Also are Jewish people considered White in this case? I simultaneously see that they are referred to as minorities but also don't see them represented in statistics such as these when comparing ethnicity in X with ethnic population in the US.
But if you want to judge it by looks, I look like an Arab. Like hundreds of thousands of other Jews.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23914667
שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ :-)
PS. do you have any opinion on סרוגים (the show)?
Why don't you think they should match up?
One particular cultural value is caring a whole lot about education and prestigious degrees (see the test prep industry in most of asia).
I have no problem with people who value education getting an edge in admissions. So even in a race-blind world, I am okay with outcomes not matching population statistics. Because in a world where you're solely judged based on your values that's exactly what you'd see.
But what's happening is that two different people can both adopt this same "education" value and have different outcome because of their race. The opportunities are not equal, not for blacks, not for asians.
Citation?
Is there an a priori reason they must?
Note that it's not strictly zero sum either. Huge grants by previous may have opened the university to more people than are admitted by legacy admissions -- yielding greater participation by non-legacy than previously possible.
People are choosing one small slice of what goes on with a university -- admissions right now. They are glossing over the fact that it is other people who made the university great over the years to the point that it is desirable at all. Those people made it great by donating money and going on to bring prestige to the university. Ignore them and lose the prestige and money.
Nobody is glossing over that fact. I am simply saying that if anything outside of a student's merit is "discrimination", then taking into account the alumni status or past contributions of [not that student] is also "discrimination".
They are not the student's merits to weigh, they are the relative's merits.
Not all selection criteria is "discrimination". Alternately, if it is, then there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.
Again, these are private schools that everyone is talking about. The use of legacy admissions in a state school would be completely wrong.
Very much agree on these being private schools and playing by a different set of rules.
The Wikipedia article that you point to refutes it on almost every point... Please point me to the section that supports your claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>>> The concept of "race" is a social construct, and "intelligence" has no agreed-upon definition; the validity of IQ tests as a metric for general intelligence is itself disputed. In particular, there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups.
What are these most studies that have been refuted? Can you tell me the number or the percentage or a big list of refuted studies along with a shorter list of non-refuted ones, or anything to show that's a real fact and you're not just repeating what activists have told you. Make sure it's not a trick like counting mostly 100 year old studies which could be greater in number allowing you to ignore everything from the last couple of decades. That might make true but also misleading.
Somehow the goalposts got reversed and I am now responsible for disproving your theory.
Let's go back to the original post. You made an assertion and I asked for a source because I was genuinely curious where you were drawing conclusions from. You then linked me to Wikipedia and I stated that all of the studies on that page are refuted (not abstractly... directly refuted in the Wikipedia article).
Can you provide a source?
The same article says "In the US, generally individuals identifying themselves as Asian tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians" Where does it say that it's refuted?
"Do the differences in I. Q. scores between blacks and whites have a genetic basis?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-...
"Yes. there are differences in measured IQ between various ‘races’." https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/08/14/statistics-sho...
"Generally, Black people, White people, and East Asian people have different average IQs, but the specific reasons for this remain controversial." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/
"The IQ debate became worldwide in scope when it was shown that East Asians scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites, both within the United States and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro American culture" https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense... You might not like the author of that one but it's in term cited to someone else.
"The top 10 countries by average IQ are: 1. Hong Kong (108) 2. Singapore (108) 3. South Korea (106) 4. China (105) 5. Japan (105) 6. Taiwan (105)" [7+ is where non-Asian countries appear.] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq#average-iq
I can't actually find anything saying there are no such differences, whether for Asians or anyone. Can you? For something that's so refuted, why didn't even The Guardian bother to mention it when they're trying so hard to oppose that kind of idea?https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-gen...
Remember, your claim is that all of these are wrong and most of the studies they're based on have been refuted.
There is disagreement among researchers about the causes of the differences, but not about their existence. I think you're confusing the two.
Your original comment implied causation - that different races have different intelligences BECAUSE of their race. You are hiding behind a technicality of never explicitly saying "causes" in your posts.
The sources you posted are all correlational - and indeed each goes on to explain in great detail why they are not causal. You are literally using articled that disagree with your initial implication to try to prove some technicality and twist data.
It is no better than stating "black people are dangerous" and then providing articles that show per-capita crime rate. The data without context (socioeconomic forces, etc) is useless. Using it blindly hurts people.
You are dog whistling here.
You people really need to stop hunting for racists under every rock! It blocks your ability to think as well as everyone else's when they're at risk of being attacked for failing to write the equivalent of "praise the Lord" at the end of every sentence to demonstrate their faithfulness.
Hypothetically, if I commented on a fashion blog "people that wear blue shirts are more intelligent" and then pointed to an article stating that doctors often wear scrubs and score higher on intelligence, my original comment - while technically true - is worthless - it adds nothing to the discussion. Worse, my comment implies the wrong thing - color of shirts is independent - the true causal variable is a person's profession
I asked for a source for your statement. Why was it so hard to provide that? Instead we had to go through this huge ordeal to discover that you were making a weak correlational observation. Was it because you knew that your articles didn't support the claim you made?
But it turns out you didn't want a source for my claim, you wanted a source for a different claim that you didn't state. Your mind is so bogged down in racism that you can't read people's words objectively.
No, it's not like your blue shirt example. Many people credit race-IQ differences to fairly common differences in upbringing and treatment by others, not the existence of some small but very uniform sub-group. A better example would be "people wearing t-shirts are less intelligent than people wearing buttoned shirts". That might actually correlate with the jobs of a wide range of people.
But at the end of the day, it's very clear:
My claim: "those different ethnic groups have different average IQs"
Your interpretation: "different races have different intelligences BECAUSE of their race"
That is clearly a misunderstanding, so you misunderstood me. The difference between causation and correlation exists and you conflated the two.
- Black or African American alone, percent(a) 13.4%
- American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent(a) 1.3%
- Asian alone, percent(a)5.9%
- Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent(a) 0.2%
- Two or More Races, percent 2.8%
- Hispanic or Latino, percent(b) 18.5%
SOURCE:
It's apples vs oranges when we compare to the US population.
- White alone, percent 76.3%
And I'm sure there are many world-class universities in India, China, Japan, Egypt, Turkey... Are they pretty close to proportional if you look at global numbers? For example, Kyoto University or Peking University, both world class institutions, does their student body reflect the global population, or the Japanese/Chinese population?
Or...
I expect the demographics of hn users to be more similar to global demographics rather than us demographics.
The percentages at the link above are labeled as "University-wide Enrollments," which seems to mean that they account for graduate students as well as undergraduates. But the DOJ finding is only about undergraduate admissions.
- American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3%
- Asian 14.7%
- Black or African-American 5.8%
- Hispanic of any race 9.8%
- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1%
- White 42.7%
- Race/ethnicity unknown 1.0
SOURCE:
https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts