The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Harvard's Brand Management
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

‘Lopping,’ ‘Tips’ and the ‘Z-List’: Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard’s Admissions Secrets

By Anemona Hartocollis, Amy Harmon and Mitch Smith
July 29, 2018

He had perfect scores — on his SAT, on three SAT subject tests and on nine Advanced Placement exams — and was ranked first in his high school class of 592. An admissions officer who reviewed his application to Harvard called him “the proverbial picket fence,” the embodiment of the American dream, saying, “Someone we’ll fight over w/ Princeton, I’d guess.”

But in the end, the student was wait-listed and did not get in.

And, no surprise, he was Asian.

… In Friday’s filing, Harvard countered with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background. None of the examples the university gave appeared to be of applicants of Chinese or Korean background. …

Mr. Hughes, the former Harvard admissions officer, who is now a college admissions consultant, said he warned students of the long odds of getting in for upper- and middle-class applicants, many of whom are white and Asian.

“You don’t have first-gen. You don’t have son of a police officer. You don’t have the immigrant story, or the poor immigrant story, that captivates private colleges and universities,” Mr. Hughes said he told his clients. “So those kids just have to be stronger and better.”

This article notes some inner circle jargon, but it’s lacking in statistical analysis. At least in the 1970s, Harvard invested heavily in statistical modeling of its admission process and its fundraising process, as documented in Klitgaard’s 1985 book Choosing Elites.

It’s pretty obvious that Harvard in 2018 tends to view Asian applicants the way it viewed Jewish applicants in 1918: as tending to be smart and hardworking, but in such overabundance that they threaten to inundate the place and detract from the immense glamor of the Harvard brand. This is widely denounced today as the Third Worst Thing in History, after Hitler and the 1924 Immigration Act.

But Harvard’s worry a century ago was that it would get so popular with Jews that Jews wouldn’t go there anymore.

In 1922, Harvard made some changes to its admissions procedures that had disparate impact on Jewish immigrants. It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last 3 presidents being Jewish, feels much the same about Asians and would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine. And, I bet if you got a lot of Asian Harvard students and grads to tell you the truth, they would probably agree that they are glad Harvard isn’t Stuyvesant HS.

My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.

 
Hide 439 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This is widely denounced today as the Third Worst Thing in History, after Hitler and the 1924 Immigration Act.

    What about the Golfocaust?

    Read More
    • Replies: @WowJustWow
    What about it? Just learn the right shibboleths and you're in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Ht_nsQ7Hs
    , @Clifford Brown
    Matthew Weiner is moving on from the relatively petty grievance of country club discrimination to the biggest grevience of them all... Tsarist Russia!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHJ1jOGnBYI

    Matter Weiner in The Hollywood Reporter:

    And I love this idea that these characters believe themselves to be, whether they are or not, descendants of this last autocratic family who are part of one of the great true crime stories of all time. I also love that it’s the chance to talk about nature versus nurture, what they have in common and what is left of a grand heritage.
     
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/matthew-weiners-amazon-series-revealed-russian-royals-mad-men-ties-50m-budget-982167

    Of course, on the meta political level, this ties in with the current Russia hysteria and the claims by some that the Trumps are America's Romanovs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmPTtGpjMMs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X57pyW3UmAc
    , @AnotherDad
    It's some sort of quite clever verbal judo move that the Jews--a people whose very existence as a separate people is a testament to their*rejection* of detribalizing Western Christendom and keeping themselves rigorously separate by religion, marriage, language and culture--has been able to con a lot of US whites with the narrative that some elite WASPs keeping Jews out of their own country clubs or limiting--not even excluding, just *limiting*--Jewish numbers at their private universities, was somehow a big deal, a crime, "evil". Pot/kettle.

    Seriously it wasn't even "unfair", and life is unfair.

    I guess you can do a lot just by repeating your talking points ad infinitum for 80 years. That or we are a bunch of goyische kopfs to swallow their ridicilous nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don’t know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It’s like when Rolls-Royce was “The Best Car in the World” even though it wasn’t and isn’t.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    2 Buzz Mohawk > It’s like when Rolls-Royce was “The Best Car in the World” even though it wasn’t and isn’t.

    i see people on the internet saying that - yeah, Rolex's are not bad at all, but - a Rolex is more hat than it is cattle.



    > Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites.


    Only because dull-witted people believe it. Ok, so let THEM hire Malia Obama.

    Or, smart people who ===don't=== especially believe it, but who have built THEIR OWN brand in playing with Harvard's brand. Like (say for example) iSteve.

    i'm a nice guy who has a rice bowl of my own, so i'm not going to attack iSteve for doing what he's got to do, to give his wife a new kitchen.

    What I will never do, is hire anyone who came out of Harvard. My own little BDS campaign.

    It ===does=== take two to tango, Buzz
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

     

    No, that would be Yale.

    prophesy
     
    That's a verb. You mean the noun, "prophecy". Didn't they teach you that at Tufts?
    , @Anon
    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.

    Many Harvard undergrads don't make it to Harvard masters, let alone Harvard Ph.D.
    Many come from OTHER schools.

    So, I think Harvard uses Undergrad level as a kind of propaganda. It is intentionally made more Diverse. But at the higher levels, the better students who weren't accepted into Harvard undergrad and attended other schools are accepted into Harvard.

    Imagine some Negro kid made it to Harvard Undergrad, while some white kid was rejected and attended Duke. But at master level, the black kid might not be accepted(or may have dropped out by then) while the white kid who attended Duke is accepted into Harvard masters or Ph.D.

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the 'lesser' university.
    , @Twinkie

    No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.
     
    As opposed to the 80% of non-Asians who go to Harvard. They are so boss and unpredictable that they didn't care at all, but got in and showed up anyway, just to show how rebellious and independent they are. And then afterwards, they are just going become plumbers and gunsmiths, because that's just how they roll.

    Whites (Jews and non-Jews) are so anti-authoritarian that they account for the vast majority of administrators at Harvard. Because that's what really independent people do. Take that, you predictable conformist Asians! We'll show you just how against the Establishment we are by rejecting most of you (and "meritocracy").
    , @Desiderius
    “Sure Harvard is great.“

    I’m not.

    Superfluous caveats are unmanly.
    , @JimB

    The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country...
     
    ...into the ground.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. peterike says:

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.

    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Agree: 27 year old
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Nepalese? Where the heck did they find one of those? Tibetan?

    The "Indian" part is lame, though. There must be 20,000 of those applying to H every year. My guess is they have a hard quota on each ethnicity and do what it takes to hit it.
    , @Twinkie

    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?
     
    You know what's funny about the part you quoted?

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.
     
    See if you can play "Which one of these is not like the others?" game with "Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent..."

    Here, let me help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income#By_ancestry

    1.Indian American : $110,026 (2016)[2]
    2.Jewish American : $90,221 (2016)[2]
    3.Filipino American : $88,745 (2016)[2]
    4.Australian American : $81,452 (2014)[3]
    5.Israeli American : $79,736 (2014)[3]
     
    Must be such a struggle to be from a people who have the highest median household income in the United States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. In 1922, Harvard made some changes to its admissions procedures that had disparate impact on Jewish immigrants. It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last presidents being Jewish, would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine.

    I think it’s more likely they would like to keep Harvard(and Yale, and the state department, and on and on) Jewish. -Jewish as in the dominant, controlling ethnic group. WASPs were stupid enough to “play fair” and give East European Jews access to power. that group said ‘thanks, sucker” and never looked back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Slight correction, they didn’t say thanks.

    My high school was about one third Jewish. From September of junior year all I heard was “ I’ll be discriminated against applying to college because I’m Jewish” boo hoo boo hoo cry the Whining Weiners.

    From about 1900 on, Jews were always way over represented at Harvard.
    , @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.
    , @Anonymous
    There's nothing wrong with holding people to their words. If you preach meritocracy and equality you have no right to exclude some group from your institution because you don't like their religion or culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Buzz Mohawk

    This is widely denounced today as the Third Worst Thing in History, after Hitler and the 1924 Immigration Act.
     
    What about the Golfocaust?

    What about it? Just learn the right shibboleths and you’re in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    Schooner is the dead giveaway. Decent people have ketches or yawls.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    The funny part about that scene, is Larry claims to be a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens. At that time (and very likely today as well), the CofCC was regarded as a so-called "hate group" by the SPLC and others of that ilk. It was kind of an interesting choice to appear in the script, although the person who put it in may have been unaware of the ideological orientation of the Council.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Forbes says:

    I’m in the camp that says Harvard (or any other private college) should admit whomever they choose. Admissions is clearly subjective. Life isn’t fair–it won’t ever be fair–and the Board of Trustees and the University management have an institution to run in perpetuity.

    Assuming half Harvard’s applicants are qualified to attend, there’s plenty of disappointment to go around–and plenty of other schools that would gladly have them attend. I’ve personally never been over-awed by Harvard graduates–who seem, principally, to be overly impressed with their own smug arrogance. YMMV.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.
    , @assaddindunuffin
    Freedom of association for me but not for thee goyim.
    , @MBlanc46
    Absolutely. It’s their university, they can run it however they want. In that case, they should shut up about diversity and inclusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    This is similar to how the housemasters at various expensive boarding school in England think. Each house, nevermind school, ends ups as a slightly variable microcosm of this thinking.

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    It has long been the case that the appeal of expensive British schools was known to be in who your fellow students were and not in the quality of the teaching or facilities (both of which used to be extremely variable.)

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity.

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    What does it mean to compete on services? What else would they compete on?

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean.

    What was an English boarding school supposed to mean?

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity

    So it was the parents pushing for diversity?
    , @DFH
    Having too many Asians is only a problem for minor public schools
    , @slumber_j

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.
     

    My wife and I both got a Harvard AB, as did both of our fathers--and as did pretty much every male in her father's line going back to the 17th century. My maternal grandfather and most if not all of his many brothers got professional degrees there. By any normal notion of "normative," our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that's just crazy talk.

    I've long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Fortunately, unlike my wife I didn't really like the place--and nowadays we both find it revolting. So I don't much care.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Karl says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    2 Buzz Mohawk > It’s like when Rolls-Royce was “The Best Car in the World” even though it wasn’t and isn’t.

    i see people on the internet saying that – yeah, Rolex’s are not bad at all, but – a Rolex is more hat than it is cattle.

    > Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites.

    Only because dull-witted people believe it. Ok, so let THEM hire Malia Obama.

    Or, smart people who ===don’t=== especially believe it, but who have built THEIR OWN brand in playing with Harvard’s brand. Like (say for example) iSteve.

    i’m a nice guy who has a rice bowl of my own, so i’m not going to attack iSteve for doing what he’s got to do, to give his wife a new kitchen.

    What I will never do, is hire anyone who came out of Harvard. My own little BDS campaign.

    It ===does=== take two to tango, Buzz

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    > Sure Harvard is great. ... because yes, it “creates” elites.
     
    Harvard's not so much an education as a place to make connections.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Harvard invested heavily in statistical modeling of its admission process and its fundraising process, as documented in Klitgaard’s 1985 book Choosing Elites.

    Anyone here remember that ’80s lesbian cop show Klitgaard & Kawkblawk ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    No, that would be Yale.

    prophesy

    That’s a verb. You mean the noun, “prophecy”. Didn’t they teach you that at Tufts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! "Opportunity cost." There's an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery's answer in my own words: "This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?"

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anon[368] • Disclaimer says:

    Three bylines, one contrubuting reporter, and three researchers, and not one of them Asian.I predict an intra-Times rebellion by young Asian reporters sooner or later. You know they are there after the leaked chats about the silly Bari Weiss Mirai Nagasu tweet.

    My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.

    And this would be fine if Harvard came out and said as much, “So what? We want balance between the races and ethnicities, not too many of any one race, not pure representation by merit.” But what they say is “We do not discriminate.”

    “We do have some very affirmative goals though that I think are important to understand. That when we talk about diversity of backgrounds and experiences, it includes different academic interests. It includes different occupations of parents. It includes socioeconomic differences. It includes different viewpoints on issues.”

    Translation: “It includes iteratively searching for factors to consider that will have a disparate impact against Asians, but don’t on their face seem to be race ralated. Recently we added factors that dock applicants whose parents sell doughnuts, work in biology labs, or have pharmacy degrees.”

    From a deposition of the dean of adminssions:

    “And how would one go about getting on the dean’s interest list?” asked the lawyer, who was prone to calling it the “donor’s interest list,” in an apparent slip of the tongue.

    LOL! Apparent slip of the tongue indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Buzz Mohawk

    This is widely denounced today as the Third Worst Thing in History, after Hitler and the 1924 Immigration Act.
     
    What about the Golfocaust?

    Matthew Weiner is moving on from the relatively petty grievance of country club discrimination to the biggest grevience of them all… Tsarist Russia!

    Matter Weiner in The Hollywood Reporter:

    And I love this idea that these characters believe themselves to be, whether they are or not, descendants of this last autocratic family who are part of one of the great true crime stories of all time. I also love that it’s the chance to talk about nature versus nurture, what they have in common and what is left of a grand heritage.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/matthew-weiners-amazon-series-revealed-russian-royals-mad-men-ties-50m-budget-982167

    Of course, on the meta political level, this ties in with the current Russia hysteria and the claims by some that the Trumps are America’s Romanovs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:

    O/T

    Sweden YES unlikely to find employment for the occupying army.

    Nordea Bank AB, whose Chief Executive Officer Casper von Koskull says his industry might only have half its current human workforce a decade from now, is cutting 6,000 of those jobs. Von Koskull says the adjustment is the only way to stay competitive in the future, with automation and robots taking over from people in everything from asset management to answering calls from retail clients.

    While many in the finance industry have struggled to digest that message, the latest set of bank results in Sweden suggests that executives in one of the planet’s most technologically advanced corners are drawing inspiration from Nordea.

    At SEB AB, CEO Johan Torgeby now says that “whatever can be automated will be automated.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-29/human-bankers-are-losing-to-robots-as-nordea-sets-a-new-standard

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Forbes
    I'm in the camp that says Harvard (or any other private college) should admit whomever they choose. Admissions is clearly subjective. Life isn't fair--it won't ever be fair--and the Board of Trustees and the University management have an institution to run in perpetuity.

    Assuming half Harvard's applicants are qualified to attend, there's plenty of disappointment to go around--and plenty of other schools that would gladly have them attend. I've personally never been over-awed by Harvard graduates--who seem, principally, to be overly impressed with their own smug arrogance. YMMV.

    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Hillsdale and a few other colleges don't take federal money. Very few, though.
    , @Fred Boynton
    Harvard gets enormous amounts of government grant money for many different things. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Harvard were the largest government grant recipient on a per-student basis. So yeah, they should have to obey the laws that they in fact influenced. This is very similar to New York City residents somehow managing to keep their public schools segregated for all these years and now objecting to a slight bit of integration.
    , @Forbes
    Nice try. I fail to see how accepting a government grant to research, say cancer, obligates the entity to comply with rules outside cancer research. The Supreme Court answered this "strings attached" issue in the Medicaid expansion question under Obamacare with a denial.

    Based on your rationale, nothing is truly private and there are no limits to government coercion. It's a popular assertion--but one that only finds favor under the rubric of who's ox is being gored.

    I happen to disagree the government has (or should have) such sweeping coercive power.

    You cite circumstances as dispositive proof, when it pure conjecture or opinion. If the issue was as clear-cut as you imply, it wouldn't have been taken up in a private civil action--but rather, the government imposing what you claim government has the power to do.
    , @Art Deco
    I doubt they actually had to. Under circumstances where conditions are present and enforced, the grant money pipeline is an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. The religious orders no longer have the manpower to run institutions of higher education, Catholics who make it to confession once a year number maybe 6 million so aren't much of a pool from which to build a faithful lay teacher corps, and the residue in the religious orders is shot through with homosexuals. There are 200-odd institutions which have a Catholic heritage; the number whose curriculum, ceremonial, and disciplinary practice is informed by that might just make it into two-digits. Or it might not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. One of the unfortunate things about how civil rights laws such desperate impact and discrimination laws have impacted the freedom of association is that it discourages whites from simply replicating what they did centuries ago by building new Universities from scratch. What is the point of investing your public tax money if you know your son or daughter will not benefit one iota. Worse, the elites that will graduate will replace you and your family. The thing about Harvard is that they are just not building any more of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @I, commenter

    In 1922, Harvard made some changes to its admissions procedures that had disparate impact on Jewish immigrants. It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last presidents being Jewish, would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine.
     
    I think it's more likely they would like to keep Harvard(and Yale, and the state department, and on and on) Jewish. -Jewish as in the dominant, controlling ethnic group. WASPs were stupid enough to "play fair" and give East European Jews access to power. that group said 'thanks, sucker" and never looked back.

    Slight correction, they didn’t say thanks.

    My high school was about one third Jewish. From September of junior year all I heard was “ I’ll be discriminated against applying to college because I’m Jewish” boo hoo boo hoo cry the Whining Weiners.

    From about 1900 on, Jews were always way over represented at Harvard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    When did you go to high school? The Jewish quotas were dropped in the early 1960's, weren't they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @WowJustWow
    What about it? Just learn the right shibboleths and you're in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Ht_nsQ7Hs

    Schooner is the dead giveaway. Decent people have ketches or yawls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Thomas says:

    My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.

    Of course, the problem is that the graduates of Harvard and like institutions who populate the upper echelons of society have spent the last few decades damning as evil anyone else who was “maintaining the value” of something, whether a neighborhood or the whole country, by being similarly selective about who they wanted to admit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.

    Harvard Business School, and its Review and Press, use their branding acumen on themselves first. It’s hardly a surprise to see the rest of the school benefit.

    HBS also pioneered the case method of instruction, i.e., other peoples’ trial-and-error. Their earlier, more theoretical approach, evidently bombed.

    Interestingly, one of the top names at HBS, Clayton Christensen, is a Mormon. With a Danish name, like the Skousens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WowJustWow
    Other institutions, like the Princeton Review, gladly ride as parasites on the reputation of unaffiliated but similarly-named Ivies. Perhaps trademark violation is the key to reducing the stranglehold that the brands of these hedge-funds-with-universities-attached have on our collective imagination.

    (Hey there, non-Ivy alma mater! It's WJW! Give me some swag and I might donate!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Asians haven’t figured out the sure fire way to get a full scholarship ride to college. It’s the poor poor pitiful me essay. My parents were boat people or coolies who arrived after 2 months locked in a container with 50 other people and a chemical toilet. They worked 100 hrs a week bd saved their pitiful wages as opened a struggling small business. From the age of 8 I worked 4o hours a week in the business.

    Athiugh my schools were 80 percent my brand of Asian there were some evil White KKK kids who were mean to me. They chased me and bullied me. My family hates me because I’m transgender I don’t plan on getting a STEM degree. I plan on majoring in grievance studies and then getting a masters in Social Justice Entrepreneurship * so I can fight for truth, justice and the destruction of the evil White race.

    I’m applying to Crazy Liberal University because of their welcoming inclusive programs for Asian girls who want to be men and marry black lesbians.

    It’s all in the essay.

    * Social Justice Entrepreneurship. Don’t laugh guys. They even have PHDs in this. It’s just poverty race war pimp grant hustling parasitism.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Asians haven’t figured out the sure fire way to get a full scholarship ride to college
     
    This is unlikely, given that Asians have mastered the nuances of the rest of the college admissions process.

    Most college admissions decisions are "needs-blind" but pedigree does matter, in that both legacy relationships, as well as the applicant's parents job titles and places of work, as well as colleges attended, are disclosed.

    The financial aid decision is a dual process, and is first filtered through the Federal Student Aid form process, before the individual college financial aid decision is made, through a parallel financial aid application. The amount of financial disclosure is very, very detailed, and fraud is discouraged by having the information go to the federal government first. Fibbing on a federal student aid application is a crime.

    What is opaque is whether the financial aid decision makers at the college level look at the admissions application essay and parent information on the admissions application form for further indications of hardship, if any. Having been through the process, I suspect that financial aid is entirely a function of current income and current assets, both the parents' and the student's.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Dmitry says:

    Surely allowing more Black American, Indian and Arabian students in Harvard would scare the typical middle class American parents of students applying for these universities, a lot more than allowing more Japanese or Chinese students in Harvard. Japanese and Chinese students (particularly Japanese) would only improve the atmosphere and create a more calm environment in the university.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Plenty of obnoxious, bratty Chinese kids in my kid's high school who insist on speaking Chinese to one another, loudly. No thanks. Limit the Chinese to no more than 1%, matching their share in the general population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Reg Cæsar

    My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.
     
    Harvard Business School, and its Review and Press, use their branding acumen on themselves first. It's hardly a surprise to see the rest of the school benefit.

    HBS also pioneered the case method of instruction, i.e., other peoples' trial-and-error. Their earlier, more theoretical approach, evidently bombed.

    Interestingly, one of the top names at HBS, Clayton Christensen, is a Mormon. With a Danish name, like the Skousens.

    Other institutions, like the Princeton Review, gladly ride as parasites on the reputation of unaffiliated but similarly-named Ivies. Perhaps trademark violation is the key to reducing the stranglehold that the brands of these hedge-funds-with-universities-attached have on our collective imagination.

    (Hey there, non-Ivy alma mater! It’s WJW! Give me some swag and I might donate!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anemona Hartocollis

    I hope her condition improves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine

    The main prob with UC Irvine is less ‘too many Asians’ than ‘too many less-sterling Asians’.

    At any rate, the main reason why the Right should not side with Asians is they just become toadies of Jewish Globalists. Whether it’s Zakaria, Chua, or Fukuyama, they might as well be secretaries of George Soros.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The main prob with UC Irvine is less ‘too many Asians’ than ‘too many less-sterling Asians’.
     
    Yes.

    At any rate, the main reason why the Right should not side with Asians is they just become toadies of Jewish Globalists. Whether it’s Zakaria, Chua, or Fukuyama, they might as well be secretaries of George Soros.
     
    You are so right. These immigrants - who show up in a new country where they have low status - should immediately start attacking the people in power. Then - and only then - should they be allowed to be junior partners in a white-led Coalition of the Core.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    “You don’t have first-gen. You don’t have son of a police officer. You don’t have the immigrant story, or the poor immigrant story, that captivates private colleges and universities,”

    So, Harvard favors sons of police officers? Really? That’d be surprise white conservative working class applicants with police dads.

    And aren’t Jews far removed from Immigrant Story? They seem to get in pretty easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.

    Many Harvard undergrads don’t make it to Harvard masters, let alone Harvard Ph.D.
    Many come from OTHER schools.

    So, I think Harvard uses Undergrad level as a kind of propaganda. It is intentionally made more Diverse. But at the higher levels, the better students who weren’t accepted into Harvard undergrad and attended other schools are accepted into Harvard.

    Imagine some Negro kid made it to Harvard Undergrad, while some white kid was rejected and attended Duke. But at master level, the black kid might not be accepted(or may have dropped out by then) while the white kid who attended Duke is accepted into Harvard masters or Ph.D.

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the ‘lesser’ university.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more

    This is exactly right, a kid who goes to Michigan undergrad and then gets a Wharton MBA has more social status than a kid who goes the reverse route. What is the racial composition of the average Harvard Business School, Law School or Medical School class? That would be interesting.
    , @res

    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.
     
    Agreed. One thing I found interesting is that the racial balance does not seem that much different at Harvard for undergraduates and graduates: https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/166027/harvard-university/enrollment/
    Scroll down to "Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity." The bar charts for all/undergraduate/graduate make it easy to compare.

    But looking at Jewish representation at Harvard is even more interesting (as seen in Ron Unz's article).

    Hillel claims 11% Jewish Undergrads and 67% Jewish Graduates: https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/harvard-university
    My guess is the former is understated due to the recent controversy about this, but how is the latter even possible given the racial balance seen at the first link?

    The Jerusalem Post claims 25% of Harvard Undergrads are Jewish: https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the ‘lesser’ university.
     
    Perhaps, but based on the numbers above they sure don't seem to be non-Jewish whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @peterike

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.
     
    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?

    Nepalese? Where the heck did they find one of those? Tibetan?

    The “Indian” part is lame, though. There must be 20,000 of those applying to H every year. My guess is they have a hard quota on each ethnicity and do what it takes to hit it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Jack D says:

    There’s brand management and then there’s the law. All the stuff that Harvard is doing would be a lot less problematic if there wasn’t a 50+ year effort by the Federal government to outlaw racial discrimination. Maybe in an idea world Harvard would be a private institution and private institutions could do whatever they want, but in this world Harvard depends on massive amounts of Federal $ and is governed by Federal laws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    If you read the legal papers that both sides have put online, the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger. A thousand (or several thousand) pages of depositions of Harvard admissions honchos with no indication of any specific procedure that does something worse to Asians than to whites. Statistical analysis by both sides shows only a small Asian effect once basic controls are added, of the kind that ought to show up prior to any discrimination (if any exists) being applied. First- and second- generation East Asian applicants to elite schools have very different behavior from other groups, which leads to a different (joint) distribution of academic+extracurricular+personal traits that is then revealed by the Harvard admission ratings. Harvard's expert actually wrote, non-anonymously and in 2018, that Asian and white applicants being different (in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office) is a simpler explanation of the data than discrimination. The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    The plaintiffs' black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only "one of many factors", it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    , @AnotherDad

    There’s brand management and then there’s the law. All the stuff that Harvard is doing would be a lot less problematic if there wasn’t a 50+ year effort by the Federal government to outlaw racial discrimination.
     
    I'm not the lawyer here--and certainly don't know all the ins and outs of how the super-state is muscling around universities.

    But even i know that this "50+ year effort" by the Feds has not been to outlaw "racial discrimination" by pushing for a test based meritocracy. LOL.

    The plain fact is Harvard admissions do not "discriminate against Asians" in the broadest sense. Rather Harvard's admissions process discriminates for Asians. They are admitted at something like 4X their population share. It's just that Harvard does not discriminate in favor of Asians, enough, to satisfy various Asian groups. Or relative to how a bunch of people--like you--think that Harvard's admissions process ought to operate.

    But you certainly can't say Harvard is keeping out Asians or that there process overall has a negative "disparate impact" on Asians.

    What you can say is Harvard's process doesn't admit as many Asians as this or that SAT/grade based process that i favor.

    But again even as a non-lawyer, i sure haven't seen US "discrimination law" the last 50 being a push for color-blind test based "meritocracy".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Reg Cæsar

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

     

    No, that would be Yale.

    prophesy
     
    That's a verb. You mean the noun, "prophecy". Didn't they teach you that at Tufts?

    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! “Opportunity cost.” There’s an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery’s answer in my own words: “This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?”

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    He was very, very unimpressive.
     
    Well, if you say so.

    Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.
     
    The problem with life is that it's often hard to run a controlled experiment. That's a fancy way of saying "You'll never know."

    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching "Ivy" to something that isn't.*

    *In case you don't understand me, although I did graduate from Ivy League schools, I did not enjoy my experiences and will steer my children away from them (though ultimately they will decide where they will go). But these schools are what they are - a filter through which our society's elites are selected - no matter what I think of them.
    , @Almost Missouri
    The flipside of your story is that everyone who did attend Yale thought that spending a quarter million to meet the other attendees who thought likewise was worth it.

    IOW, the Jeffrey Garten circle jerk.
    , @Clyde
    A most excellent account and ages ago I saw her (Ina's) cooking show a few times where he barges in, in the final minutes to chow down. Probably on treif lobster and steamers and corn on the cob. And for a bonus he says a few retarded words.
    , @hyperbola
    Yale is another of "our" universities that was taken over by a racist-supremacist, foreign sect a LONG time ago. Remember that the trustee for "Skull & Bones" is still from Russell & Co., the biggest jewish opium trafficking company of the 19th century. Yes, people get introduced into deep state corruption there - for example Skull & Bones provided BOTH presidential candidates in 2004.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    This is similar to how the housemasters at various expensive boarding school in England think. Each house, nevermind school, ends ups as a slightly variable microcosm of this thinking.

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch's children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    It has long been the case that the appeal of expensive British schools was known to be in who your fellow students were and not in the quality of the teaching or facilities (both of which used to be extremely variable.)

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity.

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical "you" is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    What does it mean to compete on services? What else would they compete on?

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean.

    What was an English boarding school supposed to mean?

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity

    So it was the parents pushing for diversity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The primary benefit of the English public school after the introduction of schooling for all was in who your classmates would be. That is what they competed on. Certainly not facilities or food or other services. All of which could be awful.

    So it was the parents pushing for diversity?
     
    Naturally a parent would, given a choice for their child to live in a house with 15 other English upper-middle class children or 13 other English upper-middle class children plus a Hong Kong tycoon's child and a Nigerian leading businessman's child, plump for the latter.

    If you have realistic desires for your child to be an international success in whatever they do then this only makes sense.

    Of course, there are swiftly diminishing returns to this. Also, what Hong Kong tycoon wants to send their kid to England to be educated with few English people?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Twinkie says:

    It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last presidents being Jewish, would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine. And, I bet if you got a lot of Asian Harvard students and grads to tell you the truth, they would probably agree that they are glad Harvard isn’t Stuyvesant HS.

    Which Stuyvesant? The one from a few decades ago when the majority of students was of the “morally superior” Jewish variety? You know, the institution that produced such world-benefitting graduates as actors, investment bankers, and politicians. Or the other one of a more recent vintage with “mindless math drones” who go on to be engineers and make stuff?

    My heretical opinion is that the people running Harvard for the last century have done a pretty good job of self-interested brand management in maintaining the value of the Harvard brand.

    Because nothing says brand like being dominated by Jewish political commissars and thought-police officers of indeterminate sexuality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! "Opportunity cost." There's an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery's answer in my own words: "This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?"

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    He was very, very unimpressive.

    Well, if you say so.

    Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    The problem with life is that it’s often hard to run a controlled experiment. That’s a fancy way of saying “You’ll never know.”

    Public Ivy

    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching “Ivy” to something that isn’t.*

    *In case you don’t understand me, although I did graduate from Ivy League schools, I did not enjoy my experiences and will steer my children away from them (though ultimately they will decide where they will go). But these schools are what they are – a filter through which our society’s elites are selected – no matter what I think of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That's a little business lesson for you.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.

    The whole, narrow emphasis on "Ivy" schools is not good and it's gotten worse as the country has become more and more mediocre. Those were the earliest and best colleges when our population consisted of colonists along the Eastern Seaboard. A lot has happened since then.

    I don't know who coined the term, "Public Ivy," -- and because I went to one I am not good enough to go find out -- but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It's just that some flagship state universities are better than others, and I think that is what the author of that term meant.

    , @Reg Cæsar


    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching “Ivy” to something that isn’t.*
     
    Flagship state schools, especially in the big football conferences (thanks to alumni fans), have enormous endowments which move them in the direction of private schools, while the Ivies and other big-name "independent" universities get huge federal and state research grants, and their students are on the same federal loan teat as the public schools, except even more so. (Unless the public U kid is from out of state. Then it's essentially a private school as far as he's concerned.)

    The difference between "public" and "private" thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They're "public-private partnerships", the lot of them.

    (Also, they're called "flagships" because much of the state's local ruling class comes out of them.)

    You know what the most significant difference between the two types are? The US Supreme Court ruled that faculty at public colleges could organize, as they were workers, but those at private colleges could not, because they are management.

    This is like an optical illusion where, if you turn it one way it makes perfect sense, but turned another, it's completely mad.

    Magic Eye administration.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    As opposed to the 80% of non-Asians who go to Harvard. They are so boss and unpredictable that they didn’t care at all, but got in and showed up anyway, just to show how rebellious and independent they are. And then afterwards, they are just going become plumbers and gunsmiths, because that’s just how they roll.

    Whites (Jews and non-Jews) are so anti-authoritarian that they account for the vast majority of administrators at Harvard. Because that’s what really independent people do. Take that, you predictable conformist Asians! We’ll show you just how against the Establishment we are by rejecting most of you (and “meritocracy”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Now Twink, did I limit this to Asians or did you? You are right, people in general are predictable when it comes to choosing something because of prestige.

    The focus here was on Asians and Harvard.

    However, I will argue to the edge of campus that East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing and that this is the reason they work so hard to get their little darlings into Ivy League colleges. I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.

    , @Prester John
    Yeah, but they're pretty quick to take Establishment bucks though!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anon[290] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s holding Asians back is the same thing that’s holding back smart white kids from the Midwest. Both of them tend to come from plain old middle class-income families, and they will need a cut in tuition from Harvard to be able to afford the place. Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight, like a Jewish kid with B grades whose dad works for Goldman Sachs, because that way Harvard doesn’t have to dip into its endowment. Also, Asians have one other big checkmark against them. They are not big donors to their alma mater after they graduate. Schools like Harvard really, really care about that. Old line WASPs used to donate, Jews donate, but Asians, not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Twinkie says:
    @peterike

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.
     
    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?

    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?

    You know what’s funny about the part you quoted?

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.

    See if you can play “Which one of these is not like the others?” game with “Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent…”

    Here, let me help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income#By_ancestry

    1.Indian American : $110,026 (2016)[2]
    2.Jewish American : $90,221 (2016)[2]
    3.Filipino American : $88,745 (2016)[2]
    4.Australian American : $81,452 (2014)[3]
    5.Israeli American : $79,736 (2014)[3]

    Must be such a struggle to be from a people who have the highest median household income in the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don't make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ's sake!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Lagertha says:

    there are no secrets. It is all obvious. The admissions staff at Harvard may be getting worried about stuff. Harvard Sucks is a meme. And, the other Ivies are next and well, over – it’s just a name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @Twinkie

    He was very, very unimpressive.
     
    Well, if you say so.

    Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.
     
    The problem with life is that it's often hard to run a controlled experiment. That's a fancy way of saying "You'll never know."

    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching "Ivy" to something that isn't.*

    *In case you don't understand me, although I did graduate from Ivy League schools, I did not enjoy my experiences and will steer my children away from them (though ultimately they will decide where they will go). But these schools are what they are - a filter through which our society's elites are selected - no matter what I think of them.

    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That’s a little business lesson for you.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.

    The whole, narrow emphasis on “Ivy” schools is not good and it’s gotten worse as the country has become more and more mediocre. Those were the earliest and best colleges when our population consisted of colonists along the Eastern Seaboard. A lot has happened since then.

    I don’t know who coined the term, “Public Ivy,” — and because I went to one I am not good enough to go find out — but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It’s just that some flagship state universities are better than others, and I think that is what the author of that term meant.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That’s a little business lesson for you.
     
    That's where you were and remain confused. You weren't his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn't close the sale. Don't let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.
     
    You only buy generic, right?

    but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It’s just that some flagship state universities are better than others
     
    So, the Ivies are no better than state universities, but some state universities are better than other state universities?

    This strikes me as "He who drives faster than I do is crazy, but he who drives slower is stupid" type of argument. : )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Lagertha says:
    @Twinkie

    It’s all creepily fetishized, isn’t it?
     
    You know what's funny about the part you quoted?

    with examples of its positive assessments of applicants of Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent, who were described with words like “deserving,” “fascinating” and “Tug for BG,” an abbreviation for background.
     
    See if you can play "Which one of these is not like the others?" game with "Nepalese, Tibetan, Vietnamese and Indian descent..."

    Here, let me help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income#By_ancestry

    1.Indian American : $110,026 (2016)[2]
    2.Jewish American : $90,221 (2016)[2]
    3.Filipino American : $88,745 (2016)[2]
    4.Australian American : $81,452 (2014)[3]
    5.Israeli American : $79,736 (2014)[3]
     
    Must be such a struggle to be from a people who have the highest median household income in the United States.

