What an Orwellian euphemism, “affirmative action”.
1997 SAT Data
In 1997, Stephen Epinshade found that being black is worth 230 points on the SAT, being hispanic is worth 185 points, being asian costs you 50 points, and being a legacy is worth 160 points when applying to a university.
SAT Scores at the Top 20 Universities
I don’t know of any similar recent analysis of this that has been done. So to estimate how much affirmative action is being done, we have to infer from more aggregate data. And this is done looking at SAT score distributions by race, and the racial composition of student bodies at universities. I limited by analysis to the top 20 universities by average SAT. All SAT data is math+verbal only.
So here are the top 20 universities by SAT selectivity and their racial composition:
Racial Composition of top 20 US Universities by Average SAT
We can compare the proportions each racial group made of the 1478+ SAT scorers, and what percentage of admissions they were compared to their percentage of the 1478+ SAT scores:
Representation of Racial Groups in top 20 Universities Relative to their Number Scoring at or Above the Average SAT for said Universities
And so whites “should” be 72.46% of all admitted students at the top 20 Universities, presuming that on aggregate whites and blacks with the same SAT are, on average, equivalent on everything else overall. This is not an outlandish assumption, as the races, when SAT scores are controlled for, do roughly the same in college, with whites actually doing slightly better for any given SAT score.
In addition, Epinshade in 1997 (linked above) controlled for a whole host of factors and found that members of reach racial group, for a given SAT score, were virtually equivalent on average. If you think that’s not the case today, that despite whites and asians actually doing better in University for any given SAT score than blacks and hispanics with the same scores, that blacks and hispanics have some other things about them that make them better candidates for any given SAT score, well, feel free to show all of that and I’ll modify this article accordingly.
Whites should be 72.46%, blacks should be 0.67%, hispanics should be 2.81%, and asians should be 24.06%. The deviations from these result in whites only having 61.21% as many students in the top 20 universities as they should, and asians only getting 78.55% of their students in. Hispanics get 370.11% as many students as they should get, and blacks get a whopping 873.13%, almost nine times the representation that their SAT scores warrant.
But with these numbers, we can figure out what the average SAT will be for the top 20 University attendees by race:
Average SAT by Race for Student Body of the top 20 Universities
This may come as a surprise, but whites actually get punished more than asians both in terms of their representation as a percentage of qualified applicants, and in terms of the point value of the discrimination against them. Now I am simply looking at the top 20 Universities, not the top 100, or all, and so these results aren’t necessarily applicable to all Universities.
Following the passage of Proposition 209 in California, which forbade the usage of racial quotas in school admissions, the University of California and the California State systems adopted a “holistic review” process.
Factors taken into consideration, in addition to SAT, GPA, Honors and extracirriculars, were the “life challenge index” and “eligibility in the local context” – or class rank.
Now using class rank is a particularly devious tactic, as it allows elite universities to reach into overwhelmingly black schools. The problem is that the school you go to doesn’t really matter at all.
It’s simply going to stack you up against smarter kids and lower your class rank.
Moreover, “life difficulty”, to the extent it is treated as synonymous with “money”, is not a relevant causal variable for IQ. Sure, within the US, people with lower IQs have less money, and tend to have lower IQ parents, who also have less money.
But even taking into considerations these questionable “controls”, cherry-picked to maximize the yield of black and hispanic students at the UC system, it STILL wasn’t working. Richard Sander got a hold of the actual “holistic score” data through a Freedom of Information Act request and found that (since the UC system refused to publish the data), even with all of these things taken into account (which I think are spurious controls anyway), the UC system STILL gives pure racial preferences:
And so even when whites have, according to the UC holistic admissions score, the same supposed disadvantages as blacks (low income, parents didn’t go to college, “bad school”, etc.) they are still giving blacks preference.
But of course they have to, because if they just went by various “life challenge” indicators, they’d be taking in mostly disadvantaged whites:
Because whites at the bottom 10% do about as well as blacks at the top 10%, Universities must explicitly discriminate on purely racial lines if they want hardly any blacks in at all. And they must, to a lesser extent, do this for hispanics as well.
But in addition to all of this circumstantial evidence, 42% of admissions officers themselves say that “membership in an under-represented group” is the most important variable for them, saying this is more important than them having exceptional talent:
Coincidental with, or perhaps a response to, the fact that poor whites outperform upper income blacks, is the pushing of “white privilege” on whites in the poorest parts of the country. Since it can’t be genetics, as race differences in cognitive abilities tied to genetics is not allowed, these poor whites must be outperfoming rich blacks for environmental reasons, and so the “white privilege” must be so ubiquitous, so powerful, that even these people have terrific institutional privileges.
Racial Extremism at the Universities
But it gets more extreme than that. An article from The American Conservative included Jews as a category for the population of elite universities.
