« Global Warming part 1 | Main | Who donates the most money to Ivy League universities? »

July 28, 2010

Comments

Your understanding of Espenshade's results is superficial.

He found that even after controlling for family background, athletic and leadership activities, Asians had to earn higher SAT scores to have the admission probability as white applicants.

The point is there are too many overqualified Asians and schools don't want their racial composition to change too radically, for fear of alienating alumni donors.

"And I’ve long suspected that African immigrants disproportionately come from the top half of the African bell curve."

And I've long suspected that blacks who were imported to America in slavery disproportionately came from the bottom half of the African bell curve (though their descendants score much higher than blacks in Africa because of better nutrition and white admixture). Since intelligence is the mental ability to adapt and problem solve, by definition the smarter blacks should have figured out how to not get caught by slave traders or would have been part of the African elite that was selling slaves. Thus it makes sense that the one black who became the most powerful man on Earth has the benefit of both white genes and the genes of a VOLUNTARY black migrant.

actually Harvard and all other top places discriminate most and openly against international students (and it's legal to do so, btw). as an international student you better have gold medals from international olympiads or equivalent if you want to be accepted based on academic merit. otherwise, letters of recommendation from president, prime minister, top business person (such as head of the national bank) would work too. ofc, it's much better if you're related to one of these top guns. all my international friends at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT and Stanford come from these backgrounds. Caltech is the only one that's a bit more relaxed. They are also relaxed with girl applicants. Instead of international olympiads, national olympiads would do (quite a big step down).

Hello all,

Do HBD-advocates have a concise and detailed plan for dealing with their often discussed and much disdained demographic of black Americans that differs from the normal White Nationalist/White Supremacist lot of Stormfront and VNN?

As a young black American male myself, I find myself reading HBD blogs and thinking that advocates of HBD discuss and defame 'me' more as venting and social callousness than actually finding a means to deal with my inherent 'criminality, anti-sociable tendencies, non-existent capacity to assimilate and inferior intellectual capacity'.

[HS: I only care mostly about getting the truth out. What people do with the truth could either be good or bad for blacks. I have recommended teaching middle class values to poor students.]

I'm curious- do you think the college consultants for Ivy admissions do much good?

I had a Jewish girlfriend, not exactly a prole but lower midle-class. She grew up in Trump Village in Brooklyn. Her father was getting a graduate degree in political science when her mother got sick, and dropped out to become an IRS collection agent.

She got a 1250 on the SAT, which was not good enough for her mother, so she was sent to a prep course, took it again and got a 1450. Her thing was music, she did not have any athletics, but she got a National Merit scholarship and went to a upper level public university.

"half-black adoptees had higher IQ scores than full-black adoptees"
The fact that African immigrants dominate elite colleges compared to native blacks is a proof that full-blacks have higher IQs than half blacks.

[HS: NO, it's proof (or at least compelling evidence) that African immigrants have higher IQs than descendants of American slaves.]

"Do HBD-advocates have a concise and detailed plan..."

No. HBD advocates pretty much only agree on the empirical facts. "What Is To Be Done" is a rich field of disagreement.

But really,i never obsess about heritability.One can ace any IQ or standardised test by engaging in the right activities,like puzzles and math.I have done so

I suspect that the emphasis on leadership activities began mostly out of a desire to load the Ivies with children of privilege and to keep out those nerdy Jews who got really high test scores.

This is pretty well established fact. Read The Chosen: "Subtitle is something about Harvard Yale and Princeton".

"The point is there are too many overqualified Asians and schools don't want their racial composition to change too radically, for fear of alienating alumni donors."


The Ivies are correct on this point.

If the percentage of Asian students rises above a certain threshold, fewer and fewer white prep school students will want to apply to an Ivy anymore because too many Asian students kills the social atmosphere on campus.

There's a reason Asian women marry white guys whenever possible and it's because the Asian students have the personality of Styrofoam cups - even compared to most white nerds - and the Ivies know this.

The ability to make social connections, and not so much academics aside from Medicine and the hard sciences, is one of the biggest lures the Ivies have to offer future white elites.

If the Ivies don't keep the percentage of Asians to a minimum they correctly fear they will become large research facilities.

"Believe it or not, there exist prole Jews"

I have a hard time believing there exist 'pure-bred' prole Jews in America today. I think proles of the recent past may have assimilated more readily into Gentile culture then an upper middle class Jew. How does a prole Jew compare to an upper class Jew on the IQ scale?

"I suspect that the emphasis on leadership activities began mostly out of a desire to load the Ivies with children of privilege and to keep out those nerdy Jews who got really high test scores."

So when the policy went one way (exclude Jewish applicants) you believe it was because of intentional ethnic animus.

Now that a different ethnic group controls admissions and has instituted a policy that can fairly be described as "exclude those least likely to be members of our ethnic group" you believe it is just an accident and you believe the surface justification ("we're looking for leadership")?

"What happened is that the Jews learned that their children were being denied admissions because they weren’t doing sports and other leadership activities, so they adjusted their child rearing strategies to give the Ivies what they wanted, and now Jews are part of the elite along with WASPs and the admissions policies which originally worked against them now work in their favor."

Ah, except "leadership" isn't what's being looked for; after all, applicants who are in leadership positions and receive honors from 4H or high school ROTC are actually less likely to be accepted than applicants who participate in the same activity with no distinctions.

What also happened is that as the ethic makeup of the faculty and admissions committees changed, the definition of "leadership" changed to match markers for the now dominant ethnic group.

The part you fail to mention is that given the relative IQ scores of Jewish people and non-Jewish white people, you would expect Jewish people to be outnumbered approximately 3.5 - 7:1 by non-Jewish white people. In fact, the ratio of Jewish people to non-Jewish whites at (for example) Harvard is 1:1.

If the old policy was "anti-Semitic" the new policy is anti-white. Pretty inescapable conclusion.

[HS: NO, the policy is anti-Asian. Jews are white, so even if the policy were pro-Jewish, it would be favoring Jewish whites over Catholic and Protestant whites, but still be pro-white. But the policy is not pro-Jewish, it's pro-rich.]

As you said earlier in this thread:

"HS: I only care mostly about getting the truth out. What people do with the truth could either be good or bad for blacks."

Are Jewish applicants today more nerdy and less athletic than other white applicants? It sounds like an outmoded stereotype, something from the 1950's or 1960's.

Peter

"So when the policy went one way (exclude Jewish applicants) you believe it was because of intentional ethnic animus.

Now that a different ethnic group controls admissions and has instituted a policy"

Ah, another stupid anti-Semitic argument that relies heavily on selective memory.

Read over what Sigma wrote again.

The "different ethnic group" didn't institute a new policy, the "different ethnic group" is CONTINUING a policy that had ALREADY been instituted many decades ago.

And this decades old policy of using "leadership" criteria in admissions has ALWAYS discriminated against poor whites even back when the elite colleges discriminated against Jews.

But for some reason you don't seem to care that old WASP elites instituted admissions policies that disadvantaged poor whites. You only care that Jews, in conjunction with other white elites, are carrying over a policy that was established by WASP elites against both Jews and poor whites.

I would say your interpretation of the study you mentioned is a bit flawed. the results that you took from the Weinberg study compared a N of 28 (two black parents) to a N of 68 ( half black). This kind of statistical comparison would be considered void and irrelevant today. On top of which Weinberg also connected the fact that the both black parents averaged a year less of education than the white/black parent to lesser intelligence. This is pretty ignorant. Correlation is not causation. Also the mean education of natural black/black and black/white parents only different for the Natural mothers education and that to by two years.I really doubt this would be significant. I wonder what the IQ's were, because they dont seem to mentioned at all.

But again, I come back to Weinberg's flawed statistics. you cannot compare 2 groups when one group is less than half of the other. This is a problem with many of the old studies, there just weren't high enough standards.

