Comment by pannSun | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pannSun | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> pledges action on steps to enhance Jewish life on campus

It seems Jewish life is already thriving on campus - despite being just ~2% of US population, they are 7/11% of Stanford's undergraduate/graduate students [1]. To put that into perspective, and excluding from analysis the 10% international students, they are 3.9x over-represented among non-international undergraduates, relative to their US population.

In contrast, white (including Jewish) undergraduates are only 32.6% of undergraduates, but 57.8% of US population [3]. Meaning non-Jewish whites are 25.6% of undergraduates, making them 0.49x under-represented.

So despite a Jewish person having a 7.9x greater chance of getting into Stanford than a non-Jewish white, Stanford's president is apologizing that this disparity isn't even greater.

[1] https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/stanford-un...

[2] https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/stanford-university/...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_demographics

I've feel I've reached a strange line of reasoning here where the OP complained about asian discrimination of college admissions, but the most recent reply seems to imply that asians are also over represented as well (~22% of Stanford, but 6% of US pop).

Any time I see this come up it always feels like asian students are being used a cudgel in order increase admissions for white students.

What does "over represented" mean?

Dude, he is replying to a comment saying "over-represented among non-international undergraduates, relative to their US population.". I think it doesn't take a Ph.D. in linguistics to comprehend what everyone is saying here: some racial subgroup is represented at x% in total population but at y%>x% in the population under consideration.

You can disagree with it, as I do (where I don't expect every non-racial sub-population to show proportions of race corresponding to the total population) but how can you not comprehend what he's saying? Like, you don't understand it? Come on, postulate a few explanations in English for what it could possibly mean.

In my post, I specifically defined it relative to US population. But what you are implying is correct - in general, "over-represented" is subjective. Had I used only US population with SAT score above some threshold, the numbers would have differed.

In fact, it's past the time time to address your question, and start using the term consistently. Stanford themselves boast how "underrepresented minorities" are the fastest growing group [1], without defining the term. Presumably they mean relative to population, but somehow they don't count whites among that group, despite them being, at Stanford, both under-represented and a minority.

We would all greatly benefit if, instead of being so coy, they would openly state: "Yes, there are fewer non-Jewish whites than what would be expected from population numbers, but that is because they're just not smart enough."

After all, how can the conversation advance, if the participants are dishonest, hiding or ignoring data as is convenient?

[1] https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/12/08/underrepresented...

There's literally a definition of under-represented groups in that article. What are they hiding? The whole point is that raw intelligence on some absolute scale (however measured) is not the only factor in admissions.

Their definition states which groups they consider under-represented, but not the criterion for under-representation. That this criterion is total US population (and not e.g. population with SAT score worthy of Stanford) is implied, not explicit.

The implication may be clear to you and I, but the post I replied to was literally asking what over-represented means (what, not who). Presumably they would ask the same of that Stanford article.

Discrimination and over-representation could both happen right?

Group A is 5% of the overall population, but 15% of the best admissions to a college, and the college ends up being 10% from group A.

Fine, but then the reasoning against Jewish students doesn't stand. How can anyone, except for the Stanford admissions office, deduce whether or not Jewish students are over or under represented?

I continue to be amazed at the notion that anyone could walk the grounds of an elite university and conclude they discriminate against Asians. Why not focus on institutions where Asians are actually under-represented? Government, executive suites, Hollywood, sports, music, arts?

err... because Asians typically have to score higher/better on GPAs, exams, and such to get in than other ethnic groups. Yes, Asians are over-represented in US universities if comparing to the population of the US but are doing so despite the discrimination.

Also - grouping all Asian groups is racist in itself. It's implying that Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Thai, Vietnamese are the same, which is patently false.

Don't forget your demographic adjustments! The ~5% of Fortune 500 Board seats held by Asians corresponds roughly to the share of the population that's Asians who are citizens, fluent in English, and in the age bracket for that kind of position. As to "Hollywood" and "art"--let white kids waste their lives on such pursuits.

> As to "Hollywood" and "art"--let white kids waste their lives on such pursuits.

This sentence comes out as both racist and elitist at the same time.

The HackerNews classic

Music and art (as careers) are elitist. Those careers didn’t exist in my dad’s third world village.

Just because you see a lot of Asians at Stanford doesn't mean that they aren't anti-asian. There should be even more of them given just how much better the average asian student is compared to the average student.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com