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

[Metaphor]

No. "Affirmative action" applies to an entire class of people. Black people get affirmative action a Harvard. "White people" do not. "The children of WASPs who attended Harvard" is not "white people". It's not even one percent of one percent of white people.

First, WASPs are white people. Second, using pedantry to miss the point is pathetic that legacy admissions are a de facto form of admitting unqualified white people.

I've always been against legacy admissions so I don't know why you're trying to tell me this.

Also, legacy admissions include black people. I know it's hard to believe.

 

[Jokodo]

Also, legacy admissions include black people. I know it's hard to believe.

No one said otherwise.

It is however also a fact that 30-40 years ago, when today's college or high school graduates' parents were students, black people in the USA were more underrepresented at universities (in general and elite universities in particular) than today. More even a generation before that. It is an inherent property of legacy admissions that they tilt the composition of the student body towards what it used to be, and away from what it would otherwise be today.

It is a logical consequence of these two facts that, in the context of the US today, legacy admissions have a significant effect of making universities more "white" than they would be without them, and that, all else equal, the proportion of people who got in due to the legacy admissions policy is much lower among black students than among white students.

Logic, and facts.

Not your straw men.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a logical consequence of these two facts that, in the context of the US today, legacy admissions have a significant effect of making universities more "white" than they would be without them,

Not necessarily. It could mean a university ramps up non-academic admission of non-whites using other means to compensate.

and that, all else equal, the proportion of people who got in due to the legacy admissions policy is much lower among black students than among white students.

Sure. So get rid of legacy admissions, and athletic admissions, and affirmative action admissions.

 

[Jokodo]

It is a logical consequence of these two facts that, in the context of the US today, legacy admissions have a significant effect of making universities more "white" than they would be without them,

Not necessarily. It could mean a university ramps up non-academic admission of non-whites using other means to compensate.

The universities would still be more white than they would be without legacy admissions. Those other means, if any, are, well, you said it, "other means". More x with measure Z than without it tends to mean, implicitly at least, "all else equal".

You might as well retort to someone saying "Sydney is safer than Kabul" with "not necessarily, an asteroid could strike Sydney tomorrow for all we know".

 

[Metaphor]

It is a logical consequence of these two facts that, in the context of the US today, legacy admissions have a significant effect of making universities more "white" than they would be without them,

Not necessarily. It could mean a university ramps up non-academic admission of non-whites using other means to compensate.

The universities would still be more white than they would be without legacy admissions. Those other means, if any, are, well, you said it, "other means". More x with measure Z than without it tends to mean, implicitly at least, "all else equal".

You might as well retort to someone saying "Sydney is safer than Kabul" with "not necessarily, an asteroid could strike Sydney tomorrow for all we know".

No. Legacy admissions are a small fraction of all admissions, and given Harvard's diversity statements, it seems certain to me that they scaled up nonwhite recruitment to counterbalance the extra whites that legacy admissions bring.

This is not an asteroid striking Sydney. It's not an imagined one in a lifetime event. Harvard has admitted and defended its race-based admissions.

In any case, stop legacy admissions, stop athletic admissions, and stop affirmative action admissions.

 

[laughing dog]

No. "Affirmative action" applies to an entire class of people. Black people get affirmative action a Harvard. "White people" do not. "The children of WASPs who attended Harvard" is not "white people". It's not even one percent of one percent of white people.

First, WASPs are white people. Second, using pedantry to miss the point is pathetic that legacy admissions are a de facto form of admitting unqualified white people.

I've always been against legacy admissions so I don't know why you're trying to tell me this.

What you are for or against is immaterial to the reality to the discussion. Try to focus - this is not about you. The point is that legacy admissions both historically and currently are a method to admit mostly unqualified white students.
The OP's point is that admission through such methods (which include donor's children, athletic scholarships. etc....) displaces many more qualified white students than affirmative action. The "displacers" tend to be overwhelming white. The champions of fairness as a group (which means not every single person, unless, of course they are feminists or part of "the Woke") focus on affirmative action.

Also, legacy admissions include black people. I know it's hard to believe.

Thank you, Captain Pedant, for injecting more evidence of obtuseness into the discussion.

 

[Metaphor]

The point is that legacy admissions both historically and currently are a method to admit mostly unqualified white students.

The OP's point is that admission through such methods (which include donor's children, athletic scholarships. etc....) displaces many more qualified white students than affirmative action. The "displacers" tend to be overwhelming white. The champions of fairness as a group (which means not every single person, unless, of course they are feminists or part of "the Woke") focus on affirmative action.

