Your original premise was that the article was unsurprising since _someone_ (Asians and Whites) must bear the downside of pro-minority AA:
> Well, if minorities are being positively affected, then majorities (in this case, Asians + whites) must be negatively affected.
> How is that novel? The effect is the same as ever, whoever is part of the majority takes the hit.
Then, asdfologist clearly points out that the interesting part is that Asians, a "minority", get affected worse than Whites (a majority):
> You don't get it - the parent's point is that your argument doesn't explain why Asians take a much bigger hit than whites.
You then claim that this could because Asians are actually the majority of qualified candidates (the whole ratio > or <= 1 thing), which I admit was an unconventional but valid challenge of assumptions:
> What's the Asian to White ratio of qualified college applicants? i.e. are there more Whites or Asians who would be accepted based on factors other than their race?
So then I point out the logical issue with your argument there, which I guess you had some trouble understanding.
But now you say that Asians do, in fact, get treated differently than Whites in admissions, so I guess we actually do agree that there probably exists some racial bias against Asians vis-a-vis Whites in elite college admissions. Cheers?
Look carefully at the logic statement I wrote - it means that one of two things must be true:
1. There exists racial bias specifically against Asians in admissions.
2. Qualified White applicants outnumber qualified Asian applicants.
If you concede (1), then your point that Asians get treated more harshly because they're majority is moot. If you concede (2), then, as you said, your argument doesn't work since "ratio < 1".
I don't know how to make this more clear than by using propositional logic.
IF there were more qualified Asian applicants than qualified White applicants (ratio > 1) _and_ admissions was not racially biased, THEN there should be more Asians than Whites in the student body.
We know that there are more Whites than Asians in the student body of these colleges, so look at the contrapositive:
IF there are more Whites than Asians in the student body, THEN there more qualified White applicants (ratio <= 1) _or_ admissions was racially biased.
Your original premise was that the article was unsurprising since _someone_ (Asians and Whites) must bear the downside of pro-minority AA:
> Well, if minorities are being positively affected, then majorities (in this case, Asians + whites) must be negatively affected. > How is that novel? The effect is the same as ever, whoever is part of the majority takes the hit.
Then, asdfologist clearly points out that the interesting part is that Asians, a "minority", get affected worse than Whites (a majority):
> You don't get it - the parent's point is that your argument doesn't explain why Asians take a much bigger hit than whites.
You then claim that this could because Asians are actually the majority of qualified candidates (the whole ratio > or <= 1 thing), which I admit was an unconventional but valid challenge of assumptions:
> What's the Asian to White ratio of qualified college applicants? i.e. are there more Whites or Asians who would be accepted based on factors other than their race?
So then I point out the logical issue with your argument there, which I guess you had some trouble understanding.
But now you say that Asians do, in fact, get treated differently than Whites in admissions, so I guess we actually do agree that there probably exists some racial bias against Asians vis-a-vis Whites in elite college admissions. Cheers?