The LSAC.org links you listed in your earlier post that found a less than 1 SD difference in first year GPA between all races appears to review 150+ law schools in 2011-2014. I believe the 50% Sander’s quote you are referring to with larger differences was for a specific group of 14 “very elite schools” in the 1990s.
Back when SAT score was more correlated with IQ testing and had a less restrictive range, it still only explained a small fraction of variation in measures of academic success in college, such as GPA and graduation rate. It is by no means the end all to determining which x% of kids should go to college.
Sander found that, yes, indeed at the top group of 14 elite schools blacks were at the bottom by GPA: 1st decile - 51.6%; 2nd decile - 19.8%
But, presumably similar to college admission, because the relatively few most capable black students are quickly hoovered up by a few very prestigious schools at the top, almost no qualified students are left for lesser prestige schools (often referred to as the “cascade effect”). Therefore, black students find themselves disproportionately at the bottom at all law schools:
Group 2: (16 other “national” schools): 1st decile - 44.8%; 2nd decile - 22.1%
Group 3 (50 midrange public schools): 1st decile - 49.9%; 2nd decile - 19.0%
Group 4 (50 midrange private schools): 1st decile - 46.3%; 2nd decile - 18.9%
Group 5 (18 lower range private schools): 1st decile - 51.6%; 2nd decile - 12.6%
So, yeah, perhaps not 50% and 70% exactly at all tiers of law schools, but close enough.
To my mind, as law school is a preferred destination of black college graduates, particularly elite black college graduates, data such as these are a measure of the failure of affirmative action policies. Both at the college as well as professional school levels.
Getting back to the recent Harvard data, and contra the many cheerleaders on here who insist that there is no way to quantify and characterize the holistic process, the expert reports would appear be unpacking the “special sauce” that levitates certain preferred groups and sinks others.
In addition to the subjective “personal” scores that would appear to be biased against Asians unfairly (based on statistical correlation with other measured attributes), the “Final Reader” appears to be up to a great deal of racial mishief in the admissions office. This caught my eye:
Harvard’s racist admissions policy gets the sunlight treatment.
an Asian-American applicant who is a male, not economically disadvantaged, and has, based on his other characteristics, a 25 percent chance of getting in, would see his odds markedly increase if he belonged to another group. His chances of admission would be 36 percent if he were white; 77 percent if he were Hispanic; and 95 percent if he were black.
apparently MIT is guilty of also not wanting too many Asians.
The Center for Equal Opportunity report notes the contrast between Caltech, which doesn’t have affirmative action, and MIT and Harvard, which do. At Caltech, Asian-Americans make up more than 40 percent of undergraduates, a proportion that has grown robustly since 2000. At MIT, Asian-American representation in the student body has stayed constant at about 26 perfect over the last couple of decades and at Harvard roughly 17 percent.
Chiming in late here on the posts from a few pages ago, but I know of two black women that I graduated high school with that went to Ivy League schools that are both doctors today. And they were two of the smartest women in our school. One of them had “white people” stats…the other was close, but maybe a little lower. Regardless, they were definitely held to the same standards as their peers on campus. And neither were humanities majors.
Harvard’s “holistic” approach to admissions allows it to adjust the knobs to get the demographic mix that it prefers. There’s precedent for this. In the 1920s, as a report of the Center for Equal Opportunity notes, Harvard changed its admissions process away from an exclusive focus on academics to considering the whole person, which allowed it to reverse an unwelcome run-up in Jewish admissions and keep the percentage of Jews in the student body at about 15 percent for decades.
Like the Jews before them, Asian-Americans are deemed “unclubbable” by many elite universities seeking to keep their admissions down.
you don’t like the outcome change the goal posts and call it “holistic”
But as a private institution, shouldn’t Harvard have the right to select whomever they want?
I don’t think attacking Harvard’s admissions policy is the right course of action. I think the best way to approach this issue is to take away Harvard’s federal grants and not exempt them from taxes.
I think Harvard and other private institutions should be free to be as racist as they want. I won’t judge them for it.
I just don’t think it’s right that taxpayers have to subsidize Harvard’s racist policies.
It’s certainly a lot bigger than simply Federal grants.
I’m not absolutely sure, but I think that Harvard’s status as a 501(c)(3) requires that it not discriminate on the basis of race. Perhaps a tax lawyer could chime in here.
In any event, any loss of tax exempt status for HMC would be lights out for Harvard as we know it today, as investment returns dwarf income from federal contracts and all student revenue in a typical year. The financials of Harvard are quite interesting for those with some familiarity with reviewing statements. See income statement data for fiscals 2017 and 2016 (and accompanying note 15 with respect to certain Federal grants/contracts) on page 16 of the pdf here: https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/final_harvard_university_financial_report_2017.pdf
Race preferences at the elites have often been sold by the colleges and on here in part as recognizing students who have overcome difficult conditions. From the Arcidiacono expert report:
Harvard has zero interest in identifying disadvantaged black students, although it does with respect to other races. This is pure virtue signaling masquerading as integrity.
