4 X more "unqualified" white students admitted to Harvard than black students

[ronburgundy]

A study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were admitted for reasons other than academic qualifications, such as legacy, $ donors, and children of faculty. 75% of them would not have been admitted based upon their academic credentials. Given that whites are about 50% of all admissions, that works out to be .43 X .75 X .50 = .16 or 16% of all students being whites given preferential treatment and taking seats from more academically qualified students.

Court documents from the lawsuits about Harvard affirmative action policies show that about 4% of Harvard's students are black students admitted due to affirmative action preferences (out of 14% total black student population).

IOW, for every black student admitted because of affirmative action and thus "took the seat from a more qualified student" (to use standard rhetoric), there are 4 white students who took a seat from a more qualified student.

Yet, conservatives who claim to only to care about fairness, focus almost exclusively on the non-whites admitted by affirmative action. This reveals a lack of principled commitment to actual fairness, and a racial ulterior motive by such conservatives.

 

[repoman]

So, white Appalachian hillbilly geniuses should be suing.

 

[Trausti]

Yes. Universities should stop giving preferences for athletics. That should help with diversity.

 

[Trausti]

For legacy/donor preference admissions, how many more disadvantaged students are able to attend university because of this donor cash funding scholarships?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were admitted for reasons other than academic qualifications, such as legacy, $ donors, and children of faculty. 75% of them would not have been admitted based upon their academic credentials. Given that whites are about 50% of all admissions, that works out to be .43 X .75 X .50 = .16 or 16% of all students being whites given preferential treatment and taking seats from more academically qualified students.

Court documents from the lawsuits about Harvard affirmative action policies show that about 4% of Harvard's students are black students admitted due to affirmative action preferences (out of 14% total black student population).

IOW, for every black student admitted because of affirmative action and thus "took the seat from a more qualified student" (to use standard rhetoric), there are 4 white students who took a seat from a more qualified student.

Yet, conservatives who claim to only to care about fairness, focus almost exclusively on the non-whites admitted by affirmative action. This reveals a lack of principled commitment to actual fairness, and a racial ulterior motive by such conservatives.

This isn't news to conservatives. They already know they can buy their way into things, including college with "donations." The whole Affirmative Action crying game was always a distraction because conservative principles are not about fairness in the first place. They are about protecting the elite. Look at Donald Trump. He paid someone to take his SATs. His unqualified children all got into Penn. And then those unqualified children became staff members of the Administration. And who backs it all up? Conservatives...

 

[ronburgundy]

For legacy/donor preference admissions, how many more disadvantaged students are able to attend university because of this donor cash funding scholarships?

Legacy admissions are not donors, they are merely kids of people that went there who automatically get preferential treatment (5 fold increase in the odds of admission). There are far more legacy students than donors, and not all donations actually result in expanding academic enrollments (such as donations to build new athletic centers).

That's why the study showed if they just eliminated admissions for athletes and legacies (who donate nothing), there would be a significant decrease in white students at Harvard. Because, even though there are a good % of black athletes, most "unqualified" admissions are legacies and the vast majority of them are white.

 

[Trausti]

Oh, okay. Remove athletic and legacy admissions and the % of Asian students would go up.

 

[Trausti]

A study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were admitted for reasons other than academic qualifications, such as legacy, $ donors, and children of faculty. 75% of them would not have been admitted based upon their academic credentials. Given that whites are about 50% of all admissions, that works out to be .43 X .75 X .50 = .16 or 16% of all students being whites given preferential treatment and taking seats from more academically qualified students.

Court documents from the lawsuits about Harvard affirmative action policies show that about 4% of Harvard's students are black students admitted due to affirmative action preferences (out of 14% total black student population).

IOW, for every black student admitted because of affirmative action and thus "took the seat from a more qualified student" (to use standard rhetoric), there are 4 white students who took a seat from a more qualified student.

Yet, conservatives who claim to only to care about fairness, focus almost exclusively on the non-whites admitted by affirmative action. This reveals a lack of principled commitment to actual fairness, and a racial ulterior motive by such conservatives.

This isn't news to conservatives. They already know they can buy their way into things, including college with "donations." The whole Affirmative Action crying game was always a distraction because conservative principles are not about fairness in the first place. They are about protecting the elite. Look at Donald Trump. He paid someone to take his SATs. His unqualified children all got into Penn. And then those unqualified children became staff members of the Administration. And who backs it all up? Conservatives...

And the best way to ensure fairness and merit, and stop the Lori Loughlins of the world, is to use standardized testing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Oh, okay. Remove athletic and legacy admissions and the % of Asian students would go up.

And that would be a problem because?

 

[Trausti]

Oh, okay. Remove athletic and legacy admissions and the % of Asian students would go up.

And that would be a problem because?

Who said it would be a problem? But Harvard was purposefully rigging its admissions to hinder Asian admissions. Asians sued over it.

 

[Trausti]

There was another study - posted on the forum somewhere - showing that if merit/standardized tests alone were used, the % of White and Asian students would increase at Harvard.

