist and I think you are reading something that isn’t there.

Of course it’s “possible”. Did anyone say it was impossible? What has been said is that clinging to his study to justify your presumption of discrimination is not logical, nor is it backed by the author.

He isn’t saying that discrimiantion is possible, he is saying that teh absence of discrimination is possible.

I think I see the problem we are having, your reading comprehension sucks.

He didn’t say that because he is not trying to prove discrimination doesn’t occur. How exactly would he prove something didn’t happen. He has stated he is confident that there is no “mechanistic” discrimination that downgrades Asians students scores. Since that would basically be the only way reliable, systemic discrimination could occur at various colleges, it seems pretty clear that such a system is likely not in place.

Really because Stanford, Brown and Berkeley managed to do it without a mechanicistic discrimination and admitted to doing so.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/800583

Now what if you only had half of those statistics, you had never seen any of the people play, and you didn’t look at any other intangibles?

Lets stick to my hypothetical, both because I prefer it and its more accurate.

We are comparing results based on objective critieria that are inexplicably skewed along racial lines and the answer we get is “soft criteria”

And yet, it doesn’t seem to manifest itself in any meaningful way.

But they do. There is a difference in the academic index for one.

The academic index does not say what you say it does. Changing your scores from 800 to 750, and leaving everything else the same, does not reliably lower the score. Try it again, put 500 in for the class size and top 10% as your rank. then change all the SAT scores from 800 to 750. Tell me what you see happening?

It goes from 8 to 6. I think you forgot to click the 10% when you changed the SAT scores.

His numbers are give meaning to something that is meaningless in the eyes of admissions people. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

because numbers like SAT scores and GPA are NTO meaningless to admissions people. Why is it so hard for you to understand this. Call Michele hernandez and ask her how important SAT scores and GPA are. Ask her if there is a difference ebtween 750 SAT scoresa nd 800 SAT scores.

This is why you don’t see much difference at the UCs.

Or they already got most of this stuff out of their system by the time prop 209 was passed.

Or, maybe it never existed.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/800583

"Brown conceded that Asians had been “treated unfairly”…
Stanford allowed the possibilty of “unconscious bias” …
Berkeley Chancellor publicly apologized for “disadvantaging Asian students in the admissions process.”

Isn’t the more likely answer that beyond affirmative action, there is little discrimination that negatively impacts Asians occurring at universities.

No. I don’t know why you are so eager to believe that Asians are so flawed in non-objective areas that their admissions rate is three times lower than the admission rate of whtie students with the same scores and grades.

This is getting us nowhere. You place a lot of weight on these mysterious immeasurable “soft factors” in explaining away this disparity (implicitly saying that white are that much better than Asians in these soft factors) while I see a huge disparity and see a prima facie case for discrimination.

I have presented any evidence I could find have to say and you have presented whatever conjecture you could find and my evidence leads to different results than your conjecture.

I don’t think we are going to change each other’s minds because you take the lack of discrimination as an article of faith based on shit the alleged discriminators have said. You continue to give them the benefit of the doubt despite the knowledge that some of these institutions have discriminated in the recent past.