If you do want to use studies to show a racial/genetic gap between African Americans and Caucasians, i suggest you search for more recent papers. try google scholar.

[HS: Studies which would definitively prove HBD just aren't funded, except by the Pioneer fund and then liberals say the study is not to be believed because of the "racist" source of the funding.]

UdJew: "There's a reason Asian women marry white guys whenever possible"

It's been discussed to death on this blog (see below). The situation is not quite what you claim.

UdJew: "too many Asian students kills the social atmosphere on campus."

If you read The Chosen, you'll learn that WASPs said the same thing about Jews back in the day.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/asian-man-marries-white-woman.html

Here's more recent data from 2006 US Census, no less.

Group / white outmarriage rates by gender

Chinese M 30% F 40%
Japanese M 27% F 32%
Korean M 40% F 60%

http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml

Look at the third column, USR + USR (both partners raised in US; best measure of the "competition" you are interested in). Note Japanese Americans tend to have been in the US the longest of all Asian groups and their outmarriage rates are almost gender neutral.

The ivies are largely just country clubs with the front of being educational institutions. The Crimson actually had an article a couple of years ago saying that Harvard should not admit people from private schools. One of their arguments was to have influential parents invest in public education. I will state that the article made it a point that such a radical idea never crossed the administration officers' minds.

Also, keep in mind that Harvard is increasingly selective relative to the population. Harvard accepts and graduates the same number of people every year in spite of a growing world population.

"There exists a group of right-wingers who normally say how much they hate places like Harvard and they don’t want to send their children their anyway, so it’s ironic that they are complaining about being discriminated against by the very institutions they most hate."

I don't see why it's ironic that right wingers complain about being excluded from a place they hate. The institution discriminates against them from end to end, and that's what they wish would change. Even if Harvard admitted more Red state prole whites, it would still be a Left-dominated institution that indoctrinates students with Leftist views and confers prestige on Lefties. The right wants every aspect of Harvard to change, from who it chooses to how it educates the chosen. (Not gonna happen, but oh well.)

There is another, more important reason why elite universities would maintain the Asian presence at a certain level: Asians, on average, are not very creative. Elite universities want smart, creative people like Bill Gates. Asians, like Indians, tend to be wonks, not innovators.

Bottom line: NAM presence on elite universities'campuses is very bad for the university, resulting in ridiculous courses in Victim Studies and the dumbing down of the curriculum. Best place for 110 IQ NAMs is Pepperdine--has a nice warm climate, and you don't have to be at all intelligent to transfer to Columbia your 3d year

[HS: It hasn't been adequately demonstrated, to me, that Asians are less creative than whites.]

"I suspect that the emphasis on leadership activities began mostly out of a desire to load the Ivies with children of privilege and to keep out those nerdy Jews who got really high test scores."

This may be true, but unnecessary to explain the phenomenon (though it probably does have an enhancing effect).

Regression to the mean where the rich realize that their children can't be taught to be better in academics, but can be taught to be better in the personality traits of being upper class may suffice (whether those traits are ultimately 'value adding' or 'value transferring' to 'society' use Sigma's parlance)*.

Obsidian would probably say as much, while furiously name checking John Ogbu as a black academic, but I think he'd have a point, as upper class schools do this in every country (consider the great boarding schools of England), even when the levels of Jews are very low compared to the US.

*I bet you'd see the phenomenon even starting with a completely Jewish elite, assuming the kind of population balance you have in the US, as even Jews regress to a fairly unimpressive mean (by the standards of universities or most commentors on here - they're selected to be low level clerks and very small businessmen [all business was small in their EEA] after all, rather than peasant farmers, not really selected to be lawyers and captains of industry - the lawyers and bankers are a mere byproduct).

Anti-black racism is sin. Anti-jew is evil. But anti-Asian racism seems more accetable. Why?

Back old day without Rushton study, people beleive asian academic achievement were result of extra hardwork, not because they are smarter.

Now people label Asian as non-creative or lack of leadership. At end, Asian has to be defined inferior one way or another. Certainly no body mention IQ any more since it prove otherwise.

People who make those delusional statement will never look hard into research data. They always believe themself superior to others. Certainly this is good for value transference.

Like Rushton's research finding, people who feel confident or extreme positive about themself have lower IQ than those who feel more depressed.

"especially first-generation Asians whose parents don’t have the slightest understanding of the admissions policies of elite universities"

Don't know many first-generation Asian parents, do you?

There may be more people in Seoul than in Peoria who understand the intricacies of American elite college admissions.

[HS: I know zillions of parents of first generation Asians because, unfortunately, my career has been in IT. Maybe as a journalist, you don't meet too many Asian immigrants.]

Half Sigma,

There is a massive difference between the dollar ammount that the average Jewish alumni of H-Y-P donates to the school and the dollar ammount that the average non Jewish white person donates.

I think that philo semites are just as silly as anti semites, and I am trying to not make a value judgement here. In other words, I am not saying that people that donate a lot to their schools are inherently "better people" than people who donate very little. But from the perspective of the board of trustees, students that are likely to donate a lot to the school are to be strongly favored over students that are not likely to donate a lot to the school.

In my humble opinion, H-Y-P are interested in simultaneously maximizing the long term prestige of their schools and maximizing the long term donations to their school.

At certain points in the past, the trustees thought that having massive numbers of jews would reduce the prestige of the schools. They took action to aggressively reduce the number of jews, not out of any inherent anti semetism, but in a cold blooded rational attempt to maintain prestige.

I don't blame the trustees for putting in quotas that limited the number of jews.

Anti semites like Mangan would prefer to see fewer jews and more non Jewish whites at H-Y-P. But very few non jewish whites in the USA really care that H-Y-P have plenty of Jews. Many non jewish white families WANT their sons and daughters to absorb Jewish values, they want their sons and daughters interacting with and perhaps marrying Jews.

One of the most accurate markers of whether a non Jewish white family is upwardly mobile or downwardly mobile is who their children marry.

If the children marry Jews, it is a sign of a white family that is going to stay in the elite over the long term.

If the children marry NAMs, it is a sign of a white family that is going to sink in to proledom over the long term

And if anyone here can dig deeper in to the high jewish rate of giving to H_Y_P i'd like to hear more about this - to what can we attribute this level of giving?

Steve is right that Asian parents in Seoul know about Harvard and push their kids to excel academically. Asians from abroad (e.g., from China or Korea) who attended Harvard have written best-sellers in their home countries about their experiences.

HS is correct that recent immigrants won't understand the importance of "leadership" "service" or, possibly, even the sports angle. People in Peoria who are really interested can figure it all out by reading web sites like College Confidential. But the typical red-stater doesn't really care enough to push their kid through all of that.

Jewish "merit" in elite college admissions in action:

"Earlier this year, just 2,300 of 32,000 applicants to Stanford University were accepted — a rate of 7.2%, the lowest in the school's history.

The students who survived this screening are phenomenally accomplished. A quarter had SAT math scores higher than 780, and over 90% had high school G.P.A.'s above 3.75, which works out, more or less, to straight A's over four years of schooling. [. . .]

Which is why Michael Silverman proves baffling.

When Michael, a student from Paradise Valley, Arizona, applied to Stanford, his G.P.A. put him in the bottom 10% of accepted students. His SAT scores fell similarly short. "Standardized testing isn't my strong point," he told me. Perhaps more surprising, Michael avoided the crushing course load that diminishes the will of so many college hopefuls, instead taking only a single AP course during the dreaded junior year. He kept his extracurricular schedule equally clean — joining no clubs or sports and dedicating his attention to no more than one outside project at any given time.

