That is a dangerous path you’re going down @privatebanker, and it’s a common path for those who have made it to where they want to be. For those who are still struggling to get there it’s disingenuous at best. I have done it myself sometimes without realizing it.
@privatebanker apologies. I agree with most of what you aid and I “liked” the posts. But I do only call out what i disagree with, I suppose.
No they aren’t. But not many Asian students are competing in the sports that have the slots given to Ivy coaches. Tennis and fencing are two where Asian students have made inroads, I’ve read.
The cynic in me supposes that if those sports (water polo, equestrian, crew, fencing, LAX, sailing, hockey, etc) get popular with URM and Asian high school students, if they even can be due to the high cost and low availability, the admissions preference for those will shift to something else.
Not all discrimination is illegal. Harvard is fully justified in preferring smart students, even if students with less intelligence didn’t do anything wrong. Its not their fault they were born with lesser intelligence. In fact, many of them work far harder to earn average grades the brilliant students do. They are well within their rights to prefer students who can pay the tuition. Most purveyors of services prefer people who can pay. It may not be my fault that I can’t afford a BMW, but I still can’t have one. There is nothing illegal about customer loyalty programs - which is what legacy amounts to.
The government only steps in to prevent discrimination based on qualities that are pernicious to society and unnecessary for any legitimate purpose. Discrimination based on race has long be held to be particularly pernicious. It is generally not related to any legitimate purpose. However, there are instances where that might not be true. As I said before, it might be important to recruit URM physicians to serve in underserved communities. There is value in having black and male role models as teachers. The courts have recognized the value of diversity on college campuses.
For those reasons, the usually repugnant idea of discrimination based on race may occasionally need to be tolerated.
@OhioMom2 i appreciate your insight too!
@@cu123. A dangerous path?
Supporting affirmative action to redress centuries of African American and Native systemic discrimination and generational poverty is not a dangerous path. And it’s common practice so many others agree.
Obviously Hispanic Americans are a newer phenomenon. Im not sure how strongly I feel about that cohort receiving the same preference.
If Asian Americans feel the same way as black Americans and native peoples in terms of systemic oppression. I’m open to that idea.
And it’s convenient to choose discrimination you agree with versus others.
If I pay more tax as a percentage than anyone else is simply unequal treatment. Doesn’t matter the income level. That decision is not based on equality. If it were all Americans would pay the same rate. Not the same amount. But the same rate.
Property tax world this way. The same rate per thousand as everyone else. Bigger house (aka higher income) you pay more. But the rate per thousand is the same. That’s equal. Anything other than that is in and of itself, unequal treatment.
And believe me I’m not arguing for that. I’m just saying sometimes appropriate and reasonable disparate treatment for social benefit is ok. You can disagree. It that’s the way it works.
No, society has deemed it be treated differently. And it’s ok by me. But to say it’s not an arbitrary decision isn’t being balanced. It’s always being adjusted by Congress, so let’s not confuse it with natural law. And many societies look at this differently.
And you’re correct. High income earners have more left over.
High achievers have equally great options left over that aren’t available to others.
Whoever OhioMom2 is I hope she’s OK being repeatedly tagged here - not only by you @privatebanker - @tpike12 did it also. 
My OHMomof2 handle is more “OH” than “Ohio”. I was born and lived early years in East Asia . Grew up in NYC.
Lol. Sorry @OHMomof2
Note that racism rears its ugliness in both directions of the physician - patient relationship.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/12/racism-bias-patients-doctors/
https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/04/medical-students-beliefs-race-pain/
There may not be a simplistic solution when the racism is diffuse but common.
@privatebanker You missed my point (although I doubt you’ll agree) you have apparently arrived where you want to be (and therefore can be more magnanimous) as I have, and now you want to keep “big brother” policies in place that systematically favor one group. The problem here is that the systematic discrimination is not done by “the system”, it’s done by individuals/organizations whom systematically discriminate. We no longer have laws (as we did before) that discriminate, in fact it’s the opposite now. The governmental should no longer support policies which allow AA. They should in fact enforce anti discrimination laws against individuals or organizations who perpetrate discrimination (which is actually occurring more and more via civil courts). We need to move on from AA at this point.
I really appreciate your position. And I am open to all ideas. Not trying be anything but supportive. Heck I grew up very poor and went to a state flagship school ug. I’m no scion of generational wealth feeling all guilty and patriarchal. So I will listen. And I respect your position.
And I do think Harvard’s personality scores are bs too.
But I digress. Lol.
Wow, I try to watch an afternoon of NBA playoff basketball and the thread goes another 3 pages. My thoughts.
@notigering My problem with you using the bootstraps comment is that not all African Americans are having to lift themselves from their bootstraps (that is the context I drew from your comment but I could be wrong), but the preference is added to their admissions applications regardless. There are poor people of all races who could use some help and they are not getting the same boosts. What about them?
Yep. I see some things with AA, that are just bothersome even if I was willing to ignore what I believe to be discrimination. One factoid that came out of the Harvard lawsuit is that disadvantage African Americans get no boost at all over wealthy African Americans. Lets think about that for a second. A low SES African American household shows no statistical admissions boost or difference from a high SES African American household. Why is that? It is because the ultimate goal of AA for a school like Harvard is just a Brand and perception booster (We are helping minorities see). I am not saying that it does not help African Americans at all (and it definitely hurts us in some ways too), but Harvard is definitely getting something out of the arrangement.
One last thought on AA and I have thought about this a lot over the years raising my kids. My wife and I have supported, pushed, and done everything in our power to instill the belief in our kids that they can compete, that they can change the world with the gifts they have been given. For me to support AA, I would basically be saying to my kids that they can not truly compete with the best and brightest in this nation, and despite having the access to things that only the top quarter of American households have, you need systematic help to gain access to top schools because you are black. Not going to happen in our household. I bet if you look at the African American families whose kids are actually at the very top levels of all American households academically, I think you will find this same uncompromising mindset more often than not.
