Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites

[Houseman]

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.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a "worse" student... as long as you still graduate.

The school doesn't benefit from drop-outs, it benefits from graduates. Their chosen field doesn't benefit from drop-outs who don't get jobs, it benefits from graduates who do.

If all you did was get accepted into a school that you should have never been accepted to in the first place, and flunked out, then your time, perhaps years of your life, were cruelly wasted.

How would you feel if you were accepted for a job that everyone else knew you couldn't do, or accepted into a school that was far above your abilities, and then failed spectacularly? You'd likely feel humiliated, especially if your acceptance was based on some sort of inherent characteristic.

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.

Yes. They do, as long as the bar is lowered for them, then that means they are less likely to graduate in direct proportion to how low the bar was lowered.

It's possible that students of faculty may have very high test scores, however. Just because they're guaranteed entry doesn't mean that they're automatically "worse students". If and only if they lack the necessary grades and test scores to get in, does it make one a "worse student".

 

[Trunkage]

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?

it more looking at why Yale and Harvard look at personality etc, not just results. And no, I don’t think the system is perfect. I don’t think there could ever be one. And, as I’ve said previously money and legacy students ruin it. I didn’t get the course I wanted even though I had this one clear outlier so I don’t know how well looking at pattern works. Sometimes it smooths out results. Sometimes it excludes

But then, I don’t understand why Harvard and Yale don’t upscale how many people they can take if they are such a good university. That would be a better solution

 

[Houseman]

so I don’t know how well looking at pattern works. Sometimes it smooths out results. Sometimes it excludes

Of course! In the case of one individual, statistics and patterns may not meet their specific needs.

But this isn't about that. This is about data from thousands of people which show clear trends. Even if, 20% of people become blind after eating Nestle Crunch bars, while the other 80% of people are fine, something must be done.

 

[Gergar12]

Of course, the Trump admin wants to do away with affirmative action, can't have more Ilhan Omars, AOCs, and Ayanna Pressley's. Otherwise, gasp America may actually be more egalitarian.

 

[fOx]

If affirmative action is going to be a thing, then it should be based on factors like economic status. It's silly for a poor japanese boy in a ghetto to get treated unfairly because of his race. If the concern is that certain groups are economically disadvantaged, and you base support on economic status, then you'll inevitably be supporting disadvantaged groups by design anyway.

 

[Houseman]

If affirmative action is going to be a thing, then it should be based on factors like economic status. It's silly for a poor japanese boy in a ghetto to get treated unfairly because of his race. If the concern is that certain groups are economically disadvantaged, and you base support on economic status, then you'll inevitably be supporting disadvantaged groups by design anyway.

It's almost as if the upper class want to distract from the real issues and problems and make it about race...

 

[fOx]

It's almost as if the upper class want to distract from the real issues and problems and make it about race...

Shucks, houseman, that never occurred to me. Thank you.

 

[Trunkage]

It's almost as if the upper class want to distract from the real issues and problems and make it about race...

Careful. You're perilously close to being a socialist

 

[Agema]

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.

No, that's not the issue. Sander's argument as I see it is that students would do better if placed in a lower-rank school. Which is to say, they are capable of passing a law degree and the bar, but somehow less do worse if they go to a higher rank university. That's in the name: mismatch: a matching problem, not a fundamental ability problem.

 

[Kae]

It's almost as if the upper class want to distract from the real issues and problems and make it about race...

COULD IT BE TRUE?!!!

Can I call you Comrade Houseman now?!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

COULD IT BE TRUE?!!!

Can I call you Comrade Houseman now?!

Personally I prefer this.

 

[Houseman]

Personally I prefer this.

I prefer this.

No, that's not the issue. Sander's argument as I see it is that students would do better if placed in a lower-rank school. Which is to say, they are capable of passing a law degree and the bar, but somehow less do worse if they go to a higher rank university. That's in the name: mismatch: a matching problem, not a fundamental ability problem.

That's a proposed solution to the problem. If you don't like that solution, fine, come up with another one.
Meanwhile, real harm continues to be perpetrated and nobody seems to care about studying it or coming up with ways to prevent it or solve it.

 

[Agema]

That's a proposed solution to the problem. If you don't like that solution, fine, come up with another one.
Meanwhile, real harm continues to be perpetrated and nobody seems to care about studying it or coming up with ways to prevent it or solve it.

One might say exactly the same of you.

About 13% of the US population is black, but only about 8% of Ivy League students are. Either black people are genetically inferior, or something about society impedes their access to top universities and high status positions in society. So anyone who doesn't want to argue the former needs to buck their ideas up and understand "real harm continues to be perpetrated" in that continued heavy underrepresentation, because it necessarily means human talent is being wasted like seeds cast on stony ground. So do you have any alternative recommendations, have you read any research, and do you support any alternative policies to sort this out?

If not, I think you've got more than your own fair share of thinking to do.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

One might say exactly the same of you.

About 13% of the US population is black, but only about 8% of Ivy League students are.

I mean... a quick google search says that only 44% of Ivy League students are white despite 72% of America being made up of white people. I don't understand your point, are you suggesting all black Americans should be Ivy League students?

 

[Houseman]

One might say exactly the same of you.

Me, personally? Absolutely they can. I'm not in a position to change anything about Affirmative Action or how elite universities work. At most, I can try and dissuade a minority high-school graduate from submitting an application to Brown and instead stick to community college, but I don't know any. But it's absolutely true to say that I'm not doing anything about the real harm that is currently being perpetrated.

So what is this, a Tu Quoque? My inaction justifies the inaction of everyone else, even those who are actually in a position to help, like the California Bar Association who, despite being legally mandated to, refuses to release data? I'm flattered, but I don't think we're quite on the same level.

