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

Great Debates
202

Which for all we know could just be correlation, not causation. Especially since they are considering so few variables. Second, showing a relationship right up to 2400 doesn’t mean the marginal utility doesn’t drop as you go up the scale. In fact, that would make sense given that the SAT is a scaled scoring system.

As far as anecdotal evidence, you can look no further than Mr. Jian Li. If the marginal utility of great scores didn’t decrease, there would be little chance that he’d be rejected by 5 schools given that his scores were far higher than the average person admitted. Furthermore, this flies in the face of all the evidence we have available to us, and the public statements of many schools.

Lastly, and this really needed to be saved for last. We have the words of the author himself. Basically saying exactly what I said. To quote him:

Wow, I wish someone had said those things before. Although I am sure that now you’ll tell me he doesn’t know his own research.

Not invalid, less reliable. You keep hanging your hat on this statistic when at the very most, it gives up a snap shot of what was happening to applicants at 3 elite schools in 1997. To assume that this applies generally, or is still happening today is not justifiable. This was one study. I don’t think you should pretend like it couldn’t possibly be wrong.

Actually, it is math. More importantly, social science and math are not mutually exclusive. That said, I find it odd that two academics came to two different conclusions based on the data, yet you can’t imagine anything else questionable about the study.

No, all of it is not. Many would not deign to draw such conclusions without analyzing more than one year’s worth of data. How comfortable would you be trusting meteorologists who only looked at the past year’s data in their predictions? Honestly, it’s just ridiculous that you can’t admit how flimsy the evidence you are presenting is. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong, just that your study is really, really unconvincing.

No, I am saying that one study, using one year’s data, from three (or 8 according to the interview) schools, with a handful of metrics, does not result in a convincing conclusion. Put it this way. If their model works so well, why don’t they sell it. It costs hundreds of dollars to apply to all these schools. If Espenshade could tell a student like Li who applied to 9 school with any kind of confidence where he was gonna be admitted, he could make a killing. Moreover, if such a model can be created by any scientist, why hasn’t someone done that by now? People make millions predicting the weather, why hasn’t anyone sold admissions models if it can easily be predicted?

They do what by year? What do they do by race? Admit people?

If that is your position, then you seem to be at odd with Kidder and the data. He is saying that the post-AA rates of Asians at law schools trails that of the post race-blind rates of Asians at the undergraduate level, and that that disparity is because of negative action. So are you saying there is/was negative action against Asians at law schools or not?

Secondly, you didn’t answer my question about how comparing CA college to CA law schools presumably subject to the same race-blind restrictions would help in isolating the effect of negative action.

Huh? You realize Espenshade is for AA, right? I don’t think he is trying to gather support to repeal anything. Second, isn’t that the entire point Kidder is making that that the projections Espenshade made didn’t pan out at the law school level? Since Kidder assumes there is no negative action, the modest gains by Asians in law school once AA was ended, compared to the significant gains after they went race-blind at the undergrad level is evidence that there was negative action, no?

Well, seeing as all these schools are getting money from the government, and they are likely doing something illegal, meaning that there would be plenty of plaintiffs, I am sure some enterprising lawyer could make it financially advantageous to a whistle blower.

What are you referring to?

Which doesn’t mean much. Applications should theoretically track the number of prospective candidates. Since there are far more Whites out there, you would expect they would apply more often absent some other explanation or factor.

Multiple studies examining multiple years of data. Insiders commenting on the process. What would it take to convince you it isn’t happening?

First, you need to acknowledge the basis of his argument is that negative action pales in comparison to the affect of AA on Asians. Second, I disagree with your parsing of the lawsuit. He is alleging that affirmative action is being used to help under-represented minorities at his expense. By using Espenshade’s data, he argues that since 5 of every 6 spots that went to minorities would go to Asians, he would have gotten in absent those policies.