I do hope this goes to trial. Deposing the admissions office staff should be quite a show.
“Harvard’s “holistic” approach to admissions allows it to adjust the knobs to get the demographic mix that it prefers.”
So what?
What makes you so sure that doing so is “worse” (worse how? for society? worse in that the class produces less Rhodes Scholars and CEO’s?) than admitting people on pure “intelligence” (which you equate to test scores, grades. and all of those other statistics that back up your opinion).
I really think we have to get over this. Regardless of what happens in the courts, enough of this “It’s not fair!!!”
There is always going to be someone that is being slighted…I do genuinely feel badly that many Asians (and others) seem to have to jump through more hoops to get into some of the same schools as students with lesser grades/states than them…that doesn’t sit right with me either. But these same incredibly talented students, if they are as talented as you think, will definitely land on their feet. So what if they end up at Tufts instead of Harvard? The world is not lost.
I’m not saying the system can’t be tweaked and that people shouldn’t speak up if they feel their rights are being violated. Of course they should. But at some point, we have to allow these schools to make some subjective decisions and just move on.
My lily-white upper middle class children and me (not so lily-white) have all been “victims” of AA in some shape or form…but we are OK.
This is all pure strawman. No one is saying that Harvard or any other school cannot set criteria that are important to it, and evaluate candidates according to its preferred metrics. However, what people have a problem with - rightly in my opinion - is wholesale racial gerrymandering in which its evaluative criteria are overridden by skin color.
With every one of these lawsuits and studies, we increasingly understand that race at the elites is not the modest “plus” factor envisioned by Bakke 40 years ago, and it never has been. It’s about time these elite schools stop lying. Again, if Target has to turn itself inside out to prove it’s not discriminating - to the point where it can no longer ask about criminal records before it hires people - well then these elite diversocrats should not be let off the hook. If Harvard cannot be Harvard without discriminating on the basis of skin color, then it should not be Harvard any longer.
Harvard has an explicit policy considering ethnicity. It is no surprise that they give bump to skin color alone. That bump is large enough that there may be no need to give an “extra” bump for skin color plus low SES.
I’m not sure why this is evidence of virtue signalling rather than actual virtue. It is arguable that these kinds of AA programs do not accomplish their intended goals – an argument beyond the scope of this post. However, even if you accept that premise, a policy can be misguided and yet sincere.
Let’s turn this around to see if makes as much sense.
So what if Blacks end up at Tufts instead of Harvard (unless they prove they are considerably stronger candidates than Whites at Harvard)? The world is not not lost.
The statistic that Asians need to score 150 points higher than whites is quoted often. Do we have any statistics that break that out by major? Do Asians in elite engineering and stem programs have to score higher than whites in those same programs?
It would seem to me that that is the only meaningful statistic.
These interaction effects can be separated statistically, which Professor Arcidiacono has done. For example, the bump for low SES can be observed for Hispanics, who receive bumps for ethnicity plus bumps for low SES (combined, though, the effects are not as great as for black ethnicity alone). Low SES bumps can also be observed statistically for Asians who suffer penalties for their race.
It may be that there are simply no low SES blacks who can reasonably be expected to succeed at Harvard, or it may be that low SES black stats are indistinguishable from those of high SES blacks in the admit pool. Both of which could explain the absence of low SES bump. Intriguingly, there are data showing that SAT scores, for instance, of extremely high SES blacks are lower than lowest SES whites, and there is also data from law school admissions showing that lowest SES whites are held to much higher standards than highest SES blacks.
In any event, it’s time to recognize the issue and stop making excuses. I am all for supporting any and all programs to raise the level of black academic achievement. I do not believe that sending a message that blacks need not to be as accomplished as other races - on every metric from academics to more holistic criteria, because that is what the data show - furthers the goal of incentivizing achievement.
IMO Blum is using Asian students to advance his anti-AA cause and will drop them like a hot potato if he gets what he wants - the total elimination of AA. It’s telling that he is NOT attacking legacy or athletics or development, which take many more seats “away from” Asian students than AA does, generally to the benefit of white students. His motives are not a secret to anyone who follows AA news and SC cases.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/harvardsummaryjudgment ← likely of great interest to H applicants of any race as it goes into great detail about the H admissions criteria and process. There are “four dimensions”, for example, apps are rated on and guess what is an entire one of the four? Athletic ability.
…and since the plaintiff’s statistician report has been discussed here, this is the defendant’s statistician report: