SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC
-
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race:
@xenon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
A numeric look at how racist selective programs can actually be. Here’s some AMA data on med school admission by race.
Law school
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1674427966842093573.html
1/ Over the more than 50 years affirmative action's morally squalid and racist practices were in place, how many white and Asian applicants were denied admission in favor of less qualified black and Hispanic applicants? I was likely one of them, and maybe you were, too.
2/ Years ago, I applied to a top law school, and was rejected.
My GPA: 0.3 points higher than average GPA of blacks admitted
My LSAT: Higher than the average at this school
Average LSAT of blacks admitted: MUCH lower than my score and the white average
3/ My undergrad degree: In a program ranked #1 in nation.
Also: I had received academic awards, had a book published by an academic imprint as an undergrad, had glowing recommendations from well-known scholars.
4/ A few years after I was rejected, the admission records of the law school leaked, and the data appeared in the media. There was a stat I've never forgotten: About 1 out of every 7 blacks admitted dropped out. The white drop-out rate was essentially zero.
5/ So dozens of qualified white and Asian applicants who would have graduated had they been admitted were denied admission in favor of black admits who dropped out because they had no business being admitted in the first place.
6/ The way that liberals in the media processed the information in this leak is what drove me from the left and toward the center. There's something deeply disordered about the American left's moral compass and sense of fairness.
6/ Overwhelmingly, it wasn't disadvantaged BIPOCs benefiting from affirmative action, but rather middle-class ones who attended good K-12 schools. And yet liberals pretended not only that affirmative action was social justice but also that whites and Asians were not harmed.
7/ Of course it's entirely possible I wouldn't have gotten into that law school even if there hadn't been affirmative action. But over 90% of the black applicants who got in under AA wouldn't have either.
-
If it's the middle class black kids benefiting most, then it's the middle class black kids who still have the below average MCATs and GPAs.
If we move to poor preference instead of skin color preference, I wonder how the MCAT and GPA statistics per racial group, will change. If they're admitting the middle class minorities with normal wealth/culture advantages now, what would you get if you got more poor minorities instead?
-
The Brad
-
Justice Jackson writes:
Wait, what???
So right away that’s not a doubling of anything.
But the ceteris isn’t paribus. The white docs aren’t seeing the same infants as the black docs. They’re more likely to get the NICU cases where all infants are less likely to survive, and study doesn’t control for that.
So the study is confusing correlation with causation: if you have a black doctor, your baby is more likely to survive, but that’s because that means you’re less likely to be in the NICU, where there are fewer black doctors. It has nothing to do with the race of the doctor.
Anyway, anyone want to place a bet whether the game of telephone works and takes a bad legal writeup of a bad study and the entirely fictional (but striking!) claim in the brief ends up in a SCOTUS opinion?
I read the wrong chart, in part because the study’s meaningful data is in an appendix. The difference is 99.96% vs 99.91%. And the difference isn’t even statistically significant.
Haven’t listened to this @VPrasadMDMPH podcast yet. Public policy community refuted it contemporaneously when the study came out. Knew the study would be pushed to SCOTUS (I’m sure it’s mentioned in other briefs); just didn’t think the dishonesty of the study would be multiplied.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Jackson’s opinion is all ethics, morals, and bad math. What it doesn’t address is whether it’s constitutional.
-
Jackson’s opinion is all ethics, morals, and bad math. What it doesn’t address is whether it’s constitutional.
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Jackson’s opinion is all ethics, morals, and bad math. What it doesn’t address is whether it’s constitutional.
It's what she perceives as ethics and morals.
-
@xenon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Harvard’s data:
May I ask why they don’t just take the 100% of all applicants at the top 2-3 deciles and 0% of the rest?
Regardless of race?
-
Good decision. I think that colleges are better off if there is greater diversity in the schools, but admitting someone just because of their race is not the way to do it.
That does not address the "root" reason why (for example) black kids are so far behind when they apply to college.
And that does not explain why (for example) Asian kids do better than their % of the population.