This is a dumb lawsuit for a few reasons. First, the court already ruled racial preference could be used in non “mechanistic” ways to promote diversity. Given that standard, it is plainly obvious that in a relatively zero-sum situation, being Asian, as opposed to Native American (for example) lowers his chances. That is obvious, and not worthy of a lawsuit. Second, his argument has to hinge on the academic discrepancies between those admitted, specifically under-represented minorities, and him. He would say, race must be a factor given that my score crush their scores. But, that argument holds against other Asians as well as those possibly admitted as a result of AA. It’s hard to argue you were rejected because you were Asian, and that less qualified minorities got in in your place when other Asians also did. He would also need to demonstrate that those metrics he is arguing are relevant are the basis of admissions decisions.

You say peer-reviewed like that means it’s factually accurate and beyond reproach. The point of linking to the testimony of people who KNOW the guy is that they could testify to his motives and to the context of the situation. Given that so many of the people, who have a far better perspective of the situation than either of us, think he’s a sore loser, I don’t know why you are so convinced he is a martyr.

Yes, they disagree.

That was worded awkwardly. I meant before and after AA.

Then why would that refute anything Espenshade said? The argument, as far I can see, wasn’t that once AA ended, Asians would take all those spots. It was that given the scoring disparities and other specifics of the elite universities we studied, at the undergraduate level, Asians would be poised to take most of those spots. Please feel free to correct me if you think this is wrong.

203

I’m not concluding that there is a 3:1 disadvantage. I am saying that white kids with the same score/grades are 3 times more likely to be accepted to a top college than an Asian kid with those same scores and grades. You haven’t even come CLOSE to explaining away this difference.

You keep saying this, how about a cite?

That sounds like an assumption to me.

Sure, absent an actual confession that, I can’t prove INTENTIONAL discrimination. But there are other types of discrimination and they can be proven statistically.

Yes but what we have in front of us is enough to do more than speculate. Its enough for a federal investigation.

204

I never said that this is conclusive proof that there is discrimination? I am saying that this presents a prima facie case of discrimination. Its a rebuttable presumption but you have to rebut it, you can’t simply ignore the evidence and ask for more evidence.

A less severe disparity in admission rates between whites and Asians who meet the same objective criteria. IOW show me how white kids are superior to Asian kids in ways that do not show up on the objective criteria in a way that justifies the huge disparities in admission rates.

So far I’ve got one peer reviewed study. You’ve got speculation.

Peer reviewed studies are not beyond reproach but you have to have some basis for dismissing it other than the fact that you don’t like the results.

Not on the issue of whether the disparity exists.

205

What bullshit. If that is the case, then why did you say:

I guess “irrefutable” means not conclusive in your dictionary. You have made the claim several times touting a study whose own author does not agree with your conclusions. To quote him again, in case you missed it:

He is not saying there is no conclusive proof, he is saying there is no proof at all. Stop saying there is, or present some other data. For pages upon pages, the exact points he made were explained to you in painfully explicit detail. You ignored us. Now, that the author of the study says the same stuff, you backpedal with some nonsense about never saying the evidence was conclusive. That’s 100% bullshit and you know it. Sadly, this is just one of many times you have moved the goalposts, backpedaled, misstated things, or generally refused to show any critical reasoning skills. I know it’s hard to admit you were wrong, but seriously, it’s becoming embarrassing.

Rebut what? We explained over several pages why you cannot draw the conclusions from the data that you did. There has been no credible evidence presented to back the conclusion you made. When you find some, I will attempt a rebuttal if it’s appropriate.

As the author of the study you are alluding to stated, the objective metrics that were used are not reflective of actual admissions criteria. Because of that alone, your assumption that his measurements constitute a severe disparity in admissions rates is unfounded. It’s not that Espenshade didn’t make the statement you are making, it’s that he didn’t attempt to pretend his result were indicative of any real world phenomena.

Furthermore, the disparity isn’t borne out by the data in compelling way. Your theory is that Asians are being discriminated against, and that if their scores were evaluated irrespective of race, they would benefit greatly. Let’s take a look at Berkeley. Before the pre/post (1997/1998) race blind criteria went into effect, the admission rate for Whites was 30.65% and 33.24%. For Asians, it was 29.58% and 31.76% (respectively). Answer me this. If going race-blind would ensure that Asian applicant’s extra SAT points would lead to more Asian people being admitted, why did the admission rates for both Whites and Asians stay basically the same? Or, explain why the rate for Whites went up by more than it did for Asians? Again, if your supposition is that the marginal utility of SAT scores and GPAs doesn’t drop as you approach 2400 or 4.0, then why didn’t more Asian people get in?