Michael's rejection of the no pain, no gain ethos surrounding American college admissions is perhaps best summarized by his habit of ending each school day with a 1 – 2 hour hike to the summit of nearby Camelback Mountain. While his peers worked slavishly at their killer schedules, Michael took in the view, using his ritual as a time to "chill out and relax."

Despite this heretical behavior, Michael was still accepted at Stanford. [. . .]

Starting as a freshman, he focused all of his extracurricular energies on a serial string of environmental sustainability projects. He started by submitting a model of a green house to a competition. This led him to discover that a local energy company offered a grant program for local high school students. He won a modest grant, and used it, with the help of a retired engineer from his hometown, to retrofit a golf cart to run on biofuels. Leveraging this success, he earned another grant which he used to install solar panels on his school's maintenance shed. This earned him press coverage, and the resulting Superstar Effect helped wow the Stanford admissions department into overlooking his borderline scores.

Notice that nothing about Michael's rise to stardom required a rare natural talent or overwhelming work load. His projects required, on average, less daily time investment than participating in a varsity sport. Yet, he was the best at what he did among all applicants to Stanford, and the resulting Superstar Effect earned him a disproportionate reward.

Michael wasn't alone in his success at hacking The Superstar Effect. Consider, for example, Maneesh Sethi (featured recently inTim's lifestyle design case study competition), who got into Stanford on the strength of having written a popular computer programming book, or Steve Schwartz, who got into Columbia by taking on the role of press officer for a student-run environment advocacy group. Both found uncontested niches that required only a reasonable amount of effort investment to conquer, but still triggered the full impact of The Superstar Effect."

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/07/27/the-superstar-effect/

" I am not saying that people that donate a lot to their schools are inherently 'better people' than people who donate very little."


Much of it is simply a self-interested form of philanthropy, since Harvard with an endowment of over $50 billion, and the elite boarding Exeter with $1 billion are such needy causes.

"students that are likely to donate a lot to the school are to be strongly favored over students that are not likely to donate a lot to the school."

Hence, the donation's raison d’être.

"They took action to aggressively reduce the number of jews, not out of any inherent anti semetism, but in a cold blooded rational attempt to maintain prestige."

That is also why many colleges raise tuition; they want to keep up appearances by raising their tuition, since if they maintain their current rates they wouldn't appear as prestigious, and would thus outpace inflation, and the people who aren't hedged against inflation also will be kept out.

"One of the most accurate markers of whether a non Jewish white family is upwardly mobile or downwardly mobile is whom their children marry."

This is why many fathers do not want their daughters dating "bad boys" (read: proles), because it would entail class sinking and would thus result in decreased security for the individual's daughter. Also, in England Kate Middleton's mother has destroyed Kate's chances with the prince because of her overeagerness, being overly sweet, and because of her middle-class mannerisms, idiom, bearing, and deportment. Keep in mind that the Royal families have a long, even pre-Christian tradition of practicing eugenics, that the "gods" (or "God") inherently favored those of a certain blood than others. The science dates as far back as ancient Greece, when behavioral patterns, beliefs, mannerisms, and the intelligence of different social classes were measured over generations, and deduced that the gods favored patricians and aristocrats over plebians and slaves, since it was thought that the gods blessed the patricians with superior values, intelligence, and mannerisms. This should be compared to the Roman Empire, where even the sons of slaves could rise up to become an emperor.

When science evolved people attributed inherited qualities to one's genes instead of God's/the god's favoritism.

"There is another, more important reason why elite universities would maintain the Asian presence at a certain level: Asians, on average, are not very creative".Yahoo and You tube do not look like byproducts of an uncreative race

in reply to n/a, the poster above in terms of the superstar effect, it's cases like those that make me wonder what the worth of an ivy league education really is (disregarding the fact that stanford isn't an ivy). A kid like Michael would probably get into stanford, and probably graduate with an interesting and obscure degree that allows him enough free time between classes to work on his independent projects. Maybe he'll invent something while in college and get invited to speak to some companies who are coaxed into believing he's some type of a Stanford Genius! but after he graduates from Stanford I can see him moving in with his mom and fiddling around in his basement until his late thirties building the "next Apple."

Believe me, I went to Cornell, I know that type. They're so endlessly creative, motived, eccentric, and eventually useless and penniless. Hell, my father was that type and he was accepted to Harvard. He was first generation Asian no less. He was sure he was on to building the next personal computer. And you know what he's doing now? He's unemployed, lost his wife and kids, nearly homeless.

For every 1 facebook CEO there are 999 failures. So you know what? Fuck the crazy creative kids who work crappy jobs and tinker in their basements with their elite degrees hanging on their walls like some divine affirmation of their esoteric genius. Fuck them. I'll take a kid who went to Long Island NoName school who later went on to work at become partner at a major New York Law Firm or the kid from Florida State who goes on to become a Neurosurgeon any day over some Ivy kid who got in because he invented a fancy lawn mower.

Hell, you know I dated kids like these back in the day. You know what? When we get together to catch up these days they can't afford to buy themselves a goddamn grilled cheese sandwich. I'm so glad I was humble enough not to go the way of the self righteous "creative genius" and go to medical school. At least by owning a couple of private practices now I have a waterfront apartment and a couple of mercedes in my garage. I got into Cornell the conventional way and heck, a good work ethic and a sense of humility can take you far.

Those "Superstar Effect" stories are interesting, but,

1) There's nothing really new about them. Tom Wolfe wrote about an example of one in I am Charlotte Simmons (the Connecticut kid who started some food charity to pad his application).

2) There is an arms race with them. Now other parents will start looking for grants for dubious environmental projects for their kids to apply for.

"Ah, another stupid anti-Semitic argument that relies heavily on selective memory.

Read over what Sigma wrote again.

The "different ethnic group" didn't institute a new policy, the "different ethnic group" is CONTINUING a policy that had ALREADY been instituted many decades ago."

No, they took over a policy that had a name and changed it but kept the name.

"Leadership" then meant things that identified you as likely to be non-Jewish.

"Leadership" now means things that identify you as likely to be Jewish.

We all understand HBD here and that personality traits are just as heritable as and as correlated with ethnicity as g. Jewish personality traits didn't change over 60 years, the filter changed but kept the same name.

There has to be some explanation for the over-representation of Jewish students beyond IQ. IQ differences predict that Jewish students should be out-numbered by white students between 3.5 and 7 to 1.

(Simple to see proof of this yourself; open an excel sheet, google the relevant population numbers, plug in population IQ estimates, come up with an estimate for the IQ needed for admission to an elite university, plug in the standard deviation in IQ, use a normal distribution (built in function in excel) to get the two numbers. Compare the ratio to the ratio of Jewish students at elite universities to white students.

I think people have trouble making the distinctions between over-represented (relative to share of the population) and over-represented (relative to the IQ and size of the populations). Black people, for example, are evenly represented by one measure (compared to population) but massively over-represented by the other. This shows a bias in admissions in favor of blacks. The evidence is exactly the same for bias in favor of Jewish students: Jewish over-representation (relative to IQ) except that the initial expectation should be that Jewish people will be over-represented (relative to their population).)

It is absolutely amazing that no matter how many times the anti-Semites have their ideas debunked with facts they will never ever budge an inch from their talking points about how Jews are pursuing an ethno-conspiracy to screw over white gentiles, in this case screw over how poor whites are being screwed over by Jewish admission officials from getting into Harvard.

Not that anything I am going to write will change the anti-Semite’s minds, but I’ll deliver the knockout punch anway:

Steve Johnson said,

"No, they took over a policy that had a name and changed it but kept the name.

"Leadership" then meant things that identified you as likely to be non-Jewish.

"Leadership" now means things that identify you as likely to be Jewish."

Your logic is obvious nonsense.

