andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1751 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. [sent-7, score-0.103]
2 The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy League colleges use ethnic/racial quotas that discriminate against some ethnic/racial groups (e. [sent-11, score-0.06]
3 Mertz’s full article is a 7-page pdf, “Janet Mertz on Ron Unz’s ‘Meritocracy’ Article. [sent-26, score-0.06]
4 For completeness, I again link to Unz’s original article , Unz’s note to me, and his latest remarks on the subject in which he characterizes this blog post of mine as “a mass of obfuscatory verbiage mostly disputing the accuracy of a couple of my scattered sentences here and there. [sent-30, score-0.325]
5 ” I can’t speak for Mertz, but as for myself let me emphasize once more that I’m just trying to get the numbers right (and also, in some of my bursts of obfuscatory verbiage, trying to understand the process by which we come to our conclusions about the world). [sent-31, score-0.282]
6 Earlier, Unz described Mertz’s reactions as “angry criticism” that “had been floating around the Internet for some time, and had been widely ignored or dismissed. [sent-32, score-0.073]
7 ” I think that, for Unz, a good starting point would be to neither ignore nor dismiss constructive criticism coming from well-informed people. [sent-33, score-0.069]
8 Making mistakes is human; what’s important (if the goal is to get closer to the truth) is to recognize those mistakes and move forward. [sent-34, score-0.108]
9 On the plus side, he seems to acknowledge that Mertz knows what she’s talking about on the classification of ethnicities of members of the mathematical olympiad team. [sent-38, score-0.307]
10 He does not dispute her statement that at least 13% of U. [sent-39, score-0.071]
11 team members since 2000 are Jewish (that is, have Jewish ancestry, counting fractionally as appropriate) not her best guess that 25-30% of team members in the 1970s were Jewish. [sent-41, score-0.308]
12 5% and 44% (which made their way into the New York Times as “In the 1970s, for example, 40 percent of top scorers in the Math Olympiad had Jewish names. [sent-43, score-0.149]
13 Given that, in Unz’s words, his estimates were “based on perhaps five minutes of cursory surname analysis,” it should be no surprise that they were wrong. [sent-48, score-0.206]
14 In retrospect, it’s too bad he hadn’t made it clearer that these eye-catching numbers (reporting a 17-fold decline rather than the actual factor of 2 or so) were actually based on nothing more than a cursory 5-minute effort. [sent-49, score-0.332]
15 Then perhaps outsiders such as David Brooks and Steve Hsu wouldn’t have taken Unz’s impressive-looking numbers and graphs as facts. [sent-50, score-0.071]
16 Given that these high-profile numbers were based on a cursory five-minute effort, it seems more puzzling than ever that Unz had “ignored or dismissed” Mertz’s criticism when it first appeared. [sent-51, score-0.275]
17 The downside of Unz’s response is that he continues to simultaneously defend his name scale-up estimate and the Hillel reports of the percentage of Jews at Harvard, even though those two estimates are off by a factor of 2. [sent-53, score-0.144]
18 He does not actually seem to dispute this factual claim that the two estimates differ by a factor of 2. [sent-55, score-0.345]
19 5 when applied to this dataset; rather, he just ignores it and defends each of the estimates separately. [sent-56, score-0.123]
20 Again, if Unz’s claim is true that the various factual criticisms do not affect his main points, I think he’d be better off accepting them and moving forward. [sent-58, score-0.13]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('unz', 0.678), ('mertz', 0.34), ('jewish', 0.182), ('cursory', 0.135), ('olympiad', 0.127), ('obfuscatory', 0.113), ('ron', 0.105), ('verbiage', 0.103), ('brooks', 0.096), ('meritocracy', 0.085), ('ivy', 0.083), ('members', 0.081), ('jews', 0.076), ('factual', 0.076), ('janet', 0.074), ('factor', 0.073), ('ignored', 0.073), ('league', 0.072), ('numbers', 0.071), ('dispute', 0.071), ('estimates', 0.071), ('criticism', 0.069), ('article', 0.06), ('contact', 0.057), ('david', 0.057), ('harvard', 0.055), ('claim', 0.054), ('dataset', 0.054), ('mistakes', 0.054), ('made', 0.053), ('ethnicities', 0.052), ('defends', 0.052), ('ancestry', 0.052), ('fractionally', 0.052), ('imo', 0.052), ('compiling', 0.052), ('times', 0.049), ('conclusions', 0.049), ('bursts', 0.049), ('disputing', 0.049), ('collapsed', 0.049), ('hillel', 0.049), ('scorers', 0.049), ('team', 0.047), ('percent', 0.047), ('mathematical', 0.047), ('immigrant', 0.047), ('completeness', 0.047), ('putnam', 0.047), ('notices', 0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
2 0.72754318 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
Introduction: Political/business negotiation vs. scholarly communication. In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. In scholarly communication you look for your own mistakes, you volunteer information to others, and if someone points out a mistake, you learn from it. (Just a couple days ago, in fact, someone sent me an email showing a problem with bayesglm. I ran and altered his code, and it turned out we had a problem. Based on this information, Yu-Sung found and fixed the code. I was grateful to be informed of the problem.) Not all scholarly exchange goes like this, but that’s the ideal. In contrast, openness and transparency are not ideals in politics and business; in many cases they’re not even desired. If Barack Obama and John Boehner are negotiating on the budget, would it be appropriate for one of them to just start off the negotiations by making a bunch of concessions for free? No, of course not. Negotiation doesn
