The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Rate the math in this Slate article about Affirmative Action
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:03 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown For the remaining 8 percent of in-state spots, UT Austin used a comprehensive approach that weighed grades and test scores along with essays, leadership, activities, service to the community, and “special circumstances.” Those ranged from socioeconomic status and school quality, to family background and race. As the university’s director of admissions explained for the 5th Circuit, “[R]ace provides—like language, whether or not someone is the first in their family to attend college, and family responsibilities—important context in which to evaluate applicants, and is only one aspect of the diversity that the University seeks to attain.”
Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s.
To call this discrimination is to say that Fisher was entitled to a space at the UT Austin, despite grades that didn’t make the cut. It’s worth pointing out that the university gave her the choice of transferring from a satellite school, which she rejected.
|
 |
Date: July 1st, 2015 4:25 PM Author: Heady Claret Dilemma Pozpig UT UG/LAW double admit here. Dinged that shithole 2x. I can't believe an actual white person would announce to the world how low iq and dumb she really is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239818) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 12:47 PM Author: Henna native skinny woman I don't see any math in that excerpt. There are just raw numbers.
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:05 PM Author: Violent Aqua Home ELI5 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239273) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:06 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown ?
I am asking XO to rate if the author of the article is justified/correct in the conclusions he makes based on the data he is analyzing |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:11 PM Author: Violent Aqua Home I can only assume the figures he uses are correct. If they are, then the white applicant's grades were in the bottom 5% of all admitted applicants (outside the top 10% program). And nearly all (89%) of the 5% who were admitted with worse grades were also white. In addition, there were 168 minority students that had the same or better grades as the white applicant who were rejected, indicating that race was not the determining factor for the white applicant's rejection. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239308) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:14 PM Author: Orange idiot There could be other smoke and mirrors involved. Her SAT was pretty TTT but it'd be worth seeing how it compared to other admits, stuff like that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239318) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:25 PM Author: Tan flickering yarmulke space she sounds like a shit plaintiff, if true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239409) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:35 PM Author: curious yellow menage http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Joint%20Appendix.pdf
relevant pages: 142 Average SAT for non-top 10% black/hispanic student: 1070/1150
As you can see, her numbers put her way above the typical black student admitted through the special program.
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 11:41 PM Author: Abusive Brunch You might be reading this wrong. I'm not sure that the 42 whites are a subset of the 47 with worse grades. Way more likely that it's 42 whites total out of the 8xx students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28242456) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:10 PM Author: dead magenta field fuck you are stupid
white chick applies to school and gets rejected, she sues for racial discrimination, libs are scared their pets will no longer be able to get into school on their merits alone, she had a 3.6 gpa and laughable SAT, 300 of the 900 were dismissed by the articles writer and the remaining 500~ were deff blacks |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:07 PM Author: Orange idiot There doesn't seem to be much math there, just counting.
The key part of Texas's AA scheme is the 10 percent guarantee, which ensures that students attending all-minority high schools will get in, even if their academic performance is substantially lower than students outside the top 10 percent at better high schools.
In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that's probably the best way to go about affirmative action, if you must have it. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:07 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown true but just look at whatever math/logic he is using (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239288) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:19 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown Fisher is not about the top 10% scheme. it is about the admissions process for ppl admitted outside of the top 10% scheme. nobody is saying top 10% is AA
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:25 PM Author: Orange idiot Plenty of people have said Top 10% is de facto AA, most just concede it's probably a constitutional version of it, because it's completely race-neutral in application.
But yeah the case doesn't directly concern it. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:40 PM Author: Odious Azn But its not "race neutral" per disparate impact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239524) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:42 PM Author: Orange idiot I don't think disparate impact applies to college admissions, does it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239539) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:46 PM Author: Odious Azn Why wouldn't it? Its probably just never come up in court, because universities have been discriminating in favour of spicnigs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239574) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:53 PM Author: Orange idiot Disparate impacts doesn't just automatically exist for everything. The standard exists for hiring and the like because of laws passed by Congress. I don't know that such a law exists for college admissions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239619) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:59 PM Author: Odious Azn Anything that the Civil Right Acts applies to, disparate impact could apply to. Congress never passed a "disparate impact" law, the concept was worked out in courts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239646) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:49 PM Author: swollen scourge upon the earth I think discriminatory intent would still have to be proved. It has been awhile though. Not like that is unprovable though. But it could be hard to prove systematically. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239598) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:54 PM Author: Odious Azn Nope, the point of disparate impact is that you don't need to prove intent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239621) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 5:46 PM Author: Floppy senate ladyboy Not only that, but the top 10% scheme was clearly designed to be discriminatory against whites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240390) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:09 PM Author: curious yellow menage There are basically no good, succinct arguments for Affirmative Action, so libs write especially retarded articles about them. And if you push the issue, that's racist (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239300) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:12 PM Author: Violent Aqua Home So you agree then that Harvard should be ~50% asian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239312) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:14 PM Author: Brass trump supporter base It should be 50% Asian 50% Jewish. They're the smartest and hardest working ppl in the country (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239319) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:18 PM Author: swollen scourge upon the earth (dumb lib) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239363) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:20 PM Author: Brass trump supporter base (guy with no retort) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239369) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:20 PM Author: swollen scourge upon the earth (guy who got a bj from an AZNgirl) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239373) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:39 PM Author: misunderstood temple (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245355) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:17 PM Author: curious yellow menage no, at Harvard's level it makes sense to take a holistic approach -- SAT scores and ching chong violin practice isn't enough.
UC Berkeley should probably be 60% AZN though if they're going to make most of their admission criteria based on scores/GPA. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:20 PM Author: swollen scourge upon the earth Cr. Schools taking federal funding shouldn't be allowed to use AA. Truly elite schools that can provide self-funding should abandon federal loans and use AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239370) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 4:28 PM Author: Massive Lavender Sound Barrier French Chef sure, it's equal protection and due process (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239833) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:17 PM Author: Odious Azn "Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
^---- You can't comment on this math because not enough information is provided to make an assessment, i.e. how many spicnigs with worse scores got in. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:17 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete I would like a better definition of "worse grades." Is that GPA only? Are they just completely ignoring SAT score on all of this, and that's why they can throw out these weird grade figures that seem to indicate that there's nothing wrong? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239354) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:19 PM Author: chrome heaven what math? I'm not reading through an entire slate article to try to figure out what the fuck the point you're trying to make is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239365) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:21 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown see below though I think my title should have read as logic more than math (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239379) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:35 PM Author: chrome heaven so she failed to meet an objective standard that 90% of their admitted students are able to meet then bitched because a handful of brown ppl in the remaining pool of dumbs may have had slightly more shitty grades than her? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239479) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:20 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown The author's argument completely ignores racial composition of the 841 students when that is at the crux of determining if this is a "holistic" admission process considering race in a narrow sense which is permissible or is a determining factor which would be impermissible
He only talks about 47 with worse grades and ignores the other 794 students who were admitted under this scheme
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:23 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete I would take, barring any further information to my question above about what you mean by "better grades," the argument to be in relation to this plaintiff. What's relevant to her, which the author points out, is that there are whites with worse grades than her getting in and blacks with better grades than her being rejected. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239396) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:25 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown what if I told you that 799 out 841 students admitted under this scheme where Black/Hispanic. We know there are atleast 42 white students but what is the racial composition of this "holistic" class if race is only one of the narrow factors
Would that matter? I think it does and is very important
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:26 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete It would tell me they need a better plaintiff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239417) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:27 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown no you are wrong
if she can prove the process uses race in a way that is unconstitutional and that it impacted her admission process thats all you need |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:30 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete But isn't the argument this is making that it didn't impact her? Because if it was race blind, she's still below too many people to get in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against AA. However, this article seems to indicate that this wasn't our best test case. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:34 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown I don't think she would have got in either but I assume we are only talking about if she has standing to sue in a legal sense which she clearly does
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:27 PM Author: Twinkling parlour That doesn't have anything to do with her. If most of the special circumstances people are black or hispanic and almost all of them have better grades, it just means she sucks herself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239427) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:31 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown if she can prove the process is improper under SCOTUS AA doctrine then she has standing because her application was evaluated under that unconstitutional process
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:34 PM Author: Twinkling parlour agreed. but you are talking about the numbers in this thread - if the math is irrelevant, why are you bringing it up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239471) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:43 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown the math is relevant because the author alleges that there is no racial discrimination in the holistic process of admitting 841 students
would you agree with him based on the data he provided and his interpretation of that data? |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:45 PM Author: Twinkling parlour no, but I would say the process is not the reason Fisher was not admitted to that 841 students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239564) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:47 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown most likely but that has nothing to do with her ability to sue UTTTexas
Also as other ppl are pointing out the GPA/SAT scores of the admitted ppl relative to her don't make sense compared to the author's claims though I haven't looked at it myself |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:26 PM Author: curious yellow menage Let's just look at some tables:
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Joint%20Appendix.pdf
Her SAT score was a full 100 points higher than the black SAT scores, even from top 10% (page 142). Her GPA was also 1.0 higher than blacks admitted from the top 10% and obviously even higher from the non top 10% (page 140).