Those leadership abilities “(like volunteering for Greenpeace, or whatever) ALSO HELP MIDDLE AND HIGHER CLASS WHITE GENTILES in places like Seattle and San Francisco to the detriment of poor but intelligent whites!!

And since those leadership abilities admission officials look for are not, as you just argued, racially exclusive to the benefit of the Jews only because the leadership extracurricular are also taken by middle and higher class white gentiles, the criteria Jewish admissions officials are using CANNOT LOGICALLY BE DESIGNED to racially benefit Jews only because OTHER WHITES ALSO take those “leadership” extracuriculars.


Furthermore in your first post on this thread you wrote:

“Now that a different ethnic group controls admissions and has instituted a policy that can fairly be described as "exclude those least likely to be members of our ethnic group"

This is demonstrably false because the “Jew Controlled” Ivy League admissions standards implement GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY which act as de facto discrimination against Jews and Asians which works to the benefit of Middle American white applicants (like Iowan Charles Murray) because the Jews and Asians are heavily concentrated in the Northeast and California, respectively.
Therefore, since the Ivy League admissions officials have implemented a policy that heavily discriminates against Jews we can conclude that EVEN IF the admissions process is “Jew controlled” that the “Jew controlled” Ivy Leagues are NOT racially discriminating against Middle Class whites to the benefit of Jews, and therefore NOT pursuing an ethnic strategy as you are arguing.

You also wrote
“There has to be some explanation for the over-representation of Jewish students beyond IQ. IQ differences predict that Jewish students should be out-numbered by white students between 3.5 and 7 to 1.”

It depends who you are counting as Jewish. 5% of white Americans have enough ancestry to qualify for Aliyah to Israel and another 1-2% of white Americans have some Jewish ancestry but not enough to qualify for Aliyah. So if you count Jews the way anti-Semites do then Jews aren’t close to being 7 times overrepresented in elite institutions.
Furthermore, in 2001, fully 45% of all Jewish* American college students who identify as Jewish in America had one gentile white parent and by 2010 we can safely assume that an outright majority of Jewish American college students have one white gentile American parent.
If less than 50% of all Ivy League Jews have two Jewish American parents then the overrepresentation of Jewish Americans with two Jewish parents in the Ivy League is COMPLETELY EXPLAINABLE by IQ.
In fact, it’s possible that Ivy Leage Jewish American students with two Jewish American parents are actually UNDERREPRESENTED judging by their IQ because of Geographic Diversity quotas!

Finally, what do you propose the Ivy League do about Jewish American students like Chelsea Handler, Jennifer Connelly and Mathew Broderick who are half gentile white? Do you, like the paleocons, advocate they not be admitted to an Ivy because they are not racially white according to the Nuremberg Race Laws?

*Jewish Students Involved, Connections Vary

January 21, 2004

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/jan/20040121_involved.htm

That is one conclusion from National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 data released by the United Jewish Communities (UJC), the survey's sponsor, at the recent Hillel international professional staff conference. Addressing the Hillel Conference in Princeton, NJ, NJPS Project Manager Lorraine Blass and NJPS Research Director Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz estimated that there were 268,300 Jews age 18-24, and 91,300 Jews age 25-29 on campuses in 2000-01, for a total campus Jewish population of 359,600. An estimated 232,600 Jews age 18-24 were not on campus, some of whom were still in high school and a majority of whom reported that they were working full or part time. NJPS was conducted from August 2000 through August 2001 and included interviews with 217 Jews, ages 18-29, who were in college at the time of the survey. UJC's PowerPoint presentation on Jewish college students is available at ujc.org and hillel.org.

snip

The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

It is absolutely amazing that no matter how many times the anti-Semites have their ideas debunked with facts they will never ever budge an inch from their talking points about how Jews are pursuing an ethno-conspiracy to screw over white gentiles, in this case screw over how poor whites are being screwed over by Jewish admission officials from getting into Harvard.

Not that anything I am going to write will change the anti-Semite’s minds, but I’ll deliver the knockout punch anway:

Steve Johnson said,

"No, they took over a policy that had a name and changed it but kept the name.

"Leadership" then meant things that identified you as likely to be non-Jewish.

"Leadership" now means things that identify you as likely to be Jewish."

Your logic is obvious nonsense.

Those leadership abilities “(like volunteering for Greenpeace, or whatever) ALSO HELP MIDDLE AND HIGHER CLASS WHITE GENTILES in places like Seattle and San Francisco to the detriment of poor but intelligent whites!!

And since those leadership abilities admission officials look for are not, as you just argued, racially exclusive to the benefit of the Jews only because the leadership extracurricular are also taken by middle and higher class white gentiles, the criteria Jewish admissions officials are using CANNOT LOGICALLY BE DESIGNED to racially benefit Jews only because OTHER WHITES ALSO take those “leadership” extracuriculars.


Furthermore in your first post on this thread you wrote:

“Now that a different ethnic group controls admissions and has instituted a policy that can fairly be described as "exclude those least likely to be members of our ethnic group"

This is demonstrably false because the “Jew Controlled” Ivy League admissions standards implement GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY which act as de facto discrimination against Jews and Asians which works to the benefit of Middle American white applicants (like Iowan Charles Murray) because the Jews and Asians are heavily concentrated in the Northeast and California, respectively.
Therefore, since the Ivy League admissions officials have implemented a policy that heavily discriminates against Jews we can conclude that EVEN IF the admissions process is “Jew controlled” that the “Jew controlled” Ivy Leagues are NOT racially discriminating against Middle Class whites to the benefit of Jews, and therefore NOT pursuing an ethnic strategy as you are arguing.

You also wrote
“There has to be some explanation for the over-representation of Jewish students beyond IQ. IQ differences predict that Jewish students should be out-numbered by white students between 3.5 and 7 to 1.”

It depends who you are counting as Jewish. 5% of white Americans have enough ancestry to qualify for Aliyah to Israel and another 1-2% of white Americans have some Jewish ancestry but not enough to qualify for Aliyah. So if you count Jews the way anti-Semites do then Jews aren’t close to being 7 times overrepresented in elite institutions.
Furthermore, in 2001, fully 45% of all Jewish* American college students who identify as Jewish in America had one gentile white parent and by 2010 we can safely assume that an outright majority of Jewish American college students have one white gentile American parent.
If less than 50% of all Ivy League Jews have two Jewish American parents then the overrepresentation of Jewish Americans with two Jewish parents in the Ivy League is COMPLETELY EXPLAINABLE by IQ.
In fact, it’s possible that Ivy Leage Jewish American students with two Jewish American parents are actually UNDERREPRESENTED judging by their IQ because of Geographic Diversity quotas!

Finally, what do you propose the Ivy League do about Jewish American students like Chelsea Handler, Jennifer Connelly and Mathew Broderick who are half gentile white? Do you, like the paleocons, advocate they not be admitted to an Ivy because they are not racially white according to the Nuremberg Race Laws?

*Jewish Students Involved, Connections Vary

January 21, 2004

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/jan/20040121_involved.htm

That is one conclusion from National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 data released by the United Jewish Communities (UJC), the survey's sponsor, at the recent Hillel international professional staff conference. Addressing the Hillel Conference in Princeton, NJ, NJPS Project Manager Lorraine Blass and NJPS Research Director Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz estimated that there were 268,300 Jews age 18-24, and 91,300 Jews age 25-29 on campuses in 2000-01, for a total campus Jewish population of 359,600. An estimated 232,600 Jews age 18-24 were not on campus, some of whom were still in high school and a majority of whom reported that they were working full or part time. NJPS was conducted from August 2000 through August 2001 and included interviews with 217 Jews, ages 18-29, who were in college at the time of the survey. UJC's PowerPoint presentation on Jewish college students is available at ujc.org and hillel.org.

snip

The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

I don't really buy the "leadership" angle. Sounds rather nebulous. And recall Megan McArdle's review of books on admissions where one author declares that being in an investment club (should be a good sign for future donations) are a disqualifier. The study found that having a lower income resulted in a higher probability of admission for Asians but LOWER for whites (controlling for test scores, etc). My simple explanation: the people in charge of admissions don't like rural areas, and poorer whites tend to be rural. Rural people are also more likely to be in Future Farmers of America and JROTC (supposed to be training for leadership as an officer), which they found were penalized. Asians tend to be urban, so the effect is different. Jews also tend to be urban, so that could help explain Kevin MacDonald's calculation of there being something like 7 times as many as expected based on IQ & share of population.

