I am not talking about one particular program. I’m talking about whatever the sum of multifaceted institutional needs that could vary from year to year. And I didn’t make that assumption. I just said that’s why the “tuber players” argument couldn’t stand.
Further, from the Espenshade book:
The Espenshade data was not from HYP.
Try this:
The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities, SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 86, Number 2, June 2005
That would be kinda silly…applications are supposedly confidential. And no, just redacting the name and SSN wouldn’t provide much anonymity. If they also redacted the essays and the recs, folks would then come back and demand to see the essays so that “the public could decide” if they were A+ essays, and deserving of an admissions bump, or just average. Ditto recs. Next, the public would demand an analysis of course rigor…compared to what? Oh yeah, compared to the offerings at the local HS. Thus, the public then needs the school profile…
The “public” will never be satisfied, so not worth playing ‘their’ game.
And this
Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities, SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 85, Number 5, December 2004
“The information for this analysis comes from three private research universities that represent the top tier of American higher education.”
That sounds like Congress talking! 
@Hunt : I am a white liberal, sort of, and I am concerned about discrimination against Asians. I am not in the least concerned about the effect of affirmative action for disadvantaged minorities on Asian applicants, just as I am not in the least concerned about the effect of affirmative action on white applicants. But I am upset whenever I read things that suggest that there is systematic discrimination going on between Asian and white applicants. If such discrimination exists, it’s wrong, and it should be corrected.
There are a couple of reasons why I believe the discrimination does not exist. First, as far as I can tell, no one believes it would be right. When you have discrimination, it starts with people who believe discrimination is proper, and I don’t think there are such people here. Second, there are too many people involved in the admissions process, including plenty who would be sensitive to this issue, to keep any kind of overt discrimination quiet, or even to countenance obvious non-overt discrimination. People speculate about quotas all the time, but if any college were applying a quota for the past decade, not to mention a score of high-profile colleges, I believe the whistles would have been blown, and blown again, years ago. Third, the differences between Asians and whites in the data I have seen are not so large as to be unexplainable by other factors, such as the effect of athletic recruitment or concentration of interests, or just cultural patterns. Finally, people keep going back to the Espenshade data to prove discrimination, and that data is 18-33 years old, from a different admissions era altogether. There have been real changes in admissions practices since then, and in fact I believe there have been real changes since Espenshade and his colleagues started publishing the articles that raise these issues.
*Espenshade said in an interview that he does not think his data establish this [anti-Asian] bias. He noted that while his formulas are notably more complete than typical test score comparisons by race and ethnicity, he doesn’t have the “softer variables,” such as teacher and high school counselor recommendations, essays and lists of extracurricular activities. It is possible, he said, that such factors explain some of the apparent SAT and ACT disadvantage facing Asian applicants.
At the same time, he said he understood that these numbers would certainly not reassure Asian applicants or those who believe they are suffering discrimination.
“I understand the worry of Asian students, but do I have a smoking gun? No,” he said.*
Inside Higher Ed. 2009
The public doesn’t need to know the specific reason for the “Institutional Priority”. It only needs to see if there is systematic rewarding of Institutional Priority by race, and if so, what is the general reason for it: legacy? athletic recruit? critical talent?
The data needs to be analyzed as a cloud of data for a statistically significant dataset, like a Naviance cross-plot for different non-academic admissions criteria. Mentioning one anecdote is a red herring; it’s a statistically meaningless dataset of one.
My daytime job is mining & analyzing technical data. If there’s no discrimination, then there should be no qualms about releasing anonymous data.
In Grutter v. Bollinger (with a 5-4 vote) Chief Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:
@Gator88NE said:
From the Business Insider (July 9, 2015)
From the WSJ (July 7, 2015):
Based on this statement I am not surprised at all about the OCR ruling on Princeton
There is no doubt that “Institutional Priority” is skewed against Asian-Americans. But “Institutional Priority” is not used to intentionally exclude them from admission. The AA have to compete for the rest of the spots against a bunch of talented unhooked applicants of all races and they do it pretty well.
You mean white because all other races except Asian are “hook”.
From an interview with Espenshade (inside Higher Ed. 2009):
Read a thread started here by a dark skinned Eastern European/Russian the other day…no hook. Northern African? Arab? No hook.
Hispanic seems not to be much of a hook anymore either, from what I’m seeing in the studies posted in this thread alone.
“Dark skinned”? What race is that? Arab is Asian. Not sure northern African international students can use that hook, but when is northern and southern African used to categorize African American?
What I read in the OCR report is the very same issue that caused Ginsburg to kick Fisher I back to the appellate court: the lack of the application of strict scrutiny by the OCR. The OCR simply accepted that Princeton didn’t discriminate because Princeton said so by providing a couple of cherry-picked anecdotes.
I wonder what avg GPA/Scores/personal qualities/essays would look like in that Duke study if you remove ALL athletic “scholarships”? I’m guessing they would go up somewhat without those, but which group would get the biggest bump without the drag of those scores?
I have no idea. But i wonder. Kids at my sons’ school get into these schools on scholarship (meaning no money, but you get in). Their scores are generally lower, but not a ton lower. When I try to adjust Naviance for his school by pulling out the obviously “low” scores I presume are the athlete admits, it does make a difference. PS, these kids are all white or Asian who do this at his school. And some of them are stellar students, but not most.
According the U.S. Census, people of Arab descent have been classified as “White." There’s consideration for changing how they are counted, but it’s not Asian.
And African American is having roots in the indigenous populations of sub-Saharan Africa. A different classification is White South African.
^^ Thanks for the corrections!
Dark skinned was the student’s description, not mine. He said he is often mistaken for African American.
Arab isn’t Asian, since i’d place most in North Africa. Yet not all North Africans are Arab…
Anyway my point is there are a lot of not-hooked ethnicities (maybe a better term than “races”) beyond “white” and “Asian”. And SOME Asians are hooked even at the big research Us (those that are URM - Hmong, etc).
…and even Chinese, Korean, etc are hooks at some LACs and Us in places where not many apply.