The. Hello everyone watching in listening today, I'm speaking with professor researcher and economy, patrician peter presidio economy. We discuss the recent landmark decision by the supreme court to end race based affirmative action, how peters research was instrumental in that outcome, why merit has repeatedly proven to be the best indicator of success and what merit is by the way, how come action is used to poke racial discrimination and, what might actually yield results in service to the under resourced communities across the united states. So Peter. Let's start with this sum,

the affirmative action has been in the news. A lot well for all, time, but particularly in recent weeks, given the new supreme court decision, I think we should first all are alert everybody watching in listening to who you are and why people should consider you a valid source of information and dumb and and what you do so, citizen about who you are and what you do and why. This is the topic of interest to you you haven't economics, perversity studies, affirmative action in higher education, and so as a result of that got the opportunity. To be an expert witness in the two things are very missions: cases that were recently decided decided. supreme court, one with harvard and one with you and see- and I took the cases in part because

for someone who studies affirmative action and we've never had the data to really look at it. Well, universities, typically hide their data, probably as a result of these lawsuits, it's so you there's a large gap in racial preferences between it been tiber. Acre been what somebody like a brown candy might be in favour of equal outcomes, something exactly how big the preferences are to me would move us in a direction thinking about optimal policy. Now, as it stands the way the really let's were reduced I just have affirmative action that the universities are probably going to look for ways to get around that, but the thrill was the ability to actually see harvard's admissions files. You know I got to actually see their full database across six years. I got. Look at the actual applications themselves. Look at the reader comments for a subset of these things,

All the alumni interviews it was in amazing experience. A frightening experience, but an amazing experience to be able to feel that ok. So, let's, let's start with two things, why don't you outlined the cases for us? He said there were two cases and then maybe you could step peoples through the typical admissions process, outlet say at harvard a new and you and see that's going to be, similar for many universities, but everybody wants, listening needs to know how universities do how they claim they admit how they actually have met and how they should admit. Those are three obviously separate questions, but, let's start with What exactly? Why exactly where these universities in court to begin with. since actually two different reasons. The harvard side, a lot to do with asian discrimination

think about affirmative action, and it really is designed to help african american students and somewhat hispanic students, but asian americans is a population do incredibly well academically and also in other areas, and so armoured was a good place to look at the ancient discrimination sides side of things. So in in case he had both asian discrimination. You also had are racial preferences narrowly tailored? How big are these racial press since the harvard so those restarted. My two parts of the case there is another expert, rick caliber who covers race, neutral alternatives, because then the other things supreme, it is said, is you're supposed to look for ways to get diversity, out using race explicitly, Are you and see side? We didn't have the asian discrimination claim. It was

or on your how large the racial preferences coupled with these re, sutra alternatives, but then there is another aspect to which he looked back at the two michigan supreme court cases. the one on the undergraduate side said you cannot use a formula but on the law, school sides yeah he's racist part of a formula, but on the law school side you could, you could take, it count holistically me as an economist and I'm sure for you to leave hide part of the formula. Now. I'm holistic question well how how formulaic, where the admissions- and you know my models- could predict you NC admissions incredibly well. So that would also sort of speak to you What does it mean if we don't write down the formulas that ok, you know that

The other thing auxiliaries, you don't. If you don't write down the formula and yet you couldn't derive in ukraine and from analyzing the outcome. All that means is that the admission processes random That seems I mean you could go to a random admission process right. You could let every moran, and then you could, fail everybody who doesn't do well in the first two years and let him and the survivors flourish and mean you could make a case for that. It somewhat inefficient because all those people who fail have to go there and fail and that's not necessarily easy on them, but there are certain advantages to that, because there will be surprising successes as well that isn't generate the direction we have chosen to go and then, if you do have a more rigorous policy, so that would be one you could hypothetically model while then in principle, in fact this is actually,

I law as far as I understand the law is that my understanding of the law with regards to hiring and selection, at least- and I dont know if that pertains to academic admissions- is that you have to you you are required by law to use the most valuable Valid and reliable current means of evaluation available that don't produce counter productive and illegal racial differences in Seoul No one knows how to do that, because, while because no one knows how to do that, isn't obvious how you can do both simultaneous in fact doesn't look to me like you can and that's a major conundrum. So, ok, so back to you, you and see, so you mortal their equations, and you did I'm saying for harvard- and you found- and you you phrased in these terms too- is that for every advantage that given to one race, let's say or one category, there's going to be a commensurate disadvantage,

I do another and that's particularly egregious in the cases of harvard end and also if you ever see that's particularly creatures in relationship to asians and and how big- are the advantages in and what do you think they signify? the advantages are enormous I went in a lot were optimistic about holistic. This, the I came out came to me really looks like we give very large preferences across the board is not just on race but also on legacies whether you sit whether get me under failing to you now right right, Agassi, athletics and race. Anything else. We also have children, a donors with charm and killed her faculty in staff, those the last isn't that big, but the children, writers right, it seems ah because responsive like need blinded missions, but then there sustained less, where we have killed him potential donors case. Also,

let me dived into that momentarily, so I spent a lot of time delving into this selection literature and buy a lot of time. I mean like fifteen years. I mean a lot of time and we developed selection tests for fur abrasions and for academic institutions, and so like. I knew literature and one of my students did an excellent phd on selection mechanisms in june on developed an entire battery for selecting students, but- and we looked at this initially, an ignorant canadian. I didn't know this was a politically charged domain. I was curious about something very, very practical, which was well arthur, efficient ways of selecting the best candidates for different positions, academic, creative managerial and the answer to that is well, yes, and there are very well documented and they're relatively objective, and so I started looking at the data on objective testing, personality and also cognitive. Let's say there are