About 13% of the US population is black, but only about 8% of Ivy League students are. Either black people are genetically inferior, or something about society impedes their access to top universities and high status positions in society. So anyone who doesn't want to argue the former needs to buck their ideas up and understand "real harm continues to be perpetrated" in that continued heavy underrepresentation, because it necessarily means human talent is being wasted like seeds cast on stony ground.

I feel like we've gone backwards a bit. Before we were talking about graduation rates, and now we're talking about acceptance rates.

What would you rather have?

- A student body made up of a proportionate (relative to the population) percentage of black students, where blacks flunk out in disproportionately high numbers, relative to white and Asian students?

- A student body made up of disproportionately low percentage of black students, where blacks are equally likely to flunk out, relative to white and Asian students?

If it's the former, forgive me, but that just seems cruel. That's setting people up for failure. I'd rather have the latter.

Access to top universities doesn't mean a thing unless you can actually graduate from those universities. Going there and dropping out doesn't help.
Universities don't just have entry requirements to be mean. They serve an actual purpose. Students who meet those entry requirements have a much better change of graduating. Students who don't, have a much poorer chance of graduating. Like Avnger noted, "legacy" students, regardless of race, also fare worse if they don't meet the Academic Index requirements.

We don't want more harm than good.

---

If you want to solve the problem that black students from poor neighborhoods are educated worse than white students in affluent neighborhoods, so that, when it comes time to send college applications, both black and white students have equally strong qualifications (grades, SAT scores), I absolutely think that would help in keeping both acceptance rates and graduation rates proportional. Sadly, I am not in a position to do anything about it, so feel free to criticize me on that front.

 

[Agema]

I mean... a quick google search says that only 44% of Ivy League students are white despite 72% of America being made up of white people. I don't understand your point, are you suggesting all black Americans should be Ivy League students?

Firstly, that 72% of America being white means Hispanic and non-Hispanic white, whereas the 44% in the Ivy League represents only non-Hispanic whites. If we subtract Hispanic whites from the 72%, we're probably more around 60%. We also need to bear in mind students are overwhelmingly around 18-25, and non-Hispanic whites have been procreating slower than other demographics, so the percentage for that age group will be lower still. Even still, whites are somewhat underrepresented. Asians are most certainly heavily overrepresented.

* * *

I'm suggesting that in a notionally equal opportunity world, we should expect the racial representation in fields to equal the general, national demographics (with allowances for random fluctuation). And black students are massively underrepresented at Ivy League schools despite affirmative action increasing their admissions.

The persistent underrepresentation of blacks amongst the elites (economic, social, political and intellectual) therefore either means that either they are biologically inferior, or that they are on average disadvantaged in society. I'm inclined to the latter. If anyone believes the former, I doubt they're willing to put their reputation out for a kicking by saying so. I don't necessarily blame this disadvantagement so strongly on modern day racism, but it is absolutely and unquestionably a result of historical racism. It blights the opportunities of millions and millions of people, and denies the country the opportunity to make the most of their talents.

So what does anyone propose we do about it? Apart, obviously, from the general right-wing answer of "nothing at all".

 

[Gergar12]

Shucks, houseman, that never occurred to me. Thank you.

Why not both???

 

[Trunkage]

I mean... a quick google search says that only 44% of Ivy League students are white despite 72% of America being made up of white people. I don't understand your point, are you suggesting all black Americans should be Ivy League students?

The problem is that, if you base enterance on academic achievement, whites are still very overrepresented. Asian should be close to 50 %

 

[Agema]

So what is this, a Tu Quoque?

This is a strange way to approach the issue: obviously nobody here is expected to have an individually significant effect on Yale's admissions process. You made a moral judgement, and if there are apparent problems in your reasoning to reach that judgement, they can be pointed out.

What would you rather have?

I'd rather have a better picture of what's going on than Sander's flawed and one-sided view of the situation on which to base policy change.

If it's the former, forgive me, but that just seems cruel. That's setting people up for failure. I'd rather have the latter...

Universities don't just have entry requirements to be mean.

I was a course admissions tutor for nearly two years: I've dealt with this personally and been part of these discussions and decisions. Understanding the risks of increased accessibility against student failure is integral. One student fails and wastes their time/money but another succeeds when they would not, or one student is saved waste and the other loses their opportunity to succeed. Which of these is better? (How do we even "measure" it?). There is flexibility about what proportion of failure is acceptable depending on what the aim is: are you taking dead certs to excel, or do you see your job as taking a risk to offer opportunities to the disadvantaged or kids had a meltdown on an exam day?

The bottom line is that a unviersity should set a decent minimum standard, and if it is met, it is met, and manage expectations of weaker applicants. And at that point caveat emptor: the responsibility drops onto the student to weigh their options and exercise their own discretion. And often, even a failed degree is not a total waste. Students learn knowledge, study skills, transferrable skills, and so on that are still useful.

Access to top universities doesn't mean a thing unless you can actually graduate from those universities. Going there and dropping out doesn't help.

Sure. Critics point out that some research finds the main reason for dropping out is not academic but financial, and Sander's 2004 study does not take this into account.

We don't want more harm than good.

Right. And the key objections to Sander's work from his critics is that he's made major errors which mean his assessment of harm is wrong (such as the above): other researchers have not been able to replicate his findings. How wrong is unclear. To remove the policy on the basis of uncertain information is therefore potentially to do harm.

What do you propose, then?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The problem is that, if you base enterance on academic achievement, whites are still very overrepresented. Asian should be close to 50 %

Asians apparently make up 21% of Ivy League but make up only 6% of the American population. I don't see how that's not already a huge representation compared to the percentage of racially Asian people in America.