Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

sorting-machine.pages.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#91

Post by blagie »

alistairSH wrote: post #71
az226 wrote: post #16

Pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell is the one chart showing the same student as Asian, 25%, White, 36%, Hispanic 77%, and Black 95%. This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past to kickstart the disproportionate enrollment demographics, but it was past due to get rid of it. The most interesting part following SCOTUS' ruling is that Harvard said it wouldn't change their wa…

What data do you have to support the assertion that affirmative action is no longer necessary to ensure proper representation of minorities on campus? I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.

The open question is the meaning of "proper representation:"

- One which maximizes Harvard's power network?

- Most likely to succeed in the future?

- Representative of the general public by race?

- Representative of the general public in other ways (e.g. religion, political affiliation)?

- Academically, best-qualified right now?

- Academically, most potential? At birth? Now?

- Most likely to donate?

Etc.

However defined, Harvard has much modest discrimination by race compared to discrimination by religion, political affiliation, or home town.

Harvard is 95% liberal, and much more so at the faculty level. If you look at the further-out evangelical, born-again Christian groups, or more conservative Muslim groups, the discrimination is even more extreme. Atheists are vastly over-represented, in contrast.

Until one is aligned on goals and definitions, one can't speak of goals being met or unmet. Harvard can be -- and indeed, is -- racist against blacks by one definition, against whites by another, against Asians by a third, and so on.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#92

Post by rayiner »

dahart wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans…

> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh. Whoa. They should be happy with what the…

> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.

No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.

> They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world?

You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally. My point is that, if your justification for that unequal treatment is the historical circumstances of people’s parents and grandparents, then it’s quite relevant that almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

I’m not the one who brought up the redlining example. That’s an example invoked by proponents of affirmative action. But if you invoke that reasoning, you should follow it through to its logical conclusions. If a university is choosing between an applicant whose family home in America has reduced value due to redlining, and an applicant whose family home is in a literal third world village, then what’s the moral logic for giving an advantage to the first applicant?

> Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged

None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony. Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#93

Post by blagie »

cleandreams wrote: post #36

I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such. I think there is a good argument for a…

This is not an accident.

If you talk to admissions officers, over drinks, they'll tell you that poor black students from marginalized US communities have abysmal performance at elite schools. The decision to admit rich black students is very deliberate.

There are many reasons why. Schools in the US are locally-funded, and a marginalized community might have 25% of the per-student spending of a rich community (actual, typical figures). Until inequities like that are addressed, there is little elite education can do to help, even if it wanted, which it doesn't.

The point of an exclusive university is to be, well, maximally exclusive. That's the literal opposite of inclusive.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#94

Post by dahart »

rayiner wrote: post #88
dahart wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? > Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? Did I imagine the 19th amendment?

> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? Wrong, but not illegal. > What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.

> Wrong, but not illegal.

Why is racial preference in partner wrong?? Who agrees with this anywhere?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#95

Post by purpleflame1257 »

Yizahi wrote: post #51
digitaltrees wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't think the 50% admit rate for athletes, 40% admit rate for deans interest ie large cash donors, and 35% legacy admit rate were "the whole think"?

Honestly, the combination of extremely discriminatory, extremely corrupt, extremely predatory and then again discriminated differently by the fact if they are a sportsball player or not is rather amusing and at the same time baffling when observed from the other side of the globe. Of course it is too late by now, by have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam resu…

For the last 50 years you would get in severe trouble for using test scores alone thanks to disparate impact.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#96

Post by dahart »

rayiner wrote: post #92
dahart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh. Whoa. They should be happy with what the…

> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle. > They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here b…

> You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally

No, and you’re intentionally escalating things and I don’t appreciate it. I’ve been more than clear already that I don’t necessarily support affirmative action, and that I’m aware it has downsides and have acknowledged multiple times that it can have unintended consequences.

Unequal treatment already existed before affirmative action. That is the reason that affirmative action exists, and it is what affirmative action intended to fix. You have yet to acknowledge that fact in this discussion.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#97

Post by triceratops »

kxyvr wrote: post #90
triceratops wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other. If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever. Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most close…

I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not. My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preferen…

> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers

No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers.

> My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment

And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw scores, on the other hand, are hard data. You either have them or you don't. Do factors outside of one's control go into them? Absolutely. Those factors are all-pervasive and will influence anything you might use to determine merit.

> Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores.

Of course they would say that. Even assuming it's true, Kaplan test prep books are only around $50 on Amazon. You could also get them for free from a public or school library (or the high seas, if that's your thing).

As I understand it, Kaplan has apps and dashboards and more material if you're a subscriber. Is there data about the marginal score improvement using that versus just the books?

When you get right down to it, everyone's starting point is different. Reducing the number of variables improves opportunity IMO.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#98

Post by ordx »

kxyvr wrote: post #90
triceratops wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other. If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever. Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most close…

I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not. My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preferen…

> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers.

Welcome to the adult world, where you are distilled into a collection of number each step of the way: look at credit scores, performance reviews, etc.

> I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either.

Unfortunately we didn't come up with a better way to rank a group of people on scale in a reasonable amount of time. So tests are a necessary compromise. I also know plenty of examples where people aced their tests by just spending $30 on a prep book and studying hard.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#99

Post by rahimnathwani »

cleandreams wrote: post #36

I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such. I think there is a good argument for a…

Glenn Loury & John McWhorter?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#100

Post by tanseydavid »

dahart wrote: post #87
rayiner wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right. In that case, the punishment is not a “wrong” because the person being punished has moral culpability due to their bad act. That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act. That’s a principle that some societies hold…

I reject your presumptive framing that affirmative action is a “punishment”. If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?

> Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual

> If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?

You are missing (or maybe even ignoring) the huge difference between these two viewpoints.

Post reply on HN