Recently had a “journalist” try to use this link as evidence of “systemic racism/hidden racism” because of “nepotism”
It being salon should raise major flags because it’s well…. Salon. However the numbers they pull from the study are quite fascinating. First they complain about “White Legacy students and athletes” and how those account for 43% of admissions, which is fair enough.
According to the study, 43 percent of white Harvard students admitted were legacy students, children of staff, on the dean’s interest list—meaning their parents or relatives have donated to Harvard—or were recruited athletes. Aside from admits in the four categories, which the study’s authors refer to as ALDCs, only 57 percent of white student admits were meritocratic-based decisions.
“Over 43% of white admits are ALDC, compared to less than 16% of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups,” the authors state. “Indeed, due in part to the nature of the sports that Harvard offers, recruited athletes alone make up over 16% of white admits.”
What’s funny is that Harvard is only 35% white, and 25% Jewish. So 10% of the Harvard admissions are non-Jewish White. So if we were to take the claims at face value they are in fact complaining about Jewish nepotism not White nepotism, they simply somehow forget to conveniently mention this. The article also conveniently forgets to mention that the categories they listed from the study are the numbers that DONT account for or include racial preferences. Like they said 43% of “whites” would not have made it in aside from athletics and/or legacy admission. However the study did look at racial preferences and found:
However, the increase in diversity resulting from the elimination of legacy and athlete preferences pales in comparison to the diversity benefits stemming from racial preferences. We show that eliminating legacy and athlete preferences and racial preferences would result in a 69% and 42% decline in African American and Hispanic admits, respectively.
So when you factor in racial preferences, 69% of the black student body is there entirely because of their skin color.
Study link : https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf
So we have an article claiming that just over half of “white” people are in Harvard for merit, while conveniently leaving out that that same study found less that one third of black students are there by merit. The complaint of “white legacy students” is even worse when the overwhelming majority of those “nepostic legacy students” are in fact Jewish. Again, 10% of the student body of Harvard is non-Jewish White. Meanwhile ~16% of Harvard is Black, 16% Latino, and 37% Asian. Whites are in fact the smallest minority in Harvard and are still actively discriminated against and complained about because every statistic includes Schrödingers Jews. This is how they keep the pervasive lie of “white supremacy” and “institutional racism” going.
There is, as they say, a lot to unpack here.
For one thing, why are athletes getting lumped in with nepotism and family donations? We can argue about whether or not athletics should be lumped in with broader academia, but there's a huge difference between getting picked on athletic merit, and "nepotism" (real or imagined.) Also, are they whining about black athletes getting in on athletic merit?
Also, the whole thing makes sense...white people used to be the near exclusive ones going to college...the children and grandchildren of those people are going to have more connections and, of course alumni are often big donators to colleges. This isn't a big racist conspiracy. They're not picking white people because they're white.
Firstly, this is false since, as above, they lumped athletic merit into the above category, presumably to help make their numbers work. If we count athletic merit in with other merit, this number goes up. By how much, I don't know, but the numbers are definitely massaged.
More importantly, what's the number for nonwhites? Because I can think of one major category that whites have to compete on merit on...and in fact have to overcome, and that's race itself. No white person is getting in for being white. Nonwhites are getting in, at the very least to some extent, on not being white. Organizations can get in trouble if they have too many whites, or not enough nonwhites. So this whole thing can fuck right off.
And there you have it!
About sums it up.
Many such cases, unfortunately.
Yeah, none of that was the interesting part. Jews are overrepresented by 10x. Whites are underrepresented at about one fifth of their population numbers. Harvard, as an institution, is explicitly Jewish and anti-white.
So basically rich people and their prodigy have an advantage in life?
Unless you’re black in which case you get a slightly higher advantage even if you’re rich
statistical literacy is sorely missing in Western society, well conveniently being an optional class for nerds in school. the consequences of this has been the ability to lie to anyone convincingly by just adding a percentage sign or University logo next to numbers
There are a couple of other problems here.
vs
These are not comparing the same thing. One is how much the black population would DROP if X, the other is how many whites are Y. If you eliminated all whites who are legacies, some of the replacements for their spots would still be white, so the DROP in the white population would be less, by a value close to the average admitted white population, so the white figure is inflated by 35%.
Also: it sounds like they're assuming that 100% of legacy students and athletes wouldn't have gotten in otherwise. At least some of them would have. So the number is off by even MORE than 35%.