43% of Harvard's White Students are ALDC Admits

[alexf.1990]

Their? You mean "its." The stat you're referring to solely relates to dropping legacy admissions. Donor and child of employee are separate categories, which is why they ran models that included the other preferences. Why are you only focused on the effect of dropping legacy admissions when the article is about the combined effect of ALDC?

They didn't run models for what a class would look like without donor and children of staff would look like. They ran models for non-legacy, non-athlete, and non-athlete/legacy/racial preference. The results are posted above. There's absolutely no factual basis for your claims or the narrative pushed in the article. The only way I can imagine you've arrived at your conclusion is if you assume that the ADLC applicants wouldn't be replaced if the ADLC system were removed, which is a stunning mistake for someone so well-versed in the social "sciences." Someone capable of making such an elementary error wouldn't dare to correct another poster on a mere pronoun typo.

Are you refusing to read anything other than Table 11? I literally quoted the information from Table 10 above.

Table 10 only tells you the likelihood that current ADLC admits would have been admitted without ADLC preferences, it doesn't simulate what an admissions class would look like without those preferences in place. That is, we know those candidates have a lower chance of admission, but who would take their place without those policies in place. Table 11 gives us the answer: largely other white and Asian students. This is the exact opposite of what you and the journalists covering this story are arguing. Your narrative appears to be: whites are represented because of these "racist" policies. The reality is that without racial preference, this very study shows 66% of black and hispanic students wouldn't be admitted to Harvard. Do better.

If you read the methods section, you would know that the simulated class demographics are based on admissions probability. Admissions probabilities for various characteristics are laid out in multiple tables. If the researchers felt they could accurately calculate how the combined effects would impact the number of admits for each racial/ethic category in the counterfactuals, their expectation was that removing ALDC preferences would result in a drop of White admits that is significantly more than 6%. They focused on legacy, as opposed to child of donors or child of employees, for ease of exposition. As I have stated multiple times, the group that is most negatively impacted by ALDC preferences is Asians. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Arcidiacono, the person who wrote the study, was retained by Students for Fair Admissions. In a court case, you're going to choose an expert who will benefit your argument. I believe the stats Dr. Arcidiacono collected are accurate. However, the decision to only run certain simulations could have possibly been influenced by the fact that he was working for the plaintiffs. For balance, this is the report from Dr. Card, who was retained by Harvard. 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/di...dacted.pdf

I read the methods section of the report. If you believe the inclusion of donor and child of employee data would lead to "significantly more more than the 6%" reduction, feel free to show how you came to that conclusion. Neither the original paper, nor the one you just posted alleges such. It's just such a reach to make an allegation like that, while simultaneously ignoring the clear conclusion of the paper: that Harvard's admissions preferences are racist against Asians and it's melanin-based preferences are the sole reason 60%+ of black and hispanic students were admitted. Why exactly does all of the coverage of this paper have the same "43% of whites aren't qualified" narrative?

For the record, the original paper wasn't funded by either party to the lawsuit.