"Are Jewish applicants today more nerdy and less athletic than other white applicants? It sounds like an outmoded stereotype, something from the 1950's or 1960's."
I did a GSS check of ACTSPORT by RELIG, filtered for RACE(1).
PROTESTANT CATHOLIC JEWISH NONE OTHER TOTAL
YES 64.9 59.7 55.6 75.7 100.0 64.5
NO 35.1 40.3 44.4 24.3 .0 35.5

"could help explain Kevin MacDonald's calculation of there being something like 7 times as many as expected based on IQ & share of population."

But doesn't he count as Jewish Americans with half-Jewish half white ancestry? In 2001 45% of Jewish college students had one white gentile parents. If we count as Jewish only those American students with two Jewish parents then Jews aren't anywhere near 7 times overrepesented in college.

Perhaps my sister is an anomoly. She is from a poor low-class family, went to a public school, and is Asian, but she has attended ivy league universities for her undergrad and graduate degrees.

Plus I'd estimate my sister's IQ to be around 120, which is the lower-half of the ivy league bell curve.

Whatever the answer it doesn't matter.

THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ARE THE ONLY COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHICH DO NOT ADMIT BASED ON TEST SCORES ALONE.

Please contradict this if you can.

Death to America!

The Undiscovered Jew:

"Steve Johnson said,

"No, they took over a policy that had a name and changed it but kept the name.

"Leadership" then meant things that identified you as likely to be non-Jewish.

"Leadership" now means things that identify you as likely to be Jewish."

Your logic is obvious nonsense.

Those leadership abilities “(like volunteering for Greenpeace, or whatever) ALSO HELP MIDDLE AND HIGHER CLASS WHITE GENTILES in places like Seattle and San Francisco to the detriment of poor but intelligent whites!!"

Do you really not understand this argument?

Quite simple:

1) There was a policy that was claimed to look for "leadership" personality traits.
2) This policy tended to exclude Jewish people (but not all of them, obviously); in other words, it weighted the accept / reject scale to increase the odds of reject if it detected traits that are correlated with being Jewish.
3) This policy still exists in name; Ivy Leagues look for "leadership" but now the results of this intentionally weight the accept / reject scale to increase the odds of reject if it detects traits that are correlated with not being Jewish.
4) Personality traits are genetically linked and inherited; relative ethnic personality traits do not change in a few years.
5) CONCLUSION #1: this policy is not the same as the previous policy because if it were looking for an actual trait ("leadership") it would produce similar ethnic outcomes. You originally denied this and claimed that admissions officers looked for "leadership" then and now, so the policy is the same.
6) None of this is absolute (duh). A randomly picked black person can have a higher IQ than a randomly picked Asian person. Your pair of statements:

"And since those leadership abilities admission officials look for are not, as you just argued, racially exclusive to the benefit of the Jews ..."

and

"...the criteria Jewish admissions officials are using CANNOT LOGICALLY BE DESIGNED to racially benefit Jews only because OTHER WHITES ALSO take those “leadership” extracuriculars. "

are utter nonsense. Example: I am not Jewish but I've attended more than a dozen Bar Mitzvahs in my life. If you had a policy that granted 300 SAT points to people who attended more than a dozen Bar Mitzvahs it would benefit me. At the exact same time, it would also be a policy designed to benefit people of one ethnic group. There is no way you honestly misunderstand this.

Next claim:

"This is demonstrably false because the “Jew Controlled” Ivy League admissions standards implement GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY which act as de facto discrimination against Jews and Asians which works to the benefit of Middle American white applicants"

I call bull on this. Present some evidence.

Given what is actually known about the Ivy League admissions process (see the Espenshade and Radford book) it is highly unlikely that Harvard is bending over backward to admit some kid from Wisconsin. You're relying on decades old stereotypes that were created to vilify the Ivy Leagues for excluding people of one ethnic group.

"It depends who you are counting as Jewish. 5% of white Americans have enough ancestry to qualify for Aliyah to Israel and another 1-2% of white Americans have some Jewish ancestry but not enough to qualify for Aliyah. "

I showed my methods to come up with a 3.5 - 7:1 ratio. What are yours for expecting a 1:1 ratio? How do you have to set the parameters? What Jewish population? What average Jewish IQ? Very simple questions that can then have their answers checked using a very simple statistical analysis.

And a last bit:

"Finally, what do you propose the Ivy League do about Jewish American students like Chelsea Handler, Jennifer Connelly and Mathew Broderick who are half gentile white? Do you, like the paleocons, advocate they not be admitted to an Ivy because they are not racially white according to the Nuremberg Race Laws?"

You've Godwined. You lose the thread (and frankly, this is a disgusting conversational ploy).

I fully expect you to now deny that you implied I'm a Nazi (Nuremberg Race Laws!).

As I quoted Half Sigma in my first post:

"I only care mostly about getting the truth out. What people do with the truth could either be good or bad for blacks."

Yes, I agree Asians are discriminated against quite a bit. A lot of the Ivies and other prestigious non-public schools do seem to have an informal quota on Asian students.

The general consensus is that Asians are hard workers and academically oriented, but unlikely to make it into the corporate suites or become Masters of the Universe or trailblaze a new entreprenuerial venture. They're seen as nose to the grindstone working stiffs, but not leaders. So they're considered unlikely to make millions of dollars and then donate a lot as alumni. To some extent, I think this reputation is unfair and ignores a lot. The reputation being what is, unfortunately, the Ivies don't much care for lots of Asians in the student body and endeavor to keep their numbers in check.

Jews, however, are considered natural leaders, good salesmen, entrepranuerial, and gifted at business and finance. So universities like them. Wealthy white gentiles are less cerebral, but also seen as cut for leadership positions. Both groups, it is presumed, will produce a lot of millionaires that hopefully will go on to make generous donations. It also helps that a lot of Jewish and blue blood whites come from wealthy families, who can donate a lot and pull strings.

Letting in blacks and Latinos make sense too. Plenty of these kids will go on to make a lot of money as diversity officers or affirmative action hires in Wall Street. A NAM with an Ivy Leage degree is pretty much guaranteed to hit it rich. Schools can achieve a high ROI on these students too.

Where I went to school, there were a disproportionate share of African blacks in the engineering programs. I wouldn't call them really smart, but they're okay in IQ and very ambitious/driven. This is also true for Africans in the Britain, who attend college at a much higher rate than British whites.

1st generation Asian parents from China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India know the system very well. Only maybe the ethnic Chinese from Vietnam don't know too much about navigating the system.

The real losers are non-wealthy Red State whites. They don't know much about the system, aren't nearly industrious or ambitious enough to put in the work to get in, and have their spots taken by wealthy blue state white/Jewish kids, Asians, and NAMs. Given their underrepreentation in these institutions, maybe it's no wonder that they dislike them.

The importance of extracurricular leadership is not some closely guarded secret of the elite. It was well-advertised among the middle class of my own youth, and I would be surprised that a student who aspires to even a modestly competitive college is ignoring it.

So if you think that the differentials can be explained by extracurricular participation, I invite you to show evidence.

Doesn't anybody want to be an artist anymore?