Edit: those second set of numbers are freshman GPAs, so basically they admit underprepared black students and they get pwned |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:33 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete The tables would indicate that the math is wrong. How could she be that much higher than the means for black/Hispanic admitted students if only a small number had worse grades than her? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239467) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:39 PM Author: curious yellow menage Yeah, I'm confused as hell (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239512) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:56 PM Author: Arousing tanning salon only a small number in the "special" 8% had worse grades than her, but most URM students were admitted differently -- through the top 10% policy that takes students from shit schools. this policy isn't considered race-based AA, though in effect it is. they openly consider race as a factor in admitting a small subset of students, but apparently they're pretty conservative about how much they weight it, so the plaintiff doesn't have much of an argument in that respect even though her scores are way higher than most admitted URMs.
edit: whoops, I'm a retard and didn't read your link. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:33 PM Author: Twinkling parlour This is where slate is fucktarded:
"To call this discrimination is to say that Fisher was entitled to a space at the UT Austin, despite grades that didn’t make the cut."
Discrimination does not mean she is entitled to a space at UT. When a white or asian person is judged by standard that require SAT scores two standard deviations over the SAT scores requires of black students, that is discrimination. The type of harm she needs for standing is a different matter. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:35 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown why do you think she has no standing?
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:37 PM Author: Twinkling parlour i dont know enough about the caselaw to know whether just being treated differently because of race causes the amorphous mental harm needed for standing. As opposed to actual damages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239494) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:39 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete This was my question above. Would she not need to show that there was actual harm (rejection where but for this racist system there would have been admission?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239514) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:40 PM Author: Twinkling parlour i guess the whole separate but equal thing in Brown suggests that you dont need to prove actual harm for discrimination to be illegal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239526) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:42 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239543) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:38 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete There's something wrong here. The article claims that there were 47 people admitted with worse grades than her, and all but 5 were white. So the claim there is that 5 black/Hispanic students were admitted with grades lower than her (3.6, 1180).
The charts indicate that the admitted black students outside of the top 10% group had a mean SAT of 1073. Do they indicate the applicant GPAS? I assume the GPA chart they have in there is their freshman year GPA. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:39 PM Author: Twinkling parlour maybe the kids with 2.8, 900 SAT scores from the ghetto are all top 10%? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239520) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:42 PM Author: Odious Azn The Top-ten kids in general have slightly lower SAT scores than the non-Ton-ten. Which makes sense, actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239544) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:44 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete But they show the SAT mean for admission for non top 10% kids.
The information provided in the slate article is the information I want, the charts just make me doubt if that's accurate. I would want this chick's GPA/SAT and GPA/SAT statistics of the white kids who got in, that weren't involved in the top 10% program as well as the minority kids who got in outside of the top 10% thing.
The SAT means in the charts indicate that the Slate article is either referring only to the grades that are convenient, or that there is some enrollment/admission issue because black kids that get admitted there are taking money elsewhere/going somewhere private that's better because they can give more AA. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:40 PM Author: curious yellow menage Oh jeez, I'm dumb, so the black kids are just getting terrible grades at UT Austin, not in high school
LOL at affirmative action regardless |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:46 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete A footnote as to where he got his information from would be helpful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239573) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:50 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown Thanks to the pumo above
Check 142 of this link
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Joint%20Appendix.pdf |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:52 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete The problem is, that's enrolled freshmen. We need GPA/SAT for admitted non top 10% black students and white students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239612) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:54 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown my guess to best explain this is that when he says grades he means ONLY GPA and completely ignores SAT
that is the only way this could make sense
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 4:02 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete That was my guess earlier. He's using grades/scores interchangeably and always to the advantage of whatever point he's trying to make. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28239668) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 3:53 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown My guess is that the author is only looking at GPA for non-top 10 students when says most of them have better grades than her ?
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:24 PM Author: vivacious tank Procrastinating Dissertator 1 day ago
There's some cheap slight-of-hand in this article, and it undermines the argument.
"Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
In this context, "worse grades" does not mean "lower marks in high school." It means lower admission scores, which factor in high school academic performance, test scores, activities, essays, and race. The article says nothing about how much the admissions score weighs those various factors.
Bouie gives the reader the impression that 168 black and Latino students with higher GPAs than Fischer got rejected. If that were true, then her argument would be entirely baseless.
But we don't know if it's true. It's possible that those 168 students had lower grades, lower test scores, fewer activities, weaker essays, but made up for these deficiencies with race, thereby getting a higher admission score. I don't think that's likely, but if it were true that many black and Latino students with higher high school GPAs got rejected, then Bouie would probably have mentioned it. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:25 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:31 PM Author: Twinkling parlour If this is true, then the article is beyond lazy, its horribly misleading. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240580) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:36 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown guy why finally gets what I was trying to say. OK i didn't catch the admission scores/grades vs SAT/GPA distinction but trying to argue that the holistic process is not discriminatory without discussing anything about acceptance rate by race, racial composition of class, average grades/SAT is weak math/logic which was the reason for creating this thread
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:37 PM Author: Twinkling parlour the damning thing about the math is that if "grades" mean admissions scores and factor in 100+ points if you are black, then the discussion of "grades" is a tautology and is totally dishonest. I did not get that from any of your posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240607) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:51 PM Author: Bateful hospital It is not quite that bad, but it is close. After reading the entire article, it is safe to assume when the author uses the word "grades," he is referring to HS GPA. However, he jumps back and forth between "grades" and "scores." His worst offense of this behavior is in the following quote, which is included in the OP:
Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:55 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown the slate guy clearly makes a claim that this holistic process is not discriminatory. then cites some minor facts about the process without discussing any of the major factors that needs to be looked at and moves on saying her claim is invalid
even if he explicitly used "HS grades" terminology only through out the article only we will still need to look racial composition and other related factors to support the non-discriminatory claim
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:03 PM Author: Twinkling parlour no, see my post below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240719) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:05 PM Author: Bateful hospital ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240726) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:06 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete jfc if this is the case then that's literally the most disingenuous article I've ever seen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240727) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:09 PM Author: Floppy senate ladyboy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240735) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:35 PM Author: vivacious tank he was probably lifting from the respondent's brief and didn't engage in any critical thinking because the brief was for his side. it's still shocking that lawyers would make that argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241596) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:38 PM Author: vivacious tank actually, i take my comment above back. jamelle bouie was engaging in outright fraud. the brief makes clear that they're referring to ai/pai scores (PAI scores takes into account race). bouie intentionally changed reference to "ai/pai scores" to "grades" and "scores" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241634) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:45 PM Author: rose at-the-ready kitchen affirmative action Stfu all shitlibs who discuss AA without even acknowledging the group of applicants it disadvantages the most: ASIANS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240642) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:47 PM Author: dead magenta field what ever happened to that lolsuit? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240651) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 6:48 PM Author: rose at-the-ready kitchen affirmative action I think scotus basically remanded idk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240661) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:12 PM Author: painfully honest hunting ground theater "Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
seems to be a sleight of hand here with "scores" vs "grades". the whites who were admitted with worse grades had better SAT scores. the URMS who were rejected with better scores had worse grades. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:16 PM Author: Twinkling parlour no its a straight up lie. of the 47 people who got in with worse "grades" they actually got in with worse "scores" which includes the diversity index.
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf
See page 15/16 |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:27 PM Author: painfully honest hunting ground theater ty, lol at slaTTTe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240838) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:14 PM Author: Twinkling parlour It took 20 minutes of digging, but the author is acutally being fucking deceptive and misleading with his "grades: claim, not just lazy and confusing grades and scores.
The shithead slate author gets his information about the scores of the 841 students from this article linked in this paragraph:
"What’s striking about this case—and what makes it frustrating to some observers—is the curious question of Fisher’s academic record. Put simply, as Nikole Hannah-Jones documented for ProPublica, affirmative action wasn’t her problem."
Here is that referenced article which makes the same claim.
Here is the quote from that second article, which is equally misleading:
"It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white."
The links in that paragraph are to the respondent's (UT's) brief here:
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf
If you go to page 15/16 of the brief, you will see conclusively that the 42 white people with lower scores admitted ahead of her and 168 blacks with better scores dinged includes both the academic index and the fuzzy index - the fuzzy index scores including race. So because every black person gets a perfect score on the fuzzy score, it so happens that some of them with 1.9 GPA, 800 SAT get dinged - despite having a better overall score than Fisher. And as to how whites with an overall score lower than Fisher get in? Who knows? Some may be legacies, some may be fucking field hockey players with sports scholarships.