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
4 0.64262331 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
5 0.63025963 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
Introduction: Here. And here’s the story so far: Ron Unz posted a long article on college admissions of Asians and Jews with some numbers and comparisons that made their way into some blogs (including here ) and also a David Brooks NYT column which was read by many people, including Janet Mertz, who’d done previous research on ethnic composition of high-end math students. Mertz contacted me (she’d earlier tried Brooks and others but received no helpful reply), and I posted her findings along with those of another correspondent. Unz then replied , motivating Mertz to write a seven-page document expanding on her earlier emails. Unz responded to that, characterizing Mertz as maybe “emotional” but not actually disputing any of her figures. Unz did, however, make the unconvincing (to me) implication that his original numbers were basically OK even in light of Mertz’s corrections. So Mertz responded once more . (There’s also a side discussion about women’s representation in m
7 0.45225278 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
8 0.41006964 1595 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-Should Harvard start admitting kids at random?
9 0.092506118 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
10 0.078648396 2107 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-20-NYT (non)-retraction watch
11 0.078454256 1025 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-24-Always check your evidence
14 0.067797564 1271 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Education could use some systematic evaluation
15 0.06735462 956 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-13-Hey, you! Don’t take that class!
16 0.06689512 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
17 0.065953888 2223 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-24-“Edlin’s rule” for routinely scaling down published estimates
18 0.065446571 2337 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-18-Never back down: The culture of poverty and the culture of journalism
19 0.064243086 1884 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-05-A story of fake-data checking being used to shoot down a flawed analysis at the Farm Credit Agency
20 0.064036757 390 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-02-Fragment of statistical autobiography
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.159), (1, -0.068), (2, 0.017), (3, -0.029), (4, 0.006), (5, 0.021), (6, 0.074), (7, 0.108), (8, -0.089), (9, -0.066), (10, 0.037), (11, 0.162), (12, -0.396), (13, 0.102), (14, 0.011), (15, 0.499), (16, -0.292), (17, -0.073), (18, 0.115), (19, 0.031), (20, -0.057), (21, -0.021), (22, 0.105), (23, 0.029), (24, -0.07), (25, 0.021), (26, 0.007), (27, -0.031), (28, -0.011), (29, 0.035), (30, -0.048), (31, -0.03), (32, 0.02), (33, -0.027), (34, 0.018), (35, 0.004), (36, -0.019), (37, -0.015), (38, 0.014), (39, 0.014), (40, -0.015), (41, 0.013), (42, -0.007), (43, 0.012), (44, 0.028), (45, -0.029), (46, 0.002), (47, 0.003), (48, 0.002), (49, -0.004)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96921945 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
3 0.94891882 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
4 0.93333149 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
Introduction: Here. And here’s the story so far: Ron Unz posted a long article on college admissions of Asians and Jews with some numbers and comparisons that made their way into some blogs (including here ) and also a David Brooks NYT column which was read by many people, including Janet Mertz, who’d done previous research on ethnic composition of high-end math students. Mertz contacted me (she’d earlier tried Brooks and others but received no helpful reply), and I posted her findings along with those of another correspondent. Unz then replied , motivating Mertz to write a seven-page document expanding on her earlier emails. Unz responded to that, characterizing Mertz as maybe “emotional” but not actually disputing any of her figures. Unz did, however, make the unconvincing (to me) implication that his original numbers were basically OK even in light of Mertz’s corrections. So Mertz responded once more . (There’s also a side discussion about women’s representation in m
Introduction: I was thinking more about David Brooks’s anti-data column from yesterday, and I realized what is really bothering me. Brooks expresses skepticism about numbers, about the limitations of raw data, about the importance of human thinking. Fine, I agree with all of this, to some extent. But then Brooks turns around uses numbers and unquestioningly and uncritically (OK, not completely uncritically; see P.S. below). In a notorious recent case, Brooks wrote, in the context of college admissions: You’re going to want to argue with Unz’s article all the way along, especially for its narrow, math-test-driven view of merit. But it’s potentially ground-shifting. Unz’s other big point is that Jews are vastly overrepresented at elite universities and that Jewish achievement has collapsed. In the 1970s, for example, 40 percent of top scorers in the Math Olympiad had Jewish names. Now 2.5 percent do. But these numbers are incorrect, as I learned from a professor of oncology at the Univ
6 0.87515992 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
7 0.82662457 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
8 0.76013941 1595 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-Should Harvard start admitting kids at random?