This is important, because Jews are lumped in with whites. But since very few white people are Jews, it’s important to distinguish, whenever possible the Jewish and non-Jewish representation.
While whites were only 43.1% of the average population of the top 20 universities by SAT requirement in 2014, non-Jewish whites were a mere 23% of the Ivy League schools, with Jews at 23%:
The American Conservative also looked at other metrics with which to infer merit, looking at the US Math Olympiad Teams, College Putnam Math Winners, US Physics Olympiad winners, Science Olympiad Winners, Siemens Science AP Winners, Science Talent Search Finalists, NMS Semifinialists for whatever states they could find.
It is worth noting that each of these tables add up to 100% despite not having a black or hispanic category.
Based on this data the author concluded that Jews are probably overrepresented at elite universities by a factor of about 3:
What this means though, is that whites, except Jews, are heavily discriminated against through the use of “holistic review” in favor of Jews, who are overrepresented relative to their ability. They are a high-performing group which also gets preferences and appear to be over-represented for their ability level, while non-jewish whites get the shaft.
And so when jews are disambiguated from non-jews, the already savage discrimination against whites at the elite universities becomes very, very extreme.
I did not expect the Universities to be this extreme when I started writing this article.
The racial privilege of blacks and hispanics is not limited to admissions to the undergraduate programs.
In applications to medical schools, blacks and hispanics get major bonuses on their MCAT and GPA:
So one should try to stay away from black doctors, and prefer asian doctors.
For law schools, the Occidental Observer looked at the LSAT scores and found that being black was worth about 6 points for the top 14 law schools, or 7 points for the top 6 law schools.
Because of how closely clustered LSAT scores are, a more meaningful way to think of this in percentiles:
Thus, being black is worth leapfrogging 16 percent of whites at the top 6 law schools, and is worth 11 leapfrogging 11 percent of whites at the top 14 schools.
As illustrated more thoroughly in another article on this site, blacks with the same college credential are, on average, significantly less intelligent than whites at the same credential level.
This is found using wordsum scores from the General Social Survey by race and education level:
So a black person with a graduate degree (masters, PhD) will have only a sligthly higher verbal IQ than a white person with a high school diploma.
Keep in mind that blacks actually do better on verbal tests than they do on non-verbal tests, and so the full-scale IQ of blacks at each education level is almost certainly going to be lower than this.
This black underperformance by education level is also found on adult literacy surveys. These involve prose (writing), document reading, and quantitative reasoning:
What this means is that a black person with a college degree is only going to be slightly more competent than a white high school graduate. And the highest credentialed blacks will, on average, be slightly less competent than whites with basic 4-year degrees.
Steve Farron, in a speech he gave on his book “The Affirmative Action Hoax”, only 18% of black college graduates could summarize a newspaper article, and only 11% could read a bus schedule. Of course this probably means that most whites can’t do these things either.
It is clear that the elite universities in the United States are discriminating against whites in an extreme manner, to the point where whites, particularly non-jewish whites, are strictly underrepresented relative to their percentage of the population. By their population, they should be 55% of the people at these Universities, and by their merit should be around 72%. But admissions officers have made sure that their average student body is only 44.35% white.
Other races do not perform better than their SATs would predict, in fact they perform slightly worse compared to whites with the same scores. The anti-white discrimination is not merely the disparate impact of controlling for “social” and economic factors; it is, and based on low-class whites outperforming high-class blacks, has to be, a function of race itself.
And it doesn’t get better. When applying to law and medical school, the blacks and hispanics still perform worse, and still get preferential treatment. And finally, once they have those degrees, the blacks are far less intelligent and competent than whites with the same credentials, causing employers to devalue black and hispanic degrees.
But this shouldn’t be too surprising. This is the result of an impossible situation that the admissions officers are in; holding an environmental determinist view on race that was established in the civil rights era, disallowing racial genetic differences to even enter the discussion. And then, 50 years later, having made precisely zero progress beyond the direct results of affirmative action quotas, that would be lost the moment those quotas were removed, they must find new explanations, and they must justify de facto racial quotes longer, and more, and against poor whites as well.
It’s not traditional environmental disadvantages, no, the environmental effects must be more extreme, more exotic, more hidden. Genes explain it easily, but genes cannot enter into it because only racists think that way, and since it is racist it must be wrong. Besides, we here at the elite universities, who established back in 1965 that all was environmentally determined, know that “race realism” is just suit-and-tie racism, therefore it is incorrect. Racist, therefore incorrect.
And so like a schizophrenic with mad delusions, these people keep trying to find the connections, keep imagining “white privilege” everywhere to explain why the poorest people in the country, whites from appalachia, keep outperfoming their precious, coddled and pumped up rich blacks from the prep schools and tutors.
These people are sick.