Good. Get rid of legacy admissions, athletic admissions, and affirmative action admissions. Get rid of legacy admissions, and replace everybody that would have been admitted with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of athletics admissions, which I freely confess are mind-bogglingly stupid, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of affirmative action admissions, which I find to be utterly deplorable, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out.

 

[Jokodo]

The universities would still be more white than they would be without legacy admissions. Those other means, if any, are, well, you said it, "other means". More x with measure Z than without it tends to mean, implicitly at least, "all else equal".

You might as well retort to someone saying "Sydney is safer than Kabul" with "not necessarily, an asteroid could strike Sydney tomorrow for all we know".

No. Legacy admissions are a small fraction of all admissions,

Which thread have you been reading?

Because this one starts with "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."

First post, first sentence, complete with a link to the source.

and given Harvard's diversity statements, it seems certain to me that they scaled up nonwhite recruitment to counterbalance the extra whites that legacy admissions bring.

You're sure that fancy words have more effect than material reality? What kind of idealist are you?

 

[laughing dog]

The point is that legacy admissions both historically and currently are a method to admit mostly unqualified white students.

The OP's point is that admission through such methods (which include donor's children, athletic scholarships. etc....) displaces many more qualified white students than affirmative action. The "displacers" tend to be overwhelming white. The champions of fairness as a group (which means not every single person, unless, of course they are feminists or part of "the Woke") focus on affirmative action.

Good. Get rid of legacy admissions, athletic admissions, and affirmative action admissions. Get rid of legacy admissions, and replace everybody that would have been admitted with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of athletics admissions, which I freely confess are mind-bogglingly stupid, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of affirmative action admissions, which I find to be utterly deplorable, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out.

Again, the OP is not about you or your preferences.

Harvard is not going to get rid of legacy or donor admissions or athletic scholarships. As a matter of fact, I strongly suspect that one of the motivating reasons behind Harvard's decision to move towards a more holistic approach is to fold of those categories under the "holistic" approach.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point is that legacy admissions both historically and currently are a method to admit mostly unqualified white students.

The OP's point is that admission through such methods (which include donor's children, athletic scholarships. etc....) displaces many more qualified white students than affirmative action. The "displacers" tend to be overwhelming white. The champions of fairness as a group (which means not every single person, unless, of course they are feminists or part of "the Woke") focus on affirmative action.

Good. Get rid of legacy admissions, athletic admissions, and affirmative action admissions. Get rid of legacy admissions, and replace everybody that would have been admitted with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of athletics admissions, which I freely confess are mind-bogglingly stupid, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out. Get rid of affirmative action admissions, which I find to be utterly deplorable, and replace them with the more academically qualified people who missed out.

Again, the OP is not about you or your preferences.

Harvard is not going to get rid of legacy or donor admissions or athletic scholarships.

Ivy League doesn't have athletic scholarships, I believe.

Which says something regarding the bulk of legacy admissions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. "Affirmative action" applies to an entire class of people. Black people get affirmative action a Harvard. "White people" do not. "The children of WASPs who attended Harvard" is not "white people". It's not even one percent of one percent of white people.

First, WASPs are white people. Second, using pedantry to miss the point is pathetic that legacy admissions are a de facto form of admitting unqualified white people.

I've always been against legacy admissions so I don't know why you're trying to tell me this.

Also, legacy admissions include black people. I know it's hard to believe.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold up.

So, you're saying black people are legacy admissions, too?

But this means that even less are this so-called unqualified affirmative action admissions. So that further underscores the op author's point.

 

[Metaphor]

Which thread have you been reading?

Because this one starts with "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."

What have you been reading? The sentence you quoted lumps in three different reasons.

What percentage of black students who are admitted to Harvard are admitted for reasons other than academic qualifications? It isn't the figure already quoted in the article, because that is only for affirmative action reasons.

 

[Metaphor]

I've always been against legacy admissions so I don't know why you're trying to tell me this.

Also, legacy admissions include black people. I know it's hard to believe.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold up.

So, you're saying black people are legacy admissions, too?

But this means that even less are this so-called unqualified affirmative action admissions. So that further underscores the op author's point.

No. The OP says:

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).

The OP also made a calculation on white legacy admissions, not all legacy admissions, so the OPs third paragraph is correct (there are four times as many white legacy admits that would not have qualified as there are black affirmative action admits that would not have qualified).