Whose own author doesn’t agree with your interpretation or your conclusions.

206

Uhhh… what? Obviously “3:1 disadvantage” was referring to your point that “white kids with the same score/grades are 3 times more likely to be accepted to a top college than an Asian kid with those same scores and grades.” How do you not make that connection, here?

Anyways, this concept has already been explained to you and you’re choosing to ignore it. It’s already been explained why this 3-to-1 comparison is misleading and heavily flawed. Ignoring it doesn’t make you correct.

Considering that you don’t even seem to understand your own citations, something tells me giving you more cites would not really help much.

Go read “A is for Admission” by Michele Hernandez or “What it Really Takes to get into the Ivy League” by Chuck Hughes, which I know you won’t. Both of these people have worked in admissions at Dartmouth and Harvard, respectively, and both of them say pretty much the same thing. Once your scores are high enough, especially over 750/800 each, improving your scores is largely wasted effort. You’re better off focusing on other parts of your application at that point. An extra spattering of points isn’t going to be as impressive as filling out underdeveloped portions of the application.

Also check this out – found it with 2 seconds of Googling:

Even at Cornell, a less-selective Ivy than Harvard, people who had 800 Math were still rejected at a rate of 75%, and for Verbal, about 65%.

Ivy Leagues also sometimes use the Academic Index to get a quick snapshot of the academic component: College Search & Lists - College Confidential Forums

Play around with the settings yourself and come to your own conclusions. I’m not going to do the work for you this time and have you ignore it. But you’ll notice that gains stop mattering as much past certain points.

Even so, you’re still not acknowledging that on every single article, every single admissions site, every blog, every anecdote… all indicate that current-day admissions at the Ivies are holistic. This means that there is more to admissions than purely scores. That’s something you have to just accept. Jian Lee claiming to be denied based on race doesn’t hold up when many Asian students with lower scores get admitted all the time, and plenty of others with perfect scores get rejected just the same. Even if you have a spotless academic record and perfect scores, it’s not enough to get you in. You need more than scores.

Similarly, people who hire applicants for jobs will encounter the same thing. Just because someone went to a good school doesn’t mean they’re the best for the job. As a former employer of mine at a well-known software company said, “I’ve had Harvard MBAs work for me who were completely useless, and I’ve had state school grads who were some of the smartest individuals I’ve ever met.” You can’t naively pick one metric and use that as your basis of quality when quality is really dependent on multiple variables.

It’s not an assumption. Go check out the admitted student profiles on Parchment or CollegeConfidential and see for yourself, if you want.
It’s also not an assumption because you can call the admissions officers yourself.
Funnily enough, even if it WERE an assumption, it still renders your argument moot because it offers an alternative, plausible explanation to your point (i.e. your point is not conclusive, definitive, or necessarily strong “proof” at all).

There’s no proof of anti-Asian discrimination. All you have is speculation, and not very strong speculation, at that.

207

Also found with mild Googling (admissions officer at MIT):

Going to put the important points in bold here because I don’t trust that you’ll catch them for yourself:

This is also the same attitude expressed by the Dartmouth and Harvard admissions officers in the two books I recommended earlier.

208

There is something wrong with your link.

I would like to see the context but I think that the evidence itself is irrefutable. There is a disparity between Asian admissions and white admissions. I thought that we had established fucking PAGES ago that I don’t think there is any intentional discrimination malicious or otherwise. Why would I mention things like disparate impact if I thought that this proved discrimination?

If I confused you then let me make it clear now. I think that the disparity between Asian admissions and white admissions presents strong evidence of discrimination against Asians and I think this evidence presents a prima facie case of such discrimination and now its up to the defenders to prove otherwise. I don’t think its racism.

How you can just wave away those sort of disparities is beyond me but you seem to think its pretty easy.

No he’s not, if by proof you mean evidence.