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:21 PM Author: curious yellow menage Nice work. It's incredible how after all this bullshit, libs first argument about the constitutionality of affirmative action (i.e. preferential admission) is that affirmative action isn't actually practiced. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240800) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:23 PM Author: Floppy senate ladyboy Libs are pathological liars, news at 11. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240810) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:23 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown thanks for digging all this up
lol at shitlib flame media
I wonder if they will print something if we point these out
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:30 PM Author: vivacious tank HOLY FUCK. would slate actually publish a correction or comment at the bottom of this article if we sent this to them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241564) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:56 PM Author: gay mother y. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241746) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:00 PM Author: gay mother Nicole Hannah-Jones' Propublica article should also correct, here's her editor's email
Stephen Engelberg, Editor-in-Chief stephen.engelberg@propublica.org |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:27 PM Author: startled corn cake school no obviously. that would imply they have a shred of integrity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241916) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 8:01 PM Author: Greedy Dragon send this to Drudge
think of other bloggers to send it to |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 3:07 AM Author: Soul-stirring Cruise Ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28250408) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 11:36 PM Author: rose at-the-ready kitchen affirmative action 180 scholarship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28242419) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:31 PM Author: geriatric church building laser beams lol @ this low-iq nig. he mangled roberts' quote in a way that shows he misses the point entirely (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240865) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 7:33 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28240877) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:37 PM Author: Aromatic newt pocket flask haven't you guys ever run across jamelle bouie's work before? he is so incompetent with analysis and numbers, i feel sorry for him. it's better to just pat him on the head and ignore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241620) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:45 PM Author: vivacious tank it's despicable that slate would publish something like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241680) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:48 PM Author: Aromatic newt pocket flask no, he's their young house negro. they let him spout off where he pleases so they have a black face on their sidebar (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241692) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:53 PM Author: vivacious tank where are the goddamn fact checkers on something like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241721) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:54 PM Author: gay mother I gave you guys the editor's email if you feel like making a stink... IMHO the Propublica thing that he cribbed his data from made the error (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241728) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:02 PM Author: vivacious tank JFC don't authors care about making good arguments? about good writing? is it unreasonable to expect authors to verify factual claims they make? it doesn't matter what the propublica article said, bouie, a fact-checker, and his editor should have gotten this right. particularly because it's the kind of "fact" that seems fishy right out the gate, if things were as bouie reported them, it would go against how affirmative action works in the first place.
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:12 PM Author: gay mother Slate doesn't fact check, they run hundreds Of stories and pay freelancers $200 a story, it's basically Gawker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241842) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:16 PM Author: vivacious tank you seem to know a lot about them. how did you come about this knowledge? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241862) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:18 PM Author: Aromatic newt pocket flask have you been on the internet in the last five years? you're acting like slate publishes journalism. they are two tiny notches above gawker trash. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241876) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:27 PM Author: Arousing tanning salon there's some good stuff published on slate by accident though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241917) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:29 PM Author: gay mother Those are book excerpts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241923) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:19 PM Author: gay mother I'm in the industry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241880) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:22 PM Author: vivacious tank what online mags do you respect? if any. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241898) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:26 PM Author: gay mother I hate them all, I've only ever been fact checked for print stories... Online only are terrible, no respect for reporting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241913) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 11:24 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm JFC. so basically, liberal <160 LSAT scoring editors who don't fact-check are the gateway to publication? this is insane. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28242332) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:35 PM Author: gay mother Indeed, and as a bonus many are under 25 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245321) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 8:04 PM Author: Ivory jewess dat old skool, we da new skool (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247953) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:49 PM Author: gay mother If someone feels like emailing his boss and pointing out the error (which would be a huge embarrassment):
julia.turner@slate.com is the editor in chief
http://everyonewhosanyone.com/pv/pv09.html contains emails for most of the bigwigs
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:54 PM Author: Aromatic newt pocket flask it's futile. nearly every article he writes has severe analytical or statistical errors. the only ones that don't are of the simple rah-rah "racism bad" type. i'm certain his editors know he's an idiot but they want a black face on their sidebar more than they want well-reasoned articles. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241727) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 9:55 PM Author: gay mother nah, they're focused on getting the story whipped into shape and data (EDIT: meaning analytics)... people pointing out serious errors (especially grownup attorneys) is extremely embarrassing
EDIT: although I think he just took the data straight from the Propublica article and didn't check it... so he'd blame them |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 11:22 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm Ok, I just emailed almost everyone on that list. I hope something comes of this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28242322) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 10:10 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28241837) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2015 11:32 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28242388) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:14 AM Author: Fragrant background story business firm no response or correction so far. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28244429) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:32 AM Author: Bateful hospital Post the email you sent. RSF, if you read this, you should write a rebuttal to Bouie's article and have Unz publish it. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:34 AM Author: Fragrant background story business firm Dear Slate,
Jamelle Bouie's June 29, 2015 article titled "Easy AA" (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/fisher_v_university_of_texas_the_supreme_court_might_just_gut_affirmative.html) contains two claims that are so misleading that they are possibly the result of intentional obfuscation and deception. Specifically, to support an argument that, because Abigail Fisher's "grades didn't make the cut", the University of Texas did not discriminate against her when it rejected her application for admission, Bouie disingenuously equivocates between high school grades, test scores, and the AI/PAI scores the University of Texas gives to each applicant for admission. He writes:
"For the remaining 8 percent of in-state spots, UT Austin used a comprehensive approach that weighed grades and test scores along with essays, leadership, activities, service to the community, and 'special circumstances.' Those ranged from socioeconomic status and school quality, to family background and race. As the university’s director of admissions explained for the 5th Circuit, '[R]ace provides—like language, whether or not someone is the first in their family to attend college, and family responsibilities—important context in which to evaluate applicants, and is only one aspect of the diversity that the University seeks to attain.'
Neither special circumstances nor grades were determinative. Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse grades than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s." (emphasis added).
A reader who is not familiar with the underlying factual record of Fisher v. Texas -- the average Slate reader -- would interpret the bolded language as claiming that 47 of the students admitted under the comprehensive approach plan had worse high school grades than Fisher, and that 168 black and Latino students who were rejected had test scores equal to or better than Fisher's. There is no basis for those claims. What the factual record actually indicates is that 47 students admitted under the comprehensive approach had a worse combined AI/PAI score than Fisher, and that 168 black and Latino students who were rejected had equal or better combined AI/PAI scores than Fisher. See Respondent's Brief at 15-16 (http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf). These errors are egregious because PAI scores are based in part on an applicant's race. See Respondent's Brief at 13 ("An applicant's PAI score is based on . . . a Personal Achievement Score . . . . The PAS score ranges from 1 to 6 . . . and is based on holistic consideration of six equally-weighted factors: [other factors], and special circumstances. The 'special circumstances' factor is broken down into seven attributes, including . . . an applicant's race.")
Bouie's equivocation between high school grades, test scores, and AI/PAI scores is seriously misleading, because the actual facts -- that Bouie has confused for the reader -- provide zero support for his argument that Fisher was less qualified than 168 black and Latino applicants who were denied admission to the University. The "scores" on which these applicants equaled or bested Fisher were based in part on race. We have no idea whether those 168 applicants would have had a higher AI/PAI score than Fisher had race not been considered.
I hope that Slate issues a prominent correction to Mr. Bouie's article.
Thank you,
A law student concerned about Slate's declining quality |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:42 AM Author: Bateful hospital You should post this as a comment to the story. I read through most of the comments, and a couple tangentially touched upon this issue, but no one provided a definitive rebuttal.
Stir shit up over there. In the past, editors have responded to comments, and making it public, may force them to respond. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:33 PM Author: gay mother Wow! I hope you'll get a reply (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245305) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:15 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245188) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:26 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm Julia Turner responded, said they're going to check it out (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245258) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 12:34 PM Author: gay mother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28245313) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 4:12 PM Author: Bateful hospital For real? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28246738) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:44 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm yes. she also said i didn't have to use an anonymous gmail account. i'm wary of these motherfuckers though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247209) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:45 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown lol i wouldn't reveal my identity if I were you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247212) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:44 PM Author: out-of-control talking property (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247210) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:45 PM Author: Twinkling parlour Lol what a half assed fucking correction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247211) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:50 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm LOL and they kept this sentence, too:
"To call this discrimination is to say that Fisher was entitled to a space at the UT Austin, despite grades that didn’t make the cut." The entire basis for the "grades that didn't make the cut" claim was Bouie's equivocation. Now that it's been "corrected" how can they keep the assertion that her grades weren't good enough? It's entirely possible, as they have reported the facts, that every single black/Latino person admitted had equal or worse grades. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:54 PM Author: Titillating splenetic theatre sandwich * Correction: The Entire Premise of this article is flame, but you read this article 3 days ago and will never see this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247240) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 5:55 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown WE ARE FAMOUS BRO
HELL YEAH
|
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:17 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete lol what a bunch of fucking hacks. The efforts to hide the ball are ridiculous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247345) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:22 PM Author: gay mother Enough pressure like this on pseudo journalistic places like Slate and you'll get better stories, guarantee this generated several meetings (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247376) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:30 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm did bouie himself do the correction? i note that the correction itself is wrong -- the 47 students who had lower scores than Fisher were admitted, not rejected.
in any case, it's pathetic that the correction doesn't also clarify the impact of the accurate statistic on the original argument made by the article. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:34 PM Author: gay mother Was probably generated by tense negotiations between editors and writer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247457) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:46 PM Author: curious yellow menage Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 2h2 hours ago You know, I make mistakes and am happy to make corrections, but some of the people who email to say "this is wrong" are complete jackasses.
Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 2h2 hours ago The latest one comes from a dude who accuses of me deliberately obfuscating and lying to readers because of a mistake in the piece. Really? |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:50 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete I made a mistake, granted it's the entire premise of the article, but c'mon, I'm human. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247582) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:23 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm are we becoming assholes because we're lawyers? citechecking and CYA is part of the job when you want to ensure quality and withstand the scrutiny your opponent will give your argument, so this is normal to us. is it unreasonable to hold online article writers to the same standard? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247735) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:26 PM Author: big-titted aphrodisiac stage keepsake machete But that's the thing, this isn't some typo or a fact that hurts your credibility. The point of the article is that this was a ridiculous case because she wouldn't have got in anyway. I'm pretty aggressively anti AA and I read the article and thought, wow, this is actually a shitty case, maybe this isn't the one we should be using. Turns out, that was all because of his "mistake." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247759) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:28 PM Author: gay mother No, he has a responsibility to be accurate especially with such a sensitive subject. you're doing Slate a favor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248605) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:30 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm but why would they pay attention to our critical comments? i'm surprised she responded to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247429) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:34 PM Author: gay mother Because you were right and they have a duty to tell the truth... That's why it's important to push back (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247464) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:40 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm ok, maybe i'm giving editors too little credit. i always assume editors are 100% shitlibs in the same way the writers are and are willing to overlook faulty reasoning and argumentation in support of the cause. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247507) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:19 PM Author: gay mother They're definitely shitlib, but also have an obligation to tell the truth so if you call prove something is wrong, they usually fix it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248557) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:43 PM Author: Twinkling parlour Did she actually respond or are you just talking about the "retraction" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247526) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:44 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm she emailed a response to my initial email, saying that they'd look into it and that i didn't need to create an anonymous gmail account to bring this issue up. no correspondence either way since then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247535) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:17 PM Author: snowy razzle weed whacker Whenever anyone says "not determinative" or "not necessarily" in the context of a social issue, you can be pretty sure they're full of shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247349) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 11:37 PM Author: snowy razzle weed whacker Still true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#29347297) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:49 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. The error Bouie made is of the sort that would infuriate a federal judge and get associates fired. But here it's like water off a duck's back. This isn't some fucking typo. This is a colossal mistake that resulted either from (a) Bouie's laziness because rigor doesn't matter when the argument supports your side, or (b) deception. If he wanted to make the point that AI/PAI scores aren't everything, then, fine, he could have made that point relying on accurate data. But he instead wanted to denigrate Fisher's academic credentials, essentially saying, she was too stupid to get in anyway. That overreach was not merely an exaggeration, it has no basis in fact. It's terrible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247580) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:08 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247681) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:11 PM Author: Disgusting idea he suggested stag film Even sadder: we've seen enough of these from Slate and Salon to realize that if the article is about something we ourselves know about then we don't need them and if it isn't then we can't trust them. There is no reason to read Slate or Salon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247689) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:18 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm LJL it's so true. I basically do not trust any of their claims about the results of studies, because almost every time, if you go to the original source, you'll find that Slate's write-up is misleading. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247713) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:29 PM Author: gay mother Indeed, nor any other place that doesn't have standards (i.e. major metro newspapers and WSJ) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248613) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 6:52 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown we should email the editor again (from anonymous gmail ofcourse) and point out that this correction is BS and that what we pointed out removes most of the supporting evidence for the author's assertion
|
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:25 PM Author: gay mother nah, they won't do anything else. Let it be. A correction of any sort is a big deal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248593) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:29 PM Author: Twinkling parlour let him know and be polite:
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/616710419055415297 |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:32 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm Good job. Please make sure that they don't get away with confusing the issues. I anticipate a response that Fisher's grades weren't in the top 10%, so in that sense, she didn't make the cut for the top 10% program. That's not the specific sense in which Bouie made his initial claim. he was referring to the comprehensive approach program, and implying that her grades weren't good enough under that program, when the truth is it's entirely possible every black/latino admitted under that program had equal or worse grades than Fisher.
in any case, he should be given copious amounts of shit for not digging into it further, even if it was a "mistake". this is confirmation bias at work. if you hear a fact that should be facially suspect as it goes against all understanding of how affirmative action works, then you should pause and confirm that what you heard is actually right. here, bouie may not have even thought, huh this fact is too good to be true for our side and makes no sense in the context of affirmative action. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 7:47 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247884) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 8:04 PM Author: curious yellow menage "I made a simple mistake and corrected it. Now they're hounding me to apologize even more. Oh wait, they're from a notorious racist message board? Yeah, now I get it; they're on a witch hunt." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247951) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 8:11 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28247973) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 9:15 PM Author: vivacious tank Lol did he delete your messages? Can't see them anymore (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248218) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:24 PM Author: gay mother You can also retweet this at Slate's PR person, he's being really unprofessional--he probably got in a heap of trouble for fucking up like this. And no, he didn't make an error, he borrowed someone else's work and didn't bother checking it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248587) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 11:56 PM Author: Greedy Dragon lol - "You are blocked from following @jbouie and viewing @jbouie's Tweets. Learn more"
|
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 2:49 AM Author: multi-colored french mediation I'm blocked by him too, and I don't even remember ever interacting with him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28250368) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 9:39 PM Author: vivacious tank http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSfdW7YNb7o (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248389) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:36 PM Author: lime cocky institution boistinker holy shit you nerds need to get a life. most of you haven't been in a college for a decade.