10 0.45685619 1025 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-24-Always check your evidence
11 0.44351113 1727 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-Beef with data
12 0.42808586 135 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-09-Rasmussen sez: “108% of Respondents Say . . .”
13 0.42300442 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
14 0.41596851 598 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-03-Is Harvard hurting poor kids by cutting tuition for the upper middle class?
15 0.4154042 2107 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-20-NYT (non)-retraction watch
16 0.35859266 677 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-24-My NOAA story
17 0.35585469 1830 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-Giving credit where due
18 0.34985808 1271 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Education could use some systematic evaluation
19 0.34793088 1587 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-21-Red state blue state, or, states and counties are not persons
20 0.32290697 731 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-26-Lottery probability update
topicId topicWeight
[(4, 0.024), (8, 0.018), (15, 0.051), (16, 0.096), (21, 0.03), (22, 0.014), (24, 0.119), (30, 0.068), (45, 0.014), (47, 0.021), (63, 0.011), (89, 0.021), (92, 0.098), (95, 0.032), (99, 0.254)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96035802 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
2 0.95785618 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
Introduction: Last year we discussed an important challenge in causal inference: The standard advice (given in many books, including ours) for causal inference is to control for relevant pre-treatment variables as much as possible. But, as Judea Pearl has pointed out, instruments (as in “instrumental variables”) are pre-treatment variables that we would not want to “control for” in a matching or regression sense. At first, this seems like a minor modification, with the new recommendation being to apply instrumental variables estimation using all pre-treatment instruments, and to control for all other pre-treatment variables. But that can’t really work as general advice. What about weak instruments or covariates that have some instrumental aspects? I asked Paul Rosenbaum for his thoughts on the matter, and he wrote the following: In section 18.2 of Design of Observational Studies (DOS), I [Rosenbaum] discuss “seemingly innocuous confounding” defined to be a covariate that predicts a su
5 0.93566251 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
Introduction: Here. And here’s the story so far: Ron Unz posted a long article on college admissions of Asians and Jews with some numbers and comparisons that made their way into some blogs (including here ) and also a David Brooks NYT column which was read by many people, including Janet Mertz, who’d done previous research on ethnic composition of high-end math students. Mertz contacted me (she’d earlier tried Brooks and others but received no helpful reply), and I posted her findings along with those of another correspondent. Unz then replied , motivating Mertz to write a seven-page document expanding on her earlier emails. Unz responded to that, characterizing Mertz as maybe “emotional” but not actually disputing any of her figures. Unz did, however, make the unconvincing (to me) implication that his original numbers were basically OK even in light of Mertz’s corrections. So Mertz responded once more . (There’s also a side discussion about women’s representation in m
7 0.92626393 1563 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-05-Someone is wrong on the internet, part 2
9 0.92477465 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
10 0.91819113 1108 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-09-Blogging, polemical and otherwise
11 0.91716337 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
12 0.91581941 1623 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-GiveWell charity recommendations
13 0.91573989 1008 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-Student project competition
15 0.91050005 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
16 0.91047072 20 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Bayesian hierarchical model for the prediction of soccer results
17 0.90998769 2227 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-27-“What Can we Learn from the Many Labs Replication Project?”
18 0.90967548 1195 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multiple comparisons dispute in the tabloids
19 0.90923643 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
20 0.90858644 1595 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-Should Harvard start admitting kids at random?