<p>Here you go … as I hinted to:. </p>
<p><a href=“#IAmNotYourWedge: Lawsuits against Harvard & UNC assert anti-Asian discrimination in admissions – Reappropriate”>#IAmNotYourWedge: Lawsuits against Harvard & UNC assert anti-Asian discrimination in admissions – Reappropriate;
<p>Fabrizio, will you please let that “recite my positions” BS go? I have now told you several times that it was all about the silliness of … exactly doing so. I wrote that it would serve no purpose whatsoever. I am not sure what you hope to accomplish by repeating that “bluff” story as nauseam. Since I stated it was silly and futile, what will it take for you to understand that part? Again, if you want to huff anfd puff from top of your lungs and little soapbox that Xiggi is unable to recite my positions … so be it! Go ahead and print in all caps! Again, I don’t care. I get it that you want to be irritating but doesn’t that game get old? </p>
<p>Now, is there something you want to say about Sander or this lawsuit? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know! I presented his opinion about Mismatch in a mild attempt to balance the negative opinions of others. I also mentioned that it was not unusal for scholars to argue for years, and this issue lends itself to planty of disagreement. All in all, it is not hard to respect the opinions and the positions of people, even when not agreeing entirely with all their positions. Well, within certain limits … as my post above this one indicates! </p>
<p>What BS, xiggi? You bluffed, and it got called. It took me a grand total of TWO minutes to “recite” your position off the top of my head; you’ve taken far, far, FAR longer than that with the time you spent on all the shameless deflection you’ve employed in your numerous replies. Who do you think you’re fooling? At best, you can only fool those who agree with your dogma and your prejudice. You aren’t fooling anyone else with your charades.</p>
<p>As for Sander, the idea that mismatch has been conclusively refuted is nonsense. [Recent</a> economics research](<a href=“http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/QE83/pdf]Recent”>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/QE83/pdf) fails to rule out the possibility that mismatch may exist. That of course does not mean there is mismatch, but neither does it mean that “mismatch has been refuted.”</p>
<p>Regarding this lawsuit, I am for anything that lets xiggi and company show everyone just how closeminded and bigoted they can be for people who dare to disagree with them.</p>
<p>OHMom see post 1097. I can’t go through explaining it to you again.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the 46 percent number only bugs me because it may be meaningless. Doesn’t prove anything. We need more information.</p>
<p>dstark The 46 percent data will become clearer when the data of the rates of acceptance at each SAT/GPA bucket by ethnicity is provided by Harvard. </p>
<p>Deleted…</p>
<p>but why would asians be more than 2x worse on other factors?
Asians need to take a grassroots solution to this problem, some of them need to not pursue their dreams and become HS teachers (so that recommendation letters aren’t tilted racistly with stereoytpical asian traits) and become adcoms (they are probably very unrepresented).</p>
<p>I think the best solution would be to cut off federal money for any college which doesn’t use name-blind admissions, that’d get them to change their mind. I think public opinion is against affirmative action.</p>
<p>Harvard’s % of asian numbers has remained the same for 20 years. … As the asian % of the population went from 2.9% in 1990 to 5.9% in 2010. </p>
<p>I don’t want to put up all the bigots in this conversation. And both fabrizio and xiggi are annoying. </p>
<p>My apologies for beating a dead horse; it’s clear that xiggi is not able to “recite” my positions on this issue because he simply doesn’t know them. He only knows the straw man he created to substitute for my positions. I pressed this point because I have always thought that if you don’t understand the other side’s arguments, you don’t really understand your own arguments.</p>
<p>Is public opinion against racial preferences? Yes. Even in so-called “liberal” states like California, Washington, and Michigan, when the issue has come to a vote, the voters have overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences. And no, this is not the stupidity of the American voter; quite the contrary, this is the intelligence of the American voter at work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post 1097 deals with ACT scores earned by high school students, not grades earned at Harvard. </p>
<p>I keep asking because there is NO WAY you know that URMs are at the bottom of Harvard’s classes and yet you keep asserting it as fact. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ya think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be annoyed too.</p>
<p>Both from <a href=“http://asaatunc.com/fair-admissions-v-UNC/”>http://asaatunc.com/fair-admissions-v-UNC/</a></p>
<p>OHMom I will provide the info that URMs as a whole are at the bottom of Harvard’s class upon your production of data that Harvard and UNC are not discriminating against Asians. You claim as fact that discrimination against Asians is not supported by the evidence. What evidence/fact are you using to support this conclusion. </p>