or you can measure interest. You can measure creative ability either. There are other objective ways of getting at this, and then I looked at the history of objective testing and I learned that it was the socialists that brought I q tests to the uk, and then they spread from, and the rest of the western world and read the reason for that in the army did this is well. The reason for that was that the hypothesis was that if you used objective tests but you could identify people of disadvantaged economic background who had the ability to succeed academically professionally, and that would be good for them and fair, but it would also be good for everyone else, because why the hell not on the full talent pool. If you're trying to move people along the educational ladder up the education ladder, and so my conclusion from all this- and this is before all this became politicize

was that there was absolutely no better way of serving disadvantaged communities than to stick one hundred percent to objective tests, not because they didn't produce differential outcomes because they still do but because any other system you could possibly produce would produce much worse outcomes, and then I read adrian woolridge as well. You know and Adrian who did it. He said he was an economist journalist for years, very, very careful historical reach, he showed very clearly as far as I am concerned, that the alternatives, the historical alternatives to objective testing, have been dynasty and nepotism, naughty quality of outcome for the prompt, the thing about objective tests to me, is a first of all. They actually predict their reliable and valid their better than any other method by large margin, and- and this is the crucial point there is no way that you can do better than that everything else. You

we'll be worse, okay. So now we have this mish mash universities that you just pointed out if Europe This actually member you get preferential access that. As we are hiring perks or the family members and a mere eight one right now to keep it gives him a private schools, because right state school can't do that, but the private elite schools can do that right right. So you can see what Now is there and then children of donors? While you can also understand the rationale there, but basically what that means is that rich people can buy preferential. Yes, now you could argue that that's acceptable if one of the things that the rich people are doing is donating, like a hundred million dollars to establish an entire new new research complex, you could say: well, perhaps that's a price worth paying it's not fair at the admissions level and then, while the next one is

fled x and in a way worked for the. U s naval academy for awhile, that's a whole story in and of itself, and I found there- and this was quite shocking to be as again as an ignorant canadian that they had a wallet thing: preference fur ass, letting ability at the naval academy in that struck me, as you know, pretty damn counterproductive, given what they were training these people to do. And then you also mentioned racial preference, and so there's a variety of ways that these admission systems, It's gerrymandered. Do you see a solution that impossible in a holistic? I think that's just complete bloody rubbish, that's just hidden prejudice, indiscriminate, Do you see an alternative to the catastrophe of effective evaluation. Does it's also a catastrophe? Why there's a clear alternative, but they won't be pursued,

Basically, every other system has test based admissions and I think the key to pushing on four more for tests based admissions is exactly what you said that we think about the tests as favouring the rich but the others. Favours rex even more? Well right, that's exactly yet! You see up, let it in a harvard acts, offers more versatile sports at any school. On the contrary, it when we think about sports, has been equalizer you're thinking about football in basketball, we're talking about sailing, that's an entirely Four matter save you get rid of racial of athletic preferences. Whites go down african american stay the same and asian american suspense calot. I'm sure that if you to football, basketball about to be only lights were going down and that fits in you know, because harboured also has an athletic rating as part of their ambitions criteria.

Beyond just the athletic preference, so everybody gets in a letter grading. The people who do the best on harvard that letter Grady are white like a six there. The legacy of other races. Then non legacies that work, one, it's the sports, the harvard offers like failing and such, but sport factually favours people who go to small, private, scoffs. So I went to suburban public school, where could I make the soccer team, my kids? They made the soccer team at their school, isn't uncut anybody The other types of things are all work to favour people. People of me yet This is the thing that that that's why I want to reiterate that, for four people were watching listening If you use and objective selection system, that's based on merit selects define merit. First, you tell me if you think I've got this wrong.

So here's is the definition of merit a right. So in principle the enterprise you're pursuing has an outcome so at university the outcome would be. Grades and graduation. If you go to work, the outcome would be job performance and that can be evaluated of right of way. If you're an entrepreneur would be success of business, and so that's out now merit in relationship to that outcome would be documented relationship between a trade that you might have and that outcome, and so what things you see on the academic front is that one of the biggest predictors of academic success is general cognitive abilities. And the reason for that is in part, because there is actually no difference between general continent, mobility and academic success right, they're, the same thing now it turns out, you can measure general coggan viability in with incredible rapidity.

Very accurately and they are the most accurate tests ever designed by social scientists are much more powerful than almost every medical tests that we whose and their very predictive not only of academic performance, as evidenced by grades, but also then long term life performance and more predictive of speed of learning and again that's because general cognitive ability and speed of learning are the same thing. So you know that there is a debate about our society. Whether not merit is in itself a let's say, a racist and prejudicial construction, but that's that's an idiot presumption because that's the same statement as what any enterprise is for relevant and that's completely preposterous, because an enterprise exists because its form, whatever it does. That's its justification You can't get anywhere by claiming there's no such thing as merit, and you actually

get anywhere by me. We can measure merit because of you accept that that means we have to throw out all of medicine and the social sciences, because we can act measure merit better than we can measure anything else, and many add to that. if you dont measure merit whatever you measure, is gonna, disadvantage the disadvantaged people even more and that's the crucial issue as far as I'm concerned, because it will revert these invisible forms of prejudice that are always associated with net Gives them a dynasty. So do you think have any of that wrong, so total agreement with you. I think the point of contention the universities would say is that their objective function is different. There create the future leaders of society, and maybe that connects with the cognitive abilities, their so vague about what the objective function is there. we're getting pinning down on that enable