I’m not the only one reading the results of the study as evidence of discrimination. You are trying to portray me as some wingnut conspiracist when commentators have written stuff based on the underlying assumption that the study provides at least some evidence for discrimination.

How you can simply wave away these sort of disparities without even trying to explain them is baffling to me. You cite soft criteria and I ask you what soft criteria that top white students have in so much more abundance than top Asian students and your response is a shuffling of feet and a return to your mantra of soft criteria.

If you think Asians tend to be less attractive applicants in some way that would explain this disparity then PLEASE go ahead but please stop it with, the “we don’t know every last detail of every last unique snowflake of an applicant” You’re embarrassing yourself.

209

Yeah, all you have is the “everyone is a snowflake” THEORY to explain this humongous disparity on outcomes. Tell me what it is about the Asian applicant pool that makes them so much less desirable (other than the fact taht there are just so fucking many of them)?

Is THIS the Michele Hernandez the one you are talking about?

http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/

Michele seems to place significant weight on the AI score.

Why don’t you call her and ask her if she thinks that Asian students operate at a disadvantage in the admissions process at Ivies?

Some consultants (former admissions counselors) flat out state on their websites that there is discrimination and there are several college admissions consultants that specialize in overcoming this discrimination. (oddly enough their advice tends to track some of yours: apply to places like Duke (where Asians are not as over-represented and are still seen as a minority in the application process) or apply to the top liberal arts colleges where it won’t hurt you to be Asian, don’t just target the schools that every other top Asian student is targeting).

Now, they obviously have a commercial interest in perpetuating this notion if a lot of their clients are Asian but it seems to be letting their white clients off the hook a little bit too.

""Michelle Hernandez describes Dartmouth’s procedure for turning the AI into a one-to-nine ranking. (Need to pick up this valuable reference? Here’s its Amazon listing.) We aren’t going to reproduce her complete explanation here, but the key point that Hernandez makes is that there is a high level of correlation between the AI rank and acceptance rates. Applicants with 8 and 9 rankings were accepted at over 90%. Half of the 6-ranked applicants were accepted, while a mere 11% of the 4-ranked were admitted. Virtually no students with a 1 ranking were admitted.

The conclusion is that 8 and 9-ranked students were accepted largely on their academic merits. As one moves down in the ranks, the need for stronger differentiating factors like outstanding extracurriculars increases. In the lowest ranks, it is almost certain that a major non-academic factor must be present."

I went from 800 to 750 in each SAT section, SAT IIs, 25th in my graduating class of 700 and my score went from 8 to 6.

If I go to 10th in class it went from 9 to 7.

It seems to me that there is at least some marginal benefit to be had from perfect scores.

I have no doubt but I also think that the fuzzy factors are being used to keep Asians out.

Yes, no shit. But if my holistic approach consistently hired white Harvard magna cum laude’s at three times the rate as I hired black Harvard magna cum laude’s you might think there was something else going on.

Sure its not conclusive otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for a federal investigation but there is strong enough proof to warrant a federal investigation.

Then why is there a federal investigation?

210

If you want to know how you can discriminate by soft criteria and not be anti-Asian, and yet admit a lower proportion of Asians, one possibility is that Asians aren’t as diverse, statistically speaking. For example: If it can be shown that Asians are disproportionately interested in math/science (which can be shown) or that they are disproportionately interested in tennis (which can be shown), and so forth, then it’d be harder to admit more Asian students without admitting a higher proportion of the same type of student. This isn’t the same as stereotyping or being racist – it’s an explanation for how soft criteria can filter against a particular racial group. High-frequency trends in a particular cluster will be selected against for the sake of diversity. Even if you go race-blind, it doesn’t change the fact that a significant proportion of applicants leverage culture throughout the application. Race is simply included because it’s an effective proxy for many other variables.

This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s harder to get in if you’re Asian. It just means it’s harder to get in if you’re Asian and tend to fall in line with statistical norms. Ivies aren’t going to nuke your chances because you’re of a certain race. You’re going to get nuked for not offering anything different. Also, to remind you, the fact that there are more high-scoring Asians than there are high-scoring whites doesn’t mean it’s an acceptable baseline, especially when it’s already been shown that scores have diminishing marginal returns. The fact that Asians pick up extra points on the SAT isn’t helping them in a huge way. There are TONS of high-scoring applicants of various races to draw from, and everyone who gets admitted has a great score.

