SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 23:20 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 23:25 last edited by George K
Thomas's concurrance...
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 23:38 last edited by
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.
wrote on 29 Jun 2023, 23:42 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 01:04 last edited by LuFins Dad
@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?
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 01:07 last edited by
So, all this will eventually lead to a massive wave of incompetence, sweeping across the country.
When, exactly, will this happen?
Is it happening now?
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 01:16 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 01:20 last edited by
Almost not mentioned by most of the big media outlets is that this lawsuit was brought by Asian kids.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 02:18 last edited by
I assume that Jackson has dropped Thomas from her Christmas list...
-
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.
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 04:29 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 07:46 last edited by Jon
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.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 11:23 last edited by
ULTRA MAGA!
So scary!
-
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.
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 11:28 last edited by@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…
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 11:34 last edited by
Now there's a rumour that this Erica Marsh not a real person.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 13:09 last edited by
The Bee...
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 13:25 last edited by
Even a Harvard President of something related to admissions, a black woman, was on CBS this morning talking about how this really won't change what Harvard does at all and is not in conflict with their admission procedures, that people should just relax.
-
ULTRA MAGA!
So scary!
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 13:41 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
ULTRA MAGA!
So scary!
Is that worse or better than SUPER DUPER MAGA?
-
Even a Harvard President of something related to admissions, a black woman, was on CBS this morning talking about how this really won't change what Harvard does at all and is not in conflict with their admission procedures, that people should just relax.
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 14:08 last edited by Horace@Mik said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Even a Harvard President of something related to admissions, a black woman, was on CBS this morning talking about how this really won't change what Harvard does at all and is not in conflict with their admission procedures, that people should just relax.
I am mostly curious what this will do to the statistical performance of the minorities. Right now, Harvard drags its net through the top of the economic status to find its black kids. The GPAs and other academic measures they find there, will be better than what they find at the low end.
This all inevitably ends with more grade inflation, and a further jokification of higher learning in general. More subjects in which hand waved, non serious thinking and research are the whole point. Subjects in which the only right answer, is the politically correct one.
Because we will simply never admit that there is such a thing as academic ability. It's a totally learned skill, and the kids who do better, simply try harder, or have better teachers, or better equipment, or better parents.
-
@Mik said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Even a Harvard President of something related to admissions, a black woman, was on CBS this morning talking about how this really won't change what Harvard does at all and is not in conflict with their admission procedures, that people should just relax.
I am mostly curious what this will do to the statistical performance of the minorities. Right now, Harvard drags its net through the top of the economic status to find its black kids. The GPAs and other academic measures they find there, will be better than what they find at the low end.
This all inevitably ends with more grade inflation, and a further jokification of higher learning in general. More subjects in which hand waved, non serious thinking and research are the whole point. Subjects in which the only right answer, is the politically correct one.
Because we will simply never admit that there is such a thing as academic ability. It's a totally learned skill, and the kids who do better, simply try harder, or have better teachers, or better equipment, or better parents.
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 14:11 last edited by@Horace said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Because we will simply never admit that there is such a thing as academic ability. It's a totally learned skill, and the kids who do better, simply try harder, or have better teachers, or better equipment, or better parents.
As with many of the better things in life, that requires discipline, an uncommon commodity in the young.
-
Now there's a rumour that this Erica Marsh not a real person.
wrote on 30 Jun 2023, 14:28 last edited byOff-topic...
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
Now there's a rumour that this Erica Marsh not a real person.
Ms (can I say that) has an...interesting history of jumping the gun.
Ateba was arrested and incarcerated. After four days, the president of Cameroon ordered him released. He was never tried, let alone convicted.
Do some homework, Ms. Marsh.