the measure is tough. I also know the leadership limited. Ok, fundamentally, its rubbish And the reason for that is that, first of all, there is. Any such thing as leadership like it's, not a unitary phenomenon and is partly because there are gift ways of leading people and different circumstances, call for different, say, styles of leadership or different abilities. Now. Having said all that, you can say that in general peoples highly intelligent, who are conscientious, which means they'll, do what they say. They'll do and they stick to the task and who are somewhat extroverted, ten to till more towards being approved of leaders, because while they can figure out how to do things veil actually do them and they can communicate about them enthusiastically. But if you take that as a base, definition of leadership you're still gonna find out that count

general cognitive abilities. Conscientiousness predict that, and that is also the same two sets of trades that predict success. These? So all that gerrymandering by the universities that hand waving about the notion that they can't measure their outcomes? Is that, like that's that either means they don't know. think about how to measure or that they're just obscuring the situation to their own for their own purposes whenever they might be? well enough for the treasury was crazy about universities is their unwillingness to use their data. You know if you take cold. It is a perfect example as notre dame had a very different covert policy than the ivy league schools? We should know how that worked out We should know, while the mental health rates were different across his things, and then we know how to do a better in the future? We don't do that. I'm in you-

I think it's just I find hilarious is that a lot of universities have randomized roommates, that's great for the purposes of studying what five the effective differ. characteristics have on you in and what the mac component might look like, but they don't do that, just keep having the randomize roommates. They don't actually look to see what pairs might actually work and how can we construct policies that might actually help their students Well, you know it's really. It's really. It's really sad that universities don't do that, because universities spearhead the social sciences, research, enterprise and the fat The data to capitalize on their own expertise either indicates that the expertise is there or that its untrustworthy, or that there are other reasons they dont bother, which is either no incompetence or some some hidden agenda, and none of that is excusable and so crazy. Now, let's go back to the to the court case. If you

mind. So what magnitude of advantage are we talking about with regards to these different categories? We have athletics, we have legacy students, we have a racial preference. That was that was the main three categories. children faculties. What what kind of differential advantage are you looking at with regard say on the racial front, by far the biggest as the athletic preference. Then you can have your biggest. What all by far yeah you're part of that you could think see negotiated ahead of time. That they're good and so maybe you don't see the ball applicant poor for them, but the characteristics of admitted athletes. So me, the the athletic admit rate is now over eighty five percent and the average athletic admit as academic characteristics that are much worse than the average applicant to harvard.

and the outer gap, it already has a very low can't forget it in so. You know really talking about massive preferences there. So so so, could you outlined the advantages and disadvantages to the athletic preference, because you could I welcome the with the kids. You ve been good athletes, they are stellar at something, so they ve them. They have demonstrated track record, have so to speak, track record of accomplishment, and I think there's something to that. I think bidding for, although it would be nice to prove that having developed ability to be a discipline specialist in sport might make you a better team player? potentially a better leader, I don't, I don't know of any data pertaining to that, and you might say as well, but for a school like harvard that faces an embarrassment of riches on the applicant front. That using additional criteria of achievement is

a useful screening mechanism. Why does this athletic preference exist now? You said it favours the rich to, and that's very interesting thing to look at, but why does the athletic selection event exist, and what do you think the pros and cons are well? I think it's a backdoor way at harvard case a giddy people from work families. and I say that primarily because you know over sixteen percent of white admits- are recruited up, that's actually way bigger than what you see for african americans, hispanics or or asian americans, and that's because the other they're choosing sports, like failing scheme fence in all these things that are associated, moreover, the upper end, but I think you end up with the way you more universal governance, for you end up with these handouts. Why wizened? If the case, why would the habitat?

a grating, not a music rating. You know it's it's a very odd thing to me that we have this time. Social at places like harvard they do, they do look out additional forms of attainment. Send you I know more about this than me. But I I I used to know the dean of admissions at harvard and we talked a lot and now he was an interesting character and you know they do they basically pick kids, who were at that point that was back in the nineties. They pick kids, who generally we're stellar academically. A lot of them were valedictorian or or the next best thing then generally, they had to have at least one other relatively stellar talent, and that was sometimes athletics, but it was. It could be It could be proficiency in any number of other domains, but you're saying that the athletic preference ways any of the other criteria that are applied. That's right We don't even have like a field in the data for these other banks.

Here we have a letter. You know we know you get a score for that. The us things are going to matter. It might show up through your ex for regular radio or things like that, but you can see in the port record the conversations that happen between athletic coaches the admissions in a way that I dont think happens in other other air right. So so athletics is considered separately from extra, correct and everything else is gonna drive out. That's right right here. Will you see that also seems to be very careless. You know, because you think, if you were going to set up an equation to it, met that you do some work in delineating. What other stellar performance features are actually associated with academic success and and later, even for your own financial interests because mean one of the things the key ivy league are trying to do, is to put people and who will become rich enough to become alumni donors and their action

pretty good at that and- and they have the reasons for it, but you'd think that that would be of sufficient economic interest, actually try them to actually try to model in those athletic preferences why they had. That was not so pure emotive has, as that the war relating to jewish discrimination. I think that's part of why we have the holistic missions in the first place. Ok, so that's another! So you think not only the athletics admissions not only privilege the rich, but there are also way of tilting the scales against jewish applicants, How are things that? Otherwise, I might have it that's right, and so then we other oil that serve that carries forward to today. Right in that, but it would be the asians who are more in that position. Ours is still asians and jews. The thing we wouldn't know about Jews today and part of it harvard actually doesn't download that information. So on the common application it actually ass. Your religion