But I find it an odd ratio to talk about. I don't have the time to do it now, but if the stats are available, I would calculate all "non-academic" admissions by race and talk about that, and whether white people are more likely to benefit overall from "non-academic" admissions (noting that any ratios based on raw numbers need to be considered in context of the total number of high school students by race).

 

[Metaphor]

The paper that the article in the OP references is this one:
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

 

[Metaphor]

From evidence presented at the Harvard trial:

 

[Jokodo]

Which thread have you been reading?

Because this one starts with "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."

What have you been reading?

I directly replied to your statement about legacy admits being a small fraction of all admits. Can you defend or give up that claim without running off on a tangent?

 

[Derec]

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.

So 43% of white students are supposedly "not qualified" by the metrics used by the study. Have they applied a similar analysis to percentage of black students who are not qualified? After all, Harvard practices so-called "affirmative action", i.e. racial preferences. In addition, there are many black college athletes who only got in because they can dunk of throw a handegg. There are also rich blacks who can donate money, black faculty members and black alumni with college-aged kids.
In fact, it is well known that black students have by far the lowest average SAT scores of any racial group admitted to Harvard.


But no, some politically motivated study wants to hide that fact by claiming it is really white people who are being admitted while unqualified.

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.

But that's a very dishonest way to look at it, because the base is lower.
Proper question would be: what percentage of blacks admitted to Harvard are not qualified using the same standard used for whites.

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.

And faux-libs claim to care about fairness, but then champion admitting students based on race, and discriminating against others bases on race.
They claim it's for "diversity", but then they support so-called HBCUs which are the least diverse universities in the US!

 

[Derec]

Look at Donald Trump. He paid someone to take his SATs.

Allegedly, but even if true, two wrongs do not make a right. Besides, if he were black he would not need to pay anybody to take the SATs for him as he would not need high SATs (or GPA for that matter) to get into supposedly selective universities because of racial preferences.

His unqualified children all got into Penn.

How do you know they were unqualified? But if they were, how is that bad, but unqualified people getting in because of their race is good and a "progressive" value?

And then those unqualified children became staff members of the Administration. And who backs it all up? Conservatives...

I am too young to remember, but remind me: what did the liberals say when JFK put his brother in as AG?

 

[Derec]

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.

And if racial preferences were removed, black admissions would plummet almost six-fold from 11% to 2%.

From here. On the other hand, legacy and athletics doubles black admissions from 1% to 2%.

Because, even though there are a good % of black athletes, most "unqualified" admissions are legacies and the vast majority of them are white.

By percentage of total in each racial group, most by far are racial preferences.

 

[Derec]

It's an empirical fact that wealth increases test scores.

It's a correlation, but that fact alone does not tell you what the causation is.
You think it's prep courses and expensive tutors, but other things that should be considered that better off people tend to be more educated and more educated people tend to rear their children differently from an early age - reading to them when little, fostering reading books, pushing them academically etc. It's not just about a single test, it's about a whole child- and teenhood. Note also that great wealth is not necessary for this, as being middle class is enough. But being poor and having kids is a detriment. Perhaps we should discourage those who can't afford children from having them?

And on the subject of reading to your kids, there was even a lefty academic in the UK who said that parents reading to their kids is "unfair" to those children whose parents don't.

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.

[citation needed] but even if technically true, does that also apply to SAT? It may be an ACT-specific problem.

That's b/c of development of test-focused training not b/c there are suddenly 5 times more geniuses.

I would not call everybody who scores 36 on ACT a "genius". 1600 on SAT would be closer to it, since 36 on ACT corresponds to a 30 point range (1570-1600) on SAT.
Also, you cannot assume that your pet explanation is the cause without some additional evidence.

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.

Yes, wealthy people can give their kids more advantages than poor people. Including such things as emphasizing education or having their kids take up an instrument (studies have shown that it boosts cognitive development). Note that these advantages result in students better developed and prepared for an education at a highly selective university.
In any case, how does that justify disadvantaging Asian and white students and advantaging blacks, hispanics and Indians?
There are wealthy people in all racial groups and poor people in all racial groups. Harvard practices race-based preferences, not parental wealth-based preferences!

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.

Legacy admissions are rarely mentioned because your lot does not defend them. You people (by which I mean leftists) DO defend race-based preferences a lot. Hence, we debate and argue over race-based preferences. Where there is largely an agreement, we talk less about. That's pretty normal, don't you think?