    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don’t make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ’s sake!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don’t make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ’s sake!
     
    I. Do. Not. Care.

    My sons are likely headed to the service academies and my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges. You know, colleges with rules such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas_College

    Men's and women's residence halls are off-limits to members of the opposite sex.
     
    , @Lagertha
    ok, fine. My son had a slight surgery...just sayin'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Twinkie

    No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.
     
    As opposed to the 80% of non-Asians who go to Harvard. They are so boss and unpredictable that they didn't care at all, but got in and showed up anyway, just to show how rebellious and independent they are. And then afterwards, they are just going become plumbers and gunsmiths, because that's just how they roll.

    Whites (Jews and non-Jews) are so anti-authoritarian that they account for the vast majority of administrators at Harvard. Because that's what really independent people do. Take that, you predictable conformist Asians! We'll show you just how against the Establishment we are by rejecting most of you (and "meritocracy").

    Now Twink, did I limit this to Asians or did you? You are right, people in general are predictable when it comes to choosing something because of prestige.

    The focus here was on Asians and Harvard.

    However, I will argue to the edge of campus that East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing and that this is the reason they work so hard to get their little darlings into Ivy League colleges. I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing
     
    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education? The temerity of these people. Why can't they just stay low status like everyone else (except those on top currently), right?

    I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.
     
    Totally. Northern Europeans such as Scandinavians are completely non-conformist and rebellious. After all, "Jante Law" is all about being different and rubbing other people's noses in your uniqueness and rocking the boat: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-14/news/mn-278_1_welfare-state
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That's a little business lesson for you.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.

    The whole, narrow emphasis on "Ivy" schools is not good and it's gotten worse as the country has become more and more mediocre. Those were the earliest and best colleges when our population consisted of colonists along the Eastern Seaboard. A lot has happened since then.

    I don't know who coined the term, "Public Ivy," -- and because I went to one I am not good enough to go find out -- but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It's just that some flagship state universities are better than others, and I think that is what the author of that term meant.

    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That’s a little business lesson for you.

    That’s where you were and remain confused. You weren’t his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn’t close the sale. Don’t let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.

    You only buy generic, right?

    but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It’s just that some flagship state universities are better than others

    So, the Ivies are no better than state universities, but some state universities are better than other state universities?

    This strikes me as “He who drives faster than I do is crazy, but he who drives slower is stupid” type of argument. : )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    "So, the Ivies are no better than state universities, but some state universities are better than other state universities?"


    He neither said nor implied any such thing.

    You clearly know nothing of those state flagship schools which were precisely founded to be the local equivalents of Harvard and Yale - the University of Michigan or UC Berkeley, for example.

    I know from my own family history that both were immediately accepted as such by Harvard and Yale men who found themselves in California, and with numerous children to educate. Berkeley was the place they first looked, and still did well into the post-War period. I'm talking about people who went West from the 1850s to the 1880s. The Johnnie-come-latelies of the Gilded Age did tend to look to Stanford - founded as it was by a crook not unlike themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Jack D
    There's brand management and then there's the law. All the stuff that Harvard is doing would be a lot less problematic if there wasn't a 50+ year effort by the Federal government to outlaw racial discrimination. Maybe in an idea world Harvard would be a private institution and private institutions could do whatever they want, but in this world Harvard depends on massive amounts of Federal $ and is governed by Federal laws.

    If you read the legal papers that both sides have put online, the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger. A thousand (or several thousand) pages of depositions of Harvard admissions honchos with no indication of any specific procedure that does something worse to Asians than to whites. Statistical analysis by both sides shows only a small Asian effect once basic controls are added, of the kind that ought to show up prior to any discrimination (if any exists) being applied. First- and second- generation East Asian applicants to elite schools have very different behavior from other groups, which leads to a different (joint) distribution of academic+extracurricular+personal traits that is then revealed by the Harvard admission ratings. Harvard’s expert actually wrote, non-anonymously and in 2018, that Asian and white applicants being different (in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office) is a simpler explanation of the data than discrimination. The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    The plaintiffs’ black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only “one of many factors”, it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office
     
    "Selectively observed" you mean.

    The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.
     
    Right. Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.
    , @res
    You are presenting a quite biased version of the evidence presented so far.

    For anyone who wants to dig deeply into this, here are the court filings: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/

    Agreed about this though:

    The plaintiffs’ black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only “one of many factors”, it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.
     
    , @Jack D

    the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger
     
    Nothing to see here folks, move along. These are not the droids you are looking for.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvGKfaO3os

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Now Twink, did I limit this to Asians or did you? You are right, people in general are predictable when it comes to choosing something because of prestige.

    The focus here was on Asians and Harvard.

    However, I will argue to the edge of campus that East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing and that this is the reason they work so hard to get their little darlings into Ivy League colleges. I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.

    East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing

    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education? The temerity of these people. Why can’t they just stay low status like everyone else (except those on top currently), right?

    I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.

    Totally. Northern Europeans such as Scandinavians are completely non-conformist and rebellious. After all, “Jante Law” is all about being different and rubbing other people’s noses in your uniqueness and rocking the boat: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-14/news/mn-278_1_welfare-state

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education?
     
    Not through higher education in this case, but via seeking the status of a college degree with a good name on it. It is the name they are after, or perhaps they just assume the brand is good.

    Yes, that is what we all do; it's true, so I will agree to leave the East Asian variable out of this. Brands can be a sign of quality, and they are in the case of Harvard. Still, my point originally was that the reason (but not for all of them, it's true) many students and their parents think "Harvard" then "Yale" then "Princeton" etc. when thinking about what college to go to, is the same reason aspiring people think "Trump" is something that would indicate their own success.

    See, it's branding!
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    You're picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality? I'm sure there is a fancy name for that deceptive trick of argumentation, picking a bad example and then using it as if it represents the whole, but I'm too poorly educated to know it. I just know it when I see it.

    Stereotypes are based in reality. Our ability to recognize patterns in people is the result of thousands of years of evolution and racial formation. East Asians are less inclined toward individuality than Europeans, but maybe your Scandinavian examples are just as conformist as Japanese. They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    Emphasis on collective.

    , @Anthony Wayne
    Asian-apologist-whitey-hater who lacks theory of mind — How original!

    The numbers don’t point to discrimination against Asians either, chief. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the distributions of intelligence and more importantly proportions of the total population can see who admissions is screwing.

    Unrelated, do you have an Anglo first name?
    , @Hibernian
    Nordic people can be very conformist - Germans in Germany - or out of the box thinkers - sometimes to an extent we can do without - Upper Midwestern radicals both left and right, on of the latter of whom was a great aviation pioneer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Twinkie says:
    @academic gossip
    If you read the legal papers that both sides have put online, the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger. A thousand (or several thousand) pages of depositions of Harvard admissions honchos with no indication of any specific procedure that does something worse to Asians than to whites. Statistical analysis by both sides shows only a small Asian effect once basic controls are added, of the kind that ought to show up prior to any discrimination (if any exists) being applied. First- and second- generation East Asian applicants to elite schools have very different behavior from other groups, which leads to a different (joint) distribution of academic+extracurricular+personal traits that is then revealed by the Harvard admission ratings. Harvard's expert actually wrote, non-anonymously and in 2018, that Asian and white applicants being different (in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office) is a simpler explanation of the data than discrimination. The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    The plaintiffs' black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only "one of many factors", it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office

    “Selectively observed” you mean.

    The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    Right. Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium
     
    To fight this, you have to get yourself a seat on the Opprobriations Committee. Aka Ways-and-Meanspiritedness.
    , @academic gossip
    No "selective observing" of the differences is required. The Asian and non-Asian distributions differ substantially, and if Harvard puts relatively more weight on the nonacademic components, which it does, that will lead to fewer Asians being admitted (even if Harvard does not know or suspect that they are Asian). If some of the components are unmeasured or mis-modeled in a statistical study, it can appear as discrimination against Asians even where none exists. Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.
     
    Why "unlike"? Many of the same differences were also true for Jews back in the day, for the same reasons. We now have internet and statistical analysis and lots of published information, which allow discussion that was not possible back then or in the 80-90's when the Asian admission issue first came up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Twinkie

    He was very, very unimpressive.
     
    Well, if you say so.

    Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.
     
    The problem with life is that it's often hard to run a controlled experiment. That's a fancy way of saying "You'll never know."

    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching "Ivy" to something that isn't.*

    *In case you don't understand me, although I did graduate from Ivy League schools, I did not enjoy my experiences and will steer my children away from them (though ultimately they will decide where they will go). But these schools are what they are - a filter through which our society's elites are selected - no matter what I think of them.

    Public Ivy

    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching “Ivy” to something that isn’t.*

    Flagship state schools, especially in the big football conferences (thanks to alumni fans), have enormous endowments which move them in the direction of private schools, while the Ivies and other big-name “independent” universities get huge federal and state research grants, and their students are on the same federal loan teat as the public schools, except even more so. (Unless the public U kid is from out of state. Then it’s essentially a private school as far as he’s concerned.)

    The difference between “public” and “private” thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They’re “public-private partnerships”, the lot of them.

    (Also, they’re called “flagships” because much of the state’s local ruling class comes out of them.)

    You know what the most significant difference between the two types are? The US Supreme Court ruled that faculty at public colleges could organize, as they were workers, but those at private colleges could not, because they are management.

    This is like an optical illusion where, if you turn it one way it makes perfect sense, but turned another, it’s completely mad.

    Magic Eye administration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The difference between “public” and “private” thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They’re “public-private partnerships”, the lot of them.
     
    You can say that again. And it's been like that LONG before Asians showed up.
    , @Jack D
    And yet if you look at, for example, the US News rankings, all of the top 20 schools are private. The highest ranked public U's - Berkeley and UCLA, don't kick in until #21.

    There is a case to be made that there are now a number of private schools (MIT, Cal Tech, U Chicago, etc.) that are as good or better than many of the Ivies, but the public schools are ALMOST put not quite as good. There is a subtle but real difference in the quality of the students.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. That’s where you were and remain confused. You weren’t his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn’t close the sale. Don’t let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.

    I guess it depends on one’s personality and where one’s brass is located. I own my own business now. It was in my nature to judge Mr. Garten and his school. I was accepted. I didn’t need to close the sale; he did and he failed. I was going to be a paying customer.

    You are describing it from the perspective of someone coming on his knees. Not a very manly image.

    A college is a business and needs customers. The article we are supposedly commenting on is about Harvard’s brand management.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I was going to be a paying customer.
     
    Harvard doesn't need your money. It could finance itself with its own endowment until the end of days.

    A college is a business and needs customers.
     
    Harvard doesn't need customers. Harvard IS the customer.
    , @3g4me
    @45 Buzz Mohawk: "I guess it depends on one’s personality and where one’s brass is located. I own my own business now. It was in my nature to judge Mr. Garten and his school . . . A college is a business and needs customers."

    Once again, Buzz, you are my favorite commenter here. Solid American common sense, self respect, and self reliance radiate from your words. Regardless of where you went to school, it sounds as though you lived the life you chose based on your values, not what others told you to value. And the fact that today a college IS a business is almost forgotten by most, who are addled by the faux mystique of "branding." Mention of my 7 Sisters' school either brings unwarranted admiration, or vague queries like "That's a teacher's college, right?" Had I a daughter, she would be forbidden to apply to the now vile institution. And my years in Singapore strongly support your thesis that Asians are, by and large, hugely conformist and social climbers (whether in their own country or as immigrants). The kiasu principle - never let anyone get ahead of you - always holds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. DFH says:
    @Tyrion 2
    This is similar to how the housemasters at various expensive boarding school in England think. Each house, nevermind school, ends ups as a slightly variable microcosm of this thinking.

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch's children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    It has long been the case that the appeal of expensive British schools was known to be in who your fellow students were and not in the quality of the teaching or facilities (both of which used to be extremely variable.)

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity.

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical "you" is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.

    Having too many Asians is only a problem for minor public schools

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    For some minor public school it is a huge problem that they've spent huge resources to try to escape.

    Nonetheless, the revamping of the scholarship system to re-allow the native middle class entry (the traditional major public school entrant) is pretty obvious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Twinkie

    in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office
     
    "Selectively observed" you mean.

    The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.
     
    Right. Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.

    a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium

    To fight this, you have to get yourself a seat on the Opprobriations Committee. Aka Ways-and-Meanspiritedness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Or the [Stuyvesant] of a more recent vintage with “mindless math drones” who go on to be engineers and make stuff?

    Weren’t you a humanities and business guy? You should talk to some recent-vintage engineers and mathematicians. New Stuyvesant hasn’t been producing mathematicians and physicists like it (very famously) used to, and Chinese and Korean kids from Stuyvesant or anywhere else in the US do not tend to become engineers who make stuff. Hint: software, especially in the NYC area where that means finance and media/advertising, is not making stuff. There is some over-representation of Chinese in electrical engineering, so that’s something, but the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical. Of course there are a lot of imported Asian engineers but that doesn’t say anything about the career paths of recent Stuy grads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip

    There is some over-representation of Chinese in electrical engineering, so that’s something,
     
    Actually I'm not even sure that's true when considering Asian- or Chinese-Americans who attend high school in the United States (which is the population we were talking about in connection with Stuyvesant and Harvard).
    , @Twinkie

    Weren’t you a humanities and business guy?
     
    I studied and taught military history and then later worked in counter-terrorism. I am not a "business guy" though my wife and I eventually did start a small business and sold it to a large corporation, affording us a comfortable retirement.

    the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical.
     
    1. I don't know what your definition of "not impressive" means - because "impressive" is usually not an objective quality and is infused more with "what I like" and "what I don't like" than actual measures of efficacy in real life.

    2. Please do provide some data on "not the Asian overrepresentation that [I] mistakenly assume."

    3. Electrical and computer engineering is not about making real stuff?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. “But Harvard’s worry a century ago was that it would get so popular with Jews that Jews wouldn’t go there anymore.”

    Wait, what?

    Almost like saying, “Why would any top 1%’ers ever want to live in exclusive Beverly Hills/Bel Air/West Palm Beach/the Hamptons/etc?

    That sounds along the lines of, “I wouldn’t want to get into a country club that would have me as a member”.

    Today, Harvard (as in the 1920s) remains popular with Jews and other Right Side of the Bell Curve groups. Can it be predicted that there will come a time that the most elitist brand of higher education will have a falling out with the Right Side of the Bell Curve?

    Anything’s possible, (if another brand in higher education should suddenly out of nowhere become “THE” top elite brand in all of higher education) but for now, that doesn’t seem likely. After all, it is the US’s first and oldest established university (1636).

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    Anti-semites have this fantasy that Jewish people like to follow WASPS around. That there are summer resorts which made the mistake of admitting Jews; that the Jews drove out the WASPS and then lost interest in the resort once the WASPS were gone. Nobody has ever been able to provide evidence for this fantasy though.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Almost like saying, “Why would any top 1%’ers ever want to live in exclusive Beverly Hills/Bel Air/West Palm Beach/the Hamptons/etc?
     
    Any one-percenter in West Palm Beach is probably lost.

    https://cbs12.com/news/local/14-shootings-in-west-palm-beach-2-arrests

    https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/felt-him-leave-man-killed-west-palm-shooting-had-baby-the-way/f37AGyZz6igh96JcbTzmIP/

    https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/breaking-one-man-shot-west-palm-beach/nJm4FmUTWYgWJKD2GZKeNI/

    Does West Palm Beach have a minimum speed limit, like Palm Beach?

    , @Hibernian
    They might be worried about becoming another Penn, Berkeley, or U of C; very good but not elite of the elite (counting both social and academic power.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Twinkie

    East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing
     
    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education? The temerity of these people. Why can't they just stay low status like everyone else (except those on top currently), right?

    I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.
     
    Totally. Northern Europeans such as Scandinavians are completely non-conformist and rebellious. After all, "Jante Law" is all about being different and rubbing other people's noses in your uniqueness and rocking the boat: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-14/news/mn-278_1_welfare-state

    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education?

    Not through higher education in this case, but via seeking the status of a college degree with a good name on it. It is the name they are after, or perhaps they just assume the brand is good.

    Yes, that is what we all do; it’s true, so I will agree to leave the East Asian variable out of this. Brands can be a sign of quality, and they are in the case of Harvard. Still, my point originally was that the reason (but not for all of them, it’s true) many students and their parents think “Harvard” then “Yale” then “Princeton” etc. when thinking about what college to go to, is the same reason aspiring people think “Trump” is something that would indicate their own success.

    See, it’s branding!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Lagertha says:

    Harvard will never be able to say it accepts the most intelligent students. The fact hat they don’t know that, is well known, by now. However, most State U’s give full ride or good digs for the guys & girls they rejected….yes…men & women who are white.

    Race wars are not so effin’ crazy…but Harvard and the Ivies & Co. started it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Twinkie

    East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing
     
    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education? The temerity of these people. Why can't they just stay low status like everyone else (except those on top currently), right?

    I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.
     
    Totally. Northern Europeans such as Scandinavians are completely non-conformist and rebellious. After all, "Jante Law" is all about being different and rubbing other people's noses in your uniqueness and rocking the boat: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-14/news/mn-278_1_welfare-state

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality? I’m sure there is a fancy name for that deceptive trick of argumentation, picking a bad example and then using it as if it represents the whole, but I’m too poorly educated to know it. I just know it when I see it.

    Stereotypes are based in reality. Our ability to recognize patterns in people is the result of thousands of years of evolution and racial formation. East Asians are less inclined toward individuality than Europeans, but maybe your Scandinavian examples are just as conformist as Japanese. They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    Emphasis on collective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality?
     
    No, sir. I am - in the Popperian manner - falsifying the notion that "East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs."

    Not all East Asians are the same, and not all "round eyed slobs" are the same either. It all depends on which "East Asians" and "round eyed slobs" you are talking about. For example, "round eyed slobs" from the border areas of Scotland and England were notoriously "independent" and querulous historically. So much so that their descendants in Appalachia today are the most crime- and poverty-ridden whites in America today. Meanwhile the Nordics who settled in the upper Midwest turned out to be quiet, hardworking, and economically productive and, yes, very conformist.

    Look, I agree that - in general - East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups. But it remains to be examined how much of that is based on environment (e.g. colder climate, high population density, degree of isolation, presence or lack of physio-topographic barriers that separate people, etc.) that is shared by certain European populations and not with others. I supposed that would answer why some European populations are FAR more conformist than others and why the same European population is more conformist in one era than in another.

    Much of the cult of the rugged individualism that permeates white Americans is not so much European in nature, but a uniquely American phenomenon, which likely argues for some contingent historical factors that are, again, unique to the formation of the American society.

    Stereotypes are based in reality.
     
    Nope. SOME stereotypes are based in reality. There are stereotypes that are simply incorrect by all objective measures. That's because stereotypes are not some sort of magic that accurately captures reality. They could be based on enduring observations, but they could also be based on temporary phenomena that have long ceased to be (but congealed in the minds of the people from the past). To wit: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html

    The Korean is the perfect type of inefficiency — of utter worthlessness.
     
    A stereotype from the days when Koreans were poor, uneducated, and under the boot of the neighboring powers. I suppose the Western equivalent of that would be that of the "dirty, ignorant, immoral, and diseased Irish." But look at the Irish now - higher GDP per capita than their erstwhile overlords and betters, the United Kingdom.

    They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    Er, no. Scandinavians are far more socially cohesive, egalitarian, and communitarian than, say, Koreans are. There is no Scandinavian equivalent to the joke "Two Koreans, three churches." Contrary to your claims of "East Asian... beehive of collective self-interest," there is intense intra-East Asian competition and conflict. They are only the mindless, monolithic Borg in YOUR mind.
    , @Johann Ricke

    whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    That doesn't sound right. If you look at the Chinese market for smartphones, for instance, you'll see that it is the scene of an intense knock-down, drag-out fight over price, features and market share during which a several big players have already gone out of business, owing billions to creditors. It is this harsh dog-eat-dog competition that poses a long-term threat to American corporations, not the cozy oligopolistic industrial culture of South Korea. In my opinion, Coag, who comments here every so often, has gotten this much right:

    The most striking feature of Chinese society may be its homogeneity but the corollary is that in China everyone thinks he can be the emperor and that the emperor is no better/smarter/wiser than him. This idea is inalienable from Chinese society and indeed quasi-sanctified— the founders of the Han and Ming dynasties was a peasant and a street beggar, respectively, who fought their ways to the top. This well-established career of peasant class warrior was played to great advantage by Mao. Its whole 2000-year tradition is a perpetual source of social instability during times of economic crisis or decline.
     
    China is a unified empire instead of a motley collection of independent nations like Europe because every man wants to be emperor. Of the whole enchilada. It's not that independent nations did not exist in Northeast Asia. The issue is that alliances did not stand long enough for nations to endure. It was always every man for himself. And this definitely goes against the idea that they are conformists. I'd say they're atomistic, but at the level of the family and close friends. They go along when they have to, because no one wants to die to make somebody else emperor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @academic gossip

    Or the [Stuyvesant] of a more recent vintage with “mindless math drones” who go on to be engineers and make stuff?
     
    Weren't you a humanities and business guy? You should talk to some recent-vintage engineers and mathematicians. New Stuyvesant hasn't been producing mathematicians and physicists like it (very famously) used to, and Chinese and Korean kids from Stuyvesant or anywhere else in the US do not tend to become engineers who make stuff. Hint: software, especially in the NYC area where that means finance and media/advertising, is not making stuff. There is some over-representation of Chinese in electrical engineering, so that's something, but the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical. Of course there are a lot of imported Asian engineers but that doesn't say anything about the career paths of recent Stuy grads.

    There is some over-representation of Chinese in electrical engineering, so that’s something,

    Actually I’m not even sure that’s true when considering Asian- or Chinese-Americans who attend high school in the United States (which is the population we were talking about in connection with Stuyvesant and Harvard).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That’s where you were and remain confused. You weren’t his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn’t close the sale. Don’t let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.
     
    I guess it depends on one's personality and where one's brass is located. I own my own business now. It was in my nature to judge Mr. Garten and his school. I was accepted. I didn't need to close the sale; he did and he failed. I was going to be a paying customer.

    You are describing it from the perspective of someone coming on his knees. Not a very manly image.

    A college is a business and needs customers. The article we are supposedly commenting on is about Harvard's brand management.

    I was going to be a paying customer.

    Harvard doesn’t need your money. It could finance itself with its own endowment until the end of days.

    A college is a business and needs customers.

    Harvard doesn’t need customers. Harvard IS the customer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    If I am paying, I am the customer -- if not the boss.

    I was referring to Yale SOM, BTW, not Harvard. Don't people with Ivy degrees have long attention spans? Yale SOM may not need the money either, but it is not at the top of the list, so it does need to attract good students with promising futures. It is in competition with other B schools. Those same students have other opportunities. This isn't the best analogy with undergraduate admissions, so let's drop it.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well -- in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.
    , @Autochthon
    What spurious logic. As Mr. Mohawk replies, the fellow paying the other fellow is the customer, be the second party ever so wealthy and without need of the custom. Do you believe for a moment Giuliani needs – or even much wants – Trump's money, or that a neurosurgeon needs any given patient's? That even the owner or manager McDonald's on the corner really gives a hoot if I never come in again, or that my absence will dent their profits? Of course not, but in each case the one provides a service to the customer (client, patient, patron – call it what you want) for goods or services rendered. Don't be silly. You're history here shows you are sharper than that (I mean it with goodwill and sincerely).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Twinkie says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching “Ivy” to something that isn’t.*
     
    Flagship state schools, especially in the big football conferences (thanks to alumni fans), have enormous endowments which move them in the direction of private schools, while the Ivies and other big-name "independent" universities get huge federal and state research grants, and their students are on the same federal loan teat as the public schools, except even more so. (Unless the public U kid is from out of state. Then it's essentially a private school as far as he's concerned.)

    The difference between "public" and "private" thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They're "public-private partnerships", the lot of them.

    (Also, they're called "flagships" because much of the state's local ruling class comes out of them.)

    You know what the most significant difference between the two types are? The US Supreme Court ruled that faculty at public colleges could organize, as they were workers, but those at private colleges could not, because they are management.

    This is like an optical illusion where, if you turn it one way it makes perfect sense, but turned another, it's completely mad.

    Magic Eye administration.

    The difference between “public” and “private” thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They’re “public-private partnerships”, the lot of them.

    You can say that again. And it’s been like that LONG before Asians showed up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @I, commenter

    In 1922, Harvard made some changes to its admissions procedures that had disparate impact on Jewish immigrants. It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last presidents being Jewish, would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine.
     
    I think it's more likely they would like to keep Harvard(and Yale, and the state department, and on and on) Jewish. -Jewish as in the dominant, controlling ethnic group. WASPs were stupid enough to "play fair" and give East European Jews access to power. that group said 'thanks, sucker" and never looked back.

    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don’t. The problem was never that gentiles aren’t collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn’t exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Good point.
    , @Twinkie

    This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans.
     
    Much of what you say rings true. However, things are changing - for better or worse - in East Asia.

    For example, this used to not happen in South Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ

    But now, in Seoul, you can leave your stuff (iPad, wallet, etc.) on a coffee shop table and leave for an hour and return and still find your items there. Foreigners - including those from prosperous Western countries - in South Korea often find this quite remarkable and unimaginable in their home countries.

    Some people also ran the "a child collapses in public" experiment in South Korea. Interestingly, younger generation people walking by almost uniformly tried to help a strange child in distress whereas the older generation was more likely to walk by ("not my business"). The same result was obtained with another experiment in which an unattended table was left in public with "free gifts" and asking for a small donation in return - again, younger Koreans generally deposited donations, but older ones were more likely to not give any and even grab more than one item!

    This kind of high civic-minded culture is less established in China than in South Korea for obvious reasons, but I suspect it is likely that the Chinese will catch up to the Koreans if their standards of living climb near to that of the latter.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Good post.
    , @Dave Pinsen

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm.
     
    Didn’t Chinese civilization emerge from ancient tribes unifying to tame the Yellow River? Flood management/irrigation on that scale is obviously collectivist, and led to hugely productive agriculture which is why there are so many Chinese today. A “got mine, f*ck you” people would have never developed China in the first place. This attitude sounds like a modern aberration from collectivism.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    I've always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It's like they're the least favorite minority.

    I don't know why, but I'd assume it's related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and "chutzpah." These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that's not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That's probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy ("Men with Gold Chains") personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of "K-selection" and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a "grind" Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today's America. They're highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today's America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to "network" effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don't fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn't want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. "Gold chain" personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.
    , @AnotherDad
    Gold box.

    Excellent comment DoQ. Strikes me as spot on. Conformity isn't "collectivism". And you take here:

    True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm.
     
    i think nails the motivating--evolutionary--factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Twinkie

    in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office
     
    "Selectively observed" you mean.

    The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.
     
    Right. Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.

    No “selective observing” of the differences is required. The Asian and non-Asian distributions differ substantially, and if Harvard puts relatively more weight on the nonacademic components, which it does, that will lead to fewer Asians being admitted (even if Harvard does not know or suspect that they are Asian). If some of the components are unmeasured or mis-modeled in a statistical study, it can appear as discrimination against Asians even where none exists. Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.

    Why “unlike”? Many of the same differences were also true for Jews back in the day, for the same reasons. We now have internet and statistical analysis and lots of published information, which allow discussion that was not possible back then or in the 80-90′s when the Asian admission issue first came up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    No “selective observing” of the differences is required.
     
    You can continue that argument with Jack D: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyc-schools-the-white-menace-vs-the-asian-ho-hum/#comment-2435643
    , @kaganovitch
    When your local fire department glibly dismisses the lack of minority firefighters by reference to "the Black and non Black distributions differ substantially" , they get told by a bunch of Harvard and Yale graduates in black robes that the very fact of disparate impact on different groups is presumptively discriminatory. This, in spite of the fact that the ostensible "hard" evidence of test scores clearly favors the department position and only subjective criteria i.e. a thumb and a few fingers on the scale disfavor the department's position. Yet , when it comes to the Ivie's own admission policies , where the hard evidence of test scores clearly favors the Asian plaintiffs, we are told " Trust us, we are doing the right thing, the Asian and non Asian distributions differ substantially. Would we lie to you?" All of this, mind you, from people who as plain as day are not above fudging admissions criteria to produce their desired outcomes, as witness their NAM admission rates. A "Nothing Burger" indeed
    , @res

    Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.
     
    That is certainly true, but often one can look closely at the models and make a judgment as to who is closer to reality and who is obfuscating it. I have done that. Have you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. El Dato says:

    OT: NUZI fan in Indana: Nazi symbols near synagogue in Indiana spark outrage, highlighting lack of a state hate crime law

    Because hate crime laws make NUZIs go away.

    Sometime before Saturday morning, unknown individual(s) spray-painted a pair of Nazi flags and iron cross graffiti on two walls of a brick shed where trash cans are stored at the property of Congregation Shaarey Tefilla in Carmel, Indiana.

    That’s convinving.

    After the synagogue notified the police about the defacement, the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis have been working to make sure that “appropriate measures” are taken following the incident.

    I hope they called a painter.

    The mind-altering symbols have now been decently covered in a tarpaulin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    You're picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality? I'm sure there is a fancy name for that deceptive trick of argumentation, picking a bad example and then using it as if it represents the whole, but I'm too poorly educated to know it. I just know it when I see it.

    Stereotypes are based in reality. Our ability to recognize patterns in people is the result of thousands of years of evolution and racial formation. East Asians are less inclined toward individuality than Europeans, but maybe your Scandinavian examples are just as conformist as Japanese. They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    Emphasis on collective.

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality?

    No, sir. I am – in the Popperian manner – falsifying the notion that “East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs.”

    Not all East Asians are the same, and not all “round eyed slobs” are the same either. It all depends on which “East Asians” and “round eyed slobs” you are talking about. For example, “round eyed slobs” from the border areas of Scotland and England were notoriously “independent” and querulous historically. So much so that their descendants in Appalachia today are the most crime- and poverty-ridden whites in America today. Meanwhile the Nordics who settled in the upper Midwest turned out to be quiet, hardworking, and economically productive and, yes, very conformist.

    Look, I agree that – in general – East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups. But it remains to be examined how much of that is based on environment (e.g. colder climate, high population density, degree of isolation, presence or lack of physio-topographic barriers that separate people, etc.) that is shared by certain European populations and not with others. I supposed that would answer why some European populations are FAR more conformist than others and why the same European population is more conformist in one era than in another.

    Much of the cult of the rugged individualism that permeates white Americans is not so much European in nature, but a uniquely American phenomenon, which likely argues for some contingent historical factors that are, again, unique to the formation of the American society.

    Stereotypes are based in reality.

    Nope. SOME stereotypes are based in reality. There are stereotypes that are simply incorrect by all objective measures. That’s because stereotypes are not some sort of magic that accurately captures reality. They could be based on enduring observations, but they could also be based on temporary phenomena that have long ceased to be (but congealed in the minds of the people from the past). To wit: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html

    The Korean is the perfect type of inefficiency — of utter worthlessness.

    A stereotype from the days when Koreans were poor, uneducated, and under the boot of the neighboring powers. I suppose the Western equivalent of that would be that of the “dirty, ignorant, immoral, and diseased Irish.” But look at the Irish now – higher GDP per capita than their erstwhile overlords and betters, the United Kingdom.

    They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    Er, no. Scandinavians are far more socially cohesive, egalitarian, and communitarian than, say, Koreans are. There is no Scandinavian equivalent to the joke “Two Koreans, three churches.” Contrary to your claims of “East Asian… beehive of collective self-interest,” there is intense intra-East Asian competition and conflict. They are only the mindless, monolithic Borg in YOUR mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Look, I agree that – in general – East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups.

    Europeans can be conformist too. The real difference is Asians tend to be more SERVILE. One can be corformist and still stand upright, like the Prussians. Japanese, in contrast, bowed before authority.
    Asians tend to be servile to power before principle, whereas Nordics tend to adhere/conform to principles(even bad ones as in the present) than to mere power.

    https://youtu.be/vuQz_CRxIxg?t=25s
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    How about this Twinkie. How about Asians stay in Asia. And the ones currently residing in the West can go back to Asia. See how simple that was.
    , @Thud
    Irelands GNI being the same as U.K. is a better measure and without EU bribes the per capita GDP would be much less.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Anon
    What's holding Asians back is the same thing that's holding back smart white kids from the Midwest. Both of them tend to come from plain old middle class-income families, and they will need a cut in tuition from Harvard to be able to afford the place. Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight, like a Jewish kid with B grades whose dad works for Goldman Sachs, because that way Harvard doesn't have to dip into its endowment. Also, Asians have one other big checkmark against them. They are not big donors to their alma mater after they graduate. Schools like Harvard really, really care about that. Old line WASPs used to donate, Jews donate, but Asians, not so much.

    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.
     
    Like this guy: https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/08/news/harvard-donation/index.html

    With an English name like Gerald (Chan), he is, clearly, is not East Asian. Probably some European tai-pan masquerading as a Chinaman.

    And of course, forget China let alone all of East Asia - Hong Kong alone accounts for only 17% of the total worldwide donations to American Universities. So, clearly, those stingy Asians deserve to be underrated as future donors.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    They don't even care about people who donate six or seven figures any more. I heard this from an Ivy League Alumni outreach coordinator. They just focus on the 0.01% these days for donations, more bang for the buck and less work. If you can't give 8 figures, you don't really have any leverage as a donor.

    No, what Harvard is really looking for are influencers. Most alums will not donate huge amounts, but they will be brand ambassadors and decision makers. The Ivies want to a seat at the center of power, and they have done an amazing job covering ALL the bases. Even the Trump administration is full of Harvard and Yale grads. And whom is Trump appointing to the Supreme Court? Another Yale grad. And of course Trump himself is an Ivy Leaguer, and rather proud of that. Reagan was the last President with no Ivy connection and that was rather a long time ago now.
    , @JimB
    Identifying the future wealthy is a sucker’s game. Harvard has probably rejected 4/5 of the world’s billionaires and the other 1/5 dropped out. Harvard’s wealth comes mainly from it’s money managers and Wall Street insider status.
    , @Anon
    Harvard's money has been badly managed for the last several years. The fact that they've been getting a lot in donations has been covering up for this.

    Quote from the linked article below: "The endowment’s performance in fiscal year 2017 ranks dead last among the 88 largest endowments that have reported their results, according to Bloomberg data. It’s not just one year. Harvard’s three-year, five-year and 10-year returns rank 73, 66 and 55, respectively."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-02-22/harvard-alumni-cook-up-a-dumb-idea-for-its-endowment

    If it weren't for generous donors, their endowment's growth would be considered unremarkable, as well as unremarkable long-term.

    From the article: "Harvard, along with other big university endowments, pioneered and still uses the so-called endowment model of investing, which calls for investments in high-priced hedge funds and private assets alongside traditional stocks and bonds."

    One thing about hedge funds is that their long-term results mostly suck. They're great destroyers of capital. They make money for their managers in terms of fees, which is why they keep being set up, but for the sucker investing in them? HA HA HA.

    Look up what Warren Buffett says about hedge funds. He made a famous long-term bet against them.