harvard- doesn't download that information in part because of the history of jewish discrimination, and I think it's one of the remedies in this, these cases is don't download. The racial information that second totally get, discrimination. They may still discriminates against the jews based on their last name, those kinds of banks. not as easy as being able to point to the jewish box on the application now aren't on the athletic. Aren't again, do you know if so look one of the problems that place like harvard? Is that if you let students in who aren't academically prepared, one of two things inevitably happens. Three takes one is it

not that much fun for the student right I mean I saw when I was at harvard the consequences of being less intellectually gifted. Then your peers right and that an that's, that's, not fun, and especially many. The kids came from places where They were pretty stellar in their local environment and then they'd come to a place like harvard which is hyper selected and they wouldn't be so stellar, and that was salutary in some ways because it kept ego down. But it was devastating in other ways and it's no fun to be selected to a place like harvard and then to fail and if you're not selected on academic grounds, and that would be for general cognitive ability and you come to a place that is full of people who are hyper sophisticated. Obviously that's, can be a pretty damn roscoe and the probability that you're going to fail, as is quite high and be demoralized, and be even end up concluding that you're stupider than you actually are because it such an artificial competition at a hyper selected school.

And then the other remedy, of course, is that if you admit people whose general cognitive ability isn't up to scratch, then you're going to decrease the academic requirements. Because Otherwise, everyone whose admitted who, on these somewhat fallacious grounds, let's say every fail and then it's gonna look like your institution is prejudiced so attractive. Do the athletic to the earth. Athletes. How did they do? How did the athletes do in terms of drop out and school success unfortunately lost. He didn't give us outcome data, but I will say I dont think dropouts an issue I think carbon always there's that away to graduate jail in ways that might not be true of other other universities what they gradually? U n, you you're, not you're, not gonna, be getting a computer science degree coming right right

right and that's what you wanted. You be slaughtered into one of the disciplines that require a somewhat lesser degree of sheer intellectual horse power that's right. The doesn't build up your previous academic background and that's the beauty of this right. These actually think. What's happened over time is it return, your college major matter more and more so now you have fields where there is very little demand for the subject you having the athletic preferences. Those other preferences for the people I would really like to be any kind major. But if work given their background. Then they end up switch. You did this other fields where

as the same person might have been any kind major at a less procedures school, they could have got it right right right. Well, that's the other thing I think I I observed both at harvard out of the universe is toronto like if you have a child who could be us, are at a state school, but was the third tier performer at an ivy league, your problem ross, sending them to the state school. That was my sense because compared to the general population. They might still be stellar performers, but if you put them in with people who are high, selected, especially when their young they're going to draw the erroneous conclusion that they are not particularly talented now compared to you know, who are one in ten thousand the person whose one in a hundred isn't particularly stellar, but compared to the other under their more than perfectly capable. So I would say that

parents- and I don't know what you think about this- I would say to parents- you knew you should put your kid in a place where they're going to be college, but where they're not at the bottom of the pool, that's right, that's good, that's more relevant and some majors than others. So the bottle! laughing to serve all relative to the sword in hand. So then, colleagues and there's mass of sorting tons of people come in wanting to major in the sciences, insects and then they switch out and is very predictable who switches out brains, you write or while actively lower on the mass side, tend to yeah Well, that that's ok! So so what out from what I've been able to derive? That's particularly true, like I think, the deed, the discipline where general cognitive ability horse hours, most necessaries is physics, mathematics, tat they saw in it.

and then the name. Then there's a hierarchy down from that, and so now I guess you could also make the cases that have all it's not so bad that in universities, there's a range of disciplines to match different levels of general continents ability, but I would still say that at least schools that they have all those resources that their resources are best funneled towards those who are most able to benefit from them and that's clearly the people who have general higher general cognitive ability, so it's sort of related that whoop? What also bothers me is that they're not honest with their students. You know so, if Utah somebody up front. Yes, weren't, very new. Giving your initial major interest in your test scores and grades. Here's the probability you're gonna go we disagree. Here's the proba unite the plates another two years. Probably you drop out now

If you ve, given ample information. Familiar takes away a lot of the mismatch argument because individuals can make up their own minds. That might say wide rather good harboured undergraduates in some night fines field then go to you ends. In gradually physics, it that's the weather, the trade off yeah? Well, you could argue, you could argue that you know. There's gonna, be kids, that you do Think will do very well on the basis of your testing, who will go there and actually do quite well, and so it be ok, not to inform them, because that way those exceptions can flourish. But I thought this through in this is my conclusion, and you can tell me what you think about this, which is that

but for every kid like that, you're gonna do like eight kids to failure and it seems like an inefficient use of that kid's time and the schools resources to have a failure rate that high to have the odd exception. I mean, and I I see this if you're recruiting people for management position till you might say well, why not give this person a chance? You know maybe they'll succeed in the answer is well yeah, but probably they won't and that's gonna, be really hard on them. and not only that if they turn out not to be able to do the job Can we really hard on everyone that their supervising and working with and setting someone up for failure from compassion is not advisable as a management strategy is a bad idea and not of its not advisable? Isn't it strategy is well and I totally agree how about I also like being able to tell people. Look the desolate

you can cut it because some of them, What, then, can respond by working hard I felt I was a guy just floated through ticket it all together, then I got to graduate school learned, humility and learn how to work a lot harder, but somebody tell me you know you're, not good enough for myself. That was actually a push you I wasn't internally motivated enough. I needed somebody that to prove wrong in order to do well now I know I'm sure weird in that way will I tell you about, but not, but not not like, not absurdly weird. In that way, I mean you see lots of smart kids who have floated by who hit a wall where there now competing with kids who are just