<p>Actually you made the Harvard claim, i never made the claim that Harvard and UNC are not discriminating against Asians. maybe they are - how would I know? I have an an opinion on that but I never made a claim of fact, you did.</p>
<p>If you want to say it is your opinion that Harvard’s URMs are in the bottom of its classes, that’s different.</p>
<p>Everyone is entitled to an opinion, stating things as fact without evidence is quite different.</p>
<p>OHMom The data I have is over 30 years old on Harvard, so to avoid the data is old argument, here is the link to the data published in 2011 from Duke University, a school that in all respects is equal to Harvard in its status as an elite university, in diversity demographics, and selectivity.</p>
<p><a href=“http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/QE83/pdf”>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/QE83/pdf</a></p>
<p>Please see page 11 of the study that provides data breakdown based upon race.</p>
<p>You will clearly see the following:</p>
<p>Asians had an average freshman GPA of 3.4 and average SAT of 1464
Whites had an average freshman GPA of 3.3 and average SAT of 1417
Latinos had an average freshman GPA of 3.1 and average SAT of 1349
Blacks had an average freshman GPA of 2.9 and average SAT of 1281</p>
<p>Then go to page 22 which will show you the pattern of major choices by race.</p>
<p>You will see that although Asians were most likely to enter STEM majors, Blacks were the 2nd most likely to seek STEM degrees, but Blacks switched out at the highest rates of all ethnicity.</p>
<p>50% of Asians started as STEM majors and 41% obtained a STEM degree, an 82% completion rate.
38% of Blacks started as STEM majors and 16% obtained a STEM degree, a 42% completion rate.
35% of Whites started as STEM majors and 25% obtained a STEM degree, a 71% completion rate
33% of Latinos started as STEM majors and 18% obtained a STEM degree, a 55% completion rate.</p>
<p>Thanks for this data, which is relevant, though it isn’t for Harvard which IS the school you made the statement of fact about. And it is also only freshman gpas - just 1/4 of the data. It’s possible that the GPAs over the entire 4 years is different, as any educational deficiencies of the high schools/families even out and the Duke education becomes a larger factor.</p>
<p>I do appreciate the effort, though. Duke doesn’t have the app pool that Harvard has, and probably has to go deeper into potentially lower achievers academically to meet its goals, but it is interesting nonetheless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see some socio-economic correlation here too, though:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The poorest groups also had the lowest gpas. and the wealthiest the highest. The only exception is Hispanic and Asian families earning $50-100K.</p>
<p>Also in education of parents:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it, across the board, true that the bottom of the class is composed of the poorest students and the students with the lowest education level of the parents.</p>
<p>hispanics and asians were near equal in terms of income, yet asians dramatically outpeformed the hispanics. And whites were better educated and much higher income than asians, yet asians thoroughly outperformed them. It would seem that whites are being favored over asians in admissions by a lot then. </p>
<p>OHMom the 30 year old Harvard data is nearly identical to the Duke data. I am all for diversity, I think diversity is a good thing. But my concern is that diversity should not be achieved at all costs. the Duke data suggests that exceptional URMs by all rights may not being achieving to their potential when they go to a mismatched universities because they must compete with even higher achieving students. </p>
<p>xiggi likes to look at the macro picture of high overall graduation rates, but at a micro level, when URMs don’t graduate in the area that they most wanted to when they entered college that is a shame. Asians and Whites at these elite universities stick with their intended STEM majors at twice the rate that Blacks do when we need more diversity in STEM companies. There is a reason why Google, Microsoft and other STEM companies have so little diversity in its employment force.</p>
<p>Individually there might be some URMs who might be able to overcome the mismatch, but the data suggests that most do not. </p>
<p>This Duke study may disprove your notion that it’s only for freshman year.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.seaphe.org/pdf/whathappensafter.pdf”>http://www.seaphe.org/pdf/whathappensafter.pdf</a></p>
<p>Figure 1 and Table 2 shows URMs having the lowest college GPAs for every semester for all 4 years of college.</p>
<p>There was an assertion that given enough time, URMs would be able to catch up, say if college was 10 years long, URMs would have similar GPAs to non-URMs in the 10th year. But this would only be achievable if URMs continued to actively switch out of the hardest courses and into the easier courses with grade inflation.</p>
<p>Table 10 shows STEM versus non-STEM majors by race and school year.</p>
<p>Table 16 shows that URMs are switching to easier majors not because they want to but because STEM majors were too difficult.</p>
<p>Here is recent paper, from Aug 2014 (<a href=“http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/prop209instfit.pdf”>http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/prop209instfit.pdf</a>) concerning mismatch and improved graduation rates when properly matched.</p>