 

[ronburgundy]

A study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were admitted for reasons other than academic qualifications, such as legacy, $ donors, and children of faculty. 75% of them would not have been admitted based upon their academic credentials. Given that whites are about 50% of all admissions, that works out to be .43 X .75 X .50 = .16 or 16% of all students being whites given preferential treatment and taking seats from more academically qualified students.

Court documents from the lawsuits about Harvard affirmative action policies show that about 4% of Harvard's students are black students admitted due to affirmative action preferences (out of 14% total black student population).

IOW, for every black student admitted because of affirmative action and thus "took the seat from a more qualified student" (to use standard rhetoric), there are 4 white students who took a seat from a more qualified student.

Yet, conservatives who claim to only to care about fairness, focus almost exclusively on the non-whites admitted by affirmative action. This reveals a lack of principled commitment to actual fairness, and a racial ulterior motive by such conservatives.

This isn't news to conservatives. They already know they can buy their way into things, including college with "donations." The whole Affirmative Action crying game was always a distraction because conservative principles are not about fairness in the first place. They are about protecting the elite. Look at Donald Trump. He paid someone to take his SATs. His unqualified children all got into Penn. And then those unqualified children became staff members of the Administration. And who backs it all up? Conservatives...

And the best way to ensure fairness and merit, and stop the Lori Loughlins of the world, is to use standardized testing.

Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22. Also, getting rid of legacies doesn't require any change to how applications are evaluated other than getting rid of the explicit and formal policy of giving legacy students slots. Just strike the applicants name from all materials given to admissions officers and assign a random #. Then, no matter what criteria are used, it cannot be biased by knowing who that applicant's parents or relatives are.

 

[laughing dog]

And the best way to ensure fairness and merit, and stop the Lori Loughlins of the world, is to use standardized testing.

That assumes that people will be unable to hire others to take the standardized test for the cherished child.

 

[Trausti]

And the best way to ensure fairness and merit, and stop the Lori Loughlins of the world, is to use standardized testing.

Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22. Also, getting rid of legacies doesn't require any change to how applications are evaluated other than getting rid of the explicit and formal policy of giving legacy students slots. Just strike the applicants name from all materials given to admissions officers and assign a random #. Then, no matter what criteria are used, it cannot be biased by knowing who that applicant's parents or relatives are.

Nah. If standardized tests favored the rich, why the shenanigans by Felicity Hoffman and Lori Loughlin? Their wealth couldn’t make their kids ace the SAT. They tried to use their wealth to get around standardized testing.

 

[Trausti]

And, of course, the OP is all about rich parents finding ways to avoid standardized testing so their offspring can go to university.

 

[blastula]

Falsifying a test score is why Huffman went to prison.

 

[Trausti]

Falsifying a test score is why Huffman went to prison.

Right. She paid a proctor to fix her daughter’s wrong answers. Her wealth couldn’t make her daughter ace the SAT.

 

[ronburgundy]

And the best way to ensure fairness and merit, and stop the Lori Loughlins of the world, is to use standardized testing.

Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22. Also, getting rid of legacies doesn't require any change to how applications are evaluated other than getting rid of the explicit and formal policy of giving legacy students slots. Just strike the applicants name from all materials given to admissions officers and assign a random #. Then, no matter what criteria are used, it cannot be biased by knowing who that applicant's parents or relatives are.

Nah. If standardized tests favored the rich, why the shenanigans by Felicity Hoffman and Lori Loughlin? Their wealth couldn’t make their kids ace the SAT. They tried to use their wealth to get around standardized testing.

It's an empirical fact that wealth increases test scores. There is an large and highly profitable market based on this fact, which sells higher test scores to those that can afford it. The number of students who ace the ACT has increased 500% in the past decade alone. That's b/c of development of test-focused training not b/c there are suddenly 5 times more geniuses.

Are you seriously so dumb that you can't imagine why rich people would use their wealth in more than one way to get their kids advantages? There is nothing about being able to buy score-boosting training that would negate some parents just trying to buy admission more directly.

And, of course, the OP is all about rich parents finding ways to avoid standardized testing so their offspring can go to university.

No, the OP is about the fact that most of the less qualified applicants who are taking the seats of more qualified applicants are white, and yet right wingers like yourself constantly complain about affirmative action but rarely ever mention legacy admits, thus exposing the racism that masks fake concern for fairness which that underlies your complaint.

 

[ronburgundy]

Falsifying a test score is why Huffman went to prison.

Right. She paid a proctor to fix her daughter’s wrong answers. Her wealth couldn’t make her daughter ace the SAT.

The fact that a rich person was too dumb to even take advantage of how their wealth can boost their scores beyond their true intellectual ability has no logical relevance to the empirical fact that wealth can be and is used by many of the rich to boost test scores.

 

[Trausti]

Falsifying a test score is why Huffman went to prison.

Right. She paid a proctor to fix her daughter’s wrong answers. Her wealth couldn’t make her daughter ace the SAT.

The fact that a rich person was too dumb to even take advantage of how their wealth can boost their scores beyond their true intellectual ability has no logical relevance to the empirical fact that wealth can be and is used by many of the rich to boost test scores.

The only way wealth can be used to boost test scores, is for an average but wealthy person to marry a smart but modest person and hope the kids take the smart side. Otherwise, there is no empirical evidence that wealth buys cognition.