smart, but like ten times is disciplined and some of them fail in their bitter as a consequence, but some of them like pull up their socks and think, oh, my god looks like I'm actually going to have to work and there's nothing about that and good for the bright, because then not only then there more occasions right because the joint advantage. I looked into the asian advantage. A lot. the asian advantage by the way the asian performance region? U s disappears by the third generation, so it turns out the more that asian kids are like american kids, the less there like asian, so to speak and asians. Have this hyper focus like jews? I would say they have this hyper focus on academic success and academic success. as a status marker at home and in the community, and and you know that is that's actually us. I think something that in principle might be remediable, because it implies that if you can teach people,

at any given cognitive level to work harder. That is one pathway to genuine success, but it is also appalling that the asians get discriminated against, because you know they are the ones who are being discriminated against their hard work. and that's not a good thing to discriminate against being an american. I wanted my kid to do sports it. Oh. That was just part of the thing and he was on interested in sports and he kept telling me that we cannot get put him out there in soccer basketball at every say. No, I do karate eventually karate. It was fine the keepers, his difference in that regard, if he'd, been in a society where the nor was to do something else, to do science. I think, That would be very nice for him, socially in and so on, legislation, place like hungary there much more. entered on math in america,

much more centred on sports. That sports craze, I think, is actually you. It does build some good skills, but I think it, sir we're too obsessed obsessed with it to the detriment of these other these other banks- and I think age, american families deserve figured out- not to be obsessed about that- but be obsessed about other things. right, which is another reason why it would nice to be nice to see the equations adjusted so that other forms of excellence extracurricular ever excellence are given their due weight right So why were you called upon to testify specifically so I've written alive papers on affirmative action and with mixed results. So I think that there's actually a lot of pressure to say, good things about affirmative action. And I didn't always say good things and in fact-

Two thousand and eleven. There was a protest over one of my papers when it was thirty by. I bought a very knock you as paper. We actually do data and am we're looking at persistence in science and economics and what you can see Is that you, african american, since came in wanting to make your nose subjects at the same rate as white students but they were leaving at a much higher rate so like over. Fifty percent of black males who started in the sciences and economic switched out versus eight percent of males right. Why don't you can all the while the the advocates of systemic racism as a explanatory hypothesis would say that the racism is so deep that not only does it discriminate on the admission side

also discriminates on the performance side and all those things disappeared as soon as you control for academic backgrounds role for the test scores, you know do gratings. In such you start up of these big tree rachel gaps. Asian americans were most likely to persist in the sciences and african markets. Release likely once you conditioned on differences in economic backgrounds. Terminal by affirmative action? What view the educational experiences prior to college that kiss, it appears that I then want you didn't like. Did you control for aids or for s a scores or from both? Do you remember control for a whole different specifications. That difference. Trolls, but it goes away fairly quickly and you could look at in figures, performances in first year classes and look at the end that them

my brain so so you so sulphur for everybody was watching in listening to me. Tell me if I get this wrong so you can imagine that if you're doing a statistical analysis, you could determine whether race was the predictor or academic ability was predictor by modeling, both of them and seeing which predicted drop out better and if it, if, if academic ability destroys the ability of race to predict drop out, but not the reverse, then you know it's academic ability and not race and in principle, unless you assume that the academic ability markers are also contaminated with, what would you call it systemic racism, then you eradicate the racist argument. So so what do you know? What the right do, as they just say, everything systemic racism and it virtually impossible to mountain argument against that. But then we have the other problem which, for

all of you who are compassionate, who are listening. You know it's not compassionate to put people into situations where they disproportionately fail. Right, it allows you look good on the admission front, but it's not good for the people who are involved. As far as I can tell you think, just anything about it. It's good for the people that are involved I think it thought feel you we could actually say more because with they asked the reason why you switched your major and one of them was. The difficulty of the courses are really not as prepared for those courses. And again, you could see that black students are much more likely to say it was because, of course, difficulty. and once you controlled for the authorities scores and in such that all went away. So really point pointed towards

These are academic measures really mattering for your experience in those classes. Now, on that systemic racism, front, saying will look, the test scores are biased to me. I think that to succeed this service, because then it sort of says, what's happening. The prior to college like in the cape, twelve education is really not that bad, because the test scores adjust misrepresented it. You know when reality the fact that no one percent of black students score above thirteen idea in the us, a T. That's eight per cent for whites and the twenty four percent for asian americans. That's reflected something that we could fix s? What that's where we need to spend irma our time on this fixing that ok! So so let me let me make a case for them, for the universities and what they're doing

What would rapidly happened if we went to a purely objective evaluation system? Is that an elite level universities there would be a disproportionate compared the pocket Should there be a radically disproportionate number of asians juice and radically disproportionate dearth of a black americans. That would happen very rapidly. and the universities are concerned about that and now and and it's it's it's definitely a very difficult nut to crack right, and so now it doesn't seem like the appropriate solution to that is to disadvantage extremely competent agents.

and I would say partly because well they deserve their shot at the target, but also in order there aren't that many hyper exceptional people on the cognitive front right and if we're greedy as a society and sensible in that greed, we would say we should set up our institutions to capitalize on every available bit of brain power and persistence. So it's better socially. If we can put the smartest people where they are,

the greatest opportunities to learn and contribute, so we're not just hurting the asians, let's say, and the Jews were also depriving ourselves in principle of what they could offer, but then we're going to have the problem of of this disproportionate racial and ethnic mix in the universities. And so what did- and maybe this isn't a fair question to ask you, because it just isn't necessary that you have the solution to this. It isn't obvious to me we won house, but you word testifying on behalf of you- are making a case that the affirmative action systems as presently constituted are very badly flawed and probably illegally flawed. But what do you see forward if anything as a way out of this conundrum. So Really have you that I wasn't actually saying it was flawed so interesting how big the preferences are. Yeah,