Steve Johnson,

"Quite simple:

1) There was a policy that was claimed to look for "leadership" personality traits.

snip

3) This policy still exists in name; Ivy Leagues look for "leadership" but now the results of this intentionally weight the accept / reject scale to increase the odds of reject if it detects traits that are correlated with not being Jewish.

4) Personality traits are genetically linked and inherited; relative ethnic personality traits do not change in a few years."

1) WHICH personality traits are those and DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE that those traits are racially exclusive to Jews?

I suspect the personality traits psychologists link to leadership such as extraversion and conscientiousness are also shared by talented middle middle class, upper middle class and upper class white gentiles along with Jews.

UNLESS you can show me that these mysterious leadership personality traits are shared exclusively by ethnic Jews then we still have no proof the leadership criteria (which was ORIGINALLY put into place by WASPS!!!) is a Jewish racial strategy against white gentiles.

"5) CONCLUSION #1: this policy is not the same as the previous policy because if it were looking for an actual trait ("leadership") it would produce similar ethnic outcomes."

2) Different outcomes do not prove the policy is different because Jews were able to get around the "leadership" criteria by taking the extracurricular activities like math Olympiads, national high school debate contests, and national foreign language writing competitions and so forth.

You do realize that behavior is much more malleable and easier to adjust than personality, don't you?

Since nothing is preventing poor to upper class students of any race or ethnicity from taking those types of activities like national foreign language writing contests in, say, French or Latin, then we can conclude these leadership activities are NOT designed to help Jews as an ethnic group.

3) Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the policy about leadership activities for admission were changed by Jews and WHEN was it changed?

4) WHICH PERSONALITY TRAITS did the old WASP admissions officials look for that the modern "Jewish controlled" Ivy League officials are NOT CURRENTLY looking for.

"At the exact same time, it would also be a policy designed to benefit people of one ethnic group. There is no way you honestly misunderstand this."

LIST the extracurricular activities that only ethnic Jews are capable of taking that white gentiles are not taking or that the Jews are somehow blocking white gentiles from taking.

Unless you can show me some extracurricular that is enjoyed exclusively by racial Jews (Bar Mitzvahs are NOT considered extracurricular activities by admissions officials) that large numbers of Jewish high school students are taking then you STILL have not provided ANY evidence the current leadership activity criteria are designed to help ethnic Jews.

"This is demonstrably false because the “Jew Controlled” Ivy League admissions standards implement GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY which act as de facto discrimination against Jews and Asians which works to the benefit of Middle American white applicants"

I call bull on this. Present some evidence."

See page 83 of No Longer Separate, no Longer Equal by Espenshade. He lists among the non-academic activities selective colleges use to judge applicants to include athletics and geographic diversity by referring to papers by Freedman, 2003 and Zwick, 2002.

Since athletics and geographic diversity work against Jewish applicant and to the benefit of intelligent white gentiles of any class (because Jews are not as athletic as white gentiles and because Jews are GEOGRAPHICALLY concentrated in the Northeast) we again find no evidence the "Jew Controlled" Ivy League admissions are using admission standards to the racial benefit of Jews.

Now, how is the fact that Ivies use geographic and athletic standards that racially help Middle American white gentiles over the "racial interests" of racial Jews consistent with YOUR THEORY that the "Jew Controlled" admissions committees are racially favoring racial Jews??

"I showed my methods to come up with a 3.5 - 7:1 ratio. What are yours for expecting a 1:1 ratio?"

Your putting words in my mouth.

I didn't expect Jews with two Jewish parents to be in the Ivy Leagues at a 1:1 ratio, I said that they SHOULD be overrepresented because their mean IQ is 110.

I was disputing YOUR ARGUMENT that Jewish IQ alone does not explain Jewish over representation of Jews with two Jewish parents is NOT explainable by IQ alone:

"There has to be some explanation for the over-representation of Jewish students beyond IQ."

You then write:

"You've Godwined. You lose the thread (and frankly, this is a disgusting conversational ploy)."

What's even more disgusting is that you and the other Paleocons like Buchanan are always distorting numbers and figures to drive up racial hatred of Jews on phony statistics.

For example, Buchanan, VDare, Majority Rights, are always prone to play fast and loose with numbers by saying, that for example, if Harvard is 20% Jewish in 2010 that this means Jews are 8 times overrepresented because Jews are only 2.5% of whites BUT they DELIBERATELY leave out the fact that the majority of Jews have one white gentile parent.

If you count either only Jews who have two Jewish parents or the 5% of white Americans who have enough Jewish ancestry to make Aliyah to Israel then Jews are 4 times overrepresented at the Ivy Leagues.

Since I keep seeing the Paleocons and NeoNazis PURPOSELY and consistently distorting numbers and lying like Buchanan in order to exaggerate the number of Jews I think it's fair to compare them to Nazis because they obviously using distortions and manipulations of facts to drive up racial hatred of Jews based on BOGUS allegations and deliberate lies.

Btw, since what do you think should be done about the majority of Jewish Ivy League students who have one Jewish parent? Would you favor racial discrimination against them in favor of poor, rural whites because half Jews are not white?

"You've Godwined. You lose the thread (and frankly, this is a disgusting conversational ploy)."

Actually, it's not a ploy. The question over how Paleocons count Jews is legitimate.

Buchanan has hinted a number of times that Jewish college students should be capped to represent their proportion in the population, so it's fair to ask Paleocons whether half-gentile white Jews should also be subject to their Buchanan and his followers racial cap on Jews because half white gentile Jews are not white based on the Nuremberg race laws.

So answer my question, since Buchanan has hinted at capping Jewish students because of their race should this cap also apply to half-gentile white Jewish college applicants?

Yes or no, Steve...

"and I would be surprised that a student who aspires to even a modestly competitive college is ignoring it."

The differential is explained by the fact that elite universities look for extracurricular activities that make an applicant stand out from the rest of the pack.

A kid who was a run of the mill applicant with above average grades and SAT scores and who was lacrosse player or a mediocre high school chess player isn't going to impress Harvard admissions the way a National Math Olympiad will

Elite schools want to see evidence (in white applicants) of exceptional talent at an extracurricular not just somebody who is checking off a box because that's what his high school advisor told him to do. That's just the way it.

"1) WHICH personality traits are those and DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE that those traits are racially exclusive to Jews?"

That's my point, pinhead.

Using small words: selecting for "leadership" is actually selecting for class / ethnic markers. It was then and it is now. Then - it was used to exclude Jewish people, now - it is used to preferentially include as many Jewish people as possible.

"I suspect the personality traits psychologists link to leadership such as extraversion and conscientiousness are also shared by talented middle middle class, upper middle class and upper class white gentiles along with Jews."

Well, Jewish people certainly seem to be prone to psychotic derangement at the hint of something less than glowing being said about their ethnic group if we judge by your replies. On the other hand, we might not want to go with anecdotal evidence. (I fully expect you to misunderstand this statement; I'm tweaking you in particular.)

"Your putting words in my mouth.

I didn't expect Jews with two Jewish parents to be in the Ivy Leagues at a 1:1 ratio, I said that they SHOULD be overrepresented because their mean IQ is 110."

Again, you're misunderstanding quite a simple concept.

There's an IQ cutoff for elite universities.

There's normal distribution of IQs in the Jewish population and a normal distribution of IQs in the non-Jewish white population.

We know the population of Jewish people and the population of white people.

We know the white average IQ (100).

We have estimates of the average Jewish IQ (107-115).

We know the ratio of Jewish to white students at elite universities (1:1).

We know there is a minimum IQ needed to get into an elite university (we don't know exactly what that IQ is but can try scenarios for how the numbers work if the cutoff is anywhere between 130 (likely) - 145 (probably way high)).

Given these things there is an expected ratio of Jewish to white students.