Again I refer back to my earlier analogy. It’s like you’re claiming eye-discrimination when the criteria is largely based on something else. It may be possible that Asians are being filtered out at a greater rate, but if this is the case, it’s most likely due to advantages and homogeneity that occurs at greater frequencies within that particular applicant pool – factors that are being selected against.

In other words, there’s no proof of anti-Asian discrimination (discrimination on the basis of race alone). You have not proven this. Your citations don’t claim to prove it. Jian Li’s case does not prove it. And the fact that there are investigations don’t necessarily mean anything. Investigations happen all the time in a variety of areas, but it doesn’t mean they always turn up with anything.

On a personal note, Ivies are something like, what, 20%+ Asian? If they were really trying to keep Asians out, they’re failing pretty hard at it.

211

Post #58 Here is the full context:

[QUOTE=Originally Posted by Marley23]
It’s true that international students are broken into a separate category. …We have no idea if race was an issue here. Not all of the kids who got 2390 on their SATs wound up at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford or MIT.
[/QUOTE]

You responded:

Please explain what you meant, and how you can reconcile what you said there, with what you are saying now?

Is this a joke? You just said:

Are you high or something?

This is not true. This is what I was trying to convey with the Berkeley example, which, by the way, you conveniently ignored. The factoid, on which your whole argument relies, is not suggestive of an actual admissions disparity, it’s just a statistical anomaly absent context. One that was easily explained to you by several in this thread as well as the author of the study. Are you really so stubborn that even when the author of the of a study states it’s not logical to draw those conclusions you are drawing, you still stick to them?

Because you have moved the goalposts once again. Do me a favor. Re-read what you have said during this thread. You have implied racism a few times only to retract it when called on it. You have stated things that are completely untrue. And now, you are pretending as though you were some dispassionate observer pointing out that these data might be worth study. Absolute bullshit.

It’s neither strong evidence, nor prima facie evidence for discrimination. How do I know that? Because the author stated as much. I have a quote of him actually saying that he is confident that what you are suggesting does not actually happen. You have NO evidence. That’s why the numbers don’t back you up. If you are so confident there is discrimination going on, explain the numbers from Berkeley.

There is no real disparity. I will give you another painfully simple to understand analogy. Say I find that Black players that are 7’1" or above are 3 times less likely to get a roster spots on an NBA than White players of equal height. I also add that for the chances to be equal, the Black player has to be 2 inches taller. Could I draw the conclusion that the NBA is discriminating based on race? Obviously height is an important, but the practical difference between 7"1" and 7’3" is minimal. It would be easy to imagine that scouts may not really care about those extra inches, right? Furthermore, wouldn’t the fact that roughly the same percentages of both Black and Whites who tried out, and were given spots rule out that supposition that race was a deciding factor?

Again, you are only assuming there is discrimination because you think slightly higher scores should translate to a likelihood of admission. That is not a valid assumption. Asians and Whites seem to be accepted at roughly the same rates at the schools we have data for. The lack of discrimination is bolstered by the fact that trends remained the same after race was excluded as a factor in schools like Berkeley. Let’s take a another data point from the UC experiment. At UCLA, the pre/post race blind acceptance rates for Whites were 35.92% and 35.64% respectively. For Asians, they were 36.49% and 36.83%. Those differences are meaningless statistically speaking, and definitely not indicative of rampant discrimination against Asian people, particularly in service to Whites.

You are not a wing-nut, you are just wrong. Just like people who think tax cuts raise revenues, and those who think Columbus thought the Earth was flat.

You really don’t get it do you? There is nothing to wave away. The disparities you speak of have little meaning in the eyes of admissions people. For all intents and purposes, they don’t exist. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

212

I’m done replying to this thread, personally. Damuri, I am really tired of having you make unfounded, false, baseless claims and then demand explanation that you then choose to ignore. More than enough explanation and evidence has been presented to show you why you’re incorrect and why there’s no proof of anti-Asian discrimination. Believe what you want at this point – it’s honestly no skin off my nose.