faggots. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:40 PM Author: Tan flickering yarmulke space I was just thinking this. it's over, fuck it. shit barely matters any more. who the fuck cares about this shit. Prestige is flame, we figured that out a long time ago. If Asians all want to go to harvard, fucking let them. if harvard wants to admit a class of black trannies, fuck it, who cares. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248663) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 10:47 PM Author: lime cocky institution boistinker literally all that matters in life is having a fulfilling relationship with loved ones, some semblance of a purpose in your work, and that's really it.
all the other shit is flame. prestige is flaming flamingo shaped flame. |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 11:16 PM Author: rose at-the-ready kitchen affirmative action Lololol. Highly credited. But the PRINCIPLE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248886) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 11:09 PM Author: gay mother this isn't about college this is about people like JB misleading people and potentially influencing public policy. It has to get called out. If we don't do it, no one will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28248835) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2015 11:14 PM Author: Greedy Dragon this isn't about AA, its about journalism that's misleading to its readers
if you read that article, you're less well informed than before you read it |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 12:47 AM Author: Fragrant background story business firm Good work, XOXO. Let's do this for other articles, too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28249563) |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 3:37 AM Author: Twinkling parlour twitter comments were not deleted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28250455) |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 3:39 AM Author: Twinkling parlour However I was blocked for criticizing his article. Such is the thin skin of shitlib "journalists" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28250459) |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 11:16 AM Author: Bateful hospital Any more updates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28251229) |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 2:34 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown i dont think so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28252250) |
|
Date: July 3rd, 2015 2:59 PM Author: rose at-the-ready kitchen affirmative action Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie the mistake now, so your failure to better inform and educate your readers can't be categorized as an honest mistake
Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie if it was an honest mistake before, and there was no intent to obfuscate the facts, which I'm inclined to believe, you understand
Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie your correction should explain the flawed premise that the argument of the entire column is based on,
Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie if your goal as a journalist is to leave your readers better educated and informed after they've read your column than before
Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie if you weren't deliberately obfuscating, your honest mistake was that you were passing on the arguments of someone who was
Phillip Zimmermann 15h15 hours ago @jbouie the correction as it stands now has to be carefully parsed to figure out why the correction was needed in the first place
John Zoidberg 20h20 hours ago @jbouie Problem is this "mistake" removes all supporting evidence upon which your conclusion was reached. Fisher did not have worse grades.
John Zoidberg 20h20 hours ago @jbouie You or your editors correct one data point (and in the process make an additional error).
John Zoidberg 20h20 hours ago @jbouie The problem is that the entire premise of your article is based on misleading data. The correction is shoddy and insufficient.
http://i.imgur.com/OT9oYdD.png |
|
Date: July 5th, 2015 5:48 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown nice
did he respond to any of these comments?
|
|
Date: March 1st, 2016 3:24 PM Author: Tantric lascivious lettuce station i love how both of these are jewish names (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#29953243) |
|
Date: July 7th, 2015 5:11 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28277001) |
|
Date: July 8th, 2015 8:17 PM Author: buff fear-inspiring clown now Bouie is commenting on the lack of logic in a national review article
Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 6h6 hours ago Dupont Circle, Washington The obvious problem with this piece is that the logic is almost nonsensical.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420877/socialism-left-white |
|
Date: October 8th, 2015 12:44 PM Author: Fragrant background story business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#28926028) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2016 1:40 AM Author: Tantric lascivious lettuce station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#31830224) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2015 2:35 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#29342808) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2016 3:07 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#29953085) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2016 3:11 PM Author: Galvanic bonkers bbw market (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#29953116) |
|
Date: November 17th, 2016 3:41 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#31934208) |
|
Date: February 20th, 2017 6:27 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#32663651) |
|
Date: December 13th, 2017 12:38 PM Author: vivacious tank (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#34908847) |
|
Date: October 10th, 2020 12:02 PM Author: vivacious tank NIKOLE HANNAH JONES WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THIS BULLSHIT CLAIM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2924299&forum_id=2#41085732) |