could be characterized as an opponent of affirmative action, because then you're just lay a nicer has biased, I'm just trying to show you what, with it with the data, show me, I think it allows it works if backs works as a band aid where it covers up, the inequities that are happening prior to college, and then we don't focus on six rolling. Prior, I think, has done a lot of work on the no excuse carter, schools showing that that those are actually pretty effective at closing those achievement gaps. I think extra shows- it doesn't translate as well and the colleagues. But it's a start here. Fortunately, they ran him out of town, but I hear he was the most prominent black economy. There came from nothing in and you know what I think is Until this absolutely horrible mps were the few actually shows how to close the accounts. The gap rising

that was roland, roland roland friar. Alright, yes, yes, yes, yes, I I've been seriously considering him not inviting him onto the podcast. Now he is absent amazing. His story is amazing and what's happened to him is yeah. It's criminal, shocking, it's terrible, yeah! Well! So so this this issue here, I think you you touched on something very crucial, which is that right. If we pretend that the achievement tests are the problem that enables us to ignore the underlying problems. Of course, that gets muddy and ugly very quickly to because one of the things I would say, perhaps as I've said The development of anti social personality, for example, and other forms of psychopath algae that would interfere with educational attainment. and lifetime attainment over the long run, and it certainly the case, for example, that fatherless is a contributing factor in a major way right, unstable destabilized

families, and so, if you don't allow the achievement tests to be the villain, you have to look elsewhere for the villains and that becomes extraordinarily complex and murky and troublesome tried to prevent anti social behaviour, for example in in quebec, what we learned was that if children are anti social by the age of four to those kids would have been aggressive at the age of two. Most aggressive kids are socialized out of their aggression by the age of four. If they're not socialized out of their aggression by the age of four. it doesn't look like there's a damn thing you can do about it afterwards or its extraordinarily difficult at least and so that would mean you have to remediate it at the age of two. But then, if you start producing government programmes, let's say to remediate anti social behaviour before the age of two urien people's households right. It gives very invasion

right. So some of these underlying systemic problem said say, are extraordinarily difficult to address without falling into a kind of colonial neo colonial overreach. That's one way of thinking about it and their very pretty Firstly, because it as soon as you have proposed. Something like that you be accused of victim blaming, but the reality is that this bed, some great work done in other countries where you gonna do it's like india and they're talking to the mother, their ends the mothers like. So I should be talking to my child like that was passed on to them that they should be talking to their child regularly. That's that junk. You knew that you didn't get that information about saddam Hussein. How do we fix this? This proud I've, I've I've. I've also been interested in precursors to literacy. You know, and if you look at the data you find that kids from literate homes,

are exposed to books and a wider range of vocabulary at a differential rate that staggering by the time the kid is like two and a half ass. You know when it is the case that most poor families of you interview, poor mothers and fathers, and you ask them what they want for their children and you put educational achievement into the mix. They will indicate in a fully committed manner that they would like their children to be educated. The promises they don't know. What? They say the nonverbal precursors are. You know I had friends where I grew up, grew up in this little place and where the hell out in the middle of the sticks, there were no books in the house like zero right. And that's way different and growing up in an environment where, like my kids, children at eighteen sold their already dragging books around behind them and sitting down and pretending to read them right. They have all that literacy.

Pre literate literacy skills are already built in they value books. They know what they are. They ve made friends with them. They'll ask their parents to read them books, and you know you know in a family, that's very deprived. very poor without a history of literacy. Nobody, the family even knows that that's a possibility. That's right, ineffectual. Shame because I think there's a now way of packaging that greece will you've revealed as the parents loved the kids they loved them. They want to do right now, them, but there either under resourced or dont, know what those steps are how'd you, if If it's presented more that way, maybe with around the victim blaming into something where you could actually help them, worry about. That is actually the corner there used to be the format of action for doctors said things like the worst idea place tat affirmative action, but there is actually an argument for it in that. If you look at whether black patients will follow

the instructions given to them by a white doktor versus the black doktor there more likely actually follow the instructions of a black doktor. So that actually makes the case. There are two ways to fix that problem. What would be to somehow rebuild the trust so that, when the white doctor gives a script they leave, they find it credible or the the short run fixes to get more black doctors so that we have people following following the scripts? Some that trust needs to be restored. So we don't have this war. Were the white saviours coveted and telling you how to parent your child right while right right? Well, you know, I also looked at the head start literature for a long time, because that was it starts a very interesting ram for those of you who watching and listening it was part of the american war on poverty that started in the early nineteen sixties, and it was actually a program that was optimistically view

by conservatives and liberals alike right and because, first of Oh, you know who likes poverty and the answer is nobody, so everybody's against poverty that has even an iota of sense, and so the liberals we're happy because there were no steps being taken to remediate poverty hypothetically at source and the conservatives were happy because, while wouldn't it be better, if you know poor young people are educated, so they can pick themselves by the bootstraps and you know, make their way in the world, and so everyone was hoping that headstart would be a success. And fundamentally it wasn't so and inheres hears how it wasn't the goal was. The theory was that if you ve got two kids early before school, and you gave them an academic boost that that would not only catch them up to their peers, but it would give them the kind of permanent advantage that would grow across time right because