    One thing you can say for Harvard's massive hiring of diversity admins, namely chicks, blacks, and browns, is that they don't know how to handle money. This is typical 'diversity' behavior when it comes to cash. Their current plan, "Duh, maybe buy an index fund," is what happens when you have no one in the money department who knows how to invest. Buying and long-term holding an index fund is what you do when you don't know enough to actively invest money yourself, don't want to learn about the investing process, and don't want to be bothered with it. Harvard's money mangers are overpaid for the service that they're providing.

    , @Anon
    Yes, Harvard does have a lot of money, in the 40-odd billion endowment range. But they spend in the high 4 billions every year just for the operating expenses for the school. The math says they HAVE to earn 10% in income from their endowment just to break even and keep from having to draw down it down. Their spending keeps climbing, and it's close to 5 billion a year right now.

    Making 10% year after year is doing extremely well investment-wise, and no one should count on it long-term. It's very unlikely. Thus Harvard HAS to have generous donors just to keep their endowment from being run down.

    Harvard does not make any attempt to cut its costs or run a tight ship. Spending almost 5 billion a year to read a freaking college is ridiculous.
    , @anon
    Among the elite top 20, Harvard is easily the stingiest school when it comes to scholarship. When I input the same data into each school's own Net Price Calculator, all other elite schools incl. rest of Ivies, MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Duke will cost $20,000 per year, while Harvard costs $40,000.

    Harvard is the richest because it is the biggest hoarder, stingy and greedy beyond believe, typical Jew run institution.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Twinkie says:
    @academic gossip

    Or the [Stuyvesant] of a more recent vintage with “mindless math drones” who go on to be engineers and make stuff?
     
    Weren't you a humanities and business guy? You should talk to some recent-vintage engineers and mathematicians. New Stuyvesant hasn't been producing mathematicians and physicists like it (very famously) used to, and Chinese and Korean kids from Stuyvesant or anywhere else in the US do not tend to become engineers who make stuff. Hint: software, especially in the NYC area where that means finance and media/advertising, is not making stuff. There is some over-representation of Chinese in electrical engineering, so that's something, but the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical. Of course there are a lot of imported Asian engineers but that doesn't say anything about the career paths of recent Stuy grads.

    Weren’t you a humanities and business guy?

    I studied and taught military history and then later worked in counter-terrorism. I am not a “business guy” though my wife and I eventually did start a small business and sold it to a large corporation, affording us a comfortable retirement.

    the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical.

    1. I don’t know what your definition of “not impressive” means – because “impressive” is usually not an objective quality and is infused more with “what I like” and “what I don’t like” than actual measures of efficacy in real life.

    2. Please do provide some data on “not the Asian overrepresentation that [I] mistakenly assume.”

    3. Electrical and computer engineering is not about making real stuff?

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    The NSF has annual data on Doctorates Awarded in different fields. It does not resemble Stuyvesant's demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.

    I said that software engineering (not electrical engineering) fails to "make real stuff". It's the equivalent of law school for people who can do math: a way for relatively bright people to learn how to earn a living, without having to ever get their hands dirty.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Twinkie says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    Like this guy: https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/08/news/harvard-donation/index.html

    With an English name like Gerald (Chan), he is, clearly, is not East Asian. Probably some European tai-pan masquerading as a Chinaman.

    And of course, forget China let alone all of East Asia – Hong Kong alone accounts for only 17% of the total worldwide donations to American Universities. So, clearly, those stingy Asians deserve to be underrated as future donors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Twinkie says:
    @academic gossip
    No "selective observing" of the differences is required. The Asian and non-Asian distributions differ substantially, and if Harvard puts relatively more weight on the nonacademic components, which it does, that will lead to fewer Asians being admitted (even if Harvard does not know or suspect that they are Asian). If some of the components are unmeasured or mis-modeled in a statistical study, it can appear as discrimination against Asians even where none exists. Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.
     
    Why "unlike"? Many of the same differences were also true for Jews back in the day, for the same reasons. We now have internet and statistical analysis and lots of published information, which allow discussion that was not possible back then or in the 80-90's when the Asian admission issue first came up.

    No “selective observing” of the differences is required.

    You can continue that argument with Jack D: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyc-schools-the-white-menace-vs-the-asian-ho-hum/#comment-2435643

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    I already answered that post. Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    Again, I'm asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits, barring some incriminating evidence that was left out of the summary judgement pleadings. And that if affirmative action for blacks is allowed to be litigated in this case, Harvard will have a harder time defending against some of the allegations on that, such as the black admission rate having to be at least as high as the overall domestic rate of admission.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    What does it mean to compete on services? What else would they compete on?

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean.

    What was an English boarding school supposed to mean?

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch’s children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity

    So it was the parents pushing for diversity?

    The primary benefit of the English public school after the introduction of schooling for all was in who your classmates would be. That is what they competed on. Certainly not facilities or food or other services. All of which could be awful.

    So it was the parents pushing for diversity?

    Naturally a parent would, given a choice for their child to live in a house with 15 other English upper-middle class children or 13 other English upper-middle class children plus a Hong Kong tycoon’s child and a Nigerian leading businessman’s child, plump for the latter.

    If you have realistic desires for your child to be an international success in whatever they do then this only makes sense.

    Of course, there are swiftly diminishing returns to this. Also, what Hong Kong tycoon wants to send their kid to England to be educated with few English people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Twinkie says:
    @Lagertha
    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don't make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ's sake!

    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don’t make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ’s sake!

    I. Do. Not. Care.

    My sons are likely headed to the service academies and my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges. You know, colleges with rules such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas_College

    Men’s and women’s residence halls are off-limits to members of the opposite sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    "my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges"

    At that rate, wouldn't it be simpler, easier, and better to just marry them off at 18? At least a health-subject degree (from a suitably austere university) might be a Mrs. degree that actually does something useful.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    As it happens, I knew well (and in some cases intimately) just about all of the founders of Thomas Aquinas College, from the religious, the academic, and the financial points of view, particularly the latter, the college's biggest donor (at least for the foundational period) having known my father and his brothers from the time they were all students at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I continually meet graduates of the place.

    I would just say this: if your daughters have any tendency to self-regard, then don't send them there. It turns out, enough at least for a pattern to be observable, priggish, self-satisfied know-it-alls, few of whom actually know much more than a smattering of the Great Books curriculum, liberally spiced with post-Vatican II faux Catholicism.

    Worst of all, they often end up as willing tools of Opus Dei. You really don't want that for your children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    Good point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @DFH
    Having too many Asians is only a problem for minor public schools

    For some minor public school it is a huge problem that they’ve spent huge resources to try to escape.

    Nonetheless, the revamping of the scholarship system to re-allow the native middle class entry (the traditional major public school entrant) is pretty obvious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Twinkie

    Weren’t you a humanities and business guy?
     
    I studied and taught military history and then later worked in counter-terrorism. I am not a "business guy" though my wife and I eventually did start a small business and sold it to a large corporation, affording us a comfortable retirement.

    the Asian PhD numbers are not impressive at all, and there is not the Asian overrepresentation that you mistakenly assume exists in make-real-stuff real engineering fields such as mechanical and chemical.
     
    1. I don't know what your definition of "not impressive" means - because "impressive" is usually not an objective quality and is infused more with "what I like" and "what I don't like" than actual measures of efficacy in real life.

    2. Please do provide some data on "not the Asian overrepresentation that [I] mistakenly assume."

    3. Electrical and computer engineering is not about making real stuff?

    The NSF has annual data on Doctorates Awarded in different fields. It does not resemble Stuyvesant’s demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.

    I said that software engineering (not electrical engineering) fails to “make real stuff”. It’s the equivalent of law school for people who can do math: a way for relatively bright people to learn how to earn a living, without having to ever get their hands dirty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It does not resemble Stuyvesant’s demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.
     
    Link, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Twinkie says:
    @Anon
    would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine

    The main prob with UC Irvine is less 'too many Asians' than 'too many less-sterling Asians'.

    At any rate, the main reason why the Right should not side with Asians is they just become toadies of Jewish Globalists. Whether it's Zakaria, Chua, or Fukuyama, they might as well be secretaries of George Soros.

    The main prob with UC Irvine is less ‘too many Asians’ than ‘too many less-sterling Asians’.

    Yes.

    At any rate, the main reason why the Right should not side with Asians is they just become toadies of Jewish Globalists. Whether it’s Zakaria, Chua, or Fukuyama, they might as well be secretaries of George Soros.

    You are so right. These immigrants – who show up in a new country where they have low status – should immediately start attacking the people in power. Then – and only then – should they be allowed to be junior partners in a white-led Coalition of the Core.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    These immigrants – who show up in a new country where they have low status – should immediately start attacking the people in power

    That's what John Wayne would do.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. JimB says:

    I dunno about Harvard’s brand management in the 21st century. Essentially, they have trashed their reputation as a liberal arts school with affirmative action hires and a gutted curriculum in humanities. Sure, they pump out a lot of social justice trolls, but are they still pumping out future internet billionaires or Supreme Court Justices? Time will tell, I suppose. In terms of academic rigor, Harvard ranks 25 according to Business Insider; MIT Ranks 1 and U Chicago ranks 2. Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade, despite the harsh weather and crap neighborhood. Their secret sauce has been a level of academic integrity unsurpassed by any Ivy League school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade

    Chicago is notorious for trying to game the rankings, to the detriment of the education. They do things like admit a large number of students with the condition that they defer a year before starting. They then "re-accept" those students the following year, and it artificially boosts the rate of students who say yes after being admitted. The secret sauce to climbing to number two is actually throwing academic integrity out the window. The irony is that a U of Chicago education really was better than an Ivy education 30 years ago, but probably isn't today.
    , @GU
    “Crap neighborhood”

    Hyde Park is actually pretty nice these days. It’s still surrounded by crap neighbirhoods, and annoyingly far from the best neighborhoods in Chicago. But Hyde Park itself ain’t so bad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Twinkie

    I was going to be a paying customer.
     
    Harvard doesn't need your money. It could finance itself with its own endowment until the end of days.

    A college is a business and needs customers.
     
    Harvard doesn't need customers. Harvard IS the customer.

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.

    I was referring to Yale SOM, BTW, not Harvard. Don’t people with Ivy degrees have long attention spans? Yale SOM may not need the money either, but it is not at the top of the list, so it does need to attract good students with promising futures. It is in competition with other B schools. Those same students have other opportunities. This isn’t the best analogy with undergraduate admissions, so let’s drop it.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well — in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.
     
    That's true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well — in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.
     
    You misunderstand me. What I describe is the actual social condition as it exists, not as I or you would have it.

    I don't have a high regard for Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy, including my almae matres. Again, I will steer my own children away from them. But no matter what you and I might think of them, in the objective sense of hierarchical relationships in America as they exist today, these institutions select you (in the generic sense of that pronoun). You don't select them.

    Saying things like "I am better than they are - I didn't need them to succeed" might be true in individual cases, but sometimes come off like posturing and a type of virtue signaling as much as those who worship the brands... just like if you try too hard to be a rebel, you are not actually rebellious, but are simply slavish to the other side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s pretty obvious that Harvard in 2018 tends to view Asian applicants the way it viewed Jewish applicants in 1918: as tending to be smart and hardworking, but in such overabundance that they threaten to inundate the place and detract from the immense glamor of the Harvard brand.

    Karabel puts Jewish enrollment at Harvard at 30% seven years later, in 1925. Even if Jews and Asians tend to be “smart and hardworking” that doesn’t mean that any college cannot instead strive to select for leadership qualities and matters of character. Character–that word (like ‘morality’) which has now become an epithet, which should tell you something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Twinkie says:
    @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans.

    Much of what you say rings true. However, things are changing – for better or worse – in East Asia.

    For example, this used to not happen in South Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ

    But now, in Seoul, you can leave your stuff (iPad, wallet, etc.) on a coffee shop table and leave for an hour and return and still find your items there. Foreigners – including those from prosperous Western countries – in South Korea often find this quite remarkable and unimaginable in their home countries.

    Some people also ran the “a child collapses in public” experiment in South Korea. Interestingly, younger generation people walking by almost uniformly tried to help a strange child in distress whereas the older generation was more likely to walk by (“not my business”). The same result was obtained with another experiment in which an unattended table was left in public with “free gifts” and asking for a small donation in return – again, younger Koreans generally deposited donations, but older ones were more likely to not give any and even grab more than one item!

    This kind of high civic-minded culture is less established in China than in South Korea for obvious reasons, but I suspect it is likely that the Chinese will catch up to the Koreans if their standards of living climb near to that of the latter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cowboy Shaw
    Last weekend I left my phone and glasses on the sea wall in a coastal Essex town. It was a busy afternoon and the local sailing club was having its annual piss up so there were plenty of drunks cruising around. I realised I'd lost my phone about an hour later some distance away and stopped a woman to ask if I could borrow her phone to call mine. She had clearly lived a hard life, her face was ravaged by booze, but said to me 'this is an honest town, someone will have it for you'. Sure enough, it had been handed in at an art gallery, they answered, and I went and picked it up.

    Essex is quite ethno-statey. Particularly on the coasts. Probably a coincidence.

    , @Desiderius
    There are four times as many Presbyterians in South Korea than there are in the US, and most of the Korean ones act like the US ones did back when we used to run the joint.

    High character, high competence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Twinkie says:
    @academic gossip
    The NSF has annual data on Doctorates Awarded in different fields. It does not resemble Stuyvesant's demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.

    I said that software engineering (not electrical engineering) fails to "make real stuff". It's the equivalent of law school for people who can do math: a way for relatively bright people to learn how to earn a living, without having to ever get their hands dirty.

    It does not resemble Stuyvesant’s demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.

    Link, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    academic gossip seems to generally know what he is talking about, but likes to argue from authority rather than presenting evidence.

    Here is what I found. First, it is worth noting that AFAICT this data is only for US citizens and permanent residents.

    This report has 2016 bar charts for minorities (but not whites) by broad field on page 5 in panel D: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/static/report/nsf18304-report.pdf
    I did not realize just how large a proportion of black doctorates were in education.

    Current top level NSF Doctorates page: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/
    All of the data tables: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/data.cfm
    HTML version of Table 23. U.S. citizen and permanent resident doctorate recipients, by broad field of study, ethnicity, and race: Selected years, 1996–2016 (which I think is best able to address this conversation): https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab23.htm

    As I am sure you are aware, it is necessary to consider the demographics of the underlying populations (both total and "interested in achieving that") and NYC is different from the US. My guess is academic gossip was mostly referring to the relative proportions of whites (ag, feel free to correct if I misunderstood), and in that I would say he is correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    The main prob with UC Irvine is less ‘too many Asians’ than ‘too many less-sterling Asians’.
     
    Yes.

    At any rate, the main reason why the Right should not side with Asians is they just become toadies of Jewish Globalists. Whether it’s Zakaria, Chua, or Fukuyama, they might as well be secretaries of George Soros.
     
    You are so right. These immigrants - who show up in a new country where they have low status - should immediately start attacking the people in power. Then - and only then - should they be allowed to be junior partners in a white-led Coalition of the Core.

    These immigrants – who show up in a new country where they have low status – should immediately start attacking the people in power

    That’s what John Wayne would do.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    That’s what John Wayne would do.
     
    No, he wouldn't. Don't confuse his movie characters with the man in reality.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.
     
    It doesn't matter if they are upper middle class in their home countries. East Asians who come to the U.S. generally (especially initially) have relatively low social status in the U.S.

    And they are not coming here "to crush the native white folks" given their intermarriage rates with the said "native white folks."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Twinkie

    No “selective observing” of the differences is required.
     
    You can continue that argument with Jack D: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyc-schools-the-white-menace-vs-the-asian-ho-hum/#comment-2435643

    I already answered that post. Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    Again, I’m asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits, barring some incriminating evidence that was left out of the summary judgement pleadings. And that if affirmative action for blacks is allowed to be litigated in this case, Harvard will have a harder time defending against some of the allegations on that, such as the black admission rate having to be at least as high as the overall domestic rate of admission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated
     
    Of which you are one, of course. Unlike that idiot Steve Hsu who - as you wrote - only knows math that has been taught to physicists.

    I’m asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits
     
    Yes you do. You assert a lot.
    , @res

    Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.
     
    OK. Let's have that conversation. What are your reasons for considering Card's analysis to invalidate Arcidiacono's? Based on what I have read, I find Arcidiacono's reasoning on interaction variables persuasive (I will be happy to respond in more detail once you have given your top level take) and that leads me to believe Card is obfuscating.

    Since it might be useful for this conversation I will repeat this link to court filings: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/
    , @Jack D
    Without going into the merits of the competing experts, I'll repeat what I said earlier - the only reason why we can have this discussion at all is because garden variety E. Asians (we will put aside the Nepalese, Bhutanese, etc. that Harvard talks about because they still have value as exotic rarities) do not possess a lot of Diversity Pokemon points. Substitute one of the higher ranked groups (blacks) for Asian and Harvard's experts would not even DARE make the arguments that they are making and that you are making - that the reason the Harvard admission officers ranked BLACKS as less likable is because they really ARE less likable. That they are just reflecting the opinions of others - teachers, interviewers, etc. who are giving recommendations and that those others are not themselves fatally infected with racism that taints their judgments. Etc. As I said before, all you need to do is substitute the word "African-American" for "Asian" and Harvard's whole defense would be considered a war crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    If I am paying, I am the customer -- if not the boss.

    I was referring to Yale SOM, BTW, not Harvard. Don't people with Ivy degrees have long attention spans? Yale SOM may not need the money either, but it is not at the top of the list, so it does need to attract good students with promising futures. It is in competition with other B schools. Those same students have other opportunities. This isn't the best analogy with undergraduate admissions, so let's drop it.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well -- in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.

    That’s true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well — in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.

    You misunderstand me. What I describe is the actual social condition as it exists, not as I or you would have it.

    I don’t have a high regard for Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy, including my almae matres. Again, I will steer my own children away from them. But no matter what you and I might think of them, in the objective sense of hierarchical relationships in America as they exist today, these institutions select you (in the generic sense of that pronoun). You don’t select them.

    Saying things like “I am better than they are – I didn’t need them to succeed” might be true in individual cases, but sometimes come off like posturing and a type of virtue signaling as much as those who worship the brands… just like if you try too hard to be a rebel, you are not actually rebellious, but are simply slavish to the other side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Your points are well put and appreciated. However, I am not saying, "I am better than they are -- I didn't need them to succeed." I am saying, "It was my money and my time -- It was my choice what to do with it."

    Aren't top schools in competition with each other for the best students? (I was by no means one, BTW.)

    Funny little anecdote: I sat in on a class then at Yale SOM, accounting I think. The professor was having a hard time making the projection system work. Finally he gave up and said to the class, "You guys are paying $85,000 for this?" According to the CPI, which lowballs inflation, that would be about $150,000 today. He had a point.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.

    , @res


    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.
     
    That’s true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.
     
    I get what you are saying, but could you elaborate on how that works in your view? I understand the difference between commodity and luxury goods (generally based on limited supply, exclusivity, and perceptions) and its relevance here, but the Harvard example seems to go beyond that. I don't think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that. I suppose Harvard's role could be best seen as choosing the next generation of the powerful (who don't really care about the price, nor does Harvard care that much about the tuition).

    So in that sense Harvard can be seen as needing to be sold on your suitability for that role. That selling need making them the customer. Is this what you mean? With most of the academic selectivity a reputation preserving sideline?

    Are there any examples other than elite universities which show this dynamic? I have heard occasional stories of idiosyncratic high end car companies (e.g. early Enzo dominated Ferrari, IIRC) which reject potential buyers as "unworthy", but can't think of any others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Sippytai says:

    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    “The Harvard Nazi”

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    It's actually somewhat ironic that your humor is more accurate than you know. Harvard (and most institutions) does discriminate against "Asian" boys in particular. "Asian" of course is a meaningless catch all phrase that serves to obfuscate. What is actually going on is massive systemic bias against Chinese and Korean men that is lessened by lumping them into a broader "Asian" category and further hidden by the fact that the women are much less discriminated against.
    , @Twinkie

    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    “The Harvard Nazi”

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!
     
    Ah, but is "the Harvard Nazi" going to be played by a Jew or a fair-haired goyim from the Midwest (or the South)?
    , @Ganderson
    Jungle Asian: IN
    Fancy Asian: NOT
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Buzz Mohawk
    You're picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality? I'm sure there is a fancy name for that deceptive trick of argumentation, picking a bad example and then using it as if it represents the whole, but I'm too poorly educated to know it. I just know it when I see it.

    Stereotypes are based in reality. Our ability to recognize patterns in people is the result of thousands of years of evolution and racial formation. East Asians are less inclined toward individuality than Europeans, but maybe your Scandinavian examples are just as conformist as Japanese. They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    Emphasis on collective.

    whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.

    That doesn’t sound right. If you look at the Chinese market for smartphones, for instance, you’ll see that it is the scene of an intense knock-down, drag-out fight over price, features and market share during which a several big players have already gone out of business, owing billions to creditors. It is this harsh dog-eat-dog competition that poses a long-term threat to American corporations, not the cozy oligopolistic industrial culture of South Korea. In my opinion, Coag, who comments here every so often, has gotten this much right:

    The most striking feature of Chinese society may be its homogeneity but the corollary is that in China everyone thinks he can be the emperor and that the emperor is no better/smarter/wiser than him. This idea is inalienable from Chinese society and indeed quasi-sanctified— the founders of the Han and Ming dynasties was a peasant and a street beggar, respectively, who fought their ways to the top. This well-established career of peasant class warrior was played to great advantage by Mao. Its whole 2000-year tradition is a perpetual source of social instability during times of economic crisis or decline.

    China is a unified empire instead of a motley collection of independent nations like Europe because every man wants to be emperor. Of the whole enchilada. It’s not that independent nations did not exist in Northeast Asia. The issue is that alliances did not stand long enough for nations to endure. It was always every man for himself. And this definitely goes against the idea that they are conformists. I’d say they’re atomistic, but at the level of the family and close friends. They go along when they have to, because no one wants to die to make somebody else emperor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    That's interesting. I'm learning here that "collective" is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don't they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn't a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn't they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    You and Coag are right about the Chinese. Chinese don't like or trust other Chinese all that much, especially in business. You can see this in Taiwan. Despite years of Japanese rule (much like Korea), and dramatic post-war economic growth much like Japan's or S. Korea's, Taiwan has very few large global corporations and has not adopted the chaebol/keiretsu model. As soon as a Taiwanese coroporation reaches a certain scale, it tends to fracture, with managers deciding they can start their own damn company and do a better job running things on their own.

    Although Chinese do tend to think of loyalties in concentric circles (me against my brother, my brother and me against my cousin, my village against the neighboring village, etc.) when push comes to shove they have been pretty poor at ethnic nationalism. Chinese spent more time fighting each other than the Japanese in the 1930s and 40s. Again and again over history Chinese have actively aided foreign invaders against other Chinese. Chinese taboos against marriage outside the group seem pretty weak compared to SE Asians, or even Greeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality?
     
    No, sir. I am - in the Popperian manner - falsifying the notion that "East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs."

    Not all East Asians are the same, and not all "round eyed slobs" are the same either. It all depends on which "East Asians" and "round eyed slobs" you are talking about. For example, "round eyed slobs" from the border areas of Scotland and England were notoriously "independent" and querulous historically. So much so that their descendants in Appalachia today are the most crime- and poverty-ridden whites in America today. Meanwhile the Nordics who settled in the upper Midwest turned out to be quiet, hardworking, and economically productive and, yes, very conformist.

    Look, I agree that - in general - East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups. But it remains to be examined how much of that is based on environment (e.g. colder climate, high population density, degree of isolation, presence or lack of physio-topographic barriers that separate people, etc.) that is shared by certain European populations and not with others. I supposed that would answer why some European populations are FAR more conformist than others and why the same European population is more conformist in one era than in another.

    Much of the cult of the rugged individualism that permeates white Americans is not so much European in nature, but a uniquely American phenomenon, which likely argues for some contingent historical factors that are, again, unique to the formation of the American society.

    Stereotypes are based in reality.
     
    Nope. SOME stereotypes are based in reality. There are stereotypes that are simply incorrect by all objective measures. That's because stereotypes are not some sort of magic that accurately captures reality. They could be based on enduring observations, but they could also be based on temporary phenomena that have long ceased to be (but congealed in the minds of the people from the past). To wit: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html

    The Korean is the perfect type of inefficiency — of utter worthlessness.
     
    A stereotype from the days when Koreans were poor, uneducated, and under the boot of the neighboring powers. I suppose the Western equivalent of that would be that of the "dirty, ignorant, immoral, and diseased Irish." But look at the Irish now - higher GDP per capita than their erstwhile overlords and betters, the United Kingdom.

    They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    Er, no. Scandinavians are far more socially cohesive, egalitarian, and communitarian than, say, Koreans are. There is no Scandinavian equivalent to the joke "Two Koreans, three churches." Contrary to your claims of "East Asian... beehive of collective self-interest," there is intense intra-East Asian competition and conflict. They are only the mindless, monolithic Borg in YOUR mind.

    Look, I agree that – in general – East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups.

    Europeans can be conformist too. The real difference is Asians tend to be more SERVILE. One can be corformist and still stand upright, like the Prussians. Japanese, in contrast, bowed before authority.
    Asians tend to be servile to power before principle, whereas Nordics tend to adhere/conform to principles(even bad ones as in the present) than to mere power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Sippytai
    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    "The Harvard Nazi"

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!

    It’s actually somewhat ironic that your humor is more accurate than you know. Harvard (and most institutions) does discriminate against “Asian” boys in particular. “Asian” of course is a meaningless catch all phrase that serves to obfuscate. What is actually going on is massive systemic bias against Chinese and Korean men that is lessened by lumping them into a broader “Asian” category and further hidden by the fact that the women are much less discriminated against.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anon
    Asians haven’t figured out the sure fire way to get a full scholarship ride to college. It’s the poor poor pitiful me essay. My parents were boat people or coolies who arrived after 2 months locked in a container with 50 other people and a chemical toilet. They worked 100 hrs a week bd saved their pitiful wages as opened a struggling small business. From the age of 8 I worked 4o hours a week in the business.

    Athiugh my schools were 80 percent my brand of Asian there were some evil White KKK kids who were mean to me. They chased me and bullied me. My family hates me because I’m transgender I don’t plan on getting a STEM degree. I plan on majoring in grievance studies and then getting a masters in Social Justice Entrepreneurship * so I can fight for truth, justice and the destruction of the evil White race.

    I’m applying to Crazy Liberal University because of their welcoming inclusive programs for Asian girls who want to be men and marry black lesbians.

    It’s all in the essay.

    * Social Justice Entrepreneurship. Don’t laugh guys. They even have PHDs in this. It’s just poverty race war pimp grant hustling parasitism.

    Asians haven’t figured out the sure fire way to get a full scholarship ride to college

    This is unlikely, given that Asians have mastered the nuances of the rest of the college admissions process.

    Most college admissions decisions are “needs-blind” but pedigree does matter, in that both legacy relationships, as well as the applicant’s parents job titles and places of work, as well as colleges attended, are disclosed.

    The financial aid decision is a dual process, and is first filtered through the Federal Student Aid form process, before the individual college financial aid decision is made, through a parallel financial aid application. The amount of financial disclosure is very, very detailed, and fraud is discouraged by having the information go to the federal government first. Fibbing on a federal student aid application is a crime.

    What is opaque is whether the financial aid decision makers at the college level look at the admissions application essay and parent information on the admissions application form for further indications of hardship, if any. Having been through the process, I suspect that financial aid is entirely a function of current income and current assets, both the parents’ and the student’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Twinkie

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.
     
    That's true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well — in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.
     
    You misunderstand me. What I describe is the actual social condition as it exists, not as I or you would have it.

    I don't have a high regard for Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy, including my almae matres. Again, I will steer my own children away from them. But no matter what you and I might think of them, in the objective sense of hierarchical relationships in America as they exist today, these institutions select you (in the generic sense of that pronoun). You don't select them.

    Saying things like "I am better than they are - I didn't need them to succeed" might be true in individual cases, but sometimes come off like posturing and a type of virtue signaling as much as those who worship the brands... just like if you try too hard to be a rebel, you are not actually rebellious, but are simply slavish to the other side.

    Your points are well put and appreciated. However, I am not saying, “I am better than they are — I didn’t need them to succeed.” I am saying, “It was my money and my time — It was my choice what to do with it.”

    Aren’t top schools in competition with each other for the best students? (I was by no means one, BTW.)

    Funny little anecdote: I sat in on a class then at Yale SOM, accounting I think. The professor was having a hard time making the projection system work. Finally he gave up and said to the class, “You guys are paying $85,000 for this?” According to the CPI, which lowballs inflation, that would be about $150,000 today. He had a point.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Your points are well put and appreciated.
     
    Thank you for taking them so well.

    However, I am not saying...
     
    I understand. However, I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.

    Aren’t top schools in competition with each other for the best students?
     
    To some extent. But there seems to be some collusion/cartel-like behavior among the top Ivies. Also, let's not mince words here - not all Ivies are of the same reputational caliber. Very few people choose to attend Dartmouth or Brown (the smallest Ivies) over Harvard and Yale (the largest Ivies) despite the fact that actual teaching quality may be better in the former than in the latter, due to the more undergraduate-oriented structure of the former schools.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.
     
    It really depends on what they and the parents are looking for in life, as trite as it may sound.

    My desire for my children is that, as is said in the Baltimore Catechism, they would learn to know, love, and serve God in this world. And, by extension, their country, community, and family. I want them to lead lives in which they treasure what is beautiful and true. Of course, I don't want them to starve or suffer poverty, but such a fate would be preferable to one of material wealth and power cloaking ugliness and falsehood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    Good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. eah says:

    OT (an example of the BBC’s “brand management”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Trudeauland aka Canada:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di-ogIVW0AEHG2L.jpg

    , @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Johann Ricke

    whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    That doesn't sound right. If you look at the Chinese market for smartphones, for instance, you'll see that it is the scene of an intense knock-down, drag-out fight over price, features and market share during which a several big players have already gone out of business, owing billions to creditors. It is this harsh dog-eat-dog competition that poses a long-term threat to American corporations, not the cozy oligopolistic industrial culture of South Korea. In my opinion, Coag, who comments here every so often, has gotten this much right:

    The most striking feature of Chinese society may be its homogeneity but the corollary is that in China everyone thinks he can be the emperor and that the emperor is no better/smarter/wiser than him. This idea is inalienable from Chinese society and indeed quasi-sanctified— the founders of the Han and Ming dynasties was a peasant and a street beggar, respectively, who fought their ways to the top. This well-established career of peasant class warrior was played to great advantage by Mao. Its whole 2000-year tradition is a perpetual source of social instability during times of economic crisis or decline.
     
    China is a unified empire instead of a motley collection of independent nations like Europe because every man wants to be emperor. Of the whole enchilada. It's not that independent nations did not exist in Northeast Asia. The issue is that alliances did not stand long enough for nations to endure. It was always every man for himself. And this definitely goes against the idea that they are conformists. I'd say they're atomistic, but at the level of the family and close friends. They go along when they have to, because no one wants to die to make somebody else emperor.

    That’s interesting. I’m learning here that “collective” is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn’t a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn’t they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Again you are mistaking state nationalism with community tribalism. What the Chinese possess, thanks to the 20th century government educational policies, is a strong nationalist impulse. It is not however a natural impulse that rose organically but rather was the result of explicit government educational policy, thus it does not last a single generation if that, when divorced from its roots. What the Europeans used to possess, in the 19th century was a similar nationalism fostered by new governments centralizing power and thus wanting more control over it's people. Another Unz commenter whose name I cannot recall at the moment quoted a 19th century Russian liberal Alexander Herzen, in describing the Germans.

    "The cruder sort of German boasts of German might, but really means is that the German Emperor is mighty and can crush you, just as he has done to the German people on numerous occassions."

    Europeans no longer have this sense of belonging because European vassal states, living under American hegemony, are not allowed to execute policies promoting such nationalism.
    , @Twinkie

    I’m learning here that “collective” is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn’t a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?
     
    First of all, don't conflate all East Asians with Chinese. Koreans, Japanese, and even Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally different to varying degrees.

    Second, East Asians in the United States have the highest rates of intermarriage, most frequently with whites, so "to hell with everybody else" is hard to sustain.

    Much of the in-group dynamic you see is a function of being first or second generation immigrants, which tends to disappear among the American-born. One of the classic markers (or proxies in social science terms) is English monolingualism. East Asians born in America tend to have fairly high levels of English monolingualism unlike, say, Mexicans.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else?
     
    No. Although its not a religion, its most akin to a religious community in that being Chinese is a set of norms, beliefs, traditions, and so on. As such, it is very vulnerable to "schism" and its how you get intense enmity between factions(such as Epoch Times, which basically exists to attack the CCP). The Chinese have been vastly murderous of their own due to such schisms. There's ultimately no clear definition on what those common mores must be, and one group can be convinced that they represented a "truer" or "more authentic" faction against the others.

    Attacking Chinese as a whole, though, would be akin to attacking Christianity to a Christian; he becomes obligated to defend a significant basis of existence.

    , @res
    This comment is one of the best I have seen at elucidating multiple informative responses. Thanks to all of you.
    , @anon
    Chinese immigrants from mainland China may have a kinship towards other mandarin speaking mainland Chinese, but the kinship stops there. Many overseas Chinese have zero affinity towards the mainland Chinese and even disdain them for their poor English skills and crude/pushy manners. The NYT has reported on the Chinese in Singapore who are mainly English speaking despising the mainland Chinese who are moving there in drove.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. eah says:
    @eah
    OT (an example of the BBC's "brand management")

    https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1023237421650141184

    Trudeauland aka Canada:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Buzz Mohawk
    That's interesting. I'm learning here that "collective" is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don't they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn't a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn't they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    Again you are mistaking state nationalism with community tribalism. What the Chinese possess, thanks to the 20th century government educational policies, is a strong nationalist impulse. It is not however a natural impulse that rose organically but rather was the result of explicit government educational policy, thus it does not last a single generation if that, when divorced from its roots. What the Europeans used to possess, in the 19th century was a similar nationalism fostered by new governments centralizing power and thus wanting more control over it’s people. Another Unz commenter whose name I cannot recall at the moment quoted a 19th century Russian liberal Alexander Herzen, in describing the Germans.

    “The cruder sort of German boasts of German might, but really means is that the German Emperor is mighty and can crush you, just as he has done to the German people on numerous occassions.”

    Europeans no longer have this sense of belonging because European vassal states, living under American hegemony, are not allowed to execute policies promoting such nationalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm.

    Didn’t Chinese civilization emerge from ancient tribes unifying to tame the Yellow River? Flood management/irrigation on that scale is obviously collectivist, and led to hugely productive agriculture which is why there are so many Chinese today. A “got mine, f*ck you” people would have never developed China in the first place. This attitude sounds like a modern aberration from collectivism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    I like to characterize the Chinese as balancing two separate impulses. The first is our natural biological urge to follow established precedent and authority. The second, sometimes working in opposition to the first, is our cultural profanity. We really hold nothing sacred beyond filial piety and thus have no schelling points with which to naturally rally to. Our lack of things which we deem holy means that there is little to limit our personal ambition to getting what we want.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Twinkie says:
    @Anon
    These immigrants – who show up in a new country where they have low status – should immediately start attacking the people in power

    That's what John Wayne would do.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.

    That’s what John Wayne would do.

    No, he wouldn’t. Don’t confuse his movie characters with the man in reality.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.

