Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites

[Agema]

I wouldn't know how to distinguish one from the other, but one example from the book is that the Law School Admissions Council. They administer the LSAT exam and were also the largest single funder of the data-gathering study that was central to Sander's work called "After the JD".

LSAC didn't like Sander's work, so they tried to demand that "all scholarship coming from AJD be "cleared" with it before publication", which didn't work as that was an obviously unethical, and nobody had ever agreed to anything like that when they first started working with AJD. Next, they said that they'd withhold funding AJD if Sander was still on the coordinating committee. At this time, Sander had already moved on, but they scrubbed all mention of him from the project. Around this time, LSAC also fired a senior staff member who had been "contentiously accused of being too sympathetic to [Sander's] work".

Previously to all of this, in the 1970s, people accused the LSAT, and therefore, LSAC, of being biased against minorities, so they were trying to shake that image. This was one of the ways in which they tried to do that.

So is this a problem of bias in educational institutions or in academic research, because here we clearly see an institution bullying a research group because the former didn't like the scholarship coming out of the latter? Like I said, I don't know.

That's an educational institution issue. This is seriously sensitive stuff for universities, and was liable to end in lawsuits... as this thread proves occurred. They surely will have tried to restrict access when they found out what it was being used to do.

* * *

Universities are actually in a difficult place here. Universities have varied "stakeholders". One one level, you've got students who expect to pass their grades, enter, and get a degree. However, universities also have social responsibilities and have to consider more than just grades. For instance, a university may reasonably consider that an important part of its process is for students to experience a diverse environment at least somewhat representative of the real world out there; it benefits all students to be exposed to diversity, which demands where practical to try to encourage more than tokenistic presence of difference. If it's chock-a-block with whites and Asians and not much anyone else, it's going to fail. There's the idea that adequate representation of minorities is a general societal good, and universities have some duty to encourage that in the societies that they exist in to serve, particularly as long-standing issues leave some demographics structurally disadvantaged.

The thing is, Sander is aware of the political context of his work. It's not just that some have been testing his basic quantitative analyses (and sometimes finding them deficient), but many of the criticisms levelled at him are precisely that his understanding of the political context is quite poor, and not really handled by his analysis. But the ramifications of his study are potentially very great. From my reading, Sander makes some sort of general protestations about how his work should or should not be used, but the end result is that it has been, and was always going to be, used to bludgeon affirmative action to death by people with no real interest in "truth", but sheer ideological possession every bit as zealous and unbending as some of those would oppose Sander's work. Sander might well feel aggrieved at the hostility he has received, but I read through various exchanges it is evident he has more than his fair share of intransigence and belligerence.

 

[Houseman]

For instance, a university may reasonably consider that an important part of its process is for students to experience a diverse environment at least somewhat representative of the real world out there; it benefits all students to be exposed to diversity, which demands where practical to try to encourage more than tokenistic presence of difference.

There's a section on that in the book too. Long story short, students segregate themselves into groups, which defeats the whole purpose of "experiencing a diverse environment". One former student even recalls being assigned to "the Black house" with all the other black students.

This is not unrelated to the hypothesized mismatch effect, because if the minority students are generally known for being failures, drop-outs, and are only there because of the color of their skin, not their academic credentials (as opposed to everyone else), of course nobody else will want to hang out with them.

But let's say that colleges do try to foster a "diverse environment". Is it worth sacrificing black students by setting them up for failure? Why not just hire black actors to pretend to be students, that way their self-esteem, their futures, and years of their life aren't ruined, and white students get to feel like they're in a "diverse environment".

but the end result is that it has been, and was always going to be, used to bludgeon affirmative action to death by people with no real interest in "truth"

Regardless if Sander is right or not, doesn't that sentiment sound dangerous to you?
"You shouldn't publish a paper saying that! The Nazis/racists/sexists/our political or ideological opponents will use it against us! You must hide the truth away!"

Doesn't that sound like having "no real interest in 'truth'" as well? Should scientists who happen to be Christian not publish their findings that provide evidence for evolution because "the opposition might use it?" Should archaeologists who happen to be atheist have destroyed the Dead Sea Scrolls because the religious might use it?