Now you are prepared to go to school, you can do better in school and the advantages would just a crew, and that was a pretty good theory, but it turned out not to be true because what happened- and this has been ready to death and there's no doubt about this and people of every political stripe analyzed. The doubt is that the head start kids I did do better in great one in two and three their grades. Were there were more likely to attend school and so on, but all the other kids caught up to them by greed. Six, so the cognitive advantage didn't a crew and it didn't multiply in fact it disappeared, and now what headstart? did do was more kids graduated, who were headstart alumni and fewer got pregnant in intent. in the ten is years, and there were fewer criminals in the head start groups and the reason for that apparently, was that, some children's environments, were so toxic that just taking them out of those environments for some period of time

allowed them to be more socialized. because they behaved yet better. They had better outcomes, but there was no effect whatsoever on continent performance and that's very disenchanting. because that was a major league programme and people put a lot of time and effort to it in There are every reason to hope that there would be some gains on the card. The ability front that were permanent, but that didn't happen. So I thought the kids who went to the headstart kids. We went to better schools, he did fear video but maybe miss remembering Mr Mann, I don't I was the bad schools that sort of continue to be like you couldn't just stop the investment there if it if they kept going on that track. that there are not next from that literature. I'm sure you know well or they may well know AL, not necessarily. I don't know if I knew that the differentiation at grade six between the kids who went to better schools and the kids who

went to worse schools. What I did know was that, overall, the cognitive advantages that had been accrued disappeared, it didn't have it didn't to have a permanent effect on iq, for example, which was really disheartening right because I looked into it even more detailed part of the issue was you know. Headstart was also used as an employment programme, and so it was necessarily obvious that the kids were actually learning anything it head start there I been being taken care of reasonably well and its also very difficult to take a group of three year olds. and teach them anything in an hour and a half, because there are three- and you know you have to. you have to give them Jos, and you have to give them food and you have to stop them from tearing each other into bits and like cake tat, and then you to be trained enough to actually educate them, and so it is

Obviously headstart was set up optimally as a cognitive retraining programmes, but but then it's very expensive to set up an optimal cognitive retraining programmes. So that's also up a major league problem. So so let's go back to the let's go back to the judgment. So what exactly did the supreme court determine and what are the cons? Why have the reactions of the universities been and what are the consequences of the decision? Phil? the supreme court's me. There were some sad serve vindication, because I really felt, like the lower court rulings, abused the statistical evidence. Now. I think the physics played a role in all this, but now there are other aspects, besides justice, the city, school side. I think it's very clear. You know that thumb harvard harping on me over and over again about the idea that

We only use race to help you not to hurt you but If a zero sum game fell, a pound b for one verb, is equivalent to a bump for the other group. You know we. We could always write it, write it that way, and then I think Robert sort of summed up well basic by saying the solution, to Eliminating discrimination for many all of it, so you're not supposed to use race directly to admissions now they left this bit of a loophole in terms of being able to talk about your experiences, the practice and such and at you. I think that could be a good thing, but if a cascades abused away, I expect that it bites yeah it will. Then then we ve got got a problem

you like my, but also they they their eradicated. So they said straightforwardly that you are not to use race as a determining factor that that's right race can entering only through your experiences. What that means for college emissions places actually do is gonna be be interesting, and may I think what would California did you know we had prop sixteen prop sixteen tried to put we preferences back in place. It got voted down in california by wide margins. Despite from being on the ballot, and the reaction of the you see system was worried. It no longer require the OECD. if we want to figure out a way. I think that's that The idea of a university throwing away data thieves just especially the authority that states

educational, ill, just beyond comprehension, you know it's to take the s usa. Tee for all of its flaws, is a pretty damn good test of general cognitive ability and that's a great predictor of potential for academic success and its also would equalizer across schools, which is crucial all right when you're trying to contrast, rich kids from great schools with poor kids from dismal schools. You know at least the poor kid from the dismal school with a great s idea can get into university unlikely succeed you throw out man. What are you left with you left nothing. I dont know how the injured criteria yeah, I don't know how do you see admissions could possibly make decisions like if you're gonna use high school grades grades are all relative to whatever highschool yeah right. You know your attending. This is again where If you use the data you could actually show and build that trust. With the data sent, you hit the keys,

eyes in favour? The wretch and it's over? Predicting the performance of their eggs, then we can correct you know well window, and we got going how it works. Well, we can point this out with the s eighty two, so this has been done on the racial front, because if he s a tea was prejudiced against black test takers, it would under predict their performance and it doesn't doesn't right and that's it. That's a key statistic right. I mean it's quite too short, because now you could say the only way to get around that on the systemic racism front is to say, as we alluded to earlier, that the performance criteria are justice prejudiced as the admission criteria, but they would have to be exactly as present seems right, right, right right, which seems you know

ordinarily extraordinarily unlikely he just rolling forward to the next stage, every time to say. Well, then, the next place is exactly the same level of racism as the previous stage. You know it's, it's crazy, while I've, you know the conclusion I came to, and this was a painful conclusion in some ways it it it wasn't necessarily in accord with my moral sentiments. Let's say is that we we simply can't do better than actual race and ethnicity, blind, objective tests of predictive merit and those should be established, nor should be applied uniformly, and because that's the best solution, even though it still has it's flaws. Now I don't. I still have no idea what the consequence of that would be, given that the elite schools would rapidly fill up with asians. Maybe the consequence would be that the other, relatively underperforming ethnic groups, including whites, would pull up their socks. You know that's a possibility and say well