213

Please show. Provide a cite.

Please show. provide a cite.

Yes I agree, but I have not seen the evidence that Asian applicants are mass produced from a cookie cutter mold. I have only heard stereotypes that are supposed to apply to Asian students far mroe than other students.

I agree that if being Asian were simlar to each other and they all objectively looked alike on a race neutral basis then I can see why you would say “OK we’ve got enough piano/violin playing math whizzes with an interest in medicine” but so far all I have heard is speculation that Asian applicants fit this mold in significantly greater proportion than white applicants.

I’d still like to see some evidence that Asian applicants are mass produced on some assembly line.

I did that academic index thing and going from 800s to 750s drops your acedemic index from 8 to 6, I don’t know what that means but based on teh article, an 8 is very likely to get accepted while a 6 merely has a good shot.

I don’t think you have tons of high scoring applicants from every race but most of the low scoring applicants are underrepresented minorities so lets jsut focus on white adn Asian. White students at these schools score between 50 and 140 points below asian students (on average) on the SATs

Of course it might not lead to anything but the fact of an investigation is not irrelevant.

More like 15% at Princeton and Harvard and they don’t want to keep Asians out, they want to limit the number they have.

You can always use non objective factors to discriminate against minorities (jim crow south did it for decades, they specialized in facially neutral standards that resulted in racial disparities. But, like I said, I don’t think the discrimiantion is malicious. Noone at these school hate asians, but they might think that theya re so overrepresented that it makes sense to limit how many asians they let in.

This sort of thing has clearly been used to try and benefit underrepresented minorities. For example one of the responses to Prop 209 in california was the UC system focusing on things like the college attendance rate of the school you came from, your family income, your family’s history of college attendance, wheer you ranksedat the school you attended with a significant reduction in emphasis on standardized test scores. This was a pretty deliberate attempt to maintain racial diversity while remaining race neutral.

Want to limit attendace by asians student, I can find metrics along which occur more frequently in the asian applicant pool and select against those metrics. I’m not saying they are doing this but they could and all your arguments would be just as valid.

With taht said, if you can prove that Asian applicants are significantly more homogenous than white applicants with teh same credentials, I think you would have gone a long way to explaining at least some of the disparity.

Frankly, I think you (a) have an antiquated view of the Asian applicant pool and (b) underestimate how flexible Asians are becoming in trying to differentiate themselves from other asians. I know a lot of Asians whith kids in high school and very few of them are focusing on things like tennis, piano and violin.

They still do musical instruments and they still do sports but they also focus on other activities because you have kids that are performing at Carnegie hall that makes your kid’s recital at the local church look pretty pitiful so they take up the harp or marching band. I see more Asian kids playing hockey and fencing rather than play tennis.

214

Yes thanks, sorry about the confusuion. I meant that the fact that there is evidence is irrefutable. You can’t pretend that whites don’t enjoy a 3 to 1 advantage in the admissions process when you look at objective critieria. I called it a “rebuttable presumption” in the past; a Prima Facie case. If I thought the conclusion was irrefutable i would not have called it a rebuttable presumption or prima facie case. I don’t think it irregfutably proves discrimiantion I think that the evidence itself is not disputable.

Does that clear things up at all?

Maybe we are hearing things the other person isn’t saying.

I say there is a 3 to 1 disparity between admission rates between white and asian applicants with teh same scores and you say this is not true. And then you wonder why i would say taht the evidence itself is irrefutable. The disparity exists, and you say it doesn’t.

You assume statistical anomoly because you don’t like the results. To prove statistical anomoly, you have to present a baseline that shows that this 3 to1 advantage was a one off rather than assume it was a one off when the study was conducted across tens of thousands of applications at several schools. Statistically, those are significant numbers.

[quote]
you have moved the goalposts once again.[/cuote]

cite.

Yeah I have kneejerked to racism a few times when I shouldn’t have.

cite.

I’ve been pretending to be dispassionate? Holy shit I need to step up the rhetoric becasue i am not dispassionate about this. I think I am being objective but I am not dispassionate. I think you are twisting and turning to avoid teh most obvious answers to try and dismiss the existence of discrimiantion.

cite?

The language you quote says (right after the bolded language) “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 seems to be saying that because they don’t actually have all the information, the study in and of itself doesn’t PROVE discrimination because its POSSIBLE that there is some other explanation.

That hardly sounds like he is saying that he is confident that discrmiination doesn’t occur.

But go ahead and provide a cite.

All your analogies fail in scale, in scope and in relevance.

If black players of equal objective ability (in terms of physically beneficial attributes (height, speed, vertical) and performance, points scored/game, rebounds/game, assists/game, turnovers/game, etc.) were three times less likely to be recruited then I might suspect discrimination.

Lets take the example of NFL quarterbacks. If you saw that blacks quarterbacks with comparable college records and similar physical ability were being recruited at one third the rate of whtie quarterbacks with similar records and the NFL teams cited soft factors like “leadership” and “mental discipline” would you be as eager to say “well shit, soft factors and all, you know, that pretty much explains the difference” And after all, the NFL has plenty of black players, they even have slightly more black quarterbacks than we have in the general population, I suppose that means there isn’t any discrimiantion “because soft factors pretty much exlpains the difference”

“slightly higher”

I think they are more than a standard deviation apart. Sure in raw percentages, its only top 3-4% versus top 0-1% but its still over a standard deviation.

And frankly I’m not so much talking about comparing good scores to better scores, I am talking about differences in acceptance rates ebtween applciants with the same scores.

I would call supply siders and flat earthers wingnuts.

Obviously I don’t get it. When the academic index rank that admissions people use would assign a 2 point difference (on a 9 point academic rank scale) based on a 800 score over a 750 score, it seems like it has meaning in the eyes of admissions people. The difference between between an 8 versus a 6 is a 90% acceptance rate versus a 50% acceptance rate. What am I missing? Is Michele Hernandez lying?

215

OK seeya. I don’t think you have contributed much of anything to the debate anyways other than bleating “soft factors” to explain away everything so I don’t think I will miss you participation.

At this point I don’t think you have said anything that rebutts my position and you have no intention of ever reconsidering yours so its probably pointless for you to continue anyways.

216

Dumuri, I will respond at length to your comments later on. In the meantime, explain the results we saw at Berkeley and UCLA? Why do those two test cases show no evidence of discrimination against Asians?

217

After staring at those years I have to admit that you don’t see the sort of Asian disparities that Espenshade was talking about at the UCs. But he got his numbers from somewhere.

I would note that the Asian entering class went up about 20% between 1997 and 2004 while the white entering calss went up 10%. But you’re right. Its hardly the sort of shift that you would expect based on Espenshade’s study. The experience of prop 209 does not support the notion that discrimination against Asians existed in the UC system to the degree that I am talking about in 1997.

Perhaps most of it had already been leeched out by then. Berkeley spokesmen at least had stated that they had recently undergone significant review in the years preceding Prop 209 and did not expect to see much of an impact on the Asian population.

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

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

Its been a long time since i’ve dealt with this stuff but it was headline news back when I was in college. But perhaps my views are overly informed by a dated perspective. Heck, even Espenshade’s data is 15 years old. But I have not heard any explanations that didn’t turn out to be camouflage for discrimiantion back in the 1980’s.

These disparities have been waved away in the apst with the sort of fuzzy rationale in the past and further investigation has uncovered discrimination in the past. I suspect that we will find that there is in fact discrimination going on at the Ivies (and I will not that the Asian population of the entering class at some of these schools have risen almost 20% in the years after the investigation began and seems to be inceasing. We could soon see racial distributions approaching Stanford or even Berkeley at top college everywhere).

218

But there is no irrefutable evidence that you have presented. More importantly, no reasonable person would parse what you said the way you are now saying you meant it.

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. 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.

This is completely ridiculous. Evidence absent context means nothing. Nobody has suggested that the numbers he used were wrong, or that his math was in err. 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. To say now that you meant the numbers are not in debate is just dishonest pettifogging.