Publishing results that is helpful to "the opposition" shouldn't even be a concept for any serious scientific or academic mind. They shouldn't have to concern themselves with political squabbles. All they should care about is the truth and furthering their field. That can be left to someone else, who, like you said, has no real interest in truth, and just wants "their side" to "win".

 

[Trunkage]

I think it helps a small minority of blacks, but hurts the rest.

HOW does it help them?

Edit: Like, what specifically are the universities allowed to do?

 

[Houseman]

HOW does it help them?

Edit: Like, what specifically are the universities allowed to do?

It helps those who are genuinely qualified to get into a college that they otherwise would not be able to.

For example, if Yale needed to fill a quota of 13% black students, they'd pick the black applicants who are most likely to successfully graduate, based on their Academic Index

Universities are "allowed" to lower the bar when it comes to minority students, given Affirmative Action. Say that they normally require an AI of 900. For Black students, they can require an score of 800, or even 700.

A majority of those 700 students will never graduate, because the rest of the college is geared towards educating those 900+ students.

 

[Trunkage]

It helps those who are genuinely qualified to get into a college that they otherwise would not be able to.

For example, if Yale needed to fill a quota of 13% black students, they'd pick the black applicants who are most likely to successfully graduate, based on their Academic Index

Universities are "allowed" to lower the bar when it comes to minority students, given Affirmative Action. Say that they normally require an AI of 900. For Black students, they can require an score of 800, or even 700.

A majority of those 700 students will never graduate, because the rest of the college is geared towards educating those 900+ students.

First off. Stop

Quota arent a thing. They've been illegal since Bakke. Whatever nonsense your going on about there, it's not real. Quotas have not existed for almost 50 years

Universities cant weight minorities to give them preference under Affirmative Action. That's illegal as this Yale decision shows. ANY extra 'points' a person can receive cannot be about race. That's been a thing since at least 2003, since they got rid of extra points based on joining societies like Latino dance clubs, Asian chess clubs or African American bands

Lastly, as shown in last video, black people who get in arent generally scoring less. Top 10% of applicants get let in automatically with the next 2 to 3% fighting out for the last few spaces. This group gets in based on scores, character traits and extra curricular activities. Even if number fudging was going on, it cant effect minority number because there arent that many spaces left

And just to reiterate, most blacks get in via merit. And, again, I'm pro for getting rid of race based extra points in Yale for this secondary smaller group. It's illegal under Affirmative Action.

So, I'll say again. What benefit does Affirmative Action provide?

 

[Houseman]

Universities cant weight minorities to give them preference under Affirmative Action. That's illegal as this Yale decision shows.

Doesn't that mean that Yale was doing it, if they needed the DoJ to tell them to stop it?

Regardless, if Universities aren't weighting minorities to give them preference, then great, I don't have any problems with it. That's the only objectionable thing about it that i'm aware of.

 

[Agema]

There's a section on that in the book too. Long story short, students segregate themselves into groups, which defeats the whole purpose of "experiencing a diverse environment". One former student even recalls being assigned to "the Black house" with all the other black students.

Students do tend to group by similar interests, natures, etc. But they will necessarily also mix outside their favoured groups to an extent, too. (Part of the university's job can also be to also encourage them to mix.)

This is not unrelated to the hypothesized mismatch effect, because if the minority students are generally known for being failures, drop-outs, and are only there because of the color of their skin, not their academic credentials (as opposed to everyone else), of course nobody else will want to hang out with them.

Highly speculative. And let's remember, it is still only a small percentage that fail.

But let's say that colleges do try to foster a "diverse environment". Is it worth sacrificing black students by setting them up for failure? Why not just hire black actors to pretend to be students, that way their self-esteem, their futures, and years of their life aren't ruined, and white students get to feel like they're in a "diverse environment".

Are they sacrificing black students? Firstly, let's not deny black and Latino students the right of autonomy that they have applied to places like Yale and so want to go there. Secondly, let's remember that Sander's claim that black students lose out overall is a major issue of contention that is unproven.

