<p>Go back a few pages and you will see what I wrote about. I do not have to establish what the qualified pool IS at Harvard. I have simply to show that the claim started with an unchallenged claim that 46 percent of the H applicants with SAT above 2200 were Asians, and that THAT statistics founded the claim that this metric defined the pool of qualified applicants. </p>
<p>It should be noted that almost all mentions of 46 percent are followed by 46 percent of qualified applicants, and not the exact definition of 46 percent of high test scores. </p>
<p>Anyhow, this is silly, as I doubt that a person with three degrees and a probable experience with social data analysis cannot accept such simple proposal. </p>
<p>xiggi The same switcheroo that fabrizio has warned us about. When called out about your statements take the “I was just making a point” stance. You have over 23K posts on CC, you are heralded as an SAT expert and now you are falling back to “I have…NO impact whatsoever” argument. Well because of your stature her on CC, you do have an impact on those who read your posts. You have some impact on how others on CC view posts by the likes of me, fabrizio, GMT and others about race issues and the arguments that we make based upon the data and research. </p>
<p>Xiggi if you “do not have to establish what the qualified pool IS at Harvard” how the heck can you argue that the plaintiff’s assertions are wrong and the data that they are using is in error? This is the same sophistry that frustrates to no end.</p>
<p>Why do you think that having 23,000 posts makes any difference in this debate? And in the lawsuit filed? </p>
<p>While I might guess that Fabrizio does resent that having that many posts that were recognized as massively helpful by plenty of members of your own community means something, I do not think that it influences much how others look at my posts. For instance, did you go look at my history before deciding to challenge my views or debate the issues with me? I think it is fair to assume that our mutual backgrounds are quite irrelevant here. </p>
<p>As far as CC goes, what I have been saying (at least is what I think I said from the very start) is that debating AA on CC is futile and serves no purpose whatsoever. My longevity here might actually leads some credence to my position as I do not think that ANYTHING has been accomplished by such discussions, and especially NOTHING from the relentless crusade by our esteemed Fabrizio. </p>
<p>Do you really think that anyone can or will be swayed by these discussions? Will you or Fabrizio ever abandon the vested position that Asians suffer from discrimination in the college application process? Let’s be real! Even if the decision turns out to be adverse, as your friend Mavant already stated, it will created more indignation and claims that it is OJ all over again, and that will redouble the efforts to present the “data” from people like Sander as definitive. </p>
<p>Again, if the decision turns out to be vindicating for your “group” I will admit to such conclusions, and look forward to see how the school redress the injustice. Can you be so open-minded? </p>
<p>xiggi Affect on lawsuit? No. Having 23000 post makes a difference in these debates? Yes. There have been people who bring up my lack of posts to suggest that I have feeble reasoning.</p>
<p>I don’t look at your history but others seem to be doing just that. Even the moderators seem to give you wider leeway because of those 23K posts.</p>
<p>“Do you really think that anyone can or will be swayed by these discussions?” Yes, I believe people can be swayed if the data and reasoning is sound. Those people in turn will provide info to others.</p>
<p>“Will you or Fabrizio ever abandon the vested position that Asians suffer from discrimination in the college application process?” I can’t speak for Fabrizio but for me if the data is presented to support such a conclusion, I would change my stance. As I have stated in prior posts, I don’t have a problem admitting error if provided information that I was in error. Contrary to your view, I am open minded but please provide data with your assertions or just don’t comment for the sake of commenting.</p>
<p>We can know what is wrong and not know what is correct.</p>
<p>VOR and fabrizio, you two sound like you are in your 20’s. How old are each of you?</p>
<p>Xiggi, I like answers too.</p>
<p>What is the real percentage of Asians at the school? Is it 25 percent? </p>
<p>I need more information about the income of Asians at the school. I think it is highly likely that students from other countries have high incomes. Don’t know for sure. Can’t sue on that. ;)</p>
<p>Harvard says 40 percent or so of their students do not receive financial aid.</p>
<p>Well, I guess it takes quite a rational person to see someone who is prepared to accept a decision as close-minded, and the ones who have already stated that the decision would mean nothing if adverse as … open-minded. </p>
<p>This is turning into a discussion with overtones of autism and Big Bang Theory actors. </p>
<p>I didn’t answer it because I don’t know the answer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe some people just find STEM courses to be boring and unfulfilling. How do you know why people switch? </p>
<p>@fabrizio -
</p>