I grew up poor - neither parent had more than grade 8 education, I had no indoor plumbing as a kid, and when we did get a water pipe into the house, it was cold water only. You wanted hot water, you boiled it up on the stove. I think my first real hot water shower was when I went to college.
BUT, and this is important, my parents knew the importance of education. It was ingrain in me from the time I was small. Study hard, do what it takes. I know I am not any smarter than an average black kid in the US, so if I can do it, they can too.
This attitude has to be ingrain in them also. Not sure how to do that.
However, waiting until they apply to college is too late.
-
Justice Jackson writes:
Wait, what???
So right away that’s not a doubling of anything.
But the ceteris isn’t paribus. The white docs aren’t seeing the same infants as the black docs. They’re more likely to get the NICU cases where all infants are less likely to survive, and study doesn’t control for that.
So the study is confusing correlation with causation: if you have a black doctor, your baby is more likely to survive, but that’s because that means you’re less likely to be in the NICU, where there are fewer black doctors. It has nothing to do with the race of the doctor.
Anyway, anyone want to place a bet whether the game of telephone works and takes a bad legal writeup of a bad study and the entirely fictional (but striking!) claim in the brief ends up in a SCOTUS opinion?
I read the wrong chart, in part because the study’s meaningful data is in an appendix. The difference is 99.96% vs 99.91%. And the difference isn’t even statistically significant.
Haven’t listened to this @VPrasadMDMPH podcast yet. Public policy community refuted it contemporaneously when the study came out. Knew the study would be pushed to SCOTUS (I’m sure it’s mentioned in other briefs); just didn’t think the dishonesty of the study would be multiplied.
@George-K said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Justice Jackson writes:
Wait, what???
So right away that’s not a doubling of anything.
But the ceteris isn’t paribus. The white docs aren’t seeing the same infants as the black docs. They’re more likely to get the NICU cases where all infants are less likely to survive, and study doesn’t control for that.
So the study is confusing correlation with causation: if you have a black doctor, your baby is more likely to survive, but that’s because that means you’re less likely to be in the NICU, where there are fewer black doctors. It has nothing to do with the race of the doctor.
Anyway, anyone want to place a bet whether the game of telephone works and takes a bad legal writeup of a bad study and the entirely fictional (but striking!) claim in the brief ends up in a SCOTUS opinion?
I read the wrong chart, in part because the study’s meaningful data is in an appendix. The difference is 99.96% vs 99.91%. And the difference isn’t even statistically significant.
Haven’t listened to this @VPrasadMDMPH podcast yet. Public policy community refuted it contemporaneously when the study came out. Knew the study would be pushed to SCOTUS (I’m sure it’s mentioned in other briefs); just didn’t think the dishonesty of the study would be multiplied.
Medical statistics appear over and over in race baiter rhetoric. It’s an apparent gold mine of “evidence” of systemic racism.
It’s troubling that we now have a bona fide race baiter on the court.
-
Here attempt at walking it back is comical. Even if what she said is true in some cases (AA goes back to the 60s after all), it’s a system that was voluntarily adopted by these institutions and defended through numerous court challenges over the years. The idea that those same institutions will employ “racial profiling” to “prevent black individuals from attending” is beyond preposterous and she surely knows that.
In other words, yeah she realized she said the quiet part out loud.
-
-
Here attempt at walking it back is comical. Even if what she said is true in some cases (AA goes back to the 60s after all), it’s a system that was voluntarily adopted by these institutions and defended through numerous court challenges over the years. The idea that those same institutions will employ “racial profiling” to “prevent black individuals from attending” is beyond preposterous and she surely knows that.
In other words, yeah she realized she said the quiet part out loud.
@Jon said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Here attempt at walking it back is comical. Even if what she said is true in some cases (AA goes back to the 60s after all), it’s a system that was voluntarily adopted by these institutions and defended through numerous court challenges over the years. The idea that those same institutions will employ “racial profiling” to “prevent black individuals from attending” is beyond preposterous and she surely knows that.
In other words, yeah she realized she said the quiet part out loud.
Now she’s looking for a lawyer…
-
Now there's a rumour that this Erica Marsh not a real person.
I was only joking
