This is a genuinely new point as far as I am aware (I'm not especially familiar with the literature on AA) and seems important enough that everyone thinking about it should be aware of it, I think. Thank you.
> On average 28 members of the hidden disadvantage population got an offer before AA. After the implementation of AA, on average 18 got an offer. On the other hand, on average of 51 of those facing no unfair disadvantage received an offer, and after the implementation of AA, 42 received an offer.
I'm assuming the simulation was 300 total applicants...?
Might it be worth adding a 4th category of maskable disadvantages that do otherwise have support, or would this function closely enough to the 3rd category when masked?
Very slightly tangential, but relevant, is the question of what exactly constitutes an unfair disadvantage. I mean, presumably we agree that some sort of selection/evaluation of candidates is desired (if not, just choose successful applicants randomly and all problems disappear)? So we're happy, for example, that in selecting undergraduate maths admissions, that "being bad at numerical reasoning" is not an unfair disadvantage (it's part of what we're legitimately trying to assess)? What about dyslexia? Poor faculty with English (in an English-taught course)? Bipolar disorder? Blindness? All of these things would genuinely make success, both on the course itself and very likely in subsequent employment, less likely, so is it OK to weight against them in selection? Or is that unfair? One also has to appreciate that all of these things are on sliding qualitative scales. If you say it's not OK to discriminate against, say, dyslexics, what about people who are not quite dyslexic enough to qualify for the label, but still in essence have dyslexic-like issues?
Against this, some things that obviously really are unfair disadvantages (much more so than anything I've listed above, because they wouldn't predict lack of success in the course), such as "not having any family members previously at the institution applied to", are widely accepted as OK.
I don't believe the point of AA was ever good faith Rawlsian equity; it was to reward and promote a coalition of easily politically identifiable demographics in exchange for their partisan allegiance.
This is a genuinely new point as far as I am aware (I'm not especially familiar with the literature on AA) and seems important enough that everyone thinking about it should be aware of it, I think. Thank you.
> On average 28 members of the hidden disadvantage population got an offer before AA. After the implementation of AA, on average 18 got an offer. On the other hand, on average of 51 of those facing no unfair disadvantage received an offer, and after the implementation of AA, 42 received an offer.
I'm assuming the simulation was 300 total applicants...?
210 applicants, 105 of which are successful in the base case.
Excellent post and concept.
Might it be worth adding a 4th category of maskable disadvantages that do otherwise have support, or would this function closely enough to the 3rd category when masked?
Very slightly tangential, but relevant, is the question of what exactly constitutes an unfair disadvantage. I mean, presumably we agree that some sort of selection/evaluation of candidates is desired (if not, just choose successful applicants randomly and all problems disappear)? So we're happy, for example, that in selecting undergraduate maths admissions, that "being bad at numerical reasoning" is not an unfair disadvantage (it's part of what we're legitimately trying to assess)? What about dyslexia? Poor faculty with English (in an English-taught course)? Bipolar disorder? Blindness? All of these things would genuinely make success, both on the course itself and very likely in subsequent employment, less likely, so is it OK to weight against them in selection? Or is that unfair? One also has to appreciate that all of these things are on sliding qualitative scales. If you say it's not OK to discriminate against, say, dyslexics, what about people who are not quite dyslexic enough to qualify for the label, but still in essence have dyslexic-like issues?
Against this, some things that obviously really are unfair disadvantages (much more so than anything I've listed above, because they wouldn't predict lack of success in the course), such as "not having any family members previously at the institution applied to", are widely accepted as OK.
I don't believe the point of AA was ever good faith Rawlsian equity; it was to reward and promote a coalition of easily politically identifiable demographics in exchange for their partisan allegiance.
🤡