    It doesn’t matter if they are upper middle class in their home countries. East Asians who come to the U.S. generally (especially initially) have relatively low social status in the U.S.

    And they are not coming here “to crush the native white folks” given their intermarriage rates with the said “native white folks.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    East Asians who come to the U.S. generally (especially initially) have relatively low social status in the U.S. [sic]
     
    Yeah. The programmers and engineers; the physicians and pharmacists. The graduate students (on daddy's dime, natch...) who never leave, the professors (who cannot even speak Engrish but are given tenure and fat salaries!) teaching them. The oligarchs buying half of California – and all of Vancouver – for cash. Poor, low-status bastards. Pity the lot of 'em.

    Do the poor ones who come maybe initially have low status? Sure. Stipulated. So what? Even they get governmentally mandated cash and prizes and privileges over the autochthonous people – the Small Business Administration, the EEOC, the set-asides from DoD,, on and on. Hell, I'll open a dry cleaner's tomorrow, as soon as the government lends me the capital on preferred terms because of my epicanthic folds....

    Anyway, at least the ones from that part of Asia bathe. Points for that.

    (Oh, and I wanted to admire Let Duc d'Quin's admission most Chinese are at their core amoral son of a bitch. Points for honesty.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Twinkie says:
    @academic gossip
    I already answered that post. Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    Again, I'm asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits, barring some incriminating evidence that was left out of the summary judgement pleadings. And that if affirmative action for blacks is allowed to be litigated in this case, Harvard will have a harder time defending against some of the allegations on that, such as the black admission rate having to be at least as high as the overall domestic rate of admission.

    more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated

    Of which you are one, of course. Unlike that idiot Steve Hsu who – as you wrote – only knows math that has been taught to physicists.

    I’m asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits

    Yes you do. You assert a lot.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. A comparison to the Ferrari automobile brand might be relevant:

    It is well-known that for many many years Ferrari has limited its production in order to maintain the exclusivity of its product. They could build a lot more Ferraris, and those all would be as great as the ones they do build, but then there would be more Ferraris on the road and the brand would be less exclusive.

    Furthermore, there are other great sports and GT cars that are manufactured in greater numbers and available at lower prices. Porsches can run with Ferraris, even kick their asses, and they will not break as easily. Okay, maybe they’re not as pretty. The German car, while not cheap, costs far less than the Italian. It is not as exclusive. If you live in the right neighborhood, you will see all kinds of Porsches and pay little attention to them, but you will turn your head when a Ferrari goes by.

    Ferrari also has historically wooed famous customers and cultivated its relationships with them. At the same time, the maker is well-known for being snotty and snobby toward first-time buyers who are just people with money. It is like the reversed customer-business relationship attributed here to Ivy League colleges and applicants/students. If you are not “someone” like Malia Obama, you have to come on your knees and earn the privilege of paying six figures for the precious product.

    Ferrari’s strategy is somewhat like deBeers and the controlled market for diamonds. The gems are more plentiful than most people know, but the supply available to you is artificially limited, and you have to pay the price. Your woman thinks diamonds are so fantastic because they are expensive: the bigger and better hers is, the more her man had to pay, ergo the more money he has. If his diploma says “Harvard” on it, so much the better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Limiting supply to maintain exclusivity is a well known strategy in the luxury goods field. Sometimes limited supply is the ONLY thing that can maintain value. The most extreme example being prints by artists. If an artist runs off a lithograph in an edition of 100 or some low number, then the print (which is only a piece of paper and has no intrinsic value at all) has some chance of having value but if he runs off 100,000 then it will never have any value, even though the 1 out of 100 print is exactly the same as the 1 out of 100,000 print.

    In most products, the price tag is a negative factor - "I would buy that GMC SUV but it's awfully expensive." In luxury goods, the price is a POSITIVE factor - "I would buy that Range Rover BECAUSE it is awfully expensive." The consumers of these brands WANT you to keep the prices really high and ever increasing so that they can use your product as a status signalling device. When I show up in my new Range Rover (wearing a Rolex, with my Hermes handbag, etc.) people will know that I'm rich and should be envied by them.

    For that reason, if you are lucky enough to own such a brand (and smart enough to manage it for the long term - it's possible to run a luxury brand into the ground - see Cadillac) then it is virtually a license to print money. The price of the product becomes virtually detached from the cost of production. For example, Rolex will sell you a replacement stainless steel bracelet for a Submariner for $1,000. Or the Chinese will sell you a virtually identical bracelet for $10. You can't really argue that the Rolex bracelet is 100x better - it's just a hunk of metal. Stainless steel costs $1/lb and the machining is automated. You could make a reasonable argument that it is worth $40 or $50 or even $100 because it is slightly better than the Chinese one (and 40 years ago, when Rolex was just another brand of watch, that's how much they would have charged you, in inflation adjusted terms), but there's no way in hell that the bracelet has an intrinsic value (or a production cost) anywhere close to $1,000. But the Rolex one has the magic symbol stamped on it - that's where 90%+ of the value comes from.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Your points are well put and appreciated. However, I am not saying, "I am better than they are -- I didn't need them to succeed." I am saying, "It was my money and my time -- It was my choice what to do with it."

    Aren't top schools in competition with each other for the best students? (I was by no means one, BTW.)

    Funny little anecdote: I sat in on a class then at Yale SOM, accounting I think. The professor was having a hard time making the projection system work. Finally he gave up and said to the class, "You guys are paying $85,000 for this?" According to the CPI, which lowballs inflation, that would be about $150,000 today. He had a point.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.

    Your points are well put and appreciated.

    Thank you for taking them so well.

    However, I am not saying…

    I understand. However, I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.

    Aren’t top schools in competition with each other for the best students?

    To some extent. But there seems to be some collusion/cartel-like behavior among the top Ivies. Also, let’s not mince words here – not all Ivies are of the same reputational caliber. Very few people choose to attend Dartmouth or Brown (the smallest Ivies) over Harvard and Yale (the largest Ivies) despite the fact that actual teaching quality may be better in the former than in the latter, due to the more undergraduate-oriented structure of the former schools.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.

    It really depends on what they and the parents are looking for in life, as trite as it may sound.

    My desire for my children is that, as is said in the Baltimore Catechism, they would learn to know, love, and serve God in this world. And, by extension, their country, community, and family. I want them to lead lives in which they treasure what is beautiful and true. Of course, I don’t want them to starve or suffer poverty, but such a fate would be preferable to one of material wealth and power cloaking ugliness and falsehood.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.
     
    I am not "stridently anti-Ivy League." I am anti-aspirational brand-chasing.

    Ivy League colleges are good schools, but my position is that many of the people who apply and even go do so because of the names and the prestige they carry, not for the education. This has gotten so sickening lately as more Americans and immigrants more blindly go for the brand.

    There are so many articles, even here, about people trying to get into the Ivy League and how their success or failure to do so will determine the rest of their lives. This has gotten worse and worse, this theme has become more and more prevalent, as our country has descended into rich and poor, 1% and everyone else.

    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives. That stinks.

    , @res
    Thanks to both you and Buzz Mohawk for providing a good example of constructive disagreement. I am enjoying your conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Dave Pinsen

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm.
     
    Didn’t Chinese civilization emerge from ancient tribes unifying to tame the Yellow River? Flood management/irrigation on that scale is obviously collectivist, and led to hugely productive agriculture which is why there are so many Chinese today. A “got mine, f*ck you” people would have never developed China in the first place. This attitude sounds like a modern aberration from collectivism.

    I like to characterize the Chinese as balancing two separate impulses. The first is our natural biological urge to follow established precedent and authority. The second, sometimes working in opposition to the first, is our cultural profanity. We really hold nothing sacred beyond filial piety and thus have no schelling points with which to naturally rally to. Our lack of things which we deem holy means that there is little to limit our personal ambition to getting what we want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    This.

    I've been agnostic about the influx of Chinese, figuring that they'd probably be a better brand of immigrant when compared to the Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans. My experience over the past 1 1/2 years consulting for a multination corporate division with an 80% Asian, mostly Chinese, workforce, along with just observing the recent horde that's found its way to my little town, has convinced me that they're just as destructive to American society as any Somali.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Silva says:
    @Twinkie

    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don’t make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ’s sake!
     
    I. Do. Not. Care.

    My sons are likely headed to the service academies and my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges. You know, colleges with rules such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas_College

    Men's and women's residence halls are off-limits to members of the opposite sex.
     

    “my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges”

    At that rate, wouldn’t it be simpler, easier, and better to just marry them off at 18? At least a health-subject degree (from a suitably austere university) might be a Mrs. degree that actually does something useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    At that rate, wouldn’t it be simpler, easier, and better to just marry them off at 18? At least a health-subject degree (from a suitably austere university) might be a Mrs. degree that actually does something useful.
     
    Real education is not wasted on mothers. Mothers are the first teachers of their children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Twinkie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    That's interesting. I'm learning here that "collective" is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don't they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn't a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn't they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    I’m learning here that “collective” is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn’t a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    First of all, don’t conflate all East Asians with Chinese. Koreans, Japanese, and even Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally different to varying degrees.

    Second, East Asians in the United States have the highest rates of intermarriage, most frequently with whites, so “to hell with everybody else” is hard to sustain.

    Much of the in-group dynamic you see is a function of being first or second generation immigrants, which tends to disappear among the American-born. One of the classic markers (or proxies in social science terms) is English monolingualism. East Asians born in America tend to have fairly high levels of English monolingualism unlike, say, Mexicans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    First of all, don’t conflate all East Asians with Chinese. Koreans, Japanese, and even Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally different to varying degrees.
     
    I know they are different from each other, Twink.

    Second, East Asians in the United States have the highest rates of intermarriage, most frequently with whites, so “to hell with everybody else” is hard to sustain.
     
    Wait a minute, my head just spun around. Did you just put all East Asians in one basket and say they have a behavior in common?

    As for "to hell with everybody else," have you read the news lately or at all in the past many years? Think Chinese industrial spying. The Chinese, that one, very big East Asian group that we should be more concerned about than any other, do seem to be working in a "f*ck you Americans" manner.

    Now will you lecture me on how not every Chinese person in the US is a spy?

    Geez, when did I get under your skin? Was it when I said the Ivy Leage is becoming the equivalent of a Trump-like aspirational brand, or was it when I misspelled "prophecy"?

    Speaking of intermarriage, have you seen Chinatown lately? In any one of it guises in any American city? How come those little islands have remained Chinese for so long? (No, please don't tell me. I don't want to hear about it.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Twinkie says:
    @Sippytai
    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    "The Harvard Nazi"

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!

    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    “The Harvard Nazi”

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!

    Ah, but is “the Harvard Nazi” going to be played by a Jew or a fair-haired goyim from the Midwest (or the South)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "Ah, but is “the Harvard Nazi” going to be played by a Jew or a fair-haired goyim from the Midwest (or the South)?"

    Goyim is plural, Goy is singular
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Twinkie

    I’m learning here that “collective” is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn’t a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?
     
    First of all, don't conflate all East Asians with Chinese. Koreans, Japanese, and even Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally different to varying degrees.

    Second, East Asians in the United States have the highest rates of intermarriage, most frequently with whites, so "to hell with everybody else" is hard to sustain.

    Much of the in-group dynamic you see is a function of being first or second generation immigrants, which tends to disappear among the American-born. One of the classic markers (or proxies in social science terms) is English monolingualism. East Asians born in America tend to have fairly high levels of English monolingualism unlike, say, Mexicans.

    First of all, don’t conflate all East Asians with Chinese. Koreans, Japanese, and even Taiwanese are ethnically and culturally different to varying degrees.

    I know they are different from each other, Twink.

    Second, East Asians in the United States have the highest rates of intermarriage, most frequently with whites, so “to hell with everybody else” is hard to sustain.

    Wait a minute, my head just spun around. Did you just put all East Asians in one basket and say they have a behavior in common?

    As for “to hell with everybody else,” have you read the news lately or at all in the past many years? Think Chinese industrial spying. The Chinese, that one, very big East Asian group that we should be more concerned about than any other, do seem to be working in a “f*ck you Americans” manner.

    Now will you lecture me on how not every Chinese person in the US is a spy?

    Geez, when did I get under your skin? Was it when I said the Ivy Leage is becoming the equivalent of a Trump-like aspirational brand, or was it when I misspelled “prophecy”?

    Speaking of intermarriage, have you seen Chinatown lately? In any one of it guises in any American city? How come those little islands have remained Chinese for so long? (No, please don’t tell me. I don’t want to hear about it.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Anon
    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.

    Hillsdale and a few other colleges don’t take federal money. Very few, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I had not realized before that Hillsdale not taking federal money extended to student financial aid: https://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions-aid/financial-aid/need-based-aid/

    Hillsdale College, which does not accept or permit its students to bring federal financial aid to campus, is fully committed to providing its students with competitive financial aid packages, all of which are privately funded.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @I, commenter

    In 1922, Harvard made some changes to its admissions procedures that had disparate impact on Jewish immigrants. It’s likely that contemporary Harvard, with 2 of its last presidents being Jewish, would prefer to not turn into UC Irvine.
     
    I think it's more likely they would like to keep Harvard(and Yale, and the state department, and on and on) Jewish. -Jewish as in the dominant, controlling ethnic group. WASPs were stupid enough to "play fair" and give East European Jews access to power. that group said 'thanks, sucker" and never looked back.

    There’s nothing wrong with holding people to their words. If you preach meritocracy and equality you have no right to exclude some group from your institution because you don’t like their religion or culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Twinkie

    Your points are well put and appreciated.
     
    Thank you for taking them so well.

    However, I am not saying...
     
    I understand. However, I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.

    Aren’t top schools in competition with each other for the best students?
     
    To some extent. But there seems to be some collusion/cartel-like behavior among the top Ivies. Also, let's not mince words here - not all Ivies are of the same reputational caliber. Very few people choose to attend Dartmouth or Brown (the smallest Ivies) over Harvard and Yale (the largest Ivies) despite the fact that actual teaching quality may be better in the former than in the latter, due to the more undergraduate-oriented structure of the former schools.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.
     
    It really depends on what they and the parents are looking for in life, as trite as it may sound.

    My desire for my children is that, as is said in the Baltimore Catechism, they would learn to know, love, and serve God in this world. And, by extension, their country, community, and family. I want them to lead lives in which they treasure what is beautiful and true. Of course, I don't want them to starve or suffer poverty, but such a fate would be preferable to one of material wealth and power cloaking ugliness and falsehood.

    I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.

    I am not “stridently anti-Ivy League.” I am anti-aspirational brand-chasing.

    Ivy League colleges are good schools, but my position is that many of the people who apply and even go do so because of the names and the prestige they carry, not for the education. This has gotten so sickening lately as more Americans and immigrants more blindly go for the brand.

    There are so many articles, even here, about people trying to get into the Ivy League and how their success or failure to do so will determine the rest of their lives. This has gotten worse and worse, this theme has become more and more prevalent, as our country has descended into rich and poor, 1% and everyone else.

    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives. That stinks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.
    , @res
    I find the societal buy in to the idea of the Ivy League as a marker of intellectual excellence ridiculous in light of their admissions policies with regard to affirmative action, legacies, and athletes.

    There is certainly intellectual excellence at those institutions, but the idea that "X is intellectually elite because they went to Y university" is hard to sustain without a close look at X's background.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    They don’t even care about people who donate six or seven figures any more. I heard this from an Ivy League Alumni outreach coordinator. They just focus on the 0.01% these days for donations, more bang for the buck and less work. If you can’t give 8 figures, you don’t really have any leverage as a donor.

    No, what Harvard is really looking for are influencers. Most alums will not donate huge amounts, but they will be brand ambassadors and decision makers. The Ivies want to a seat at the center of power, and they have done an amazing job covering ALL the bases. Even the Trump administration is full of Harvard and Yale grads. And whom is Trump appointing to the Supreme Court? Another Yale grad. And of course Trump himself is an Ivy Leaguer, and rather proud of that. Reagan was the last President with no Ivy connection and that was rather a long time ago now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Buzz Mohawk

    I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.
     
    I am not "stridently anti-Ivy League." I am anti-aspirational brand-chasing.

    Ivy League colleges are good schools, but my position is that many of the people who apply and even go do so because of the names and the prestige they carry, not for the education. This has gotten so sickening lately as more Americans and immigrants more blindly go for the brand.

    There are so many articles, even here, about people trying to get into the Ivy League and how their success or failure to do so will determine the rest of their lives. This has gotten worse and worse, this theme has become more and more prevalent, as our country has descended into rich and poor, 1% and everyone else.

    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives. That stinks.

    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.
     
    Yes, but it's not the highest one. Don't you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn't they select students who have the highest values?

    https://marshallmorrismcsorley.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/maslow-hierarchy.jpeg
    , @Jack D
    I suppose that depends on what the meaning of "intrinsic" is.

    I would argue that it is possible to detach the cachet of the name brand from the thing itself and the latter is the intrinsic thing - in this case the quality of the education.

    For example, say I presented an expert panel with glasses of wine in a blind taste test - they might prefer A to B - that's the intrinsic quality of the item.

    But in the market, B might be Château Lafite Rothschild and A might be a Napa Valley wine that sells for a fraction of the price, because of the status of the Lafite name.

    Social status is by definition EXTRINSIC - it's not what's in the bottle, it's how people perceive the label. Social status can be gained as a result of past performance - the way Lafite came to have high social status in the first place was (in part) because it had high intrinsic value at some point. But things change - you can rest on your laurels. The quality of the product can go down. Competitors can improve their product, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anon[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Karl
    2 Buzz Mohawk > It’s like when Rolls-Royce was “The Best Car in the World” even though it wasn’t and isn’t.

    i see people on the internet saying that - yeah, Rolex's are not bad at all, but - a Rolex is more hat than it is cattle.



    > Sure Harvard is great. It just isn’t the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy — because yes, it “creates” elites.


    Only because dull-witted people believe it. Ok, so let THEM hire Malia Obama.

    Or, smart people who ===don't=== especially believe it, but who have built THEIR OWN brand in playing with Harvard's brand. Like (say for example) iSteve.

    i'm a nice guy who has a rice bowl of my own, so i'm not going to attack iSteve for doing what he's got to do, to give his wife a new kitchen.

    What I will never do, is hire anyone who came out of Harvard. My own little BDS campaign.

    It ===does=== take two to tango, Buzz

    > Sure Harvard is great. … because yes, it “creates” elites.

    Harvard’s not so much an education as a place to make connections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    People who've never been to a good school always maintain that they're just great, big, expensive networking seminars. Hollywood must be promoting this hoary stereotype.

    People who've attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you're the type of student who's not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Anon
    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.

    Many Harvard undergrads don't make it to Harvard masters, let alone Harvard Ph.D.
    Many come from OTHER schools.

    So, I think Harvard uses Undergrad level as a kind of propaganda. It is intentionally made more Diverse. But at the higher levels, the better students who weren't accepted into Harvard undergrad and attended other schools are accepted into Harvard.

    Imagine some Negro kid made it to Harvard Undergrad, while some white kid was rejected and attended Duke. But at master level, the black kid might not be accepted(or may have dropped out by then) while the white kid who attended Duke is accepted into Harvard masters or Ph.D.

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the 'lesser' university.

    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more

    This is exactly right, a kid who goes to Michigan undergrad and then gets a Wharton MBA has more social status than a kid who goes the reverse route. What is the racial composition of the average Harvard Business School, Law School or Medical School class? That would be interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Depends on both who you are and what you want out of Harvard.

    If you are a member of the old Wasp elite, who went, say, and like his father and maybe even grandfather before him, to Groton first, and then to Harvard College, then you have completed the essential steps. What happens next is not socially important, and if you are of a family rooted enough in its ancestral territory, not likely to be important financially either.

    But if you are from nowhere, then Harvard Business or Law School is not merely desirable, but essential, at least if you want a measure of social acceptance from the old guard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @eah
    OT (an example of the BBC's "brand management")

    https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1023237421650141184

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Twinkie

    This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans.
     
    Much of what you say rings true. However, things are changing - for better or worse - in East Asia.

    For example, this used to not happen in South Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ

    But now, in Seoul, you can leave your stuff (iPad, wallet, etc.) on a coffee shop table and leave for an hour and return and still find your items there. Foreigners - including those from prosperous Western countries - in South Korea often find this quite remarkable and unimaginable in their home countries.

    Some people also ran the "a child collapses in public" experiment in South Korea. Interestingly, younger generation people walking by almost uniformly tried to help a strange child in distress whereas the older generation was more likely to walk by ("not my business"). The same result was obtained with another experiment in which an unattended table was left in public with "free gifts" and asking for a small donation in return - again, younger Koreans generally deposited donations, but older ones were more likely to not give any and even grab more than one item!

    This kind of high civic-minded culture is less established in China than in South Korea for obvious reasons, but I suspect it is likely that the Chinese will catch up to the Koreans if their standards of living climb near to that of the latter.

    Last weekend I left my phone and glasses on the sea wall in a coastal Essex town. It was a busy afternoon and the local sailing club was having its annual piss up so there were plenty of drunks cruising around. I realised I’d lost my phone about an hour later some distance away and stopped a woman to ask if I could borrow her phone to call mine. She had clearly lived a hard life, her face was ravaged by booze, but said to me ‘this is an honest town, someone will have it for you’. Sure enough, it had been handed in at an art gallery, they answered, and I went and picked it up.

    Essex is quite ethno-statey. Particularly on the coasts. Probably a coincidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    "annual piss up"

    Do I want to know what that is?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    This must surely be an American Essex? Not sure I'd expect to get my phone back in Southend, UK.

    ("piss-up" = "drinking session or excuse for one, like an annual dinner")

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. I read the Times article and wrote the following to a maillist of folks who went to Harvard in the 60s.

    Makes me wonder how I got into Harvard GSAS. I aced the GRE which may have been what got me in. simpler times then. I was asked once by my chairman if I would house a black candidate for a day or so while he was visiting Cambridge. How did the chairman know that I had a capacious 4 room apt on King st, a cul de sac off Amory st? I talked up Harvard big time to the guy but to no avail. He told me he was going to blow off the Harvard offer and go to Northwestern in Evanston and stay true to his neighborhood. like I said, simpler times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Peter Akuleyev
    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.

    Yes, but it’s not the highest one. Don’t you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn’t they select students who have the highest values?

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old

    Don’t you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn’t they select students who have the highest values?
     
    Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    > Sure Harvard is great. ... because yes, it “creates” elites.
     
    Harvard's not so much an education as a place to make connections.

    People who’ve never been to a good school always maintain that they’re just great, big, expensive networking seminars. Hollywood must be promoting this hoary stereotype.

    People who’ve attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you’re the type of student who’s not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    The first two years of an Ivy League Med School with which I'm familiar featured 45 credits of classwork each semester for 4 straight semesters. That's a lot of work. I maintain that it is the amount of material, not the material itself, that is the real load.
    , @res

    People who’ve attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden.
     
    How much would you say that varies by major? FWIW I know exactly what you mean by the bit I quoted.
    , @3g4me
    @110 Anonymous [337]: "People who’ve attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you’re the type of student who’s not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot."

    I beg to differ. Although I certainly treasure the classic liberal arts education I received, and although I learned a lot and worked fairly hard, I was no swotter - nor were most of my schoolmates. My relatives and friends at Harvard, in comparison, did almost no work during the semester and then spent their month of exam prep (MONTH!! We had FOUR DAYS!!) to learn all the material. When they came to visit our 7 Sisters' school, they were amazed at how many people were busy writing papers all the time.

    Ivy undergrad degrees are not at all impressive to me. Graduate degrees from those institutions appear to have more substance, along with the still over-valued brand name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Just have the good sense to be born into the family of a major politician … President would be ideal … and they won’t even make you fill in the forms or do interviews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. Ganderson says:
    @Sippytai
    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    "The Harvard Nazi"

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!

    Jungle Asian: IN
    Fancy Asian: NOT

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Twinkie

    No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.
     
    As opposed to the 80% of non-Asians who go to Harvard. They are so boss and unpredictable that they didn't care at all, but got in and showed up anyway, just to show how rebellious and independent they are. And then afterwards, they are just going become plumbers and gunsmiths, because that's just how they roll.

    Whites (Jews and non-Jews) are so anti-authoritarian that they account for the vast majority of administrators at Harvard. Because that's what really independent people do. Take that, you predictable conformist Asians! We'll show you just how against the Establishment we are by rejecting most of you (and "meritocracy").

    Yeah, but they’re pretty quick to take Establishment bucks though!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Buzz Mohawk
    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! "Opportunity cost." There's an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery's answer in my own words: "This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?"

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    The flipside of your story is that everyone who did attend Yale thought that spending a quarter million to meet the other attendees who thought likewise was worth it.

    IOW, the Jeffrey Garten circle jerk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    The flipside of your story is that everyone who did attend Yale thought that spending a quarter million to meet the other attendees who thought likewise was worth it.
     
    Attending the Yale School of Management blesses you with a better circle of co-conspirators to rip off the collective wealth of the USA. Via paper shuffling shenanigans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Clyde says:

    Too bad we don’t have a better breakdown on who these so called Asians are. Who are perspiring to get into Harvard. Jungle Asians? Fancy Asians? SubCons? Who would be mostly Hindu but some Muslims. Chinese? Taiwanese? US born Koreans? Mainland Chinese and other Asians who speak perfect English who parachuted into the US at age 13 to attend California schools?

    My guess is 70% or more are mainland Chinese or Taiwanese. Born here (the USA, economic free trade zone of their convenience) or not they are mightily aggrieved, and look like they are suing the big H on the Charles on admissions. There are more Chinese and Subcons (Hindu and Muz) than ever where I live. Even lots of full drapery SubCon Muslim women…and some w less drapery just a hair covering scarf.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Jack D says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    Public Ivy
     
    No such thing. The term appears to be a desperate attempt to attain reflected glory by attaching “Ivy” to something that isn’t.*
     
    Flagship state schools, especially in the big football conferences (thanks to alumni fans), have enormous endowments which move them in the direction of private schools, while the Ivies and other big-name "independent" universities get huge federal and state research grants, and their students are on the same federal loan teat as the public schools, except even more so. (Unless the public U kid is from out of state. Then it's essentially a private school as far as he's concerned.)

    The difference between "public" and "private" thus becomes quite murky at the top 50 or 100 schools. They're "public-private partnerships", the lot of them.

    (Also, they're called "flagships" because much of the state's local ruling class comes out of them.)

    You know what the most significant difference between the two types are? The US Supreme Court ruled that faculty at public colleges could organize, as they were workers, but those at private colleges could not, because they are management.

    This is like an optical illusion where, if you turn it one way it makes perfect sense, but turned another, it's completely mad.

    Magic Eye administration.

    And yet if you look at, for example, the US News rankings, all of the top 20 schools are private. The highest ranked public U’s – Berkeley and UCLA, don’t kick in until #21.

    There is a case to be made that there are now a number of private schools (MIT, Cal Tech, U Chicago, etc.) that are as good or better than many of the Ivies, but the public schools are ALMOST put not quite as good. There is a subtle but real difference in the quality of the students.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    You are citing U.S. News & World Report's rankings as the measure of a university? Are you sure you want to put your eggs in that basket?

    Okay, then. Here's a pointy hat and a stool. And some light reading.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Clyde says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! "Opportunity cost." There's an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery's answer in my own words: "This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?"

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    A most excellent account and ages ago I saw her (Ina’s) cooking show a few times where he barges in, in the final minutes to chow down. Probably on treif lobster and steamers and corn on the cob. And for a bonus he says a few retarded words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    To his family's credit, his dad won a distinguished service cross in Korea and Jeff was an Army Airborne Infantryman (LT) from '68-'72. (A look at his roles (aide-de-camp to a SF 2-star, advisor to the royal thai army) indicates he was someone whose time in would be taken care of by his superiors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. 1978 Civil Rights ad.
    Face of sad black student.
    Caption: “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste.”

    2018 Civil Rights ad.
    Face of sad Asian student.
    Caption: “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Wait-List.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Not too shabby! Let the Fancy Asiooons try to tear down the walls of Jericho-Harvard with their horns and trumpets. Get out the popcorn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Clyde says:
    @Almost Missouri
    The flipside of your story is that everyone who did attend Yale thought that spending a quarter million to meet the other attendees who thought likewise was worth it.

    IOW, the Jeffrey Garten circle jerk.

    The flipside of your story is that everyone who did attend Yale thought that spending a quarter million to meet the other attendees who thought likewise was worth it.

    Attending the Yale School of Management blesses you with a better circle of co-conspirators to rip off the collective wealth of the USA. Via paper shuffling shenanigans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Clyde says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    1978 Civil Rights ad.
    Face of sad black student.
    Caption: "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste."

    2018 Civil Rights ad.
    Face of sad Asian student.
    Caption: "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Wait-List."

    Not too shabby! Let the Fancy Asiooons try to tear down the walls of Jericho-Harvard with their horns and trumpets. Get out the popcorn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @academic gossip
    No "selective observing" of the differences is required. The Asian and non-Asian distributions differ substantially, and if Harvard puts relatively more weight on the nonacademic components, which it does, that will lead to fewer Asians being admitted (even if Harvard does not know or suspect that they are Asian). If some of the components are unmeasured or mis-modeled in a statistical study, it can appear as discrimination against Asians even where none exists. Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.
     
    Why "unlike"? Many of the same differences were also true for Jews back in the day, for the same reasons. We now have internet and statistical analysis and lots of published information, which allow discussion that was not possible back then or in the 80-90's when the Asian admission issue first came up.

    When your local fire department glibly dismisses the lack of minority firefighters by reference to “the Black and non Black distributions differ substantially” , they get told by a bunch of Harvard and Yale graduates in black robes that the very fact of disparate impact on different groups is presumptively discriminatory. This, in spite of the fact that the ostensible “hard” evidence of test scores clearly favors the department position and only subjective criteria i.e. a thumb and a few fingers on the scale disfavor the department’s position. Yet , when it comes to the Ivie’s own admission policies , where the hard evidence of test scores clearly favors the Asian plaintiffs, we are told ” Trust us, we are doing the right thing, the Asian and non Asian distributions differ substantially. Would we lie to you?” All of this, mind you, from people who as plain as day are not above fudging admissions criteria to produce their desired outcomes, as witness their NAM admission rates. A “Nothing Burger” indeed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Twinkie

    I think there’s a Seinfeld episode hidden in this:

    “The Harvard Nazi”

    Asian Boy: Please! Please, I beg of you!

    Harvard Nazi: No admission for YOU!!!
     
    Ah, but is "the Harvard Nazi" going to be played by a Jew or a fair-haired goyim from the Midwest (or the South)?

    “Ah, but is “the Harvard Nazi” going to be played by a Jew or a fair-haired goyim from the Midwest (or the South)?”

    Goyim is plural, Goy is singular

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Goyim is plural, Goy is singular
     
    Indeed, you are right. I meant to correct it, but the timer ran out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Anon
    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.

    Harvard gets enormous amounts of government grant money for many different things. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Harvard were the largest government grant recipient on a per-student basis. So yeah, they should have to obey the laws that they in fact influenced. This is very similar to New York City residents somehow managing to keep their public schools segregated for all these years and now objecting to a slight bit of integration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. slumber_j says:
    @Tyrion 2
    This is similar to how the housemasters at various expensive boarding school in England think. Each house, nevermind school, ends ups as a slightly variable microcosm of this thinking.

    For example, at first they hugely welcomed the exotic and very wealthy oligarch's children from the third world, especially East Asia. The schools began to compete on services and the prices shot up.

    Then, the numbers became so large that they detracted from what an English boarding school was supposed to mean. The response was to implement new types of entrance and scholarships that were clearly aimed at genuine British middle class children whom they missed.

    It has long been the case that the appeal of expensive British schools was known to be in who your fellow students were and not in the quality of the teaching or facilities (both of which used to be extremely variable.)

    In this case, parents greatly appreciated a sample of diversity.

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical "you" is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.

    My wife and I both got a Harvard AB, as did both of our fathers–and as did pretty much every male in her father’s line going back to the 17th century. My maternal grandfather and most if not all of his many brothers got professional degrees there. By any normal notion of “normative,” our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that’s just crazy talk.

    I’ve long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Fortunately, unlike my wife I didn’t really like the place–and nowadays we both find it revolting. So I don’t much care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    It's too bad your kids aren't smart enough to get in on merit. I have a number of classmates, including WASPs, whose kids did get into my Ivy Alma Mater. The trick is to actually do well on SATs, have stellar grades and be interesting, not just coast on legacy. The Ivies are trying to weed out some of the decaying old money families, which is probably just as well. Not much point in tying your wagon to Prescotts, Winthrops and Adams when Kushners and Zuckerbergs are running things.
    , @Tyrion 2

    By any normal notion of “normative,” our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that’s just crazy talk.
     
    Everyone in China knows what the normative default is for a graduate and post-graduate from their central Communist uni. I lived with one. She was awesome, but I was very young.

    Indeed, everyone in most countries knows what the default is. Just in Western Europe and the Anglophone countries is a default prohibited.

    I believe the elite is better with a sense of noblesse oblige and organic connection to the wider community. Perhaps America needs to be an experiment in something else but your example is leading the European nations astray.

    Even basic b*tch companies get a brand identity but supposedly a country having one is not inclusive enough.
    , @res

    I’ve long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!
     
    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies? I would expect them to be fast tracked given the admissions data I see for Harvard legacies (one of the fun side effects of the Asian admissions lawsuit).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Jack D
    And yet if you look at, for example, the US News rankings, all of the top 20 schools are private. The highest ranked public U's - Berkeley and UCLA, don't kick in until #21.

    There is a case to be made that there are now a number of private schools (MIT, Cal Tech, U Chicago, etc.) that are as good or better than many of the Ivies, but the public schools are ALMOST put not quite as good. There is a subtle but real difference in the quality of the students.

    You are citing U.S. News & World Report‘s rankings as the measure of a university? Are you sure you want to put your eggs in that basket?

    Okay, then. Here’s a pointy hat and a stool. And some light reading.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    I’ve always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It’s like they’re the least favorite minority.

    I don’t know why, but I’d assume it’s related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and “chutzpah.” These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that’s not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That’s probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy (“Men with Gold Chains”) personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of “K-selection” and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a “grind” Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today’s America. They’re highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today’s America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to “network” effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don’t fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn’t want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. “Gold chain” personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    It is natural personality aversion to a dominant oriental archetype. To the more extroverted type Caucasian, East Asians simply look autistic. To the more insular, perceptive, and autistic sorts of Caucasians, East Asians look normal. The latter aren't in power and rarely are (Nixon being a rare example) while the former have achieved overwhelming supremacy in America. This aversion is a two way street though as we are deeply distrustful of the "I am your friend type". The more you tell me you are my friend, the faster I count my silver.

    Yes if I was American Stalin I'd have most of the hpy MBA types shot and replaced with white middle class gentiles from intact families and non coastal states that were top of their class from public engineering schools. Hard to go wrong with those types.
    , @AnotherDad
    Really excellent follow-up comment Johnny.

    The bullsh*tter and Steve's "Men with Gold Chains" concepts are quite useful in parsing what's going on--what's happened to our nation.
    , @Desiderius
    Gold chains sure looks to be beating low energy handily. A functioning set of balls turned out to matter.
    , @Jimi
    A good way to evaluate dysfunctional clannish behavior among different ethnic groups is to ask the following question:

    If a person of a certain ethnic group found out his cousin was involved in a scheme to defraud widow's of their pensions would he report his cousin to the law?