No, I have corrected you when you forget one of the many qualifiers that factoid has. That said, you keep repeating this as if it is meaningful. It has been explained to you several times why it’s not.

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:

That you are moving the goalposts?

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. That is my point. Now you say things like you are presenting a prima facie case, but before you were throwing around accusations of racism and saying the evidence for discrimination was irrefutable.

As the author said:

Is this clear enough for you?

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 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.

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?

The problem with that analogy is that you specified physical ability, a qualitative assessment. Absent that, if I saw that Black QBs with comparable college records were less likely to be drafted, I would think the evidence of discrimination was scant. Especially since the truly analogous comparison would be Black QBs with a college record consisting of 30 wins, have 3 times less likelihood of being drafted than White QBs with that record. But more importantly, nobody would ever create some stat like that because they recognize that trying to arbitrarily trying to assign value to quantitative metrics in a system that relies largely on holistic, subjective assessments is rife with problems.

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

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?

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? This is why you don’t see much difference at the UCs. Because they were never docking Asian kids, or treating an Asian 2350 like a White 2140. What they were doing, and what they continue to do, is to treat scores above a certain range (basically) the same. That’s why the data make sense. Because it confirms how admissions actually works, not how a sociologist’s abstraction works.

Or, maybe it never existed.

So why do you think this is happening? Do you honestly think a minor investigation at two schools convinced all these schools to stop discriminating against Asians, but to only do so in small doses over several years? Isn’t the more likely answer that beyond affirmative action, there is little discrimination that negatively impacts Asians occurring at universities.

219

Against my better judgment, I’m responding to this. I rarely break my own rules here but this is just absurd.

If you think nothing has been contributed to this debate, it is only because of your unwillingness to acknowledge the errors of your position.

  1. As far as I can tell, you have yet to truly acknowledge that your own cite’s author does not even agree with your interpretation of the data.

  2. And you’ve also ignored the reasons why whites do not enjoy a “3 to 1 advantage” over Asians with respect to objective criteria. Having a few extra points on the test past a certain point doesn’t contribute any significant marginal difference, so there’s no real advantage to be had. I’ve given you primary source reference material that says, outright, that you are wrong here. But you ignore that, too. You also ignored the point of the AI and you abused that, too.

Also:

What a completely, utterly bullshit, transparent attempt at backpedaling.

This entire thread you’ve been conflating your terms, acting as if you have irrefutable evidence of discrimination that can be proven statistically. There is a difference between a fact and what that fact is evidence of. Again, back to my analogy: I may have dark eyes (fact), but it is not irrefutable evidence of eye color discrimination (erroneous conclusion). Now you’re trying to act as if you’re only presenting facts, and yet you continue acting as if it’s proof of this “3 to 1 advantage.” It’s pedantic wordplay and you know it. Just because you can point to a SAT gap between two races doesn’t mean one race enjoys an advantage over the other with respect to objective criteria, especially when admissions is *much *more than objective criteria, AND when admissions officers have explicitly said that they don’t even bother splitting hairs over upper-threshold objective criteria. Are you going to acknowledge any of this or just ignore it?

220

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.

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?

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.

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?

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”

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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”

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

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

221

I knew you couldn’t stay away. It is the way with people who find themselves defending weak positions merely to avoid admitting error.

That’s not what he said.

academic index.

First of all you’re wrong and second of all, who gives a shit, how is that relevant on the merits?

probably ignore it because I have asked you to cite to “admissions officers have explicitly said that they don’t even bother splitting hairs over upper-threshold” considering that the difference between a 750 and an 800 yields very different academic indecies, something that I have provided cites as being relevant to the admission decision. And frankly, why would anyone believe and admissions officer on any of this? Tell you what, call aFORMER admissions officer (they all seem to have set up shop in ritzy beighborhoods to coach kids into ivy league schools) and ask THEM how much the numbers count. Multiple articles talk about this double standard for Asians, I suppose they’re all crackpots too.

Does it matter at all to you that places like Brown, Berkeley and Stanford have admitted to discriminating against (or disadvantaging or being unfair to) Asians?