Regardless if Sander is right or not, doesn't that sentiment sound dangerous to you?
"You shouldn't publish a paper saying that! The Nazis/racists/sexists/our political or ideological opponents will use it against us! You must hide the truth away!"

No, I'm saying if you walk into a bear pit, a) expect a fight and b) make very, very sure of you have done everything right. The objections to Sander's work make clear his work was far from being that solid.

 

[Houseman]

Students do tend to group by similar interests, natures, etc. But they will necessarily also mix outside their favoured groups to an extent, too. (Part of the university's job can also be to also encourage them to mix.)

No, there are papers on this. The conclusion is that students are significantly more likely to group in terms of academic preparation and performance.

Secondly, let's remember that Sander's claim that black students lose out overall is a major issue of contention that is unproven.

Nothing in science, much less social science, is ever proven. It's all just correlations and statistics. Of course there needs to be more study, more data, and more people looking into this. However, as we have seen, bodies like LSAC and the California Bar Association don't want that data to be released, and don't want these studies to happen.

Nobody disputes that the worse your academic preparation is, relative to your peers, the less likely you are to graduate, the less you will learn, the lower your grades will be. This is logical, intuitive, and the data clearly shows this. These are the "first order" effects of mismatch. If true, they lead to "second order" effects.

About these first-order effects, Sander says" Every study I have encountered of the three first-order mismatch hypotheses has found strong evidence of mismatch. I do not know of a single peer-reviewed critique—and almost no critiques of any kind—of these first-order mismatch findings. In other words, research on the fundamental mechanisms of mismatch is virtually unanimous and undisputed."

Sander acknowledges that the debate is over these second order effects in the last page of his response. "The stylized critique of Mismatch". He says "We should instead agree that the first-order problems are real, and the task is to make reforms that preserve what is good about current policies while fixing those parts of the policies that directly contribute to the first-order effects"

 

[Trunkage]

Doesn't that mean that Yale was doing it, if they needed the DoJ to tell them to stop it?

Regardless, if Universities aren't weighting minorities to give them preference, then great, I don't have any problems with it. That's the only objectionable thing about it that i'm aware of.

It tells you Yale was doing it wrong.

The other issue is that courts have said that unversity should consider 'diversity' with applicants... but not given any idea what they mean and how that can be legally done under AA. Im not in the heads of Yale... student advisors? (Sorry don't know the right tern for people processing applications) but they were probably trying to follow both mandates that seem rather contradictory

 

[Agema]

No, there are papers on this. The conclusion is that students are significantly more likely to group in terms of academic preparation and performance.

Yes. Interest in studying is one of the things covered by "similar interests and natures". Think of it as intersectional. There can be things like race and culture, or attitude to study, or various hobbies, etc. All of them will influence whether students group together. I can say from personal experience that departments I have worked in have acted to minimise excessive clique formation by both attainment and by race/culture.

Nothing in science, much less social science, is ever proven.

"Defended by a sufficient proponderance of evidence" approximates closely enough to "proven" in vernacular usage.

About these first-order effects, Sander says" Every study I have encountered of the three first-order mismatch hypotheses has found strong evidence of mismatch. I do not know of a single peer-reviewed critique—and almost no critiques of any kind—of these first-order mismatch findings. In other words, research on the fundamental mechanisms of mismatch is virtually unanimous and undisputed."

Sander acknowledges that the debate is over these second order effects in the last page of his response. "The stylized critique of Mismatch". He says "We should instead agree that the first-order problems are real, and the task is to make reforms that preserve what is good about current policies while fixing those parts of the policies that directly contribute to the first-order effects"

Heavens. In my field that article would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal: it's full of overtly insulting ad hominems.

I'm just not terribly interested in hearing Sander tell us how right he thinks he is. (Of course he thinks he's right, who doesn't?) What is true can only be judged by assessing the evidence for and against and finding a reasonable conclusion, not by the ferocity with which a debate particpant claims they are right.

 

[Houseman]

Yes. Interest in studying is one of the things covered by "similar interests and natures". Think of it as intersectional. There can be things like race and culture, or attitude to study, or various hobbies, etc. All of them will influence whether students group together. I can say from personal experience that departments I have worked in have acted to minimise excessive clique formation by both attainment and by race/culture.