    Northern Europeans would. Ethnic whites and assimilated Jews would do so as well.

    I suspect Arabs, Hasidim Jews, South Asians, and most Muslims would not.

    What would East Asians do?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Somebody compare Chinese to Koreans. In what respects are the two groups similar and different?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. @slumber_j

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.
     

    My wife and I both got a Harvard AB, as did both of our fathers--and as did pretty much every male in her father's line going back to the 17th century. My maternal grandfather and most if not all of his many brothers got professional degrees there. By any normal notion of "normative," our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that's just crazy talk.

    I've long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Fortunately, unlike my wife I didn't really like the place--and nowadays we both find it revolting. So I don't much care.

    It’s too bad your kids aren’t smart enough to get in on merit. I have a number of classmates, including WASPs, whose kids did get into my Ivy Alma Mater. The trick is to actually do well on SATs, have stellar grades and be interesting, not just coast on legacy. The Ivies are trying to weed out some of the decaying old money families, which is probably just as well. Not much point in tying your wagon to Prescotts, Winthrops and Adams when Kushners and Zuckerbergs are running things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    As we have seen from the original post, SATs and grades aren't enough to accomplish anything on their own. In any case, my children are 11 and 13, so the jury's still out: hence the future tense.

    Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before baselessly insulting people's children. With enough work, maybe you'll even be able to recognize a joke!

    , @Anonymous
    Are you referring to Jared Kushner's entry into Harvard as a model of meritocracy in action? Because even before he shot to fame for being Trump's son-in-law, he was famous for the getting into Harvard with the help of a hefty donation and help from politicians connected to his father. Teachers at his high school have said that there were more qualified applicants in his year who didn't get in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @JimB
    I dunno about Harvard’s brand management in the 21st century. Essentially, they have trashed their reputation as a liberal arts school with affirmative action hires and a gutted curriculum in humanities. Sure, they pump out a lot of social justice trolls, but are they still pumping out future internet billionaires or Supreme Court Justices? Time will tell, I suppose. In terms of academic rigor, Harvard ranks 25 according to Business Insider; MIT Ranks 1 and U Chicago ranks 2. Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade, despite the harsh weather and crap neighborhood. Their secret sauce has been a level of academic integrity unsurpassed by any Ivy League school.

    Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade

    Chicago is notorious for trying to game the rankings, to the detriment of the education. They do things like admit a large number of students with the condition that they defer a year before starting. They then “re-accept” those students the following year, and it artificially boosts the rate of students who say yes after being admitted. The secret sauce to climbing to number two is actually throwing academic integrity out the window. The irony is that a U of Chicago education really was better than an Ivy education 30 years ago, but probably isn’t today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JimB
    Well, if this Chicago admissions “strategy” you describe has been working so well for the past decade, then by now wouldn’t the bottom-of-the-barrel Ivy League schools like UPenn, Cornell, and Columbia be imitating it? Everybody games the ratings if they can. Chicago has been committed to a rigorous great-books based core curriculum for much longer than 30 years, and their typical undergrads have better developed thinking skills than typical Ivy grads for the obvious reason that intense academic challenge is required, not optional, as it is at Harvard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. dr kill says:
    @Anonymous
    People who've never been to a good school always maintain that they're just great, big, expensive networking seminars. Hollywood must be promoting this hoary stereotype.

    People who've attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you're the type of student who's not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.

    The first two years of an Ivy League Med School with which I’m familiar featured 45 credits of classwork each semester for 4 straight semesters. That’s a lot of work. I maintain that it is the amount of material, not the material itself, that is the real load.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    45 hours of class time per semester? Not possible. Isn't the typical undergrad load around 15 hours?
    , @stillCARealist
    Is that possible? most semesters are 17 or 18 units of work. And that's a lot if it includes stuff like organic chemistry and physics.

    45 credits... does that mean units? There wouldn't be time in the day for all the classes.

    but, of course, giving students that much to learn is wasteful. Better they do 1/2 that and actually master the material, even at the med school level.
    , @JimB
    I've been told that he curriculum for all four-year medical schools is highly standardized -- same textbooks, lectures, labs, and hospital rounds. The point of this is so every patient will, in principle, receive the same standard of care. I suspect the benefit of graduating from Harvard Med School is realized when you apply for post graduate fellowships to learn a specialty. Harvard grads are more likely to become pediatric surgeons at John Hopkins. Grads from last ranked Howard University are more likely to end up as GPs, obstetricians, and proctologists at the Famila Clinica Gratuita.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. JimB says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    Identifying the future wealthy is a sucker’s game. Harvard has probably rejected 4/5 of the world’s billionaires and the other 1/5 dropped out. Harvard’s wealth comes mainly from it’s money managers and Wall Street insider status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Billionaires are usually hugely successful entrepreneurs. An Ivy League degree is a disincentive to pursuing entrepreneurship, because it opens doors to high paying jobs at big firms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Johann Ricke

    whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    That doesn't sound right. If you look at the Chinese market for smartphones, for instance, you'll see that it is the scene of an intense knock-down, drag-out fight over price, features and market share during which a several big players have already gone out of business, owing billions to creditors. It is this harsh dog-eat-dog competition that poses a long-term threat to American corporations, not the cozy oligopolistic industrial culture of South Korea. In my opinion, Coag, who comments here every so often, has gotten this much right:

    The most striking feature of Chinese society may be its homogeneity but the corollary is that in China everyone thinks he can be the emperor and that the emperor is no better/smarter/wiser than him. This idea is inalienable from Chinese society and indeed quasi-sanctified— the founders of the Han and Ming dynasties was a peasant and a street beggar, respectively, who fought their ways to the top. This well-established career of peasant class warrior was played to great advantage by Mao. Its whole 2000-year tradition is a perpetual source of social instability during times of economic crisis or decline.
     
    China is a unified empire instead of a motley collection of independent nations like Europe because every man wants to be emperor. Of the whole enchilada. It's not that independent nations did not exist in Northeast Asia. The issue is that alliances did not stand long enough for nations to endure. It was always every man for himself. And this definitely goes against the idea that they are conformists. I'd say they're atomistic, but at the level of the family and close friends. They go along when they have to, because no one wants to die to make somebody else emperor.

    You and Coag are right about the Chinese. Chinese don’t like or trust other Chinese all that much, especially in business. You can see this in Taiwan. Despite years of Japanese rule (much like Korea), and dramatic post-war economic growth much like Japan’s or S. Korea’s, Taiwan has very few large global corporations and has not adopted the chaebol/keiretsu model. As soon as a Taiwanese coroporation reaches a certain scale, it tends to fracture, with managers deciding they can start their own damn company and do a better job running things on their own.

    Although Chinese do tend to think of loyalties in concentric circles (me against my brother, my brother and me against my cousin, my village against the neighboring village, etc.) when push comes to shove they have been pretty poor at ethnic nationalism. Chinese spent more time fighting each other than the Japanese in the 1930s and 40s. Again and again over history Chinese have actively aided foreign invaders against other Chinese. Chinese taboos against marriage outside the group seem pretty weak compared to SE Asians, or even Greeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @1661er
    It's more of the function of polygamy seems to be more common among Taiwanese corporate tycoons compares to Japanese/Korean. Then the children turned to fight with their half-siblings to split up the company. The Wang family of Formosa Plastic is one such example. Cher Wang's HTC had a chance to fight it out with Samsung for android phone market share, but Samsung Electric had the support of the whole Samsung group/family, while Cher Wang couldn't count on the support of her siblings/half-siblings.

    There is also the shitshow of the Changs of Evergreen/EVA between the children of different mothers.

    The Koo family also divided internally due to their different political orientation. But different lines from different wives also factoring into it to some extend.

    Terry Guo of Foxconn also has multiple batch of children, but at least he waited til his starter wife to die before remarry. So it will be more interesting to see who that turn out when he dies.

    It's not like polygamy were not practiced among the rich of CJK. But Taiwanese, due to its more recent frontier society/high mortality, etc. that created some localized gender imbalance, it practiced slightly differently. And Taiwanese don't place as much value/deference to the children of the first/official wife.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Ronnie says:

    The article in the NY Times on admissions to Harvard as usual does not mention the word Jew. Jews at Harvard tripled to 21% of the freshman class in 1922 from about 7% in 1900, but by 1931 that was reduced to 15%. This percentage of jews at Harvard gradually increased to 25% of the class in the mid 1960ies and has remained there. The low of 15% in 1931 which is called a “quota” is in fact a 7-fold over-representation of Jews which today is a 12-fold over-representation. Asians and others cannot expect any justice or genuine meritocracy until this Jewish selection is directly addressed and analyzed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marty T
    25 percent jews is a wild overestimate for Harvard today. As a matter of fact, its very difficult to determine a number of "jews" as Jewish intermarriage rates have been greater than 50 percent for decades. In a religion survey the percent jewish was less than 10.

    Harvard is already too Asian. They are the most overrepresented group on campus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. JimB says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade

    Chicago is notorious for trying to game the rankings, to the detriment of the education. They do things like admit a large number of students with the condition that they defer a year before starting. They then "re-accept" those students the following year, and it artificially boosts the rate of students who say yes after being admitted. The secret sauce to climbing to number two is actually throwing academic integrity out the window. The irony is that a U of Chicago education really was better than an Ivy education 30 years ago, but probably isn't today.

    Well, if this Chicago admissions “strategy” you describe has been working so well for the past decade, then by now wouldn’t the bottom-of-the-barrel Ivy League schools like UPenn, Cornell, and Columbia be imitating it? Everybody games the ratings if they can. Chicago has been committed to a rigorous great-books based core curriculum for much longer than 30 years, and their typical undergrads have better developed thinking skills than typical Ivy grads for the obvious reason that intense academic challenge is required, not optional, as it is at Harvard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Twinkie

    That’s what John Wayne would do.
     
    No, he wouldn't. Don't confuse his movie characters with the man in reality.

    Also, these are not low-status folks coming to build railroads. They are native upper middle class(or even upper class as in case of Zakaria) coming to suck up to the globo-homo elites to crush the native white folks. Unforgivable.
     
    It doesn't matter if they are upper middle class in their home countries. East Asians who come to the U.S. generally (especially initially) have relatively low social status in the U.S.

    And they are not coming here "to crush the native white folks" given their intermarriage rates with the said "native white folks."

    East Asians who come to the U.S. generally (especially initially) have relatively low social status in the U.S. [sic]

    Yeah. The programmers and engineers; the physicians and pharmacists. The graduate students (on daddy’s dime, natch…) who never leave, the professors (who cannot even speak Engrish but are given tenure and fat salaries!) teaching them. The oligarchs buying half of California – and all of Vancouver – for cash. Poor, low-status bastards. Pity the lot of ‘em.

    Do the poor ones who come maybe initially have low status? Sure. Stipulated. So what? Even they get governmentally mandated cash and prizes and privileges over the autochthonous people – the Small Business Administration, the EEOC, the set-asides from DoD,, on and on. Hell, I’ll open a dry cleaner’s tomorrow, as soon as the government lends me the capital on preferred terms because of my epicanthic folds….

    Anyway, at least the ones from that part of Asia bathe. Points for that.

    (Oh, and I wanted to admire Let Duc d’Quin’s admission most Chinese are at their core amoral son of a bitch. Points for honesty.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yeah. The programmers and engineers; the physicians and pharmacists. The graduate students (on daddy’s dime, natch…) who never leave, the professors (who cannot even speak Engrish but are given tenure and fat salaries!) teaching them. The oligarchs buying half of California – and all of Vancouver – for cash. Poor, low-status bastards. Pity the lot of ‘em.
     
    Indeed, they are so high status here that with all those awesome credentials, they dominate the fake hair shops for black women and dry cleaning shops, groceries, and liquor stores in dodgy neighborhoods. After all, that's what high status people do in this country, isn't it?

    Hell, I’ll open a dry cleaner’s tomorrow, as soon as the government lends me the capital on preferred terms because of my epicanthic folds….
     
    Right, because running a dry cleaning shop is so profitable, high status, and easy on your health. And - newsflash - most Asian-run dry cleaner's shops were not financed with Uncle Sam's largesse.

    Yes, there are certain government preference programs for Asians, which - for the record - I loathe, but only a very small fraction of Asians benefit from them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Twinkie

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality?
     
    No, sir. I am - in the Popperian manner - falsifying the notion that "East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs."

    Not all East Asians are the same, and not all "round eyed slobs" are the same either. It all depends on which "East Asians" and "round eyed slobs" you are talking about. For example, "round eyed slobs" from the border areas of Scotland and England were notoriously "independent" and querulous historically. So much so that their descendants in Appalachia today are the most crime- and poverty-ridden whites in America today. Meanwhile the Nordics who settled in the upper Midwest turned out to be quiet, hardworking, and economically productive and, yes, very conformist.

    Look, I agree that - in general - East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups. But it remains to be examined how much of that is based on environment (e.g. colder climate, high population density, degree of isolation, presence or lack of physio-topographic barriers that separate people, etc.) that is shared by certain European populations and not with others. I supposed that would answer why some European populations are FAR more conformist than others and why the same European population is more conformist in one era than in another.

    Much of the cult of the rugged individualism that permeates white Americans is not so much European in nature, but a uniquely American phenomenon, which likely argues for some contingent historical factors that are, again, unique to the formation of the American society.

    Stereotypes are based in reality.
     
    Nope. SOME stereotypes are based in reality. There are stereotypes that are simply incorrect by all objective measures. That's because stereotypes are not some sort of magic that accurately captures reality. They could be based on enduring observations, but they could also be based on temporary phenomena that have long ceased to be (but congealed in the minds of the people from the past). To wit: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html

    The Korean is the perfect type of inefficiency — of utter worthlessness.
     
    A stereotype from the days when Koreans were poor, uneducated, and under the boot of the neighboring powers. I suppose the Western equivalent of that would be that of the "dirty, ignorant, immoral, and diseased Irish." But look at the Irish now - higher GDP per capita than their erstwhile overlords and betters, the United Kingdom.

    They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    Er, no. Scandinavians are far more socially cohesive, egalitarian, and communitarian than, say, Koreans are. There is no Scandinavian equivalent to the joke "Two Koreans, three churches." Contrary to your claims of "East Asian... beehive of collective self-interest," there is intense intra-East Asian competition and conflict. They are only the mindless, monolithic Borg in YOUR mind.

    How about this Twinkie. How about Asians stay in Asia. And the ones currently residing in the West can go back to Asia. See how simple that was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    How about this Twinkie.... See how simple that was
     
    How about this? We keep Twinkie, regardless of changes going forward. See how simple that was?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Cowboy Shaw
    Last weekend I left my phone and glasses on the sea wall in a coastal Essex town. It was a busy afternoon and the local sailing club was having its annual piss up so there were plenty of drunks cruising around. I realised I'd lost my phone about an hour later some distance away and stopped a woman to ask if I could borrow her phone to call mine. She had clearly lived a hard life, her face was ravaged by booze, but said to me 'this is an honest town, someone will have it for you'. Sure enough, it had been handed in at an art gallery, they answered, and I went and picked it up.

    Essex is quite ethno-statey. Particularly on the coasts. Probably a coincidence.

    “annual piss up”

    Do I want to know what that is?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veracitor
    It's English slang for a drinking-to-excess party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Buzz Mohawk

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.
     
    Yes, but it's not the highest one. Don't you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn't they select students who have the highest values?

    https://marshallmorrismcsorley.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/maslow-hierarchy.jpeg

    Don’t you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn’t they select students who have the highest values?

    Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Oh, bullshit. HY have been selecting from an elite class for the last 300 years. You were just too dumb to notice it because they had the same nominal religion and came from the same nominal ethnic group - maybe you couldn't tell the difference between them and you, but THEY could sure as hell tell the difference between themselves and you. The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn't change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.
    , @3g4me
    @138 27 year old: "Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people."

    Point, game, set, and match.

    I already glanced at Jack D's utterly predictable reply to you - Jews, like Asians, are big believers in branding = quality. Whether true or not, branding /= American, which has a quality all its own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Jack D says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    A comparison to the Ferrari automobile brand might be relevant:

    It is well-known that for many many years Ferrari has limited its production in order to maintain the exclusivity of its product. They could build a lot more Ferraris, and those all would be as great as the ones they do build, but then there would be more Ferraris on the road and the brand would be less exclusive.

    Furthermore, there are other great sports and GT cars that are manufactured in greater numbers and available at lower prices. Porsches can run with Ferraris, even kick their asses, and they will not break as easily. Okay, maybe they're not as pretty. The German car, while not cheap, costs far less than the Italian. It is not as exclusive. If you live in the right neighborhood, you will see all kinds of Porsches and pay little attention to them, but you will turn your head when a Ferrari goes by.

    Ferrari also has historically wooed famous customers and cultivated its relationships with them. At the same time, the maker is well-known for being snotty and snobby toward first-time buyers who are just people with money. It is like the reversed customer-business relationship attributed here to Ivy League colleges and applicants/students. If you are not "someone" like Malia Obama, you have to come on your knees and earn the privilege of paying six figures for the precious product.

    Ferrari's strategy is somewhat like deBeers and the controlled market for diamonds. The gems are more plentiful than most people know, but the supply available to you is artificially limited, and you have to pay the price. Your woman thinks diamonds are so fantastic because they are expensive: the bigger and better hers is, the more her man had to pay, ergo the more money he has. If his diploma says "Harvard" on it, so much the better.

    Limiting supply to maintain exclusivity is a well known strategy in the luxury goods field. Sometimes limited supply is the ONLY thing that can maintain value. The most extreme example being prints by artists. If an artist runs off a lithograph in an edition of 100 or some low number, then the print (which is only a piece of paper and has no intrinsic value at all) has some chance of having value but if he runs off 100,000 then it will never have any value, even though the 1 out of 100 print is exactly the same as the 1 out of 100,000 print.

    In most products, the price tag is a negative factor – “I would buy that GMC SUV but it’s awfully expensive.” In luxury goods, the price is a POSITIVE factor – “I would buy that Range Rover BECAUSE it is awfully expensive.” The consumers of these brands WANT you to keep the prices really high and ever increasing so that they can use your product as a status signalling device. When I show up in my new Range Rover (wearing a Rolex, with my Hermes handbag, etc.) people will know that I’m rich and should be envied by them.

    For that reason, if you are lucky enough to own such a brand (and smart enough to manage it for the long term – it’s possible to run a luxury brand into the ground – see Cadillac) then it is virtually a license to print money. The price of the product becomes virtually detached from the cost of production. For example, Rolex will sell you a replacement stainless steel bracelet for a Submariner for $1,000. Or the Chinese will sell you a virtually identical bracelet for $10. You can’t really argue that the Rolex bracelet is 100x better – it’s just a hunk of metal. Stainless steel costs $1/lb and the machining is automated. You could make a reasonable argument that it is worth $40 or $50 or even $100 because it is slightly better than the Chinese one (and 40 years ago, when Rolex was just another brand of watch, that’s how much they would have charged you, in inflation adjusted terms), but there’s no way in hell that the bracelet has an intrinsic value (or a production cost) anywhere close to $1,000. But the Rolex one has the magic symbol stamped on it – that’s where 90%+ of the value comes from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. res says:
    @Redneck farmer
    Hillsdale and a few other colleges don't take federal money. Very few, though.

    I had not realized before that Hillsdale not taking federal money extended to student financial aid: https://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions-aid/financial-aid/need-based-aid/

    Hillsdale College, which does not accept or permit its students to bring federal financial aid to campus, is fully committed to providing its students with competitive financial aid packages, all of which are privately funded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Jack D says:
    @27 year old

    Don’t you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn’t they select students who have the highest values?
     
    Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people.

    Oh, bullshit. HY have been selecting from an elite class for the last 300 years. You were just too dumb to notice it because they had the same nominal religion and came from the same nominal ethnic group – maybe you couldn’t tell the difference between them and you, but THEY could sure as hell tell the difference between themselves and you. The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn’t change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Jack makes a good point here. The biggest overriding factor is social class, or whatever you want to call it, economic level, caste, whatever. Your real leaders.

    We are naked apes, after all. There are dominant apes and submissive apes. If you prefer chickens, there is a pecking order, and it is somewhat independent of religion or ethnicity.

    For example, our "betters" are the people who want non-whites to come on into the homelands of the white, global minority. They are making sure this continues to happen. It means cheap labor (servants) for them and a submissive underclass.

    Those elites do not seem to care who or what we are. They will ruin our countries, because they somehow see themselves as above it, independent of it, and in control of it.

    Their children go to Ivy League universities, because that is where ruling-class people go to college, no matter how dumb they are.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn’t change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.
     
    Maybe, but speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I can say that I'd rather be callously ruled over by people of my own tribe than callously ruled over by people of another tribe. Hell, most people would prefer poor rulers from their own tribe over good rulers from another tribe. The British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.
    , @27 year old
    That’s not even remotely the same thing.

    There’s a massive difference in the attitude of the Ivy League toward the rest of America over the last 300 years

    Condescending and elitist vs disdaining and genocidal

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. res says:
    @Anon
    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.

    Many Harvard undergrads don't make it to Harvard masters, let alone Harvard Ph.D.
    Many come from OTHER schools.

    So, I think Harvard uses Undergrad level as a kind of propaganda. It is intentionally made more Diverse. But at the higher levels, the better students who weren't accepted into Harvard undergrad and attended other schools are accepted into Harvard.

    Imagine some Negro kid made it to Harvard Undergrad, while some white kid was rejected and attended Duke. But at master level, the black kid might not be accepted(or may have dropped out by then) while the white kid who attended Duke is accepted into Harvard masters or Ph.D.

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the 'lesser' university.

    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more, and Jewish enrollment in them is much higher.

    Agreed. One thing I found interesting is that the racial balance does not seem that much different at Harvard for undergraduates and graduates: https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/166027/harvard-university/enrollment/
    Scroll down to “Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity.” The bar charts for all/undergraduate/graduate make it easy to compare.

    But looking at Jewish representation at Harvard is even more interesting (as seen in Ron Unz’s article).

    Hillel claims 11% Jewish Undergrads and 67% Jewish Graduates: https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/harvard-university
    My guess is the former is understated due to the recent controversy about this, but how is the latter even possible given the racial balance seen at the first link?

    The Jerusalem Post claims 25% of Harvard Undergrads are Jewish: https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701

    So, it seems a bunch of kids attend what are essentially shadow-harvard. They are not accepted into Harvard Undergrad but have a good chance of entering Harvard Graduate if they make the grades at the ‘lesser’ university.

    Perhaps, but based on the numbers above they sure don’t seem to be non-Jewish whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. res says:
    @academic gossip
    If you read the legal papers that both sides have put online, the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger. A thousand (or several thousand) pages of depositions of Harvard admissions honchos with no indication of any specific procedure that does something worse to Asians than to whites. Statistical analysis by both sides shows only a small Asian effect once basic controls are added, of the kind that ought to show up prior to any discrimination (if any exists) being applied. First- and second- generation East Asian applicants to elite schools have very different behavior from other groups, which leads to a different (joint) distribution of academic+extracurricular+personal traits that is then revealed by the Harvard admission ratings. Harvard's expert actually wrote, non-anonymously and in 2018, that Asian and white applicants being different (in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office) is a simpler explanation of the data than discrimination. The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    The plaintiffs' black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only "one of many factors", it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    You are presenting a quite biased version of the evidence presented so far.

    For anyone who wants to dig deeply into this, here are the court filings: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/

    Agreed about this though:

    The plaintiffs’ black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only “one of many factors”, it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Jack D says:
    @academic gossip
    If you read the legal papers that both sides have put online, the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger. A thousand (or several thousand) pages of depositions of Harvard admissions honchos with no indication of any specific procedure that does something worse to Asians than to whites. Statistical analysis by both sides shows only a small Asian effect once basic controls are added, of the kind that ought to show up prior to any discrimination (if any exists) being applied. First- and second- generation East Asian applicants to elite schools have very different behavior from other groups, which leads to a different (joint) distribution of academic+extracurricular+personal traits that is then revealed by the Harvard admission ratings. Harvard's expert actually wrote, non-anonymously and in 2018, that Asian and white applicants being different (in their distribution of traits observed by the admissions office) is a simpler explanation of the data than discrimination. The Cathedral has, subtly but at long last, pushed back against the PC picture that Asian immigrants are just like everyone else.

    The plaintiffs' black/Hispanic affirmative action data, that MSM is giving the silent treatment, is much harder for Harvard to explain away. There is some evidence that the admission rate for blacks is engineered to never go below the overall domestic admission rate, and unless Harvard can explain that away, that is close enough to a quota that all the talk of diversity and complex multifactor admission will not make it legal under existing rulings. Also the sheer magnitude of the black preference makes it hard to argue that black race per se is only "one of many factors", it is all-important as the plaintiffs demonstrate.

    the Asian issue that is getting all the current publicity looks like a big nothingburger

    Nothing to see here folks, move along. These are not the droids you are looking for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Buzz Mohawk
    That's interesting. I'm learning here that "collective" is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don't they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn't a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn't they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    Don’t they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else?

    No. Although its not a religion, its most akin to a religious community in that being Chinese is a set of norms, beliefs, traditions, and so on. As such, it is very vulnerable to “schism” and its how you get intense enmity between factions(such as Epoch Times, which basically exists to attack the CCP). The Chinese have been vastly murderous of their own due to such schisms. There’s ultimately no clear definition on what those common mores must be, and one group can be convinced that they represented a “truer” or “more authentic” faction against the others.

    Attacking Chinese as a whole, though, would be akin to attacking Christianity to a Christian; he becomes obligated to defend a significant basis of existence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. res says:
    @academic gossip
    No "selective observing" of the differences is required. The Asian and non-Asian distributions differ substantially, and if Harvard puts relatively more weight on the nonacademic components, which it does, that will lead to fewer Asians being admitted (even if Harvard does not know or suspect that they are Asian). If some of the components are unmeasured or mis-modeled in a statistical study, it can appear as discrimination against Asians even where none exists. Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    Unlike past high IQ immigrants whose scions now dominate Harvard (and calumny against whom is now a crime punished by loss of livelihood and social opprobrium), these new high IQ immigrants are totally different and not worthy.
     
    Why "unlike"? Many of the same differences were also true for Jews back in the day, for the same reasons. We now have internet and statistical analysis and lots of published information, which allow discussion that was not possible back then or in the 80-90's when the Asian admission issue first came up.

    Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.

    That is certainly true, but often one can look closely at the models and make a judgment as to who is closer to reality and who is obfuscating it. I have done that. Have you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    Yes, I read the statistical analysis in the expert reports. Both sides make some mistakes. Card is clearly smarter than Arcidiacono, but he has more to explain.

    The key point is Harvard's rebuttal on the personal ratings of Asians. Card is right, and Arcidiacono floundering, about whether to do year-by-year analyses and combine them. Of course you want single-year analysis and combining is not an issue. Of course you want the larger set of variables, especially SES data on the parents, for predicting admission. Card then replaces the supposedly biased personal ratings by Arcidiacono's regression-predicted ratings (minus the adverse Asian "bias" coefficient that he estimated as his proof of discrimination), and re-runs the admission analysis on this bias-free data set that shows Asians' supposedly higher level of personal quality. This procedure should show worse Asian effects than the real data set, since the admission results are the same but Asians' ratings have been raised. But instead of this procedure isolating an Asian discrimination effect, it replicates the finding that the Asian coefficient fluctuates in sign year-to-year and is small/insignificant combining the years.

    The plaintiffs have not publicized their counter-arguments to this analysis, but their options are pretty limited and lame. They are already arguing that Card is trying to noise up the analysis in the hope of swamping the Asian coefficients. The data set is way too big for that, and it doesn't explain how the Asian coefficient comes out positive in some years, when according to plaintiffs' theories, Harvard should be having to discriminate massively to get the observed white/Asian enrollment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Twinkie

    East Asians in America concentrate on social climbing
     
    High IQ immigrants with low social status try to climb the social ladder through higher education? The temerity of these people. Why can't they just stay low status like everyone else (except those on top currently), right?

    I personally believe East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs like us.
     
    Totally. Northern Europeans such as Scandinavians are completely non-conformist and rebellious. After all, "Jante Law" is all about being different and rubbing other people's noses in your uniqueness and rocking the boat: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-14/news/mn-278_1_welfare-state

    Asian-apologist-whitey-hater who lacks theory of mind — How original!

    The numbers don’t point to discrimination against Asians either, chief. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the distributions of intelligence and more importantly proportions of the total population can see who admissions is screwing.

    Unrelated, do you have an Anglo first name?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Asian-apologist-whitey-hater who lacks theory of mind — How original!
     
    Totally right. You got me. I hate white people... starting with my wife. And the white half of all my children. And my wife's folks (I hate them so much that I held my own career in suspense for a while and helped to run their farming business for a few years). And indeed I also hate all my close friends who are - to a man - all white. Because that's what you do - you become friends, blood-brothers even, with people you really hate. And my demonstrated willingness to take a bullet for them (well, actually, fragmentation) was all just my dastardly and sneaky-chinky plot to ingratiate myself with them, so that - when the time is right - I can stab them in the back. After all, Asians think long-term, right?

    The numbers don’t point to discrimination against Asians either, chief. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the distributions of intelligence and more importantly proportions of the total population can see who admissions is screwing.
     
    Right again. Caltech - which doesn't rely on affirmative action to the extent MIT (or Harvard) does - has fewer Asians than the latter, right, Tonto?

    Unrelated, do you have an Anglo first name?
     
    Got me again. Sure do. Biblical, in fact. You know, because I feign to believe in the white man's religion in a plot to... you get the point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @slumber_j

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.
     

    My wife and I both got a Harvard AB, as did both of our fathers--and as did pretty much every male in her father's line going back to the 17th century. My maternal grandfather and most if not all of his many brothers got professional degrees there. By any normal notion of "normative," our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that's just crazy talk.

    I've long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Fortunately, unlike my wife I didn't really like the place--and nowadays we both find it revolting. So I don't much care.

    By any normal notion of “normative,” our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that’s just crazy talk.

    Everyone in China knows what the normative default is for a graduate and post-graduate from their central Communist uni. I lived with one. She was awesome, but I was very young.

    Indeed, everyone in most countries knows what the default is. Just in Western Europe and the Anglophone countries is a default prohibited.

    I believe the elite is better with a sense of noblesse oblige and organic connection to the wider community. Perhaps America needs to be an experiment in something else but your example is leading the European nations astray.

    Even basic b*tch companies get a brand identity but supposedly a country having one is not inclusive enough.

    Read More
    • Agree: slumber_j
    • Replies: @Anon
    What is a "normative default"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. slumber_j says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    It's too bad your kids aren't smart enough to get in on merit. I have a number of classmates, including WASPs, whose kids did get into my Ivy Alma Mater. The trick is to actually do well on SATs, have stellar grades and be interesting, not just coast on legacy. The Ivies are trying to weed out some of the decaying old money families, which is probably just as well. Not much point in tying your wagon to Prescotts, Winthrops and Adams when Kushners and Zuckerbergs are running things.

    As we have seen from the original post, SATs and grades aren’t enough to accomplish anything on their own. In any case, my children are 11 and 13, so the jury’s still out: hence the future tense.

    Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before baselessly insulting people’s children. With enough work, maybe you’ll even be able to recognize a joke!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    It‘s not reading comprehension, I am purposely insulting you because you‘re a Harvard man and I don‘t like Harvard. I am a dick that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @dr kill
    The first two years of an Ivy League Med School with which I'm familiar featured 45 credits of classwork each semester for 4 straight semesters. That's a lot of work. I maintain that it is the amount of material, not the material itself, that is the real load.

    45 hours of class time per semester? Not possible. Isn’t the typical undergrad load around 15 hours?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. res says:
    @Twinkie

    It does not resemble Stuyvesant’s demographics, other than having a very small number of blacks.
     
    Link, please.

    academic gossip seems to generally know what he is talking about, but likes to argue from authority rather than presenting evidence.

    Here is what I found. First, it is worth noting that AFAICT this data is only for US citizens and permanent residents.

    This report has 2016 bar charts for minorities (but not whites) by broad field on page 5 in panel D: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/static/report/nsf18304-report.pdf
    I did not realize just how large a proportion of black doctorates were in education.

    Current top level NSF Doctorates page: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/
    All of the data tables: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/data.cfm
    HTML version of Table 23. U.S. citizen and permanent resident doctorate recipients, by broad field of study, ethnicity, and race: Selected years, 1996–2016 (which I think is best able to address this conversation): https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab23.htm

    As I am sure you are aware, it is necessary to consider the demographics of the underlying populations (both total and “interested in achieving that”) and NYC is different from the US. My guess is academic gossip was mostly referring to the relative proportions of whites (ag, feel free to correct if I misunderstood), and in that I would say he is correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Thanks for this data res.

    I'd say this broadly vindicates academic gossip's claims.

    The key point that confuses is international students. A lot of Asians come to the US to study and get graduate degrees. But that is not the same as the question "are US Asians really kicking ass and taking names?"

    In terms of doctorates, the answer seems to be "a bit", but not overwhelmingly.

    Looks at a the graphs the answer is--roughly:
    -- Engineering 3x--about 15%
    -- Math/Compsci 2X -- about 10%
    -- Physical Sciences <2X -- about 8%.

    Note that these are figures versus the whole US population, so lower multiples versus whites. (Though perhaps higher if you limited to white gentiles.) Of course, the fancy Asians and upcaste Indians alone would have higher multiples than these numbers.

    Still the numbers suggest that US Asians are actually *underperforming* their Harvard numbers. And they are clearly not performing to the level of "my son should be in Harvard!" that's the basis for these lawsuits.

    None of this is surprising, because Asians are grinders and have test preped the SAT to death. But actual inovation while certainly entailing lots of hard work, also involves actual insight and creativity which are not captured by HS grades and test-prepped SAT scores.


    My rough take is US fancy Asians outperform US whites substantially--3X maybe--at the lower, grinding levels of STEM, but perhaps only at 2X or less when it comes to actual move-the-ball forward contributions.
    , @Twinkie

    academic gossip seems to generally know what he is talking about, but likes to argue from authority rather than presenting evidence.
     
    No kidding!

    As I am sure you are aware, it is necessary to consider the demographics of the underlying populations (both total and “interested in achieving that”) and NYC is different from the US.
     
    From the get-go, his formulation of the issue was quite slippery and not terribly intellectually honest, given that he was attempting to invalidate the overwhelming STEM-orientation of Stuyvesant Asians - drawn exclusively from the five boroughs of New York City - by presenting the national data of Asians being more mildly overrepresented in Ph.D. programs ("The NSF has annual data on Doctorates Awarded in different fields. It does not resemble Stuyvesant’s demographics...").

    He also tried to fashion his own definition by claiming that software engineers don't make real things. See:

    I said that software engineering (not electrical engineering) fails to “make real stuff”. It’s the equivalent of law school for people who can do math: a way for relatively bright people to learn how to earn a living, without having to ever get their hands dirty.
     
    Now "makers" have to get their hands dirty! Otherwise, they are apparently less productive than Jewish actors, politicians, and investment bankers who graduated from Stuyvesant of the yesteryears.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    By any normal notion of “normative,” our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that’s just crazy talk.
     
    Everyone in China knows what the normative default is for a graduate and post-graduate from their central Communist uni. I lived with one. She was awesome, but I was very young.

    Indeed, everyone in most countries knows what the default is. Just in Western Europe and the Anglophone countries is a default prohibited.

