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.
@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
-
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 fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
ULTRA MAGA!
So scary!
@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.
@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.
@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.
Off-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.
-
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.
Not initially, no. But there are going to be more lawsuits, now. Suits that will point to Harvard accepting black kids from middle class or higher backgrounds getting accepted while white and Asian kids from similar or lower economic status with higher grades and test scores get turned down. In those situations, it will be extremely difficult for the schools to deny it was strictly over the color of the skin. It will get very expensive for these schools in quick order.
-
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
-
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
@Horace said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
I think a version of this pipeline is already in place, and I expect it to become more and more institutionalized:
- K-12 public education where if you show up and can read and write, you get an A
- Higher education where there are special degree tracks for people with no academic ability, where if they show up and can read and write, they get an A
- Real world
- ???
- Profit
-
So what did the Asian kids that brought the case get? Are they awarded damages from the offending universities?
-
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
-
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS on Harvard and UNC:
It looks there are many comments (not necessarily on this board) suggesting that the colleges/universities want to continue to practice race-based affirmative actions, to somehow give certain racial minorities preferential treatment when it comes to admission.
Why is that? Why would colleges/universities be motivated to do so now that there is no legal justification for it?
The way they do it now, race but not wealth, allows them to pick the high end of the academic ability of any given race. They'll admit the smart, upper middle class black child of two doctors, and score one for 'equity'. Going by wealth, they won't be able to fill their racial categories with those sorts of people. The results for certain minority categories even now are bad, when they have access to those children of doctors. The statistics will get worse, if they move to a wealth system.
The colleges are going to face further struggles to dumb down their curricula to hand out degrees to the masses.