This ratio isn't 1:1.

The observed ratio is 1:1.

If you're claiming that Jewish numbers are being boosted by people with one Jewish parent then take that population into account (give them an average IQ of the average of the white and Jewish pool, not the Jewish IQ), subtract their numbers from the ethnic pool and recalculate. That's what I asked you to do before; you simply ignored or failed to understand.

You claiming that Jews aren't over-represented because they have a high average IQ ignores all of this; yes, you would expect that the proportion of Jewish people would exceed the proportion of Jewish people in the population, no, you would not expect the proportion of Jewish students would exceed the proportion of Jewish students with an IQ of over 130 (or 140 or 150, etc.).

Imagine you drew randomly from the pool of 130 IQ+ people. You would get 7 white people for every Jewish person. Elite colleges are doing this every year and coming up with 1 white person for every Jewish person. The selection mechanism is weighted towards picking Jewish people. Given that Jewish people are disproportionally involved in designing and administering the process, this is pretty strong evidence that it's been done intentionally. All else is red herring, meant to draw away from the evidence.

LOL at you talking about anyone else playing fast and loose with the numbers when you don't even understand the basics of a statistical argument.

I'll dismantle one more of your arguments, then you can rant as you please (try to include more nazi implications, everyone loves to read those!).

"LIST the extracurricular activities that only ethnic Jews are capable of taking that white gentiles are not taking or that the Jews are somehow blocking white gentiles from taking.

Unless you can show me some extracurricular that is enjoyed exclusively by racial Jews (Bar Mitzvahs are NOT considered extracurricular activities by admissions officials) that large numbers of Jewish high school students are taking then you STILL have not provided ANY evidence the current leadership activity criteria are designed to help ethnic Jews."

There are almost no extracurricular activities that Jewish students participate in that white students could not. Like I said, I have been to over a dozen Bar Mitzvahs, it doesn't make me Jewish (congratulations on the analogies section being removed from the SATs, btw - it must have really been hurting your score judging by this paragraph (readers are invited to re-read my earlier post to see how badly he misread that analogy)).

However, admissions committees can and do pick which activities they "like" and which they don't. When they do this, they certainly know who participated in each. In other words, if too many non-Jewish students caught on to what admissions committees liked, the committees have the freedom to change what they "like".

HalfSigma things this is due to discrimination against proles and / or favor-ship of the children of elites and that red state whites can simply, en mass, do the stuff that now marks you as likely elite. I don't fully agree. I don't fully disagree either, it's just not quite that simple. First of all, elite markers are disproportionally involvement in activities that are designed to hurt the middle class.

As far as the ethnic angle goes, admissions committees and universities happen to represent a particular slice of the elite; one that is more heavily Jewish than the rest of the elite (and happens to be ascending in power).

“If you're claiming that Jewish numbers are being boosted by people with one Jewish parent then take that population into account (give them an average IQ of the average of the white and Jewish pool, not the Jewish IQ), subtract their numbers from the ethnic pool and recalculate. That's what I asked you to do before; you simply ignored or failed to understand.”

Your wish is my command.

I will concentrate on full Jews to the exclusion of halfies since the most psychometric data relates to full Jews.

Let’s see if Jewish IQ explains the proportion of full Jews in the Ivy Leagues. Since the mean IQ for whites and Jews in HYP is likely 145 (and they reject plenty of Jews and whites with IQs higher than 145) we will look at what percentage of Jews and white gentiles would have IQs over 145.

I’ll compare whites with no Jewish ancestry and Jews using verbal IQ.

Assuming a Verbal Jewish IQ score of 115 and 100 for whites gentiles and that their intelligence follows a Normal Distribution:

Expected number of Jews with IQs >=145

5 million Jews * 0.0214 = 107,000

Expected number of white gentiles (no Jewish ancestry) with IQs >=145

195 million gentile whites * 0.00135 = 263,250

From these numbers we should expect 28.90% of all whites at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton to be full Jews.

Now, about ~40% of the undergrads at HYP are white gentile with no Jewish ancestry and ~10% are full Jews (remember we are EXCLUDING half Jews).

Which means 20% of all whites in HYP are full Jews when we would expect that 28.90% of their white undergrads would be full Jews.

So Jews are UNDERREPRESENTED at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

For all elite colleges (let’s say, the top ranked 40 ranked schools in the United States) aside from Princeton, if we assume that all white and Jewish students have verbal IQs >= 130, we would expect 14% of all elite schools number of full Jews (excluding half Jews) at all elite colleges (not just HYP) ranges from 12-20%, so at most full Jews are slightly overrepresented at elite colleges (not just HYP) and possibly still underrepresented.
Conclusion:

NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE JEWS ARE RIGGING THE SYSTEM AGAINST WHITE GENTILES

Or, put another way, you, Buchanan and all the rest of the usual suspects are making shit up about Jews manipulating the Ivy League admission process and that paleocons and anti-Semites and other people such as yourself certainly seem to be prone to psychotic derangement at the hint of something less than glowing being said about their ethnic group if we judge by your replies.

They also seem to make stuff up with no evidence in order to blame their failures on somebody else, just like Inner City Blacks make stuff up about the CIA causing the black crack epidemic.

Maybe we need a new term for paleocons such as yourself who seem prone to blame other people with little to no evidence and have a psychotic persecution complex that has little to no basis in reality such as, oh, White Niggers.

Cheerfully looking forward to your next non-reply, confused logic, and ludicrous arguments based on fudged numbers and innuendo, gorgeous.

According to this article, Jews were 21% of all Ivy League students this decade so only ~10.5 of Jewish Ivy Leaguers are full Jews:

"However, admissions committees can and do pick which activities they "like" and which they don't. When they do this, they certainly know who participated in each. In other words, if too many non-Jewish students caught on to what admissions committees liked, the committees have the freedom to change what they "like"."

1) I'm going to say this again:

The extracurricular activities the Jewish admission committees "like" ato see in applicants ARE ALSO TAKEN BY OTHER WHITES AND ASIAN AMERICANS.

Since OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS also take these activities, the admissions process BY DEFINITION cannot possibly be a racially exclusive strategy.

Granted, poor whites may be much less likely to take extracurriculars like Latin language contests, BUT THAT IS A CLASS ISSUE.

Learn the difference between the words "class" and "race", please.

2) Why can't poor but intelligent whites just get around the "Jewish ethnic strategy" by not going into the ROTC and instead taking the extracurriculars the Ivy League's are looking for.

There are many books about the Ivy League admissions process, to say nothing of the internet, so why can't poor but intelligent whites read about what the Ivy League wants instead of going into the ROTC or whatever?

3) I asked you to show me EVIDENCE that the Jews changed the types of extracurricular activities the WASP admission officials used to judge applicants and you provided no evidence that the admission standards the Jews use for "leadership" activities is notably different from what the WASPs used.

4) If you are correct that Jews are rigging the Ivy League admission's process in favor of Jews then how is your theory compatible with the fact that the Ivy League uses athletic and geographic diversity as criteria for admission when athleticism and geographic diversity WORK AGAINST Jews and IN FAVOR of white gentiles, especially those from flyover country???

"There are almost no extracurricular activities that Jewish students participate in that white students could not."

Then how can the extracuricalars admissions committees look for be racially discriminatory against white gentiles?

It is a class disadvantage poor white applicants need to overcome, but class is not race.

"First of all, elite markers are disproportionally involvement in activities that are designed to hurt the middle class."

Not that you are capable of understanding this but I'm willing to be patient with you because you obviously have some sort of learning disability:

Class does not equal race and race does not equal class.

"As far as the ethnic angle goes, admissions committees and universities happen to represent a particular slice of the elite; one that is more heavily Jewish than the rest of the elite (and happens to be ascending in power)."