    I believe the elite is better with a sense of noblesse oblige and organic connection to the wider community. Perhaps America needs to be an experiment in something else but your example is leading the European nations astray.

    Even basic b*tch companies get a brand identity but supposedly a country having one is not inclusive enough.

    What is a “normative default”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    A possibly redundant term that I made up when typing quickly. It should be clear from the context. It is something which fits the traditional and typical mold.

    Is there another term you'd suggest?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. res says:
    @academic gossip
    I already answered that post. Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    Again, I'm asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits, barring some incriminating evidence that was left out of the summary judgement pleadings. And that if affirmative action for blacks is allowed to be litigated in this case, Harvard will have a harder time defending against some of the allegations on that, such as the black admission rate having to be at least as high as the overall domestic rate of admission.

    Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    OK. Let’s have that conversation. What are your reasons for considering Card’s analysis to invalidate Arcidiacono’s? Based on what I have read, I find Arcidiacono’s reasoning on interaction variables persuasive (I will be happy to respond in more detail once you have given your top level take) and that leads me to believe Card is obfuscating.

    Since it might be useful for this conversation I will repeat this link to court filings: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @slumber_j
    As we have seen from the original post, SATs and grades aren't enough to accomplish anything on their own. In any case, my children are 11 and 13, so the jury's still out: hence the future tense.

    Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before baselessly insulting people's children. With enough work, maybe you'll even be able to recognize a joke!

    It‘s not reading comprehension, I am purposely insulting you because you‘re a Harvard man and I don‘t like Harvard. I am a dick that way.

    Read More
    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That was indeed funny, but come on. Even Harvard has some decent grads.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Jack D says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives

    For most people social status IS an intrinsic value, indeed it is one of the most important ones.

    I suppose that depends on what the meaning of “intrinsic” is.

    I would argue that it is possible to detach the cachet of the name brand from the thing itself and the latter is the intrinsic thing – in this case the quality of the education.

    For example, say I presented an expert panel with glasses of wine in a blind taste test – they might prefer A to B – that’s the intrinsic quality of the item.

    But in the market, B might be Château Lafite Rothschild and A might be a Napa Valley wine that sells for a fraction of the price, because of the status of the Lafite name.

    Social status is by definition EXTRINSIC – it’s not what’s in the bottle, it’s how people perceive the label. Social status can be gained as a result of past performance – the way Lafite came to have high social status in the first place was (in part) because it had high intrinsic value at some point. But things change – you can rest on your laurels. The quality of the product can go down. Competitors can improve their product, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Forbes says:
    @Anon
    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.

    Nice try. I fail to see how accepting a government grant to research, say cancer, obligates the entity to comply with rules outside cancer research. The Supreme Court answered this “strings attached” issue in the Medicaid expansion question under Obamacare with a denial.

    Based on your rationale, nothing is truly private and there are no limits to government coercion. It’s a popular assertion–but one that only finds favor under the rubric of who’s ox is being gored.

    I happen to disagree the government has (or should have) such sweeping coercive power.

    You cite circumstances as dispositive proof, when it pure conjecture or opinion. If the issue was as clear-cut as you imply, it wouldn’t have been taken up in a private civil action–but rather, the government imposing what you claim government has the power to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. res says:
    @Twinkie

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.
     
    That's true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.

    Ivy League, Inc. thanks you for your service in upholding their brand. You have served your customer well — in the perverse, upside-down relationship you just described.
     
    You misunderstand me. What I describe is the actual social condition as it exists, not as I or you would have it.

    I don't have a high regard for Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy, including my almae matres. Again, I will steer my own children away from them. But no matter what you and I might think of them, in the objective sense of hierarchical relationships in America as they exist today, these institutions select you (in the generic sense of that pronoun). You don't select them.

    Saying things like "I am better than they are - I didn't need them to succeed" might be true in individual cases, but sometimes come off like posturing and a type of virtue signaling as much as those who worship the brands... just like if you try too hard to be a rebel, you are not actually rebellious, but are simply slavish to the other side.

    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.

    That’s true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.

    I get what you are saying, but could you elaborate on how that works in your view? I understand the difference between commodity and luxury goods (generally based on limited supply, exclusivity, and perceptions) and its relevance here, but the Harvard example seems to go beyond that. I don’t think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that. I suppose Harvard’s role could be best seen as choosing the next generation of the powerful (who don’t really care about the price, nor does Harvard care that much about the tuition).

    So in that sense Harvard can be seen as needing to be sold on your suitability for that role. That selling need making them the customer. Is this what you mean? With most of the academic selectivity a reputation preserving sideline?

    Are there any examples other than elite universities which show this dynamic? I have heard occasional stories of idiosyncratic high end car companies (e.g. early Enzo dominated Ferrari, IIRC) which reject potential buyers as “unworthy”, but can’t think of any others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    I don’t think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that.
     
    Harvard is in an unusually good position in that they have 18 potential customers for every seat on sale (admission rate 5.6%) but it's not unprecedented in other businesses. Think of Hamilton tickets or the waiting list for Hermes Birkin bags and so on. Hot clubs have guys who stand at the door whose entire job description consists of turning away customers. All of these business could theoretically equalize supply and demand by either increasing supply or raising the price, but they have economically valid reasons for rationing their products by turning away customers instead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. res says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    That's interesting. I'm learning here that "collective" is the wrong term for East Asians. However, how do you explain their group attitude, the way they identify as a group, say Han Chinese or just Chinese, no matter where they are? Don't they see themselves as a team of sorts, and to hell with everybody else? Isn't a Chinese person considered to belong to China, no matter where he lives?

    There is plenty of originality among members of the European race, but they sure could use some of that Chinese team sense of belonging. If they did, maybe the EU would have actually served Europe and maybe American immigration laws and actions would actually serve American citizens.

    All those wanna be emperors seem to serve the collective interests of China pretty well.

    Hey, didn't they say one consequence of the one-child policy was that it would create a nation of little emperors, because of all the only-children?

    This comment is one of the best I have seen at elucidating multiple informative responses. Thanks to all of you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Jack D says:
    @academic gossip
    I already answered that post. Nobody at that thread or in this one has pointed out anything wrong with my (more or less obvious to cognoscenti, once stated) take on the statistical issues in the Harvard Asian lawsuit.

    Again, I'm asserting that the Asian issue is a nothingburger on its merits, barring some incriminating evidence that was left out of the summary judgement pleadings. And that if affirmative action for blacks is allowed to be litigated in this case, Harvard will have a harder time defending against some of the allegations on that, such as the black admission rate having to be at least as high as the overall domestic rate of admission.

    Without going into the merits of the competing experts, I’ll repeat what I said earlier – the only reason why we can have this discussion at all is because garden variety E. Asians (we will put aside the Nepalese, Bhutanese, etc. that Harvard talks about because they still have value as exotic rarities) do not possess a lot of Diversity Pokemon points. Substitute one of the higher ranked groups (blacks) for Asian and Harvard’s experts would not even DARE make the arguments that they are making and that you are making – that the reason the Harvard admission officers ranked BLACKS as less likable is because they really ARE less likable. That they are just reflecting the opinions of others – teachers, interviewers, etc. who are giving recommendations and that those others are not themselves fatally infected with racism that taints their judgments. Etc. As I said before, all you need to do is substitute the word “African-American” for “Asian” and Harvard’s whole defense would be considered a war crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. res says:
    @Twinkie

    Your points are well put and appreciated.
     
    Thank you for taking them so well.

    However, I am not saying...
     
    I understand. However, I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.

    Aren’t top schools in competition with each other for the best students?
     
    To some extent. But there seems to be some collusion/cartel-like behavior among the top Ivies. Also, let's not mince words here - not all Ivies are of the same reputational caliber. Very few people choose to attend Dartmouth or Brown (the smallest Ivies) over Harvard and Yale (the largest Ivies) despite the fact that actual teaching quality may be better in the former than in the latter, due to the more undergraduate-oriented structure of the former schools.

    Students are increasingly going to have to carefully decide if they are making a good investment, wherever they go to school.
     
    It really depends on what they and the parents are looking for in life, as trite as it may sound.

    My desire for my children is that, as is said in the Baltimore Catechism, they would learn to know, love, and serve God in this world. And, by extension, their country, community, and family. I want them to lead lives in which they treasure what is beautiful and true. Of course, I don't want them to starve or suffer poverty, but such a fate would be preferable to one of material wealth and power cloaking ugliness and falsehood.

    Thanks to both you and Buzz Mohawk for providing a good example of constructive disagreement. I am enjoying your conversation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Thank You!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @res

    Hence the plaintiff can engineer a study indicating discrimination and the defendant can, by using more variables and controls, show the opposite.
     
    That is certainly true, but often one can look closely at the models and make a judgment as to who is closer to reality and who is obfuscating it. I have done that. Have you?

    Yes, I read the statistical analysis in the expert reports. Both sides make some mistakes. Card is clearly smarter than Arcidiacono, but he has more to explain.

    The key point is Harvard’s rebuttal on the personal ratings of Asians. Card is right, and Arcidiacono floundering, about whether to do year-by-year analyses and combine them. Of course you want single-year analysis and combining is not an issue. Of course you want the larger set of variables, especially SES data on the parents, for predicting admission. Card then replaces the supposedly biased personal ratings by Arcidiacono’s regression-predicted ratings (minus the adverse Asian “bias” coefficient that he estimated as his proof of discrimination), and re-runs the admission analysis on this bias-free data set that shows Asians’ supposedly higher level of personal quality. This procedure should show worse Asian effects than the real data set, since the admission results are the same but Asians’ ratings have been raised. But instead of this procedure isolating an Asian discrimination effect, it replicates the finding that the Asian coefficient fluctuates in sign year-to-year and is small/insignificant combining the years.

    The plaintiffs have not publicized their counter-arguments to this analysis, but their options are pretty limited and lame. They are already arguing that Card is trying to noise up the analysis in the hope of swamping the Asian coefficients. The data set is way too big for that, and it doesn’t explain how the Asian coefficient comes out positive in some years, when according to plaintiffs’ theories, Harvard should be having to discriminate massively to get the observed white/Asian enrollment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for replying. This will go better if we both refer to the actual arguments in context (though that might be more effort than either of us wish to undertake).

    First, let's be very clear. I am much more concerned about the merits of the case than things like "Card is clearly smarter than Arcidiacono" though at least you conclude by acknowledging "but he has more to explain."

    I found Arcidiacono's discussion of interaction variables in section "3.2 Professor Card errs in failing to include interaction terms" (pp. 19-22) of http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf
    persuasive. That argument seems so clear (I especially liked the quoting of Card's conditions for when those variables should be included) I am led to believe Card is obfuscating.

    Can you point to the location of the Card argument to which you refer?

    Do you have any rebuttals for Steve Hsu's blog posts on this topic?

    P.S. Are you aware of a resource for the defendant's filings similar to https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/ for the plaintiff's filings?

    P.P.S. I would be interested in any insights Twinkie has to offer from his stint in an Ivy League admissions office.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. res says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am just cautioning you that being stridently anti-Ivy League can be its own form of rigid thinking and virtue signaling just as much as being infatuated with it.
     
    I am not "stridently anti-Ivy League." I am anti-aspirational brand-chasing.

    Ivy League colleges are good schools, but my position is that many of the people who apply and even go do so because of the names and the prestige they carry, not for the education. This has gotten so sickening lately as more Americans and immigrants more blindly go for the brand.

    There are so many articles, even here, about people trying to get into the Ivy League and how their success or failure to do so will determine the rest of their lives. This has gotten worse and worse, this theme has become more and more prevalent, as our country has descended into rich and poor, 1% and everyone else.

    Americans are increasingly pursuing things like this not for intrinsic value, but because not to do so gives them fear of flying coach for the rest of their lives. That stinks.

    I find the societal buy in to the idea of the Ivy League as a marker of intellectual excellence ridiculous in light of their admissions policies with regard to affirmative action, legacies, and athletes.

    There is certainly intellectual excellence at those institutions, but the idea that “X is intellectually elite because they went to Y university” is hard to sustain without a close look at X’s background.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Again this is nothing unique - every brand can either rest on its laurels (and decline in the long run) or maintain brand equity via advertising and favorable publicity (rather than intrinsic quality) or go from strength to strength. A brand was once literally a brand (like what is used on cattle) that was stamped onto the end of a barrel of flour because you could then buy a barrel of flour that had the "Joe's Mill" stamp burned onto it and know that it was flour of good quality without even having to open the barrel and check the contents.

    But say after a while the owners of Joe's Mill get sloppy and sometimes their flour is moldy or wormy or off tasting and no longer always the top quality that Joe's Mill was renowned for, but they are letting it go out their doors anyway (see every American car company in the 1970s). For a while, people are so used to buying the Joe's Mill brand (and hearing its advertising jingles and seeing their friends buying Joe's) that they will keep buying it anyway. But after a few bad barrels, they may decide to switch brands or at the very least to lift the lid on the barrel and check the contents closely before they just buy based on the brand alone.

    You can see that the exact same analogy applies to a Harvard diploma.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Jack D says:
    @res


    If I am paying, I am the customer — if not the boss.
     
    That’s true only when the power relationship is equal or nearly so.
     
    I get what you are saying, but could you elaborate on how that works in your view? I understand the difference between commodity and luxury goods (generally based on limited supply, exclusivity, and perceptions) and its relevance here, but the Harvard example seems to go beyond that. I don't think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that. I suppose Harvard's role could be best seen as choosing the next generation of the powerful (who don't really care about the price, nor does Harvard care that much about the tuition).

    So in that sense Harvard can be seen as needing to be sold on your suitability for that role. That selling need making them the customer. Is this what you mean? With most of the academic selectivity a reputation preserving sideline?

    Are there any examples other than elite universities which show this dynamic? I have heard occasional stories of idiosyncratic high end car companies (e.g. early Enzo dominated Ferrari, IIRC) which reject potential buyers as "unworthy", but can't think of any others.

    I don’t think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that.

    Harvard is in an unusually good position in that they have 18 potential customers for every seat on sale (admission rate 5.6%) but it’s not unprecedented in other businesses. Think of Hamilton tickets or the waiting list for Hermes Birkin bags and so on. Hot clubs have guys who stand at the door whose entire job description consists of turning away customers. All of these business could theoretically equalize supply and demand by either increasing supply or raising the price, but they have economically valid reasons for rationing their products by turning away customers instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Good points. Hot clubs are the perfect example. Speaking of which, how do they avoid running afoul of the discrimination police? Is it because the "cool people" get in?

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?

    Does Hermes play any games with its waitlist (either positive or negative discrimination) based on who its customers are? Does anything like that happen at the retailer rather than manufacturer level?

    I guess I should be more explicit in saying that the defining characteristic of the point I am attempting to draw out is the seller exercising non-price based discrimination with respect to their customers. And just how far this goes to counteract the idea of "I am paying therefore I am the customer and have power."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Jack D
    Oh, bullshit. HY have been selecting from an elite class for the last 300 years. You were just too dumb to notice it because they had the same nominal religion and came from the same nominal ethnic group - maybe you couldn't tell the difference between them and you, but THEY could sure as hell tell the difference between themselves and you. The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn't change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.

    Jack makes a good point here. The biggest overriding factor is social class, or whatever you want to call it, economic level, caste, whatever. Your real leaders.

    We are naked apes, after all. There are dominant apes and submissive apes. If you prefer chickens, there is a pecking order, and it is somewhat independent of religion or ethnicity.

    For example, our “betters” are the people who want non-whites to come on into the homelands of the white, global minority. They are making sure this continues to happen. It means cheap labor (servants) for them and a submissive underclass.

    Those elites do not seem to care who or what we are. They will ruin our countries, because they somehow see themselves as above it, independent of it, and in control of it.

    Their children go to Ivy League universities, because that is where ruling-class people go to college, no matter how dumb they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. res says:
    @Anonymous
    People who've never been to a good school always maintain that they're just great, big, expensive networking seminars. Hollywood must be promoting this hoary stereotype.

    People who've attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you're the type of student who's not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.

    People who’ve attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden.

    How much would you say that varies by major? FWIW I know exactly what you mean by the bit I quoted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good point--I would agree that it varies considerably by major, and I could probably have better qualified my observations in that regard. FWIW, speed readers probably have an advantage. But I wonder if undergraduate courses are still assigning hundreds of pages of reading for the next class--and I'm talking liberal arts!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. res says:
    @slumber_j

    The problem for US colleges, I imagine, is that now there is no answer as to who the typical “you” is, so the intake can no longer be designed with any specific customer profile in mind.

    There is no normative default.
     

    My wife and I both got a Harvard AB, as did both of our fathers--and as did pretty much every male in her father's line going back to the 17th century. My maternal grandfather and most if not all of his many brothers got professional degrees there. By any normal notion of "normative," our children would be precisely the normative default, no?

    But that's just crazy talk.

    I've long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Fortunately, unlike my wife I didn't really like the place--and nowadays we both find it revolting. So I don't much care.

    I’ve long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!

    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies? I would expect them to be fast tracked given the admissions data I see for Harvard legacies (one of the fun side effects of the Asian admissions lawsuit).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You are both wrong. Legacy is a "plus" factor but it doesn't mean either auto-reject or auto-accept. Harvard is not completely lying when they say they have a "holistic" process. Once you get past the secret racial quotas (i.e. among white people) it really does work that way more or less. So if your kids are on the borderline for white people at Harvard (which would be pretty high - even 1600 SATs is no guaranty) then legacy might be the plus factor that tips the scale and gets them in, while their best friend with identical scores but no legacy might not make the cut (or it might not if they don't take a liking to the rest of your package).

    If they are not otherwise plausible candidates (say SAT below 1400) then even 10 generations of legacy (without a high seven figure donation attached to the application ) wouldn't help. The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage (there are very few other things besides being a recruited athlete that a white person could do that would triple his chances) but since the overall rate is now under 6% that still means that most legacies are going to get rejected too.
    , @slumber_j

    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies?
     
    Actually I have no idea and have done no research on the matter. But applying from New York City doesn't help, and the College's increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn't bode well.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission. Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago--out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you're right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Thud says:
    @Twinkie

    You’re picking Scandinavians as your example of European individuality?
     
    No, sir. I am - in the Popperian manner - falsifying the notion that "East Asians are indeed more conformist than round eyed slobs."

    Not all East Asians are the same, and not all "round eyed slobs" are the same either. It all depends on which "East Asians" and "round eyed slobs" you are talking about. For example, "round eyed slobs" from the border areas of Scotland and England were notoriously "independent" and querulous historically. So much so that their descendants in Appalachia today are the most crime- and poverty-ridden whites in America today. Meanwhile the Nordics who settled in the upper Midwest turned out to be quiet, hardworking, and economically productive and, yes, very conformist.

    Look, I agree that - in general - East Asians are probably more conformist than some populations groups. But it remains to be examined how much of that is based on environment (e.g. colder climate, high population density, degree of isolation, presence or lack of physio-topographic barriers that separate people, etc.) that is shared by certain European populations and not with others. I supposed that would answer why some European populations are FAR more conformist than others and why the same European population is more conformist in one era than in another.

    Much of the cult of the rugged individualism that permeates white Americans is not so much European in nature, but a uniquely American phenomenon, which likely argues for some contingent historical factors that are, again, unique to the formation of the American society.

    Stereotypes are based in reality.
     
    Nope. SOME stereotypes are based in reality. There are stereotypes that are simply incorrect by all objective measures. That's because stereotypes are not some sort of magic that accurately captures reality. They could be based on enduring observations, but they could also be based on temporary phenomena that have long ceased to be (but congealed in the minds of the people from the past). To wit: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/yellow.html

    The Korean is the perfect type of inefficiency — of utter worthlessness.
     
    A stereotype from the days when Koreans were poor, uneducated, and under the boot of the neighboring powers. I suppose the Western equivalent of that would be that of the "dirty, ignorant, immoral, and diseased Irish." But look at the Irish now - higher GDP per capita than their erstwhile overlords and betters, the United Kingdom.

    They do seem to be as clean and civilized, but they unfortunately are damn fools when it comes to looking out for the interests of their group, whereas East Asians are a virtual beehive of collective self-interest.
     
    Er, no. Scandinavians are far more socially cohesive, egalitarian, and communitarian than, say, Koreans are. There is no Scandinavian equivalent to the joke "Two Koreans, three churches." Contrary to your claims of "East Asian... beehive of collective self-interest," there is intense intra-East Asian competition and conflict. They are only the mindless, monolithic Borg in YOUR mind.

    Irelands GNI being the same as U.K. is a better measure and without EU bribes the per capita GDP would be much less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @res
    Thanks to both you and Buzz Mohawk for providing a good example of constructive disagreement. I am enjoying your conversation.

    Thank You!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Cowboy Shaw
    Last weekend I left my phone and glasses on the sea wall in a coastal Essex town. It was a busy afternoon and the local sailing club was having its annual piss up so there were plenty of drunks cruising around. I realised I'd lost my phone about an hour later some distance away and stopped a woman to ask if I could borrow her phone to call mine. She had clearly lived a hard life, her face was ravaged by booze, but said to me 'this is an honest town, someone will have it for you'. Sure enough, it had been handed in at an art gallery, they answered, and I went and picked it up.

    Essex is quite ethno-statey. Particularly on the coasts. Probably a coincidence.

    This must surely be an American Essex? Not sure I’d expect to get my phone back in Southend, UK.

    (“piss-up” = “drinking session or excuse for one, like an annual dinner”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. hyperbola says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    I was lucky to get into a Public Ivy after dropping out of high school.

    Thank you, Mr. Pedant.

    Speaking of Yale, I have my own story:

    After finishing up at that Public Ivy, I ended up working somewhere near Yale and knowing people associated with the Yale School of Management. They encouraged me to go get an MBA there. I was accepted.

    The price then was $85,000, but the opportunity cost was two years of lost income. (Hey look! "Opportunity cost." There's an economic term you might even use in business school!). Even though I could have commuted to Yale, the program was M-F daily. The real cost to me would have been between $200,000 and $300,000. Plus, to pay I would have cashed in investments that were making me money too, or taken a loan, which I have never done for school. (I worked my way through college.). I made my own business decision and decided not to go.

    We applicants were invited to a meet-and-greet at the Yale Club in Manhattan. The dean then was Jeffrey Garten, husband of the famous TV cook Ina. During the Q&A session all the questions were general except mine. I mentioned what I did and asked if I would learn anything that would help me work better in my specialty at the time, something essential to every big company that has customers.

    I will summarize Jeffery's answer in my own words: "This is Yale. You will take the same kind of classes you would take at any other business school, but this is Yale. You will make connections because this is Yale. Did I mention this is Yale?"

    During the handshake time afterward, I was three or four people back when Jeffrey made eye contact with me. He then left before I could meet him. He probably had to get home to enjoy whatever Ina was cooking for him.

    He was very, very unimpressive. Certainly not worth two years of my life and $200,000 to $300,000 of my money.

    Yale is another of “our” universities that was taken over by a racist-supremacist, foreign sect a LONG time ago. Remember that the trustee for “Skull & Bones” is still from Russell & Co., the biggest jewish opium trafficking company of the 19th century. Yes, people get introduced into deep state corruption there – for example Skull & Bones provided BOTH presidential candidates in 2004.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Isn't Russell a French surname? Odd name for a Jewish company.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Jack D says:
    @res
    I find the societal buy in to the idea of the Ivy League as a marker of intellectual excellence ridiculous in light of their admissions policies with regard to affirmative action, legacies, and athletes.

    There is certainly intellectual excellence at those institutions, but the idea that "X is intellectually elite because they went to Y university" is hard to sustain without a close look at X's background.

    Again this is nothing unique – every brand can either rest on its laurels (and decline in the long run) or maintain brand equity via advertising and favorable publicity (rather than intrinsic quality) or go from strength to strength. A brand was once literally a brand (like what is used on cattle) that was stamped onto the end of a barrel of flour because you could then buy a barrel of flour that had the “Joe’s Mill” stamp burned onto it and know that it was flour of good quality without even having to open the barrel and check the contents.

    But say after a while the owners of Joe’s Mill get sloppy and sometimes their flour is moldy or wormy or off tasting and no longer always the top quality that Joe’s Mill was renowned for, but they are letting it go out their doors anyway (see every American car company in the 1970s). For a while, people are so used to buying the Joe’s Mill brand (and hearing its advertising jingles and seeing their friends buying Joe’s) that they will keep buying it anyway. But after a few bad barrels, they may decide to switch brands or at the very least to lift the lid on the barrel and check the contents closely before they just buy based on the brand alone.

    You can see that the exact same analogy applies to a Harvard diploma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Agreed, but I think you will notice that none of that counters my actual point about how ridiculous taking the Ivy League brand at face value for indicating intellectual excellence is in the current year. Though it probably is still quite good at indicating "this person is intellectually capable relative to what is typical for those possessing their other attributes" which, thinking about it some more, is probably good enough for most people using the metric.

    The interesting questions with respect to your brand deterioration point are things like:
    - How much can product quality deteriorate before causing damage?
    - What are the time constants involved?
    - How much can marketing counter this?
    , @Autochthon

    [S]ee every American car company. in the 1970s....
     
    FTFY
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. res says:
    @Jack D

    I don’t think anyone would argue the customer is unimportant to the luxury goods provider, but perhaps Harvard is different in having such a large pool of realistic (roughly comparable) customers that it has power beyond that.
     
    Harvard is in an unusually good position in that they have 18 potential customers for every seat on sale (admission rate 5.6%) but it's not unprecedented in other businesses. Think of Hamilton tickets or the waiting list for Hermes Birkin bags and so on. Hot clubs have guys who stand at the door whose entire job description consists of turning away customers. All of these business could theoretically equalize supply and demand by either increasing supply or raising the price, but they have economically valid reasons for rationing their products by turning away customers instead.

    Good points. Hot clubs are the perfect example. Speaking of which, how do they avoid running afoul of the discrimination police? Is it because the “cool people” get in?

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?

    Does Hermes play any games with its waitlist (either positive or negative discrimination) based on who its customers are? Does anything like that happen at the retailer rather than manufacturer level?

    I guess I should be more explicit in saying that the defining characteristic of the point I am attempting to draw out is the seller exercising non-price based discrimination with respect to their customers. And just how far this goes to counteract the idea of “I am paying therefore I am the customer and have power.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?
     
    Absolutely. "This is the office of Hillary Clinton calling. President and Secretary Clinton would like to have 2 tickets in the 3 row center of the orchestra for tonight." Box Office: "The tickets will be waiting for them at the box office."
    , @Anonymous
    Will someone please tell me why 'hot clubs' haven't yet become a focus of SJW campaigns? You just know SJWs are wildly over-represented among those turned away for lack of hotness, and if one of the spergy types here demands a citation for that I will point out that they just provided one ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @JohnnyWalker123
    I've always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It's like they're the least favorite minority.

    I don't know why, but I'd assume it's related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and "chutzpah." These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that's not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That's probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy ("Men with Gold Chains") personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of "K-selection" and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a "grind" Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today's America. They're highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today's America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to "network" effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don't fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn't want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. "Gold chain" personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.

    It is natural personality aversion to a dominant oriental archetype. To the more extroverted type Caucasian, East Asians simply look autistic. To the more insular, perceptive, and autistic sorts of Caucasians, East Asians look normal. The latter aren’t in power and rarely are (Nixon being a rare example) while the former have achieved overwhelming supremacy in America. This aversion is a two way street though as we are deeply distrustful of the “I am your friend type”. The more you tell me you are my friend, the faster I count my silver.

    Yes if I was American Stalin I’d have most of the hpy MBA types shot and replaced with white middle class gentiles from intact families and non coastal states that were top of their class from public engineering schools. Hard to go wrong with those types.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Duke of Qin
    This is basically correct. A people, practicing group strategy and ethnic nepotism, will always dominate those who don't. The problem was never that gentiles aren't collectivist, but rather not collectivist enough compared to the competition. Victories are won on the margins, rarely does it ever require total advantage. A few fingers on the scale here, a few there, and before you know it somehow the organization is majority Jewish.

    I think people misunderstand East Asian conformity and mistake this as collectivism. We are very much a go with the flow people that prefer following established norms wherever they exist. This isn't collectivism though, as the "got mine, f*ck you" attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans. True collectivism, as in "my tribe, f*ck you" is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm. That type of environment just doesn't exist in the Far East or the West (before the imminvasion) but it is extremely common among the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia.

    Gold box.

    Excellent comment DoQ. Strikes me as spot on. Conformity isn’t “collectivism”. And you take here:

    True collectivism, as in “my tribe, f*ck you” is actually rare amidst the people of the Far East because those attitudes are only made possible by multi racial/cultural/religious environs where ingroup endogamy is the norm.

    i think nails the motivating–evolutionary–factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Jack D says:
    @res

    I’ve long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!
     
    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies? I would expect them to be fast tracked given the admissions data I see for Harvard legacies (one of the fun side effects of the Asian admissions lawsuit).

    You are both wrong. Legacy is a “plus” factor but it doesn’t mean either auto-reject or auto-accept. Harvard is not completely lying when they say they have a “holistic” process. Once you get past the secret racial quotas (i.e. among white people) it really does work that way more or less. So if your kids are on the borderline for white people at Harvard (which would be pretty high – even 1600 SATs is no guaranty) then legacy might be the plus factor that tips the scale and gets them in, while their best friend with identical scores but no legacy might not make the cut (or it might not if they don’t take a liking to the rest of your package).

    If they are not otherwise plausible candidates (say SAT below 1400) then even 10 generations of legacy (without a high seven figure donation attached to the application ) wouldn’t help. The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage (there are very few other things besides being a recruited athlete that a white person could do that would triple his chances) but since the overall rate is now under 6% that still means that most legacies are going to get rejected too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage
     
    You are mistaking correlation for causation. Legacy status also correlates with genes and wealth.
    , @res

    You are both wrong. Legacy is a “plus” factor but it doesn’t mean either auto-reject or auto-accept.
     
    Come on, Jack. I never said auto-accept. "Fast track" might have been a bit much, but look how much legacies and athletes move just the raw demographics:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bc2RCZ03WKA/Wysog7AYJXI/AAAAAAAAj2I/6l8qM2ahgqYav1XgG4ItT8udktM-Z21xwCLcBGAs/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-06-21%2Bat%2B12.22.08%2BAM.png

    According to this article, the legacy admissions advantage is closer to 6x (34% is nothing to sneeze at, vs. 6% for non-legacies) than 3x: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-harvard-legacy-student-advantage-20180622-story.html

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place. I assumed this was the case for slumber_j's children based on that, his comments here in general, and the tone of that particular comment. It would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with test scores and demographics for admissions percentages.

    I sincerely wonder about your hypothetical. I would like to believe it is true, but I do wonder. She is an extreme example, but do you think essentially any SAT scores (say over 1000 or 1200?) would have kept Malia Obama from being admitted to Harvard?
    , @slumber_j
    I have no idea, but that makes sense. Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than I do about this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @JohnnyWalker123
    I've always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It's like they're the least favorite minority.

    I don't know why, but I'd assume it's related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and "chutzpah." These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that's not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That's probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy ("Men with Gold Chains") personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of "K-selection" and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a "grind" Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today's America. They're highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today's America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to "network" effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don't fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn't want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. "Gold chain" personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.

    Really excellent follow-up comment Johnny.

    The bullsh*tter and Steve’s “Men with Gold Chains” concepts are quite useful in parsing what’s going on–what’s happened to our nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. res says:
    @academic gossip
    Yes, I read the statistical analysis in the expert reports. Both sides make some mistakes. Card is clearly smarter than Arcidiacono, but he has more to explain.

    The key point is Harvard's rebuttal on the personal ratings of Asians. Card is right, and Arcidiacono floundering, about whether to do year-by-year analyses and combine them. Of course you want single-year analysis and combining is not an issue. Of course you want the larger set of variables, especially SES data on the parents, for predicting admission. Card then replaces the supposedly biased personal ratings by Arcidiacono's regression-predicted ratings (minus the adverse Asian "bias" coefficient that he estimated as his proof of discrimination), and re-runs the admission analysis on this bias-free data set that shows Asians' supposedly higher level of personal quality. This procedure should show worse Asian effects than the real data set, since the admission results are the same but Asians' ratings have been raised. But instead of this procedure isolating an Asian discrimination effect, it replicates the finding that the Asian coefficient fluctuates in sign year-to-year and is small/insignificant combining the years.

    The plaintiffs have not publicized their counter-arguments to this analysis, but their options are pretty limited and lame. They are already arguing that Card is trying to noise up the analysis in the hope of swamping the Asian coefficients. The data set is way too big for that, and it doesn't explain how the Asian coefficient comes out positive in some years, when according to plaintiffs' theories, Harvard should be having to discriminate massively to get the observed white/Asian enrollment.

    Thanks for replying. This will go better if we both refer to the actual arguments in context (though that might be more effort than either of us wish to undertake).

    First, let’s be very clear. I am much more concerned about the merits of the case than things like “Card is clearly smarter than Arcidiacono” though at least you conclude by acknowledging “but he has more to explain.”

    I found Arcidiacono’s discussion of interaction variables in section “3.2 Professor Card errs in failing to include interaction terms” (pp. 19-22) of http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf
    persuasive. That argument seems so clear (I especially liked the quoting of Card’s conditions for when those variables should be included) I am led to believe Card is obfuscating.

    Can you point to the location of the Card argument to which you refer?

    Do you have any rebuttals for Steve Hsu’s blog posts on this topic?

    P.S. Are you aware of a resource for the defendant’s filings similar to https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/ for the plaintiff’s filings?

    P.P.S. I would be interested in any insights Twinkie has to offer from his stint in an Ivy League admissions office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip

    I found Arcidiacono’s discussion of interaction variables ...persuasive. That argument seems so clear (I especially liked the quoting of Card’s conditions for when those variables should be included) I am led to believe Card is obfuscating.
     
    This was actually one of the sections that makes Arcidiacono look autistic. e.g. deducing from his interacted regressions that Harvard gives no admission benefit to disadvantaged blacks vs ordinary blacks. More likely the sample did not have many disadvantaged blacks just below the margin of black admission and his estimates are unreliable. The more natural interpretation is that applicants in multiple preference categories get less than the sum of the different preferences separately. A limit on "double-dipping" rather than Harvard passing up the opportunity to get two-for-one diversity points.

    Interactions: it's defensible to do the analysis either way and it should not affect the ability to detect discrimination at these large sample sizes and purported big effects. Both experts know that and the debate on this technicality is the mandatory expert-witness game of picking every little nit.

    It is no problem to interact everything except the variable of interest (Asian) with everything else to whatever extent the available computer resources allow. There can be trouble if you interact the thing you're interested in with other variables, and that should be avoided unless there is specific reason to require it, or as a consistency test to check the non-interacted analysis.

    The real issue (re Asians) is Arcidiacono's attack on the personal rating and Card's counter-analysis that substitutes Arcidiacono's predicted (higher) rating for the one given by Harvard to the Asian applicants.


    Can you point to the location of the Card argument to which you refer?

     

    no. 57 on page 35 of the Harvard expert's rebuttal report.

    http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/legal_-_card_rebuttal_report_revised_filing.pdf

    http://admissionscase.harvard.edu/supporting-documents

    , @academic gossip

    Do you have any rebuttals for Steve Hsu’s blog posts on this topic?
     
