> A rather popular podcast

> Unsure if they said

> But either way, its quite astounding

You’re not making a terribly strong case here. What’s your source? What does “most disfavored” mean? Is there actually anything to show that Jewish students are favored in college admissions?

I'll help. Of Harvard students:

39.7% are white. (American white population share: 59.3%. So whites are already dramatically under-represented).

17% (43% of 39.7%) of all students are white and legacy.

So of all students, 22.7% are white and not legacy.

Harvard class is 10% Jewish overall (American Jewish population share: 2.1% [2], so they are 5x over-represented)

Jews are nearly all counted as white. If they're legacy at the same rate as other whites, about 4.3% (43% of 10%) of total students are Jewish legacy, while 5.7% are Jewish non-legacy.

Subtracting 5.7% from 22.7%, that means that 16% of Harvard students are white non-Jewish non-legacy.

The US is 59.3% white [1] and 2.1% Jewish [2], so 57.2% non-Jewish white.

57.2% of population is funneled down to 16% of the slots - this is a massive under-representation; non-legacy non-Jewish whites basically cannot get into Harvard. Their chances are 4x (!) lower even than the overall population's very low chances.

No other major ethnic group is nearly this under-represented in the Harvard non-legacy admission process. This is the result of this group being disfavored.

Source is the article above, and Harvard's own statistics, available from many sources. Here's one [0]

[0] https://admissionsight.com/harvard-diversity-statistics/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews

I didn't want to name names. But if you must, it happened in the all-in-podcast. This was during episode 135, at the 23:15 mark. The show has a guide so it should be findable.

I believe hosts do research and in fact, have VC minions (paid staff) during the show pulling the data to demonstrate how the calc was derived.

(I'm actually quite surprised this is not immediately known, as I thought the podcast audience was primarily HN ..)

Also, sibling comment added his own independent analysis

While I believe you are trying to make a good faith insight porn comment and I don’t think you should be (inevitably) downvoted, I am skeptical of the methods of the “rather popular podcast” that led them to make such a claim.

Also, I’m not sure if it’s the gotcha you think it is. If I were you, I would take a long hard look at claims like these, and how even when they are not true, well, an item that says “So and so claim turns out to be not true” is itself propagating the untrue claim. It will illuminate for you the true way Reddit is quite toxic, and why among many reasons content moderation and publishing are hard.

I didn't find it gentlemanly to name names here, and wanted to let my comment be developed independently, but since my comment is already flagged, I suppose i'll make it clear the source and the weight of the research that I'm simply referencing. This was saidin the all-in-podcast. This was during episode 135, at the 23:15 mark. The show has a guide so it should be findable.

I believe hosts do research and in fact, have VC minions (paid staff) during the show pulling the data to demonstrate how the calc was derived.

(I'm actually quite surprised this is not immediately known, as I thought the podcast audience was primarily HN ..)

Also, sibling comment added his own independent analysis