Well these colleges are failing at minimizing excessive clique formation, and thus, failing in their objective to be "diverse", and affirmative action only compounds that, so that's something that they can do better.

"Defended by a sufficient proponderance of evidence" approximates closely enough to "proven" in vernacular usage.

In that case, I'd say that Sander's first-order Mismatch problems are proven.

What is true can only be judged by assessing the evidence for and against and finding a reasonable conclusion

Have you seen any evidence against the first-order problems above?

 

[Agema]

Well these colleges are failing at minimizing excessive clique formation, and thus, failing in their objective to be "diverse", and affirmative action only compounds that, so that's something that they can do better.

You have no clear evidential support of the former. Not least because you're making an argument from a 15 year old study using a data set that reflects an even older cohort of students. Universities are likely to have made very substantial changes in the way they do things over the last 20+ years.

The latter is begging the question as it's the very unresolved controversy we're discussing.

In that case, I'd say that Sander's first-order Mismatch problems are proven.

Why?

Have you seen any evidence against the first-order problems above?

I haven't seen any adequate evidence for them, either: Sander doesn't actually direct us to sufficient evidence to defend the first order problems in that article, he merely asserts such evidence exists.

But a lot of this is sort of missing the point, because that the real issue is about the practical results, not the theoretical mechanisms. The key point of contention can be put as "does affirmative action harm or help minorities"? Sander's says harm and his opponents say help. Even if Sander establishes that the mechanisms exist to potentially cause harm, it does not answer the question of whether they do in practice (or that the harm outweighs the help). This "first order" stuff is thus only establishing premises to build a case on, not demonstrating the case itself is sound.

 

[Houseman]

I haven't seen any adequate evidence for them, either: Sander doesn't actually direct us to sufficient evidence to defend the first order problems in that article, he merely asserts such evidence exists.

That evidence is contained in his first paper, "Systemic Analysis", the paper made "from a 15 year old study using a data set that reflects an even older cohort of students"
The data clearly shows a strong correlation that says, "if your pre-college grades are lower, relative to your peers, you are significantly more likely to not graduate and to have lower grades than your peers."

This is a real practical result.

 

[Agema]

That evidence is contained in his first paper, "Systemic Analysis", the paper made "from a 15 year old study using a data set that reflects an even older cohort of students"

No, I meant "Systematic Analysis..." is over 15 years old (from now), on data of students who graduated about 5 years before. 20+ year old data is very poor information to judge how universities approach racial and cultural integration of their students in the current day.

The data clearly shows a strong correlation that says, "if your pre-college grades are lower, relative to your peers, you are significantly more likely to not graduate and to have lower grades than your peers."

This is a real practical result.

Right. But other people don't seem to agree with this, wholly or in part. For instance, one of the key premises to that argument is that teachers direct the difficulty of their material around the midpoint of the class competence. However this is often not the case, and where not it undermines the hypothesis - not necessary fatally, but potentially enough that measurement may be erroneous.

 

[Houseman]

No, I meant "Systematic Analysis..." is over 15 years old (from now), on data of students who graduated about 5 years before. 20+ year old data is very poor information to judge how universities approach racial and cultural integration of their students in the current day.

But don't you agree that more studies and more data is warranted?

It would be like if, today, a study came out that said that Nestle Crunch bars were linked to blindness based off of 20-year-old data. Sure, maybe they changed their recipe since then. Maybe it isn't even a problem anymore. But don't you think someone should at least launch an investigation to see if this is still happening? Because what if it IS still happening, and we just don't know about it? Nestle Crunch bars could be doing real harm to real people! Don't you think it's worth it to at least check?

And of course we wouldn't just let them deny access to factories and farms and let biased parties gag and shut down research efforts...

But other people don't seem to agree with this, wholly or in part. For instance, one of the key premises to that argument is that teachers direct the difficulty of their material around the midpoint of the class competence. However this is often not the case, and where not it undermines the hypothesis - not necessary fatally, but potentially enough that measurement may be erroneous.

The data shows that the lower your academic preparation is, relative to your peers, the lower graduation rates and lower grades you will have. This is independent from the "teaching to the middle of the class" hypothesis. This is what the numbers say. It doesn't matter whether or not teachers teach to the middle of the class or not. This alone should warrant investigation.

 

[Trunkage]

The data shows that the lower your academic preparation is, relative to your peers, the lower graduation rates and lower grades you will have. This is independent from the "teaching to the middle of the class" hypothesis. This is what the numbers say. It doesn't matter whether or not teachers teach to the middle of the class or not. This alone should warrant investigation.

In year 12, I got an A for ICT. Second in the class. But that class was moderated. Students work from across the state were gathered to compare and contrast. After this, I was still second in the class but got a C. Everyone else except the top student failed.

Sometimes, poor performance is due to the student. Sometimes its due to the teacher. Assuming bad results is the students fault needs more scrutiny than looking at a score

 

[Houseman]

In year 12, I got an A for ICT. Second in the class. But that class was moderated. Students work from across the state were gathered to compare and contrast. After this, I was still second in the class but got a C. Everyone else except the top student failed.

Sometimes, poor performance is due to the student. Sometimes its due to the teacher. Assuming bad results is the students fault needs more scrutiny than looking at a score

Yeah, that's why lots of data is looked at, so that consistencies and patterns emerge. If it was equal parts the fault of the student and the fault of the teacher, the statistics would have shown that. You honestly think that people with doctorates failed to account for something like this?

 

[Agema]

But don't you agree that more studies and more data is warranted?

I always agree more research is valuable (with the possible exception of where it's diverting resources from more important research). The last thing I would want anyone to think is that I would want discussion just shut down. From what I have read, other researchers have attempted to replicate with similar studies, however, have at best achieved mixed results.

The data shows that the lower your academic preparation is, relative to your peers, the lower graduation rates and lower grades you will have. This is independent from the "teaching to the middle of the class" hypothesis. This is what the numbers say. It doesn't matter whether or not teachers teach to the middle of the class or not. This alone should warrant investigation.

Sure, but there's an inherent start point that worse students do worse. There then have to be one or more specific reasons why an ability gap causes forms of failure not explained simply by being a weak student, and the analysis must accurately be able to identify this. From the criticisms of Lempert and others, the key problems are that there are flaws in the methodology which, if true, mean the numbers used to make the case are partially or wholly wrong.

 

[Houseman]

Sure, but there's an inherent start point that worse students do worse.

Yes! That's the crux of the issue! That is all that is needed! That, right there, is how Affirmative Action hurts more than it helps.

Racial preferences in college admissions, which is the act of lowering the bar based on an applicant's race, generally means that these students will be "worse" relative to the students who didn't need to have the bar lowered for them.

These students who need to have the bar lowered for them, are generally going to be "worse students"!

Researchers who aren't even part of this debate don't dispute that grades are proportional to graduation. It's a fact. It's proven as much as anything can be.
Lempert doesn't dispute that this is true. Nobody does. Sander's critics don't say "no, this doesn't happen!" they just say "No, mismatch isn't true"

This is the real issue. We can just forget about Sander and Mismatch and Lempert right now. This is the issue. Can we agree on that?

 

[Avnger]

Yes! That's the crux of the issue! That is all that is needed! That, right there, is how Affirmative Action hurts more than it helps.

Racial preferences in college admissions, which is the act of lowering the bar based on an applicant's race, generally means that these students will be "worse" relative to the students who didn't need to have the bar lowered for them.

These students who need to have the bar lowered for them, are generally going to be "worse students"!

One person being a "worse student" than a hypothetical other person has zero relation to anyone being "hurt" or "helped."

A "worse student" doesn't mean the person didn't benefit. A "worse student" doesn't mean the school as a whole or the person's individual classmates didn't benefit. A "worse student" doesn't mean society didn't benefit.

US Colleges routinely let in "worse students" for all number of reasons including extra-curricular activities, well-written applications, employment of parents as faculty or staff, etc. Unless you're also going to argue that all of those "hurt more than [they] help," try again.