    Yes, posted last month. Hsu mostly requoted items from media and the court filings, and my comment here disposed of his one personal "contribution" to the analysis:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/harvard-to-its-asian-rejects-its-not-you-its-your-personalit/#comment-2385095

    It's funnier than I wrote there, because Hsu digs himself deeper into the hole (without knowing it) in the comments at Infoproc. Being unaware that logistic regression will automatically fit the demographics, he says that any lack of exact fit is due to the admission process being complex and not easily described by a simple linear model. In reality it's because the Harvard OIR that wrote the report didn't use the ordinary method of simulation from the logistic regression, so their results are slightly different. Hsu is obviously (to cognoscenti) bluffing here, without an actual understanding of what he's talking about.

    Hsu's comments also reveal that he doesn't understand that logistic regression is for two outcomes only, in this case Admit/Reject. He thought that the regression tries to model Admit, Waitlist, Deny. Pretty basic stuff.

    This is far from the only example of Hsu being very confused about various topics in statistics. Which is OK, except that he claims to be able to judge the statistical dispute between the experts in the Harvard case, and summarily declared Card's arguments "laughable".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Jack D says:
    @res
    Good points. Hot clubs are the perfect example. Speaking of which, how do they avoid running afoul of the discrimination police? Is it because the "cool people" get in?

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?

    Does Hermes play any games with its waitlist (either positive or negative discrimination) based on who its customers are? Does anything like that happen at the retailer rather than manufacturer level?

    I guess I should be more explicit in saying that the defining characteristic of the point I am attempting to draw out is the seller exercising non-price based discrimination with respect to their customers. And just how far this goes to counteract the idea of "I am paying therefore I am the customer and have power."

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?

    Absolutely. “This is the office of Hillary Clinton calling. President and Secretary Clinton would like to have 2 tickets in the 3 row center of the orchestra for tonight.” Box Office: “The tickets will be waiting for them at the box office.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Fair enough, but how far do you think that extends? Two questions that might help clarify my point:
    - Is there any blackballing?
    - What proportion of tickets from the box office are distributed as in your HRC example? Thinking about NYC a bit, that number is probably far higher than my gut reaction, but I would still be interested in your take.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Anon[982] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    Harvard’s money has been badly managed for the last several years. The fact that they’ve been getting a lot in donations has been covering up for this.

    Quote from the linked article below: “The endowment’s performance in fiscal year 2017 ranks dead last among the 88 largest endowments that have reported their results, according to Bloomberg data. It’s not just one year. Harvard’s three-year, five-year and 10-year returns rank 73, 66 and 55, respectively.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-02-22/harvard-alumni-cook-up-a-dumb-idea-for-its-endowment

    If it weren’t for generous donors, their endowment’s growth would be considered unremarkable, as well as unremarkable long-term.

    From the article: “Harvard, along with other big university endowments, pioneered and still uses the so-called endowment model of investing, which calls for investments in high-priced hedge funds and private assets alongside traditional stocks and bonds.”

    One thing about hedge funds is that their long-term results mostly suck. They’re great destroyers of capital. They make money for their managers in terms of fees, which is why they keep being set up, but for the sucker investing in them? HA HA HA.

    Look up what Warren Buffett says about hedge funds. He made a famous long-term bet against them.

    One thing you can say for Harvard’s massive hiring of diversity admins, namely chicks, blacks, and browns, is that they don’t know how to handle money. This is typical ‘diversity’ behavior when it comes to cash. Their current plan, “Duh, maybe buy an index fund,” is what happens when you have no one in the money department who knows how to invest. Buying and long-term holding an index fund is what you do when you don’t know enough to actively invest money yourself, don’t want to learn about the investing process, and don’t want to be bothered with it. Harvard’s money mangers are overpaid for the service that they’re providing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Harvard's ROI was huge in the decade leading up to the crash, and weak since then.

    I don't know what's going on. Perhaps it's a little bit like a baseball player who was a superstar up until PEDs testing got strong and has only been a normal player since.

    , @Anon
    One even stranger thing is that 2017 was an easy year to make money in. The DOW just went straight up about 5000-odd points, and had no big drops at all. All you had to do was buy and hold. You can be excused for losing money in 2016 and 2018, but 2017 was a slam-dunk easy earner. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had been dipping in the till.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. hyperbola says:

    Frankly I wouldn’t want to send my children to the “brand management” practiced by Harvard, which according to “independent” rating agencies is down to #4 in the US.

    World University Rankings 2018

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

    Too much corruption at Harvard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    You are both wrong. Legacy is a "plus" factor but it doesn't mean either auto-reject or auto-accept. Harvard is not completely lying when they say they have a "holistic" process. Once you get past the secret racial quotas (i.e. among white people) it really does work that way more or less. So if your kids are on the borderline for white people at Harvard (which would be pretty high - even 1600 SATs is no guaranty) then legacy might be the plus factor that tips the scale and gets them in, while their best friend with identical scores but no legacy might not make the cut (or it might not if they don't take a liking to the rest of your package).

    If they are not otherwise plausible candidates (say SAT below 1400) then even 10 generations of legacy (without a high seven figure donation attached to the application ) wouldn't help. The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage (there are very few other things besides being a recruited athlete that a white person could do that would triple his chances) but since the overall rate is now under 6% that still means that most legacies are going to get rejected too.

    The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage

    You are mistaking correlation for causation. Legacy status also correlates with genes and wealth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. slumber_j says:
    @res

    I’ve long said that the only way either of our two children will get into Harvard College is if the Admissions Office suddenly comes down with a case of Mad Men-style nostalgia for the Bad Old Days, through which the kids attain token high-WASP status so that Harvard can have them adorn the place like Beefeaters. You know: for the rubes!
     
    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies? I would expect them to be fast tracked given the admissions data I see for Harvard legacies (one of the fun side effects of the Asian admissions lawsuit).

    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies?

    Actually I have no idea and have done no research on the matter. But applying from New York City doesn’t help, and the College’s increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn’t bode well.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission. Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago–out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you’re right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    But applying from New York City doesn’t help, and the College’s increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn’t bode well.
     
    Agreed.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission.
     
    This helps substantiate your initial concern. As I mentioned in a response to Jack D, it would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with other variables with respect to admissions percentages.

    Could you be a little more precise? Are you talking about more not getting in than were admitted? What would be the rough admit/reject percentages for legacies you know in a similar demographic category? The legacy admission rate of 34% I linked to above is probably a good baseline. I am assuming (without reasonable cause perhaps) that a decent proportion of the 66% rejected were not worthy.

    Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago–out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you’re right.
     
    The Hotchkiss wikipedia page makes it look like a good track to Harvard. Am I missing something?

    Was there anything else going on with their son (athlete, parents movers and shakers, especially smart, etc.) that might have influenced his admission?
    , @Jack D

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission.
     
    As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, being a legacy raises your odds but 2 or more out of 3 of legacies are still denied. This seems bad but not as bad as non-legacies, where 95%+ are denied.

    If you do the math, Harvard's OVERALL reject rate is over 94% BUT, the admit rate for certain groups (legacies, athletes, blacks, etc. is much higher (and the set aside groups add up to maybe 1/2 of the available seats). Therefore if you are just a garden variety white person (or even worse, an Asian) without any "hooks", then your chances of rejection are not 94%, they are even higher, maybe 97%. You might as well buy a lottery ticket as pay the app fee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. res says:
    @Jack D
    You are both wrong. Legacy is a "plus" factor but it doesn't mean either auto-reject or auto-accept. Harvard is not completely lying when they say they have a "holistic" process. Once you get past the secret racial quotas (i.e. among white people) it really does work that way more or less. So if your kids are on the borderline for white people at Harvard (which would be pretty high - even 1600 SATs is no guaranty) then legacy might be the plus factor that tips the scale and gets them in, while their best friend with identical scores but no legacy might not make the cut (or it might not if they don't take a liking to the rest of your package).

    If they are not otherwise plausible candidates (say SAT below 1400) then even 10 generations of legacy (without a high seven figure donation attached to the application ) wouldn't help. The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage (there are very few other things besides being a recruited athlete that a white person could do that would triple his chances) but since the overall rate is now under 6% that still means that most legacies are going to get rejected too.

    You are both wrong. Legacy is a “plus” factor but it doesn’t mean either auto-reject or auto-accept.

    Come on, Jack. I never said auto-accept. “Fast track” might have been a bit much, but look how much legacies and athletes move just the raw demographics:

    According to this article, the legacy admissions advantage is closer to 6x (34% is nothing to sneeze at, vs. 6% for non-legacies) than 3x: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-harvard-legacy-student-advantage-20180622-story.html

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place. I assumed this was the case for slumber_j’s children based on that, his comments here in general, and the tone of that particular comment. It would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with test scores and demographics for admissions percentages.

    I sincerely wonder about your hypothetical. I would like to believe it is true, but I do wonder. She is an extreme example, but do you think essentially any SAT scores (say over 1000 or 1200?) would have kept Malia Obama from being admitted to Harvard?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place.
     
    Uh, yeah, smart AND wealthy (with the educational oops that affords). Do you mean people aren't controlling for those variables?
    , @Anonymous
    Fun graphic, but it would be even more fun if it dared to account for the JQ.

    Q as in Quotient of course.

    And 'fun' as in 'informative'...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. res says:
    @Jack D

    Regarding your product examples, I imagine there was a fair amount of prestige based (and/or currying favor, etc.) selectivity in the way Hamilton tickets made their way through the distribution chain, but did any of that happen at the level of the theater box office itself (which I think would be the best analog for Harvard admissions)?
     
    Absolutely. "This is the office of Hillary Clinton calling. President and Secretary Clinton would like to have 2 tickets in the 3 row center of the orchestra for tonight." Box Office: "The tickets will be waiting for them at the box office."

    Fair enough, but how far do you think that extends? Two questions that might help clarify my point:
    - Is there any blackballing?
    - What proportion of tickets from the box office are distributed as in your HRC example? Thinking about NYC a bit, that number is probably far higher than my gut reaction, but I would still be interested in your take.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I don't know the details of the theater business well enough to comment on the exact % that the box office holds back but I am pretty sure that (just like luxury hotels) they do hold back a certain # just in case a VIP should happen to show up - the potential loss of goodwill from failing to kowtow to a VIP is worse than the loss of revenue from an empty seat. If too many VIPs show up, then they may have to scrounge to get some of their own tickets back from, e.g. cast members who are given a certain # of tickets.

    Airlines don't bother because they will just bump some poor shnook back to coach or off the plane and if he doesn't comply the cops will drag him off the plane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Anon[982] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Harvard prefers students who can pay full freight

    Less so than most colleges. Harvard has a gigantic endowment, so tuition is a smaller % of their budget than at most places. The ultraelite colleges give more generous financial aid than many colleges.

    What Harvard is looking for, in contrast, is somebody who might donate six, seven, or eight figures in 40 years.

    Yes, Harvard does have a lot of money, in the 40-odd billion endowment range. But they spend in the high 4 billions every year just for the operating expenses for the school. The math says they HAVE to earn 10% in income from their endowment just to break even and keep from having to draw down it down. Their spending keeps climbing, and it’s close to 5 billion a year right now.

    Making 10% year after year is doing extremely well investment-wise, and no one should count on it long-term. It’s very unlikely. Thus Harvard HAS to have generous donors just to keep their endowment from being run down.

    Harvard does not make any attempt to cut its costs or run a tight ship. Spending almost 5 billion a year to read a freaking college is ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    But they spend in the high 4 billions every year just for the operating expenses for the school. The math says they HAVE to earn 10% in income from their endowment just to break even and keep from having to draw down it down.
     
    You overlook revenue from tuition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. slumber_j says:
    @Jack D
    You are both wrong. Legacy is a "plus" factor but it doesn't mean either auto-reject or auto-accept. Harvard is not completely lying when they say they have a "holistic" process. Once you get past the secret racial quotas (i.e. among white people) it really does work that way more or less. So if your kids are on the borderline for white people at Harvard (which would be pretty high - even 1600 SATs is no guaranty) then legacy might be the plus factor that tips the scale and gets them in, while their best friend with identical scores but no legacy might not make the cut (or it might not if they don't take a liking to the rest of your package).

    If they are not otherwise plausible candidates (say SAT below 1400) then even 10 generations of legacy (without a high seven figure donation attached to the application ) wouldn't help. The legacy admit rate is something like 3x the non-legacy rate so it is a major advantage (there are very few other things besides being a recruited athlete that a white person could do that would triple his chances) but since the overall rate is now under 6% that still means that most legacies are going to get rejected too.

    I have no idea, but that makes sense. Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than I do about this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. res says:
    @Jack D
    Again this is nothing unique - every brand can either rest on its laurels (and decline in the long run) or maintain brand equity via advertising and favorable publicity (rather than intrinsic quality) or go from strength to strength. A brand was once literally a brand (like what is used on cattle) that was stamped onto the end of a barrel of flour because you could then buy a barrel of flour that had the "Joe's Mill" stamp burned onto it and know that it was flour of good quality without even having to open the barrel and check the contents.

    But say after a while the owners of Joe's Mill get sloppy and sometimes their flour is moldy or wormy or off tasting and no longer always the top quality that Joe's Mill was renowned for, but they are letting it go out their doors anyway (see every American car company in the 1970s). For a while, people are so used to buying the Joe's Mill brand (and hearing its advertising jingles and seeing their friends buying Joe's) that they will keep buying it anyway. But after a few bad barrels, they may decide to switch brands or at the very least to lift the lid on the barrel and check the contents closely before they just buy based on the brand alone.

    You can see that the exact same analogy applies to a Harvard diploma.

    Agreed, but I think you will notice that none of that counters my actual point about how ridiculous taking the Ivy League brand at face value for indicating intellectual excellence is in the current year. Though it probably is still quite good at indicating “this person is intellectually capable relative to what is typical for those possessing their other attributes” which, thinking about it some more, is probably good enough for most people using the metric.

    The interesting questions with respect to your brand deterioration point are things like:
    - How much can product quality deteriorate before causing damage?
    - What are the time constants involved?
    - How much can marketing counter this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    “intellectually capable”

    Capable of what?

    Doesn’t matter how fast that hamster can spin its wheel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. res says:
    @slumber_j

    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies?
     
    Actually I have no idea and have done no research on the matter. But applying from New York City doesn't help, and the College's increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn't bode well.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission. Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago--out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you're right.

    But applying from New York City doesn’t help, and the College’s increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn’t bode well.

    Agreed.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission.

    This helps substantiate your initial concern. As I mentioned in a response to Jack D, it would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with other variables with respect to admissions percentages.

    Could you be a little more precise? Are you talking about more not getting in than were admitted? What would be the rough admit/reject percentages for legacies you know in a similar demographic category? The legacy admission rate of 34% I linked to above is probably a good baseline. I am assuming (without reasonable cause perhaps) that a decent proportion of the 66% rejected were not worthy.

    Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago–out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you’re right.

    The Hotchkiss wikipedia page makes it look like a good track to Harvard. Am I missing something?

    Was there anything else going on with their son (athlete, parents movers and shakers, especially smart, etc.) that might have influenced his admission?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Nouveau status is frowned on, even for legacies unless there are prospects for a seven-figure gift in there somewhere (inching toward eight).

    Best have a family name that goes back at least a century, preferably three.
    , @Anonymous
    As others have observed, legacy status isn't what it once was. Simply way too many legacies out there. I believe the good ones are now called "development" candidates. It's a matter of degree, or you could say an order of magnitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    You are both wrong. Legacy is a “plus” factor but it doesn’t mean either auto-reject or auto-accept.
     
    Come on, Jack. I never said auto-accept. "Fast track" might have been a bit much, but look how much legacies and athletes move just the raw demographics:

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bc2RCZ03WKA/Wysog7AYJXI/AAAAAAAAj2I/6l8qM2ahgqYav1XgG4ItT8udktM-Z21xwCLcBGAs/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-06-21%2Bat%2B12.22.08%2BAM.png

    According to this article, the legacy admissions advantage is closer to 6x (34% is nothing to sneeze at, vs. 6% for non-legacies) than 3x: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-harvard-legacy-student-advantage-20180622-story.html

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place. I assumed this was the case for slumber_j's children based on that, his comments here in general, and the tone of that particular comment. It would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with test scores and demographics for admissions percentages.

    I sincerely wonder about your hypothetical. I would like to believe it is true, but I do wonder. She is an extreme example, but do you think essentially any SAT scores (say over 1000 or 1200?) would have kept Malia Obama from being admitted to Harvard?

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place.

    Uh, yeah, smart AND wealthy (with the educational oops that affords). Do you mean people aren’t controlling for those variables?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    In the graphic I linked legacy appeared in model 2 while model 1 already had academics. So that side (smart) is covered, at least in that set of models.

    On the other hand, I don't think they explicitly controlled for wealth. Nor do I recall seeing any admissions models which do so. It would be interesting to see how significant a variable that would be. Do you know of any models which look at that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    How about this Twinkie. How about Asians stay in Asia. And the ones currently residing in the West can go back to Asia. See how simple that was.

    How about this Twinkie…. See how simple that was

    How about this? We keep Twinkie, regardless of changes going forward. See how simple that was?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I'm cool with that if all the rest of my simple solutions are followed.

    See. Simple. I'm easy that way.

    Diversity is NOT strength.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @dr kill
    The first two years of an Ivy League Med School with which I'm familiar featured 45 credits of classwork each semester for 4 straight semesters. That's a lot of work. I maintain that it is the amount of material, not the material itself, that is the real load.

    Is that possible? most semesters are 17 or 18 units of work. And that’s a lot if it includes stuff like organic chemistry and physics.

    45 credits… does that mean units? There wouldn’t be time in the day for all the classes.

    but, of course, giving students that much to learn is wasteful. Better they do 1/2 that and actually master the material, even at the med school level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    8 hours of lecture a day plus Saturday mornings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Art Deco says:
    @Anon
    There are no truly private colleges.

    Most colleges, including Harvard get government grants for useful research and all sorts of things The medical schools all get government grants Every college in the country has a department that does nothing but apply for government grants Tuition is paid by government guaranteed student loans.

    Once an organization takes a dime of government money they have to obey all the government affirmative action rules.

    Example is the Catholic colleges that had to allow gay activists to form official gay organizations because they take government money.

    I doubt they actually had to. Under circumstances where conditions are present and enforced, the grant money pipeline is an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. The religious orders no longer have the manpower to run institutions of higher education, Catholics who make it to confession once a year number maybe 6 million so aren’t much of a pool from which to build a faithful lay teacher corps, and the residue in the religious orders is shot through with homosexuals. There are 200-odd institutions which have a Catholic heritage; the number whose curriculum, ceremonial, and disciplinary practice is informed by that might just make it into two-digits. Or it might not.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. ATBOTL says:

    The really interesting question is what’s going to happen to the anti-white, Jewish and Asian dominated elite colleges as the nationalist movement grows and totally replaces the dying boomer cuck right.

    Harvard, Yale etc. are going to come under sustained attack by nationalist forces. These institutions are some of the most hated in the nationalist movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "Harvard, Yale etc. are going to come under sustained attack by nationalist forces. These institutions are some of the most hated in the nationalist movement."

    If so, they are wrong. Elitism, tradition and high standards are conservative values. As are the legacy and athlete preferences the schools maintain.

    The problem with Big Ed is the bottom half of colleges that probably shouldn't exist, and wouldn't exist outside of massive federal subsidies.

    Harvard and Yale train and educate many fine patriotic conservatives like Alito and Brett K., and employ many great scientists and scholars.

    Compare them to the gigantic, mostly NAM, mostly sub 100-IQ Cal State schools, which are gigantic boondoggles for the far left faculty and staff and 4 to 7 year vacations for the majority of NAM students on the federal pell grant and student "loan" welfare dole. Think of Pablo "They" Gomez, the nutcase Lesbian Penthouse Window Jumper who had a $400,000 fake job, the Muslima professor who posted celebratory tweets when Barbara Bush died.
    , @Anonymous

    The really interesting question is what’s going to happen to the anti-white, Jewish and Asian dominated elite colleges as the nationalist movement grows and totally replaces the dying boomer cuck right.
     
    Well since what you call 'the nationalist movement' is chiefly a figment of your imagination, we don't really have to concern ourselves with such an eventuality.

    Remember Hart-Celler? It killed your nascent movement some time ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    “Sure Harvard is great.“

    I’m not.

    Superfluous caveats are unmanly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveM

    “Sure Harvard is great.“

    I’m not.

    Superfluous caveats are unmanly.
     

    American Elites use academic pedigrees as proxies for genuine wisdom and insight. Inculcated with arrogance, hubris and conceit Harvard graduates and faculty have parachuted into Washington and Wall Street for decades where they proceeded to wreck businesses and entire economies, formulate and implement social programs with pathological unintended consequences and hatch foreign subversion and perpetual wars that have cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS.

    If somebody tells you he/she is from the Kennedy School with advice, run away.

    Better we listen to the chastened Harvard rejects who graduated from Haverford and Swarthmore with a note of humility.

    P.S. Note that the Harvard graduates and their fellow Elite cognoscenti always walk away rich from their wreckage. How convenient...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @res

    But applying from New York City doesn’t help, and the College’s increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn’t bode well.
     
    Agreed.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission.
     
    This helps substantiate your initial concern. As I mentioned in a response to Jack D, it would be interesting to see how legacy status interacts with other variables with respect to admissions percentages.

    Could you be a little more precise? Are you talking about more not getting in than were admitted? What would be the rough admit/reject percentages for legacies you know in a similar demographic category? The legacy admission rate of 34% I linked to above is probably a good baseline. I am assuming (without reasonable cause perhaps) that a decent proportion of the 66% rejected were not worthy.

    Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago–out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you’re right.
     
    The Hotchkiss wikipedia page makes it look like a good track to Harvard. Am I missing something?

    Was there anything else going on with their son (athlete, parents movers and shakers, especially smart, etc.) that might have influenced his admission?

    Nouveau status is frowned on, even for legacies unless there are prospects for a seven-figure gift in there somewhere (inching toward eight).

    Best have a family name that goes back at least a century, preferably three.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Is this a reality based observation (i.e. do you have data and/or significant personal experience showing it) or just an opinion? FWIW, I suspect there is some truth in it, but would really like to see evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @res
    Agreed, but I think you will notice that none of that counters my actual point about how ridiculous taking the Ivy League brand at face value for indicating intellectual excellence is in the current year. Though it probably is still quite good at indicating "this person is intellectually capable relative to what is typical for those possessing their other attributes" which, thinking about it some more, is probably good enough for most people using the metric.

    The interesting questions with respect to your brand deterioration point are things like:
    - How much can product quality deteriorate before causing damage?
    - What are the time constants involved?
    - How much can marketing counter this?

    “intellectually capable”

    Capable of what?

    Doesn’t matter how fast that hamster can spin its wheel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    So you don't think there is any difference between having a technical conversation with someone with an IQ around 130 and someone with an IQ around 100? What kind of background do you have? You come across as a smart guy from the comments, but I don't get this one. I understand that academic measures of intelligence correspond imperfectly with ability to do things requiring intelligence in the real world, but the correspondence is not that bad (e.g. see Army research behind the AFQT).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @JohnnyWalker123
    I've always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It's like they're the least favorite minority.

    I don't know why, but I'd assume it's related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and "chutzpah." These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that's not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That's probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy ("Men with Gold Chains") personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of "K-selection" and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a "grind" Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today's America. They're highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today's America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to "network" effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don't fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn't want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. "Gold chain" personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.

    Gold chains sure looks to be beating low energy handily. A functioning set of balls turned out to matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. GU says:
    @JimB
    I dunno about Harvard’s brand management in the 21st century. Essentially, they have trashed their reputation as a liberal arts school with affirmative action hires and a gutted curriculum in humanities. Sure, they pump out a lot of social justice trolls, but are they still pumping out future internet billionaires or Supreme Court Justices? Time will tell, I suppose. In terms of academic rigor, Harvard ranks 25 according to Business Insider; MIT Ranks 1 and U Chicago ranks 2. Chicago is now at the top of the Liberal Arts heap and has worked their way up from top 10 to top 3 in the last decade, despite the harsh weather and crap neighborhood. Their secret sauce has been a level of academic integrity unsurpassed by any Ivy League school.

    “Crap neighborhood”

    Hyde Park is actually pretty nice these days. It’s still surrounded by crap neighbirhoods, and annoyingly far from the best neighborhoods in Chicago. But Hyde Park itself ain’t so bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Twinkie

    This isn’t collectivism though, as the “got mine, f*ck you” attitude is unfortunately extremely common among the Chinese and Koreans.
     
    Much of what you say rings true. However, things are changing - for better or worse - in East Asia.

    For example, this used to not happen in South Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ

    But now, in Seoul, you can leave your stuff (iPad, wallet, etc.) on a coffee shop table and leave for an hour and return and still find your items there. Foreigners - including those from prosperous Western countries - in South Korea often find this quite remarkable and unimaginable in their home countries.

    Some people also ran the "a child collapses in public" experiment in South Korea. Interestingly, younger generation people walking by almost uniformly tried to help a strange child in distress whereas the older generation was more likely to walk by ("not my business"). The same result was obtained with another experiment in which an unattended table was left in public with "free gifts" and asking for a small donation in return - again, younger Koreans generally deposited donations, but older ones were more likely to not give any and even grab more than one item!

    This kind of high civic-minded culture is less established in China than in South Korea for obvious reasons, but I suspect it is likely that the Chinese will catch up to the Koreans if their standards of living climb near to that of the latter.

    There are four times as many Presbyterians in South Korea than there are in the US, and most of the Korean ones act like the US ones did back when we used to run the joint.

    High character, high competence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @JimB
    Identifying the future wealthy is a sucker’s game. Harvard has probably rejected 4/5 of the world’s billionaires and the other 1/5 dropped out. Harvard’s wealth comes mainly from it’s money managers and Wall Street insider status.

    Billionaires are usually hugely successful entrepreneurs. An Ivy League degree is a disincentive to pursuing entrepreneurship, because it opens doors to high paying jobs at big firms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JimB
    Good point. Which is why Harvard's army of loyal alumni insiders are so important to their endowment.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Don't know about that. Six of the eight ivies accounted for 16% of the Forbes top 400 billionaires. Ballpark the other two, and you have ~20% of top billionaires coming from the Ivy League. Obviously, that number is a bit higher if you include drop-outs from Harvard.

    That seems like one of Steve's glass half full/half empty stats. Twenty percent is a lot for eight schools, but it's only 20%. Ten colleges accounted for 26% of the billionaires. That's quite a bit. Btw, UPenn was the clear leader with Harvard being in the middle of the pack. Better to enjoy the nice weather at Stanford or USC. Only one public school - Michigan - in the top 10.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/10/17/the-10-schools-that-mint-the-most-u-s-billionaires/#2bcc454f4d52
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. sabril says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "But Harvard’s worry a century ago was that it would get so popular with Jews that Jews wouldn’t go there anymore."

    Wait, what?

    Almost like saying, "Why would any top 1%'ers ever want to live in exclusive Beverly Hills/Bel Air/West Palm Beach/the Hamptons/etc?

    That sounds along the lines of, "I wouldn't want to get into a country club that would have me as a member".

    Today, Harvard (as in the 1920s) remains popular with Jews and other Right Side of the Bell Curve groups. Can it be predicted that there will come a time that the most elitist brand of higher education will have a falling out with the Right Side of the Bell Curve?

    Anything's possible, (if another brand in higher education should suddenly out of nowhere become "THE" top elite brand in all of higher education) but for now, that doesn't seem likely. After all, it is the US's first and oldest established university (1636).

    Anti-semites have this fantasy that Jewish people like to follow WASPS around. That there are summer resorts which made the mistake of admitting Jews; that the Jews drove out the WASPS and then lost interest in the resort once the WASPS were gone. Nobody has ever been able to provide evidence for this fantasy though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Jack D
    Oh, bullshit. HY have been selecting from an elite class for the last 300 years. You were just too dumb to notice it because they had the same nominal religion and came from the same nominal ethnic group - maybe you couldn't tell the difference between them and you, but THEY could sure as hell tell the difference between themselves and you. The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn't change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.

    The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn’t change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.

    Maybe, but speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I can say that I’d rather be callously ruled over by people of my own tribe than callously ruled over by people of another tribe. Hell, most people would prefer poor rulers from their own tribe over good rulers from another tribe. The British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Except Lowell doesn’t consider you a member of his tribe and hasn’t for over seventy years.
    , @Jack D

    British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.
     
    Absolutely, and that's why Zimbabwe today is like a real life Wakanda and SE DC is a paradise. White nationalists should learn from this and make their cities and countries just as great by privileging race over competence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. JimB says:
    @dr kill
    The first two years of an Ivy League Med School with which I'm familiar featured 45 credits of classwork each semester for 4 straight semesters. That's a lot of work. I maintain that it is the amount of material, not the material itself, that is the real load.

    I’ve been told that he curriculum for all four-year medical schools is highly standardized — same textbooks, lectures, labs, and hospital rounds. The point of this is so every patient will, in principle, receive the same standard of care. I suspect the benefit of graduating from Harvard Med School is realized when you apply for post graduate fellowships to learn a specialty. Harvard grads are more likely to become pediatric surgeons at John Hopkins. Grads from last ranked Howard University are more likely to end up as GPs, obstetricians, and proctologists at the Famila Clinica Gratuita.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Harvard grads are more likely to become pediatric surgeons at Mass General.

    Baltimore?! Really?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. JimB says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Billionaires are usually hugely successful entrepreneurs. An Ivy League degree is a disincentive to pursuing entrepreneurship, because it opens doors to high paying jobs at big firms.

    Good point. Which is why Harvard’s army of loyal alumni insiders are so important to their endowment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. SteveM says:
    @Desiderius
    “Sure Harvard is great.“

    I’m not.

    Superfluous caveats are unmanly.

    “Sure Harvard is great.“

    I’m not.

    Superfluous caveats are unmanly.

    American Elites use academic pedigrees as proxies for genuine wisdom and insight. Inculcated with arrogance, hubris and conceit Harvard graduates and faculty have parachuted into Washington and Wall Street for decades where they proceeded to wreck businesses and entire economies, formulate and implement social programs with pathological unintended consequences and hatch foreign subversion and perpetual wars that have cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS.

    If somebody tells you he/she is from the Kennedy School with advice, run away.

    Better we listen to the chastened Harvard rejects who graduated from Haverford and Swarthmore with a note of humility.

    P.S. Note that the Harvard graduates and their fellow Elite cognoscenti always walk away rich from their wreckage. How convenient…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. JimB says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    One thing about Harvard that should turn some people off: It is now a cliché among strivers and nouveau anybodies. No wonder Asian people just want to go there so bad. They are predictable.

    People who don't know anything about higher education or careers or much of anything just know that Hahvahd is the best place to go to college.

    It's like when Rolls-Royce was "The Best Car in the World" even though it wasn't and isn't.

    Sure Harvard is great. It just isn't the only place. What it is now is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- because yes, it "creates" elites. The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country.

    The reason you go is not to learn but to join the club of assholes who run our country…

    …into the ground.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Twinkie

    Jeffrey Garten did not impress me, and I was his prospective customer. That’s a little business lesson for you.
     
    That's where you were and remain confused. You weren't his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn't close the sale. Don't let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.

    The point is, Twink, some of us are rubbed the wrong way by being told that the reason we should pay for something is because of the name.
     
    You only buy generic, right?

    but I agree with you the term is meaningless. It’s just that some flagship state universities are better than others
     
    So, the Ivies are no better than state universities, but some state universities are better than other state universities?

    This strikes me as "He who drives faster than I do is crazy, but he who drives slower is stupid" type of argument. : )

    “So, the Ivies are no better than state universities, but some state universities are better than other state universities?”

    He neither said nor implied any such thing.

    You clearly know nothing of those state flagship schools which were precisely founded to be the local equivalents of Harvard and Yale – the University of Michigan or UC Berkeley, for example.

    I know from my own family history that both were immediately accepted as such by Harvard and Yale men who found themselves in California, and with numerous children to educate. Berkeley was the place they first looked, and still did well into the post-War period. I’m talking about people who went West from the 1850s to the 1880s. The Johnnie-come-latelies of the Gilded Age did tend to look to Stanford – founded as it was by a crook not unlike themselves.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You clearly know nothing of those state flagship schools
     
    Clearly not... since I taught at one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Slight correction, they didn’t say thanks.

    My high school was about one third Jewish. From September of junior year all I heard was “ I’ll be discriminated against applying to college because I’m Jewish” boo hoo boo hoo cry the Whining Weiners.

    From about 1900 on, Jews were always way over represented at Harvard.

    When did you go to high school? The Jewish quotas were dropped in the early 1960′s, weren’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    It's too bad your kids aren't smart enough to get in on merit. I have a number of classmates, including WASPs, whose kids did get into my Ivy Alma Mater. The trick is to actually do well on SATs, have stellar grades and be interesting, not just coast on legacy. The Ivies are trying to weed out some of the decaying old money families, which is probably just as well. Not much point in tying your wagon to Prescotts, Winthrops and Adams when Kushners and Zuckerbergs are running things.

    Are you referring to Jared Kushner’s entry into Harvard as a model of meritocracy in action? Because even before he shot to fame for being Trump’s son-in-law, he was famous for the getting into Harvard with the help of a hefty donation and help from politicians connected to his father. Teachers at his high school have said that there were more qualified applicants in his year who didn’t get in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Twinkie

    careful Twinkie. If your kids are in the application time don’t make comments (of any kind on any forum for the next 4 years), for Christ’s sake!
     
    I. Do. Not. Care.

    My sons are likely headed to the service academies and my daughters to Christian/Great Books curriculum colleges. You know, colleges with rules such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas_College

    Men's and women's residence halls are off-limits to members of the opposite sex.
     

    As it happens, I knew well (and in some cases intimately) just about all of the founders of Thomas Aquinas College, from the religious, the academic, and the financial points of view, particularly the latter, the college’s biggest donor (at least for the foundational period) having known my father and his brothers from the time they were all students at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I continually meet graduates of the place.

    I would just say this: if your daughters have any tendency to self-regard, then don’t send them there. It turns out, enough at least for a pattern to be observable, priggish, self-satisfied know-it-alls, few of whom actually know much more than a smattering of the Great Books curriculum, liberally spiced with post-Vatican II faux Catholicism.

    Worst of all, they often end up as willing tools of Opus Dei. You really don’t want that for your children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I would just say this: if your daughters have any tendency to self-regard, then don’t send them there. It turns out, enough at least for a pattern to be observable, priggish, self-satisfied know-it-alls, few of whom actually know much more than a smattering of the Great Books curriculum, liberally spiced with post-Vatican II faux Catholicism.
     
    Well, we'll just have to disagree regarding the personal qualities of the graduates of TAC.

    Worst of all, they often end up as willing tools of Opus Dei. You really don’t want that for your children.
     
    What's your problem with Opus Dei?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. 3g4me says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That’s where you were and remain confused. You weren’t his prospective customer. *He* was YOUR prospective customer. And you didn’t close the sale. Don’t let the fact that you might appear to pay him confuse you to the true nature of the hierarchy in the relationship.
     
    I guess it depends on one's personality and where one's brass is located. I own my own business now. It was in my nature to judge Mr. Garten and his school. I was accepted. I didn't need to close the sale; he did and he failed. I was going to be a paying customer.

    You are describing it from the perspective of someone coming on his knees. Not a very manly image.

    A college is a business and needs customers. The article we are supposedly commenting on is about Harvard's brand management.

    @45 Buzz Mohawk: “I guess it depends on one’s personality and where one’s brass is located. I own my own business now. It was in my nature to judge Mr. Garten and his school . . . A college is a business and needs customers.”

