Then there should be no reason to keep affirmative action right?
What does these graphs tell us? Nothing. Just that the proportion of races were mostly maintained. Asians might have deserved 100% of the seats and yet, are kept within proportion. They might have deserved no seats and yet kept within the proportion. There is no really useful info there.
I’m not advocating against affirmative action but you are missing the point and actually proving their case. The point is that Asians, on average, consistently score higher on SAT and GPA as compared to other races, but admission rates do NOT reflect that.
This is due to a culture of studying for the test rather than studying to understand the material. Creativity and intuitive understanding > raw test scores
lmao if you think harvard admissions tests your fucking creativity and intuition. legacy > all
This is a classic example of lying through statistics. The distribution of the probability of applying to Harvard given your GPA, for example, likely varies by race.
Of course it’s proportional, it’s been tailored by raising the bar for Asians and lowering it for others. Equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.
This. OP needs educating
What a dumbass argument! Tomorrow if all 2.5 billion ppl from Asia apply will Harvard give admits to them in those proportions? The case against Harvard was it was not being meritocratic in its decision. They were capping the Asian student admit rate based on their race and not on their merit.
This guy...clearly not a data person. This is hilarious.
Ahh I only understood now that people who advocate against this believe that purely meritocratic decisions should be made for college admissions rather than decisions that account for individuals’ inequitable access to resources. Multiple studies show that stuff like SATs are deeply related to wealth as well as other resources. My personal belief is that college should attempt to balance out this inequitable distribution of academic and financial resources through affirmative action (both in terms of wealth and race/ethnicity) but I can see how others may hold alternative opinions.
That's such a horrible correlation honestly. Sure wealth does bring better resources and access to quality training for SAT prep. It stills fall on that student to do well in the SATs at the end of the day. Discrediting a high SAT score and attributing it to privilege is a very vile thing to say. Regardless of what resources you may have had, you will always have to work hard. Just because you prefix sentences with "few studies" does not mean it adds merit to your claims. I am for equity. I am against racism. But I will not be for fighting racism with reverse racism.
This can be extended indefinitely. Should we have AA based on IQ as well? If someone was born stupid it ain’t their fault
just a quick nit, the chart makes a volume statement based on a ratio benchmark, it isn't apples to apples. Sans affirmative action, the final admitted ratio can be all or none asians given that the asian applicant pool is much larger than the total class size permissible. The correct inference that can be made from this chart is Harvard's affirmative action policy is aligned to applicant's ethnicity by weight from their total applicant pool
I can whip up a nice infographic that says otherwise and share it everywhere ya know.
OP is wrong. Asians need to study twice as hard to make the cut - just look at the score cutoffs