<p>H is saying it wants students with all kinds of talents and abilities, not only the best academically. You don’t believe this? It seems clear. What I think you are taking issue with is the fact that Harvard prefers some students who are not the top academic ones. </p>
<p>I think it’s not a matter of believing H, it’s a matter of disagreeing with H. No?</p>
<p>Students switch for many reasons. That is not the issue. The issue is why do black students (at least at Duke during those years in the study) unconditionally switch at higher rates than white students? And why do black students who are as qualified as white students in terms of SAT scores switch at the same rates?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you read the rest of what I wrote?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And wanting students “with all kinds of talents and abilities” hardly justifies considering racial classification. That is quite a non sequitur.</p>
<p>So it’s OK that racial preferences end up being nothing more than a middle-class entitlement? You just gotta have that “critical mass” of so-called “underrepresented” minorities, even though the students who receive the benefits tend to come from high SES backgrounds and thus had no problems affording “private test prep” etc.?</p>
<p>One thing is clear: Harvard is teaching bigots how to carefully craft their words so that they can claim no discrimination, instead it is racial preference. I wonder if companies started to hire Whites only or Blacks only or Asians only…if they would get away with it if they simply said, “we practicing holistic hiring based on racial preferences.”</p>
<p>I was not saying what’s OK and what isn’t, only what HARVARD says.</p>
<p>But I do think race, independent of SES, has a place in admissions consideration, yes. But I’m not Harvard so what I think doesn’t matter. Apparently Harvard wants to be sure there’s a relevant group of black, Asian, Native, whatever people in their class and they give their reasons for that in the brief. Agree or disagree with the reasons, they still are what they are.</p>
<p>…
In other news . . .
On November 12, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied Fisher’s petition for rehearing en banc in Fisher v Univ of Texas, 758 F.3d 633.
So UT’s race-conscious admissions program is permitted, unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case again.</p>
<p>Dstark, you can find such information by googling the Common Data Set for each school that interests you. Most schools make this document public with few exceptions such as Chicago. Harvard is not the most active in posting the document on a timely basis. They tend to lag other schools:</p>
<p>Here you will find several years: <a href=“http://oir.harvard.edu/common-data-set”>http://oir.harvard.edu/common-data-set</a>. Check the answers in B2. As ever please note that almost all information (except admission rate) applies to the enrolled class. This means that most date on the pool of APPLICANTS remains vague and incomplete – short of having access to the entire application set of a school. Futher, the information is also different from an admitted pool as there is attrition toward the final enrollment number. For instance, the schools with the highest yield of about 80 percent still lose 1/5 of the admitted students. This item is particularly relevant for the RD and is impacted by students who have multiple admissions as a result of applying to a large number of similar schools. </p>
<p>Have I attempted to diminish your posts because of a recent history on CC? Mavant, for instance, made her first post in the Harvard lawsuit. This is no impact unless one start to offer an opinion about the “standard” posting history of a long term member. Fwiw, that means that I consider your opinion valid, but might not find it strange if you were to start writing post as “Typical Xiggi” as I happen to think that this opinion does not carry much weigh when someone just joined. </p>
<p>As far as the leeway given by moderators, I’d suggest you click the flag button and report specific violations of the TOS you might perceive. And, fwiw, speaking of leeway, may I posit that without much leeway from the moderators, this thread would not exist. If you want to discuss this further, I’d suggest to discuss with the moderators via reports or PM as discussion of moderation is a no-no on the public forums. </p>
<p>Well, that is good to know. And that makes two of us! </p>
<p>As far as the assertion I made, I am not sure what data you want me to address. As far as I know, I brought a very specific point and quoted from … the lawsuit. I presented the “data” in citation and pointed out that the narrative of the lawsuit elevated the “findings” of Sander and Uppala to an unproven or erroneous level. I will assume that you could not disagree with it since you refrained to suggest a rebuttal. As it stands, none of us can discuss the Sander and Uppala purported study as it is unpublished, unvetter, and unreviewed.</p>
<p>And, again, the test here is not for us to agree or disagree, but for the courts and the juries to weigh the validity of the arguments presented. This is how I assume it should work. The court of public opinion is one thing; the legality of practices is quite another. </p>
<p>What else can we do except waiting for the people we trust to render objective decisions to do so? Especially when what happens in this thread is ample evidence that there is little to no agreement about data, context, and even legal terms. </p>