@ChangeTheGame That’s an excellent point about means testing AA.
I’m 100 percent good with that.
It’s not alternative reparations. I just think it’s good public policy to inject opportunity where it doesn’t exist, when the situation warrants.
Incarceration, government support networks and murder rates are an “everyone problem” and a economic drain of epic proportions.
Aside from means testing - if we had a way to do parent testing - your score would be off the charts, bravo to you and Mrs. ct Game.
@ChangeTheGame This raises two questions for me.
- It was my understanding that being URM PLUS low SES/first gen was actually a greater hook than just URM. At Harvard. Did I misunderstand that?
- Do low SES/first gen applicants of other races get a boost over those with higher SES ? Like white and Asian ones do, but not URM ones?
H obviously has way more high SES students than not, overall. High SES makes great stats/ECs more likely for anyone. Are you saying it’s different for URM applicants, only?
Maybe @data10 has an analysis of this saved somewhere s/he can copy paste 
Getting some of these true/false questions wrong may make you an incompetent doctor, but it doesn’t make you a racist. I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone, regardless of race, to know the correct answers to these questions without medical training.
@OhMomof2 For Hispanic students, there was a small preference still generated for being disadvantaged along with the larger bump for being Hispanic. But for African American students, the racial preference was so large that the disadvantaged applicants received a non-existent bump for being disadvantaged. Asian and White students both receive disadvantaged bumps. I will copy the excerpt in question from the Arcidiacono Expert Report (pgs 63-64 in footer of the document).
The coefficient on disadvantaged is also quite large, though less than half the size of the African-American coefficient and twenty percent smaller than the Hispanic. The same is true for the coefficients on Hawaiian and Native American. The results show that disadvantaged whites and Asian Americans have significantly lower admissions probabilities than non-disadvantaged African Americans. The benefits African Americans and Hispanics receive for being disadvantaged are much smaller. In fact, for African Americans, there is no added benefit from being disadvantaged. Hispanics still see a boost for being disadvantaged but it is much smaller than the boost that white applicants receive for being disadvantaged.
A summary of the combined regression coefficients are below for the “baseline” (otherwise unhooked) sample are below. There does not appear to be a statistically significant difference between between being flagged as SES “disadvantaged”* and not being flagged as SES “disadvantaged” for Black applicants, like occurs for other races. Hispanic see a significantly a smaller “disadvantaged” boost than White applicants, and Asians see the largest “disadvantaged” boost.
Regression Coefficients for Chance of Admission: Full Controls, Baseline Sample
Black and not SES “disadvantaged”: +3.88
Black and SES “disadvantaged”: +3.87
Hispanic and SES “disadvantaged”: +2.98
Hispanic and not SES “disadvantaged”: +2.03
White and SES “disadvantaged”: +1.53
Asian and SES “disadvantaged”:+1.35
White and not SES “disadvantaged”: 0.00
Asian and not SES “disadvantaged”: -0.33
Perhaps this effect occurs because Harvard has a maximum allowed hook strength for typical non-recruited athletes, such as requiring some kind of minimum qualification. So the benefit of that Hispanic + low SES + other strong hook/tip would be less than the sum of each hook/tip because of reaching that maximum; but the benefit of Asian/White + low SES + other strong hook/tip would not reach the maximum hook/tip strength. A maximum allowed hook/tip strength near the boost for Black in isolation might cause something similar to the observed pattern. Legacy shows a similar pattern with the strongest boost for Asian and smallest boost for Black, although legacy boost appears to be non-zero for Black. There may be additional factors.
*Harvard flags SES “disadvantaged” for applicants readers believe are from a “very modest economic background”, which seems to correlate with having an income below or near the US median. Near US median is not actually low income, but is SES disadvantaged compared to the typical Harvard applicant.
You’re taking SFFA’s expert’s analysis as gospel truth, but it’s been rebutted by Harvard’s expert analysis. Card points out several problems with the variables used by SFFA.
So perhaps best to look at both @ChangeTheGame ?
@data10 - that’s helpful. And if those numbers tell the wholestory, I’d definitely support further emphasis on SES for all races, URM included.
@OHMomof2 The data that @Data10 posted and which my excerpt was directly tied to was not rebutted as far as I know (I have looked through both reports previously and they both highlight things that are beneficial to their clients). I believe the data from both reports equally, but it is just a matter of how the experts are trying to look at the data. The biggest difference I have seen between Arcidiacono’s and Card’s methodology from my non-expert review of the documents months ago is that Arcidacono removed some of Harvard’s non-academic ratings from his statistical models while Card kept those factors in his methodology. So I have definitely looked at the data on both sides of the argument.
But a caveat to my statement above.
https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/education/the-case-for-economic-affirmative-action/6096/
Such assertions sound absurd on their face. For a family with two full time workers, a household income of $30k/year is minimum wage. With the push to $15/hour, it will be possible in many places to earn $30k with one minimum wage income. If the white family had any real advantages, they would be earning a lot more than $30k. If redlining was so beneficial to the white family, then why are the parents flipping burgers at McDonald’s?
There’s a strong legacy of racism against Asians in this country as well. But affirmative action isn’t about addressing that legacy at all, it’s about so-called “diversity” (which is really about hitting quotas to appease certain donors).
I think there would be a lot less controversy if it were really a carefully crafted program designed to increase social mobility and fight against racial injustice (and its supporters who don’t know any better believe just that). But from all that I have seen (with my entire career in different universities) it’s yet another shady money-making tactic.