1) I want a yes or no answer to this question:

Do white gentile elites have no power at all in the Ivy Leagues?

2) If you answer "no white gentile elites DO have power in the Ivy Leagues" how come white gentile elites seem to approve of a Jewish ethnic strategy that discriminates against poor whites?

The Undiscovered Jew:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You keep repeating points of argument that Steve Johnson never made.

Whatever you do, you shouldn't click on the link to n/a's site. If you're pulling Godwin on Steve, I don't know what you'd do over there.

Bullshit about `leadership'. At one of very high IQ loaded medical institute, all medical residents (including whites) voted for a Chinese American for their chief resident. Yet, the intitution rejected residents choice and handpicked a whimpy white guy for the job at this heavily Jewish and WASP dominated place. At end, the handpicked guy was a disaster.

But, this white guy gonna have `leadership' skill on his CV.

If you live in Japan or China, you will notice white or jewish `leadership' skill strangely weak.

"Are you being deliberately obtuse? You keep repeating points of argument that Steve Johnson never made."

He's throwing so many bogus arguments around that I'm having trouble keeping up with them all.

First of all, he says that the Ivy League selects one Jew for every white gentile.

This is not true.

Harvard, Yale and Princeton are ~10% foreign student, ~30% minority (including Asians) and ~60% white. Of the 60% of HYP undergrads who are white, Jews are 25%, 22%, and 13% at Harvard, Yale and Princeton respectively* for an average of about 20%.

So 40% of HYP undergrads are white gentile and the Ivies are not selecting one Jew for every gentile.

Additionally, half of the Jews at the Ivy League have a white gentile parent. Since I don't have information about what the mean IQ is for half-Jewish half-gentile people, let's just compare full Jews to full white gentiles.

Excluding halfies, HYP is 50% white and Jewish and only 10% of HYP undergrads are full Jews. Meaning that 20% of the white population of HYP (again excluding halfies) is Jewish when the numbers I posted above indicated that full Jews should be 28.90% of HYP and that Jews are therefore underrepresented.


"Whatever you do, you shouldn't click on the link to n/a's site."

I don't have enough time to go debunk every anti-Semitic argument on the internet, and besides, this blog is moderated by a Jew and there are still hordes of anti-Semites running loose on this blog.

"If you're pulling Godwin on Steve,"

I'm not pulling a Godwin.

The question over how half-Jews should be treated in Ivy League admissions is legitimate because Other paleoNazis like Buchanan have either hinted or outright suggested that Jewish numbers should be capped at the Ivy League.

Since the Paleocons THEMSELVES BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE of capping Jewish students, then I have every right to ask them how they would racially classify half-white half-Jewish students in the admission process, don't I?

* http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/23/24251/

Jewish students at Harvard, Brown, Columbia and Penn make up 25 percent of their respective undergraduate populations, and at Yale and Cornell, the number is 22 percent, according to data provided by Hillel, a leading international Jewish campus organization.

This data corresponds closely with data collected by the CJL, though both organizations depend on students voluntarily identifying their religious preference. The 13 percent figure suggests that Princeton’s population of Jewish students has only increased slightly since an Office of Religious Life survey 10 years ago showed that 10 percent of undergraduates were Jewish.

My god do you ever do anything except whine?

My goodness, Steve Johnson didn't address my questions.

That's ok, I'll just ask them again because I'm worried about Steve. He sounds like he's delusional.

He's foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog about a conspiracy that does not exist ("The Ivy League Jews are racially discriminating against poor whites!") and for which there is no evidence of its existence.

I am here to help Steve because he has convinced himself that a conspiracy that clearly does not exist actually exists just as those people on the old "Unsolved Mysteries" TV show were convinced they had been abducted by space aliens.

So I'm going to help Steve overcome his paranoid fantasies and about a grand Ivy League Jew conspiracy by repeating some points and some questions that you have failed to answer, Steve.

"1) There was a policy that was claimed to look for "leadership" personality traits.
2) This policy tended to exclude Jewish people (but not all of them, obviously); in other words, it weighted the accept / reject scale to increase the odds of reject if it detected traits that are correlated with being Jewish.
3) This policy still exists in name; Ivy Leagues look for "leadership" but now the results of this intentionally weight the accept / reject scale to increase the odds of reject if it detects traits that are correlated with not being Jewish.
4) Personality traits are genetically linked and inherited; relative ethnic personality traits do not change in a few years.
5) CONCLUSION #1: this policy is not the same as the previous policy because if it were looking for an actual trait ("leadership") it would produce similar ethnic outcomes."

I and half Sigma already explained to you why the ethnic outcomes changed despite the policy not changing.

The reason the ethnic outcomes changed was because the Jews changed their behavior and took the extracurricular activities Ivy League admissions officials were looking for.

No conspiracy is needed why the same policy produced different ethnic outcomes even though Jewish genes didn't change over the time period in question.

And if the Jews were able to change their extracurricular activities to please Ivy League admission officials, how come poor whites can't do the same by, for example, having their sons compete in national chess tournaments instead of going into the ROTC?

"Then - it was used to exclude Jewish people, now - it is used to preferentially include as many Jewish people as possible."

If your accusation is true that Jewish admissions officials are changing the admission criteria "to include as many Jews as possible" at the expense of white gentiles then why do the "Jew controlled" admissions officials still include Athleticism and Geographic Diversity as criteria to judge applicants by when Athleticism and Geographic Diversity work against Jewish applicants and in favor white gentile applicants in Flyover country because Jews are less athletic than white gentiles and more geographically concentrated in the Northeast?

There's a simple reason why it's acceptable for ivies to discriminate against Asians in the manner noted above, but do not do so (anymore) with Jews, blacks, Latinos, etc. It has nothing to do with ingrained stereotypes of business "leadership", being "bookworms", etc.

It's simply that Asians do not complain nearly as much as those groups do, and there's really no one who would argue on their behalf if they don't metaphorically bang a drum. Not even their "minority" brethren who loathe to allow marginalization of any kind, except, it would seem, to peoples of Asia. Establish similar anti-meritocracy quotas on Jews, blacks, latinos, hell, even apparently "red-state" white people, and you've got a large constituency screaming bloody murder. Articles in the New York Times are written (red state whites). People stand up an protest, and invoke historical precedent to spruce up their woes with ACLU and Supreme Court involvement (blacks and jews). Do the same things to Asians? It suddenly becomes an ingrained characteristic of the race (hah) of people. It's no longer "racist" to espouse those claims, but rather good intuition as to how Asians "misunderstand" the american system, or a generic symptom of Asians being generally "unsociable".

Most people responding here must have an exhausted rationalization hamster running marathons in their collective brains to allow their sort of hypocrisy to garner no notice.

To the original poster, many Asians in the ivies don't simply do engineering and aren't all in IT. You've got a biased sample set (I believe you said you were in IT). All the jewish and other white people in IT are unsociable nerds too. Just because Asians generally kick the asses of their fellow whites in said fields certainly doesn't mean they all choose to pursue those fields -- and those that don't will explode those stereotypes of family and sociability that you've suggested.

On a side note, I find it uniquely absurd that of all people, some Jewish people, people from a group who has been historically and consistently marginalized, would somehow rationalize away a directly racist policy simply because it doesn't affect them anymore. Ridiculous and blatantly self-serving.

Re: avi "Just because Asians generally kick the asses of their fellow whites in said fields certainly doesn't mean they all choose to pursue those fields -- and those that don't will explode those stereotypes of family and sociability that you've suggested."

A stereotype is a Bayesian inference. How would exceptions "explode it"? Do deviations from the mean explode mean average?

Your reasoning seems to be predicated on a stereotype of stereotypers as essentialist and not statistician. If that stereotype is of the existentialistic nature, I hope the above point explodes it.

The comments to this entry are closed.