    Once again, Buzz, you are my favorite commenter here. Solid American common sense, self respect, and self reliance radiate from your words. Regardless of where you went to school, it sounds as though you lived the life you chose based on your values, not what others told you to value. And the fact that today a college IS a business is almost forgotten by most, who are addled by the faux mystique of “branding.” Mention of my 7 Sisters’ school either brings unwarranted admiration, or vague queries like “That’s a teacher’s college, right?” Had I a daughter, she would be forbidden to apply to the now vile institution. And my years in Singapore strongly support your thesis that Asians are, by and large, hugely conformist and social climbers (whether in their own country or as immigrants). The kiasu principle – never let anyone get ahead of you – always holds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    This is late, but I forgot to thank you, and I hope you read this. There are many good arguers here who have lots of knowledge, so I often become aware of my limits. Your comment is reassuring, like your earlier one. Thanks again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Dave Pinsen
    Billionaires are usually hugely successful entrepreneurs. An Ivy League degree is a disincentive to pursuing entrepreneurship, because it opens doors to high paying jobs at big firms.

    Don’t know about that. Six of the eight ivies accounted for 16% of the Forbes top 400 billionaires. Ballpark the other two, and you have ~20% of top billionaires coming from the Ivy League. Obviously, that number is a bit higher if you include drop-outs from Harvard.

    That seems like one of Steve’s glass half full/half empty stats. Twenty percent is a lot for eight schools, but it’s only 20%. Ten colleges accounted for 26% of the billionaires. That’s quite a bit. Btw, UPenn was the clear leader with Harvard being in the middle of the pack. Better to enjoy the nice weather at Stanford or USC. Only one public school – Michigan – in the top 10.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/10/17/the-10-schools-that-mint-the-most-u-s-billionaires/#2bcc454f4d52

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    An Ivy degree opens doors to high paying jobs, which are disincentives to entrepreneurship (at least initially). Though in finance, it's possible to be an entrepreneur of sorts later and become a billionaire. E.g., alumni who go to Goldman Sachs after school and then, 10 or 15 years later leave to start a hedge fund or a private equity firm or something.

    That article includes at least a couple of billionaire heirs for some reason (e.g., Pritzker), which is odd.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Peter Akuleyev
    People should really look at graduate schools. I think they matter far more

    This is exactly right, a kid who goes to Michigan undergrad and then gets a Wharton MBA has more social status than a kid who goes the reverse route. What is the racial composition of the average Harvard Business School, Law School or Medical School class? That would be interesting.

    Depends on both who you are and what you want out of Harvard.

    If you are a member of the old Wasp elite, who went, say, and like his father and maybe even grandfather before him, to Groton first, and then to Harvard College, then you have completed the essential steps. What happens next is not socially important, and if you are of a family rooted enough in its ancestral territory, not likely to be important financially either.

    But if you are from nowhere, then Harvard Business or Law School is not merely desirable, but essential, at least if you want a measure of social acceptance from the old guard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. 3g4me says:
    @Anonymous
    People who've never been to a good school always maintain that they're just great, big, expensive networking seminars. Hollywood must be promoting this hoary stereotype.

    People who've attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you're the type of student who's not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.

    @110 Anonymous [337]: “People who’ve attended the better schools know (among other things) that the workload alone would crush most beasts of burden. Sure, you make friends, particularly if you’re the type of student who’s not focused on grades and test scores. But you also learn. A lot.”

    I beg to differ. Although I certainly treasure the classic liberal arts education I received, and although I learned a lot and worked fairly hard, I was no swotter – nor were most of my schoolmates. My relatives and friends at Harvard, in comparison, did almost no work during the semester and then spent their month of exam prep (MONTH!! We had FOUR DAYS!!) to learn all the material. When they came to visit our 7 Sisters’ school, they were amazed at how many people were busy writing papers all the time.

    Ivy undergrad degrees are not at all impressive to me. Graduate degrees from those institutions appear to have more substance, along with the still over-valued brand name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Jack D
    Again this is nothing unique - every brand can either rest on its laurels (and decline in the long run) or maintain brand equity via advertising and favorable publicity (rather than intrinsic quality) or go from strength to strength. A brand was once literally a brand (like what is used on cattle) that was stamped onto the end of a barrel of flour because you could then buy a barrel of flour that had the "Joe's Mill" stamp burned onto it and know that it was flour of good quality without even having to open the barrel and check the contents.

    But say after a while the owners of Joe's Mill get sloppy and sometimes their flour is moldy or wormy or off tasting and no longer always the top quality that Joe's Mill was renowned for, but they are letting it go out their doors anyway (see every American car company in the 1970s). For a while, people are so used to buying the Joe's Mill brand (and hearing its advertising jingles and seeing their friends buying Joe's) that they will keep buying it anyway. But after a few bad barrels, they may decide to switch brands or at the very least to lift the lid on the barrel and check the contents closely before they just buy based on the brand alone.

    You can see that the exact same analogy applies to a Harvard diploma.

    [S]ee every American car company. in the 1970s….

    FTFY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. res says:
    @Desiderius
    “intellectually capable”

    Capable of what?

    Doesn’t matter how fast that hamster can spin its wheel.

    So you don’t think there is any difference between having a technical conversation with someone with an IQ around 130 and someone with an IQ around 100? What kind of background do you have? You come across as a smart guy from the comments, but I don’t get this one. I understand that academic measures of intelligence correspond imperfectly with ability to do things requiring intelligence in the real world, but the correspondence is not that bad (e.g. see Army research behind the AFQT).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ. Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.

    Also understanding high character, let alone developing it.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. res says:
    @Desiderius
    Nouveau status is frowned on, even for legacies unless there are prospects for a seven-figure gift in there somewhere (inching toward eight).

    Best have a family name that goes back at least a century, preferably three.

    Is this a reality based observation (i.e. do you have data and/or significant personal experience showing it) or just an opinion? FWIW, I suspect there is some truth in it, but would really like to see evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Insignificant personal experience.

    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families, and should.

    They’re the human equivalent of the great cathedrals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. 3g4me says:
    @27 year old

    Don’t you think our elite universities should be weeding out the people who only want to be there for the status? Since those admissions departments are deciding who our future leaders will be, shouldn’t they select students who have the highest values?
     
    Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people.

    @138 27 year old: “Yes, but they’re not our universities.

    HY are selecting rulers of a conquered territory, not leaders among a free people.”

    Point, game, set, and match.

    I already glanced at Jack D’s utterly predictable reply to you – Jews, like Asians, are big believers in branding = quality. Whether true or not, branding /= American, which has a quality all its own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn’t change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.
     
    Maybe, but speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I can say that I'd rather be callously ruled over by people of my own tribe than callously ruled over by people of another tribe. Hell, most people would prefer poor rulers from their own tribe over good rulers from another tribe. The British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.

    Except Lowell doesn’t consider you a member of his tribe and hasn’t for over seventy years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Doesn't matter. He's a part of my tribe whether he likes it or not. He and his kind will relearn the lessons of history. White hubris is a product of the amazing success of whites from 1500 to 1965. That's a long time to be kicking other people's asses. Gets people to thinking that their shit don't stink.

    Well, it does.

    Tribalism is making a comeback, as nature dictates. The Lowell-types will need to start making a choice: My tribe or no tribe. It won't be hard to figure out the best route. Lowell may hate me, but his kids or grandkids will either stand by my side or they will be non-existent or part of another tribe vis breeding. Either way, he's the past.

    It's only been 55 years since the U.S. government started this multi-everything crusade. And, really, it only ramped up 20 to 30 years ago. It's already starting to show cracks. What happens in another 30 years.

    People don't like to be ruled over by other tribes - correctly.

    Maybe, I'm wrong. I mean, California and Texas seem to function and that's our future. But multi-ethnic - much less multi-racial - societies have never worked in the past. Why should they work now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Jack D says:
    @res
    Fair enough, but how far do you think that extends? Two questions that might help clarify my point:
    - Is there any blackballing?
    - What proportion of tickets from the box office are distributed as in your HRC example? Thinking about NYC a bit, that number is probably far higher than my gut reaction, but I would still be interested in your take.

    I don’t know the details of the theater business well enough to comment on the exact % that the box office holds back but I am pretty sure that (just like luxury hotels) they do hold back a certain # just in case a VIP should happen to show up – the potential loss of goodwill from failing to kowtow to a VIP is worse than the loss of revenue from an empty seat. If too many VIPs show up, then they may have to scrounge to get some of their own tickets back from, e.g. cast members who are given a certain # of tickets.

    Airlines don’t bother because they will just bump some poor shnook back to coach or off the plane and if he doesn’t comply the cops will drag him off the plane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @res
    Is this a reality based observation (i.e. do you have data and/or significant personal experience showing it) or just an opinion? FWIW, I suspect there is some truth in it, but would really like to see evidence.

    Insignificant personal experience.

    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families, and should.

    They’re the human equivalent of the great cathedrals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families

    Exactly. That's why Facebook is run by a Washington and Apple is run by a Franklin and the POTUS in 2018 is still a Madison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Jack D says:
    @slumber_j

    Do you really think this is true given that your children are double (and multigenerational) legacies?
     
    Actually I have no idea and have done no research on the matter. But applying from New York City doesn't help, and the College's increasingly open war on White Privilege and even generalized elitism[!] doesn't bode well.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission. Then again the son of a couple of Ur-WASP friends who married after Harvard and live on the Upper East Side did get in a few years ago--out of Hotchkiss, no less. So maybe you're right.

    I do know a lot of people who went there and nevertheless had their perfectly worthy children denied admission.

    As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, being a legacy raises your odds but 2 or more out of 3 of legacies are still denied. This seems bad but not as bad as non-legacies, where 95%+ are denied.

    If you do the math, Harvard’s OVERALL reject rate is over 94% BUT, the admit rate for certain groups (legacies, athletes, blacks, etc. is much higher (and the set aside groups add up to maybe 1/2 of the available seats). Therefore if you are just a garden variety white person (or even worse, an Asian) without any “hooks”, then your chances of rejection are not 94%, they are even higher, maybe 97%. You might as well buy a lottery ticket as pay the app fee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @res
    So you don't think there is any difference between having a technical conversation with someone with an IQ around 130 and someone with an IQ around 100? What kind of background do you have? You come across as a smart guy from the comments, but I don't get this one. I understand that academic measures of intelligence correspond imperfectly with ability to do things requiring intelligence in the real world, but the correspondence is not that bad (e.g. see Army research behind the AFQT).

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ. Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.

    Also understanding high character, let alone developing it.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ
     
    Then your understanding is wrong. The correlation between IQ and success never turns negative at any value - it's like being rich - you can never be too rich. People, due to "sour grapes", WANT to believe that somehow there is a price to be paid for being too rich or too smart (and there is to some extent, but the benefits generally outweigh the costs). For every guy like Bobby Fischer whose high intelligence came at the price of being as crazy as a loon, there are 5 von Neumanns who are both smart AND well adjusted.
    , @res

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ.
     
    What Jack D said. This is a popular meme, but it does not withstand close examination. If you like studies and data the SMPY is a great place to start (I can give more specific pointers if you are interested).

    From an intuitive point of view, I think the simple explanation is that the normal distribution falls off so quickly above ~2SD (130 IQ) that people around your 125-130 level tend to be very well represented in fields where IQ helps but is not the be all and end all (contrast theoretical physics) because there are so many more of them (about 2% of people are over 130 IQ, about 0.1% of people are over 145 IQ, so ~20x difference). The greater number gives more chances at good luck both in life events and in the presence of non-IQ specific skills which also matter. There is also an argument based on the idea that the best leaders are within an SD or two of their followers' IQs.

    Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.
     
    Yes. Intellectual capability is not everything.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.
     
    Well said. I would emphasize the loss of ability to understand, empathize, and work with other non-"elite" human beings.

    Though I do have some qualms about calling what they select for "abstract thinking." That is certainly true in the disconnected from reality sense, but it tends not to be very rigorous for many. For those it is more just a matter of putting fancy words together in a forceful fashion that convinces people who don't know any better.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.
     
    Not sure how to take this. Do you care to be more explicit?
    , @Lot
    Terman's study found otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Jack D says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn’t change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.
     
    Maybe, but speaking as one of the unwashed masses, I can say that I'd rather be callously ruled over by people of my own tribe than callously ruled over by people of another tribe. Hell, most people would prefer poor rulers from their own tribe over good rulers from another tribe. The British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.

    British colonial experience proves that, as do the black voters in D.C.

    Absolutely, and that’s why Zimbabwe today is like a real life Wakanda and SE DC is a paradise. White nationalists should learn from this and make their cities and countries just as great by privileging race over competence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    White nationalists should learn from this and make their cities and countries just as great by privileging race over competence.
     
    False dilemma.

    Unlike in a blacktopia, whites can exclusively privilege racial whiteness and enjoy an abundance of competence in an overwhelmingly white milieu.
    , @Anonymous

    White nationalists should learn from this and make their cities and countries just as great
     
    Which cities and countries are those, pray tell?
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, because Europe ruled by Europeans never amounted to anything.

    You seem a decent fellow, but you can't seem to step outside of yourself, which shouldn't be surprising given your lineage. It's all about tribe.

    And for that I say, "Thank you." It's not about the argument; it's about winning points for your tribe.

    Intellectual arguments are an intra-tribal thing.* God, I was a child. I can't thank you enough for helping me grow up.

    *Obviously, we're not talking STEM discussions. If you ever want to talk about investing, I'm all ears.

    , @AnotherDad

    Absolutely, and that’s why Zimbabwe today is like a real life Wakanda and SE DC is a paradise. White nationalists should learn from this and make their cities and countries just as great by privileging race over competence.
     
    Jack, you're too smart for this kind of abject stupidity.

    Yes, some--maybe most--places in Africa went backward after colonialism, but--newflash!--whites are not blacks. (And, of course, Citizen's point was about what people want.)

    I know it just galls some Jews, but whites actually do not need Jews around to create nice places to live. America was a great place to live well before any significant number of Jews showed up in the "Great Wave". Likewise, the other Anglo-Sphere outposts. Likewise postwar Germany. Likewise pre-immigration Scandinavia. Likewise ... well most places where whites are dominant and self-confidently in charge of their nations. Whites are actually quite capable--arguably the best in the world (Japanese may disagree)--in creating great places to live.

    And actually, perusing what's going on in the world, having significant numbers of Jews in positions of influence over your society--or Jewish ideas, ideologies, media--actually seems to be a *really bad* idea. America was a pretty terrific place with the WASPs still pretty firmly in charge in say 1950. After the great post-war rise-of-the-Jews--and Jewish "lessons of the holocaust", "nation of immigrants", "multiculturalism" ideologies--the future of America looks decidedly more bleak. Especially for the descendants of the Americans who were here in 1950.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius
    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ. Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.

    Also understanding high character, let alone developing it.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ

    Then your understanding is wrong. The correlation between IQ and success never turns negative at any value – it’s like being rich – you can never be too rich. People, due to “sour grapes”, WANT to believe that somehow there is a price to be paid for being too rich or too smart (and there is to some extent, but the benefits generally outweigh the costs). For every guy like Bobby Fischer whose high intelligence came at the price of being as crazy as a loon, there are 5 von Neumanns who are both smart AND well adjusted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I don’t think “we’ll-adjusted” really captures what we’re driving at.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. dr kill says:
    @stillCARealist
    Is that possible? most semesters are 17 or 18 units of work. And that's a lot if it includes stuff like organic chemistry and physics.

    45 credits... does that mean units? There wouldn't be time in the day for all the classes.

    but, of course, giving students that much to learn is wasteful. Better they do 1/2 that and actually master the material, even at the med school level.

    8 hours of lecture a day plus Saturday mornings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Jimi says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I've always gotten this vague sense that the system somehow discriminates against East Asian men. It's like they're the least favorite minority.

    I don't know why, but I'd assume it's related to East Asian men being taciturn, stoic, and business-like. We live in an age that favors verbosity, glibness, and "chutzpah." These are exactly the opposite of the traits that East Asian men embody, but that's not necessarily always true of East Asian women.

    That's probably one advantage that South Asians (both male and female) have over East Asians. South Asians have the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Swarthy ("Men with Gold Chains") personality type to some extent, which makes them compatible with the Jewish-dominated social order. South Asians also historically lived in a highly Malthusian environment with intense agriculture, which enabled them with some degree of "K-selection" and diligence. So South Asians combine verbosity with a "grind" Tiger Mom culture, which is a pretty good combination for succeeding in today's America. They're highly ethnocentric too, which is another trait that favors success in today's America.

    From my experience, the most successful people are those who are diligent when they need to be (especially with respect to academics), but also are adept at bullsh*tting when the need arises. Groups like Jews, South Asians, Persians, Armenians, and Christian Arabs fit this. These groups tend to be clannish too, which makes them able to "network" effectively. On the other hand, groups like East Asians and Slavs don't fit this, which makes it hard for them to ascend into elite-level positions in Western countries.

    Unfortunately, when you allow adept bullsh*tters and networkers to run the country, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. We see this playing out in America today. While I wouldn't want to see East Asians run America, I do think that we should promote Americans with East Asian personality traits into leadership positions. "Gold chain" personality traits are not what you want in national leaders.

    A good way to evaluate dysfunctional clannish behavior among different ethnic groups is to ask the following question:

    If a person of a certain ethnic group found out his cousin was involved in a scheme to defraud widow’s of their pensions would he report his cousin to the law?

    Northern Europeans would. Ethnic whites and assimilated Jews would do so as well.

    I suspect Arabs, Hasidim Jews, South Asians, and most Muslims would not.

    What would East Asians do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    For the most part, neither Jews nor Asians would do this. It's one of many stereotypes they share, and many stereotypes are indeed based on truth. If I had to exclude any subgroup from this scandalous generalisation it would probably be the Japanese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius
    Insignificant personal experience.

    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families, and should.

    They’re the human equivalent of the great cathedrals.

    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families

    Exactly. That’s why Facebook is run by a Washington and Apple is run by a Franklin and the POTUS in 2018 is still a Madison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Those are not the family names I was talking about, nor those putative accomplishments much to brag about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Anon
    Harvard's money has been badly managed for the last several years. The fact that they've been getting a lot in donations has been covering up for this.

    Quote from the linked article below: "The endowment’s performance in fiscal year 2017 ranks dead last among the 88 largest endowments that have reported their results, according to Bloomberg data. It’s not just one year. Harvard’s three-year, five-year and 10-year returns rank 73, 66 and 55, respectively."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-02-22/harvard-alumni-cook-up-a-dumb-idea-for-its-endowment

    If it weren't for generous donors, their endowment's growth would be considered unremarkable, as well as unremarkable long-term.

    From the article: "Harvard, along with other big university endowments, pioneered and still uses the so-called endowment model of investing, which calls for investments in high-priced hedge funds and private assets alongside traditional stocks and bonds."

    One thing about hedge funds is that their long-term results mostly suck. They're great destroyers of capital. They make money for their managers in terms of fees, which is why they keep being set up, but for the sucker investing in them? HA HA HA.

    Look up what Warren Buffett says about hedge funds. He made a famous long-term bet against them.

    One thing you can say for Harvard's massive hiring of diversity admins, namely chicks, blacks, and browns, is that they don't know how to handle money. This is typical 'diversity' behavior when it comes to cash. Their current plan, "Duh, maybe buy an index fund," is what happens when you have no one in the money department who knows how to invest. Buying and long-term holding an index fund is what you do when you don't know enough to actively invest money yourself, don't want to learn about the investing process, and don't want to be bothered with it. Harvard's money mangers are overpaid for the service that they're providing.

    Harvard’s ROI was huge in the decade leading up to the crash, and weak since then.

    I don’t know what’s going on. Perhaps it’s a little bit like a baseball player who was a superstar up until PEDs testing got strong and has only been a normal player since.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @WowJustWow
    What about it? Just learn the right shibboleths and you're in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Ht_nsQ7Hs

    The funny part about that scene, is Larry claims to be a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens. At that time (and very likely today as well), the CofCC was regarded as a so-called “hate group” by the SPLC and others of that ilk. It was kind of an interesting choice to appear in the script, although the person who put it in may have been unaware of the ideological orientation of the Council.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @Jack D

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ
     
    Then your understanding is wrong. The correlation between IQ and success never turns negative at any value - it's like being rich - you can never be too rich. People, due to "sour grapes", WANT to believe that somehow there is a price to be paid for being too rich or too smart (and there is to some extent, but the benefits generally outweigh the costs). For every guy like Bobby Fischer whose high intelligence came at the price of being as crazy as a loon, there are 5 von Neumanns who are both smart AND well adjusted.

    I don’t think “we’ll-adjusted” really captures what we’re driving at.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are correct, and 125 is probably around the ideal figure. Well over that and (aside from certain technical fields) there is indeed a negative correlation, and moreover serious social dislocation (which, again, matters less for tech types).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @Jack D
    That said, the curve of history bends toward long-lived and well-regarded families

    Exactly. That's why Facebook is run by a Washington and Apple is run by a Franklin and the POTUS in 2018 is still a Madison.

    Those are not the family names I was talking about, nor those putative accomplishments much to brag about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    What names and accomplishments were you thinking of?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @Twinkie

    I was going to be a paying customer.
     
    Harvard doesn't need your money. It could finance itself with its own endowment until the end of days.

    A college is a business and needs customers.
     
    Harvard doesn't need customers. Harvard IS the customer.

    What spurious logic. As Mr. Mohawk replies, the fellow paying the other fellow is the customer, be the second party ever so wealthy and without need of the custom. Do you believe for a moment Giuliani needs – or even much wants – Trump’s money, or that a neurosurgeon needs any given patient’s? That even the owner or manager McDonald’s on the corner really gives a hoot if I never come in again, or that my absence will dent their profits? Of course not, but in each case the one provides a service to the customer (client, patient, patron – call it what you want) for goods or services rendered. Don’t be silly. You’re history here shows you are sharper than that (I mean it with goodwill and sincerely).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Based on the other conversations stemming from that comment, I think Twinkie's point has some merit. If you read those other conversations, do you still disagree?

    The key element I see is the presence of competition. On both the supply and demand sides. A Harvard education is in limited supply and unavailable on any secondary market (unlike virtually any tangible good, though a top end neurosurgeon is a decent analogy). On the other hand, the demand for a Harvard education is immense (and AFAICT far less substitutable for many people than it should be).
    , @Twinkie

    What spurious logic. As Mr. Mohawk replies, the fellow paying the other fellow is the customer, be the second party ever so wealthy and without need of the custom.
     
    As I mentioned to Buzz Mohawk, one who pays another for goods or services IS the customer, PROVIDED there is no significant imbalance in the power relationship.

    But when such a disparity exists (legally or by force or by social circumstances), the fact that one provides money to the other party does not make the former the customer. He is instead a supplicant, a tenant, to a rentier.

    Harvard is the rentier here. Most applicants are the supplicants... even though the latter might be paying the former.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. res says:
    @Anonymous

    The thing that confounds all of this is that many legacies (those whose antecedents were admitted on merit at least) are likely to be smart in the first place.
     
    Uh, yeah, smart AND wealthy (with the educational oops that affords). Do you mean people aren't controlling for those variables?

    In the graphic I linked legacy appeared in model 2 while model 1 already had academics. So that side (smart) is covered, at least in that set of models.

    On the other hand, I don’t think they explicitly controlled for wealth. Nor do I recall seeing any admissions models which do so. It would be interesting to see how significant a variable that would be. Do you know of any models which look at that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. res says:
    @Desiderius
    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ. Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.

    Also understanding high character, let alone developing it.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ.

    What Jack D said. This is a popular meme, but it does not withstand close examination. If you like studies and data the SMPY is a great place to start (I can give more specific pointers if you are interested).

    From an intuitive point of view, I think the simple explanation is that the normal distribution falls off so quickly above ~2SD (130 IQ) that people around your 125-130 level tend to be very well represented in fields where IQ helps but is not the be all and end all (contrast theoretical physics) because there are so many more of them (about 2% of people are over 130 IQ, about 0.1% of people are over 145 IQ, so ~20x difference). The greater number gives more chances at good luck both in life events and in the presence of non-IQ specific skills which also matter. There is also an argument based on the idea that the best leaders are within an SD or two of their followers’ IQs.

    Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.

    Yes. Intellectual capability is not everything.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.

    Well said. I would emphasize the loss of ability to understand, empathize, and work with other non-”elite” human beings.

    Though I do have some qualms about calling what they select for “abstract thinking.” That is certainly true in the disconnected from reality sense, but it tends not to be very rigorous for many. For those it is more just a matter of putting fancy words together in a forceful fashion that convinces people who don’t know any better.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.

    Not sure how to take this. Do you care to be more explicit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    “There is also an argument based on the idea that the best leaders are within an SD or two of their followers’ IQs.”

    Yes, also exacerbated by the fashion for “flatter” org structures.

    How to take it?

    In a nutshell our current selection process precludes the brightest from being the best.
    , @Jack D
    I think the way to think about it is this:

    The average IQ at MIT is probably somewhere around D's supposed success peak of 125 if not higher, so half the class is above and half below. Which half of the class do you think is more successful later in life? What are the odds that it is the below 125 IQ half?

    What may throw some people off is that in the upper half, there are a few very strange, spergy people like Grigori Perelman who are never going to have material success because they are anti-social. I can understand that some of the ultra-smart don't really have patience for the stupidity of the world - to them, every day must be like being stuck in a home for the retarded. But they are not typical. There are also a lot of people who are both stupid AND strange.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. res says:
    @Autochthon
    What spurious logic. As Mr. Mohawk replies, the fellow paying the other fellow is the customer, be the second party ever so wealthy and without need of the custom. Do you believe for a moment Giuliani needs – or even much wants – Trump's money, or that a neurosurgeon needs any given patient's? That even the owner or manager McDonald's on the corner really gives a hoot if I never come in again, or that my absence will dent their profits? Of course not, but in each case the one provides a service to the customer (client, patient, patron – call it what you want) for goods or services rendered. Don't be silly. You're history here shows you are sharper than that (I mean it with goodwill and sincerely).

    Based on the other conversations stemming from that comment, I think Twinkie’s point has some merit. If you read those other conversations, do you still disagree?

    The key element I see is the presence of competition. On both the supply and demand sides. A Harvard education is in limited supply and unavailable on any secondary market (unlike virtually any tangible good, though a top end neurosurgeon is a decent analogy). On the other hand, the demand for a Harvard education is immense (and AFAICT far less substitutable for many people than it should be).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I take your points but I stand by mine. Arguably, we've simply different, irreconcilable understandings of the definitions involved. Perhaps it would be clearer to use the terms buyer and seller rather than customer.

    That a seller may happen to be in a position to be selective, even downright exclusionary or snobbish, does not change be fact that his customer is the fellow paying for the good or service. I pay $5,000.00 for a charitable raffle with the get to meet Joe Satriani for dinner, a guitar lesson, etc. Well, the guy could spend all day every day until he dies doing that for fawning fans. He can certainly pick and choose who (if anyone at all) to bestow his time upon this way. Is he then my customer? As the Donald might say: "Somebody is doing the customering!" (Presumably.)

    A hyper exclusive restaurant run by Gordon Ramsay only accepts reservations from the bold and the beautiful. Indeed, one applies for the reservation with a non-refundable fee and the understanding Ramsay may or may not have you based upon how hip he thinks you are. Are the actresses and politicians able to get a table the restaurants customers or not? Surely he isn't their customer, is he? If so, how?

    Anyway it's not very interesting and I've bored myself writing this so it's almost certainly boring reading.
    , @Twinkie

    On the other hand, the demand for a Harvard education is immense (and AFAICT far less substitutable for many people than it should be).
     
    For me, the issue is not even that of a supply-demand imbalance. Harvard is essentially a gateway... a dam that restricts water supply downhill, if you will. As I wrote to "Autochthon," that makes Harvard the rentier-lord and the people paying tuition the tenants-supplicants. That he doesn't seem to understand the thrust of my argument because he is fixated on the simplistic materialist argument of seller vs. buyers does not speak well of his intellect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Brutusale says:
    @Duke of Qin
    I like to characterize the Chinese as balancing two separate impulses. The first is our natural biological urge to follow established precedent and authority. The second, sometimes working in opposition to the first, is our cultural profanity. We really hold nothing sacred beyond filial piety and thus have no schelling points with which to naturally rally to. Our lack of things which we deem holy means that there is little to limit our personal ambition to getting what we want.

    This.

    I’ve been agnostic about the influx of Chinese, figuring that they’d probably be a better brand of immigrant when compared to the Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans. My experience over the past 1 1/2 years consulting for a multination corporate division with an 80% Asian, mostly Chinese, workforce, along with just observing the recent horde that’s found its way to my little town, has convinced me that they’re just as destructive to American society as any Somali.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Your statement is contradicted by the objective evidence showing NE Asians cause low crime, good schools, and high property values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Lot says:

    Alternative asset classes like farmland, jr loans, and hedge funds outperformed the stock market for a long time in the 90s and 00s, but underperformed since then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  239. Lot says:
    @Brutusale
    This.

    I've been agnostic about the influx of Chinese, figuring that they'd probably be a better brand of immigrant when compared to the Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans. My experience over the past 1 1/2 years consulting for a multination corporate division with an 80% Asian, mostly Chinese, workforce, along with just observing the recent horde that's found its way to my little town, has convinced me that they're just as destructive to American society as any Somali.

    Your statement is contradicted by the objective evidence showing NE Asians cause low crime, good schools, and high property values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    So do Indians. So do Jews. Hey, so do gays. I just know that I have a new slant on things when I leave my laptop on the table while hitting the restroom.

    The local stores have seen quite the uptick in "shrinkage" over the past few years. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student as to which demographic has been invading the area.

    The tearing of society's fabric doesn't always make a lot of noise. Death by 1.2 billion cuts.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @res

    My understanding is that general success tops out around 125 IQ.
     
    What Jack D said. This is a popular meme, but it does not withstand close examination. If you like studies and data the SMPY is a great place to start (I can give more specific pointers if you are interested).

    From an intuitive point of view, I think the simple explanation is that the normal distribution falls off so quickly above ~2SD (130 IQ) that people around your 125-130 level tend to be very well represented in fields where IQ helps but is not the be all and end all (contrast theoretical physics) because there are so many more of them (about 2% of people are over 130 IQ, about 0.1% of people are over 145 IQ, so ~20x difference). The greater number gives more chances at good luck both in life events and in the presence of non-IQ specific skills which also matter. There is also an argument based on the idea that the best leaders are within an SD or two of their followers' IQs.

    Plus the Ivies are in the clutches of some pretty bad dudes presently.
     
    Yes. Intellectual capability is not everything.

    In general, our current meritocracy massively overselects for abstract thinking capacity (thus missing the concrete as well as those most capable of integrating the two) with that selection consisting of uprooting those selected from the family, community, and cultural ties that are crucial to both developing that concrete aptitude and general success in working effectively with other human beings.
     
    Well said. I would emphasize the loss of ability to understand, empathize, and work with other non-"elite" human beings.

    Though I do have some qualms about calling what they select for "abstract thinking." That is certainly true in the disconnected from reality sense, but it tends not to be very rigorous for many. For those it is more just a matter of putting fancy words together in a forceful fashion that convinces people who don't know any better.

    So yeah, enjoy that high g, too bad you turned out to be retarded at everything that matters.
     
    Not sure how to take this. Do you care to be more explicit?

    “There is also an argument based on the idea that the best leaders are within an SD or two of their followers’ IQs.”

    Yes, also exacerbated by the fashion for “flatter” org structures.

    How to take it?

    In a nutshell our current selection process precludes the brightest from being the best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Lot says:
    @ATBOTL
    The really interesting question is what's going to happen to the anti-white, Jewish and Asian dominated elite colleges as the nationalist movement grows and totally replaces the dying boomer cuck right.

    Harvard, Yale etc. are going to come under sustained attack by nationalist forces. These institutions are some of the most hated in the nationalist movement.

    “Harvard, Yale etc. are going to come under sustained attack by nationalist forces. These institutions are some of the most hated in the nationalist movement.”

    If so, they are wrong. Elitism, tradition and high standards are conservative values. As are the legacy and athlete preferences the schools maintain.

    The problem with Big Ed is the bottom half of colleges that probably shouldn’t exist, and wouldn’t exist outside of massive federal subsidies.

    Harvard and Yale train and educate many fine patriotic conservatives like Alito and Brett K., and employ many great scientists and scholars.

    Compare them to the gigantic, mostly NAM, mostly sub 100-IQ Cal State schools, which are gigantic boondoggles for the far left faculty and staff and 4 to 7 year vacations for the majority of NAM students on the federal pell grant and student “loan” welfare dole. Think of Pablo “They” Gomez, the nutcase Lesbian Penthouse Window Jumper who had a $400,000 fake job, the Muslima professor who posted celebratory tweets when Barbara Bush died.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    I said nationalist, not conservative.

    Even so, nothing is more absurdly autistic than choosing to interpret "conservative" as meaning support for the anti-conservative establishment 'cause "conservatives support establishments doncha know."

    Folks at lower tier Cal State schools are not the ones responsible for the things nationalists or conservatives are fighting, Harvard people are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Brutusale says:
    @JimB
    I've been told that he curriculum for all four-year medical schools is highly standardized -- same textbooks, lectures, labs, and hospital rounds. The point of this is so every patient will, in principle, receive the same standard of care. I suspect the benefit of graduating from Harvard Med School is realized when you apply for post graduate fellowships to learn a specialty. Harvard grads are more likely to become pediatric surgeons at John Hopkins. Grads from last ranked Howard University are more likely to end up as GPs, obstetricians, and proctologists at the Famila Clinica Gratuita.

    Harvard grads are more likely to become pediatric surgeons at Mass General.

    Baltimore?! Really?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. @Jack D
    Oh, bullshit. HY have been selecting from an elite class for the last 300 years. You were just too dumb to notice it because they had the same nominal religion and came from the same nominal ethnic group - maybe you couldn't tell the difference between them and you, but THEY could sure as hell tell the difference between themselves and you. The fact that the President of Harvard or Yale is named Levin instead of Lowell doesn't change anything as far as their level of condescension to the unwashed masses.

    That’s not even remotely the same thing.

    There’s a massive difference in the attitude of the Ivy League toward the rest of America over the last 300 years

    Condescending and elitist vs disdaining and genocidal

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    FWIW, I don't think they were even particularly condescending in that earlier epoch, at least not in the common conception of the word. Now the leadership is simply part and parcel of the tiny ruling tribe deliberately excluding what was, until they changed it, the vast majority of the nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius
    Those are not the family names I was talking about, nor those putative accomplishments much to brag about.

    What names and accomplishments were you thinking of?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @res
    academic gossip seems to generally know what he is talking about, but likes to argue from authority rather than presenting evidence.

    Here is what I found. First, it is worth noting that AFAICT this data is only for US citizens and permanent residents.

    This report has 2016 bar charts for minorities (but not whites) by broad field on page 5 in panel D: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/static/report/nsf18304-report.pdf
    I did not realize just how large a proportion of black doctorates were in education.

    Current top level NSF Doctorates page: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/
    All of the data tables: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/data.cfm
    HTML version of Table 23. U.S. citizen and permanent resident doctorate recipients, by broad field of study, ethnicity, and race: Selected years, 1996–2016 (which I think is best able to address this conversation): https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/datatables/tab23.htm

    As I am sure you are aware, it is necessary to consider the demographics