People are obviously doing something that we're doing right, that we're not doing that. That was. My reaction was looking at the numbers thinking I want to know what they, what they're doing it up, because it's it's incredible, yeah, right right, there's a lesson to be learned there in principle. Knowing what those best practices are would be incredibly helpful, and I don't I Don'T- have a good sense of it yeah. So what what has been the consequence for you of being involved in this line of research. You said there were protests about your work in two thousand eleven. I guess you lucky. It was two thousand levin and not two thousand and sixteen because it didn't take you out and might have later so so. One has many people wondering how I survived it. There was a curious about videos, oddly yeah, and you know that whole experience really prepared me to take the case. It was actually one of the most

it's all moments in my life because when people are protesting in here. It gives me realize how much I care. What other people think about me? Somebody rights and article? from some satellite state school in an ethic studies department and the state of washington Call me racist that really hurt that the area it's really hard on people. You bet in Phyllis A week or two of like no sleep, and then I woke up. One morning I view by grace was free and felt like. I was able to love the people. They were coming after me in saying, ok, Yeah, I think their message, everyone failing to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain what I actually will. They actually mean ethic

that I dont know whether that spend. What's I'm sure the horrible stuff could still happen to me, but turn you if something gives I can take a pike and responded love with, and I feel like I'm might be seen as wimpy out, but I don't feel like I'm compromising on the truth. You know I'll try to go, far as again to meet them where the rat, without compromise, on what I know what I know to be true and I think it makes a difference in. Oh, I do I try to treat people well in my interpersonal relationships, right right right in that you're, not you're, not adding being generally disliked both to the raft of sins that might be utilised. Let's say that, take you down so far, that's right, so you're so far, right no kidding no kidding

but I've been amazed. Maybe this part castle change all this that I've got. Zero hate mail since the supreme court decision. Will you made reference earlier to the fact that this supreme court decision overturn a number of lower court decisions and is also the case that so obviously the law courts were persuaded by evidence that wasn't the same that as the evidence you are bringing forward, and it is also the case that at the supreme court itself there are other experts with the pedigree as credible. Is yours, let saint who don't agree about the interpretation of the down. So if you had to make a case against what you were offering as a witness, how would you make the case and how did that Oh, who were brought in as experts make the case of what were they claiming factor would say they have a much

I have a pretty good pedigree that I do. Yeah David Carr was one of them and soon after the case, you actually won a nobel prize. He was sort of the harvard case and caroline hawks Oxford Stanford was my counterpart in the u nc case. Whose interestingly say I had the benefit of working on both cases, so I could be reasonably consistent across the two. They actually attacked me from other sites, so the cards opinion was that you needed to control for more things and in particular the personal rating was an example, and I you know I actually estimated models of the personal rating and showing by us, but by the way he would argue it would be. We need to take forward. His word for that this is not a biased, a biased measure, so that what that was one aspect to it there, aspect too? It is right, but you showed it was a biased measures. So so I dont,

stand his claim exactly so you're. Your claim, if I get it right, is that the prejudice against asian so to speak was making itself men just as invisible variables so in within these, so called personal or personality rain. Now there are objective ways of measuring personality, which we could also point out, which are quite valid right, so harvard could take that route and they they, they do a subjective evaluation. But your point was that well, that was hiding has some stand of adhesion bias. So how do you? How did your opponents mustard muster an argument against that. Oh it's very convoluted! Are you? Are you because you don't actually look at a model. The personally any model. The person already shows the nation american suggest as well. On the observable associated with the person rating ancient

Africans have observers that are just as strong as whites or were stronger and yet get worse. Personal rights, often with discrimination, things you're, worried Oh every time I had a variable. The discrimination goes down, but if I can't keep adding variables and they may go away, That's the amazing thing about this case with asian americans. Even more variables in often goes up near the discrimination, because they're they're, stronger others, those measures so in order yet there is it's pretty convoluted. The first thing you have to do is take those special groups, the athletes, legacies of children, donors and you have to say. Discrimination has three happening against asian up applicants that are, there is well, and actually that turns out not to be the case.

So ninety eight percent of asian american applicants are not athletes, legacies, children, donors, the two percent that are there not being discriminated against. That not evidence of that. I think I saw it. I thought not press ok, so it's not precise, we asian discrimination, or if it is it's not pervasive enough to cut across all category, sets right say the same thing on affirmative action, since Zion williamson was an amazing, do basketball player, he didn't benefit from rachel affirmative actually benefited because he was an amazing do basketball player. You know when your time in about rosa things, as is not relevant? a long time. They talk about discrimination against black quarterbacks. We shouldn't be the say, we're not discriminating against blinded so therefore were not discriminate against black quarterbacks. That doesn't make any sense.

So you basically for do all you can say is that the discrimination isn't universally pervasive. You could say that Forms of discrimination will trump other saturate. We discover against the egg, Can you dont? Have those connections to harvard through the legacy and recorded athletes process, so that we sort of how that case or work too much of the focus in the harvard trial was all about the ancient american discrimination actually dont think David garden, I had very different things to say about the racial preferences. I would say that it is quite their chance of getting invented for your car, results- it would cripple the cancer being admitted for for black applicants. Who's interested you and see case is SAM things, operated buried

Firstly, in harboured I router reports, then card saw my report in built off of that in the EU. figures who wrote simultaneous reports and they did that to more times, so our starting places were completely different and the other extra basically took the position but we can't really model harvard euins these emissions because its holistic hero and that waddles sort serve of emissions failed to predict, predict the decisions. Well now I the criteria that she used to evaluate? That was nonsensical and that, if we started would be right in the first report. We wouldn't we wouldn't have got to that position, but case. You just keep doubling down doubling down Give me an example: you know her

Jerry was base on which called the pseudo our squared, These are nonlinear models, so in r squared in a a linear model, for it tells you how much of the variation the data is explained. When you have a siddharth credit, does it really work that way in in quite the same way you know so. One of the comments that were made was a pseudo. Our squared of point, five means that we have the additions decisions, correct. That, of course, is nonsense. Right guys by peter coin. I could get after the fijians right right right, correct? You really need to be looking at accuracy and if you ll get accuracy, you know the models would predicted. Decision over ninety percent of the time, so it sir. it was a very funny experience. In the u n c gay so basically thought I didn't control for not things say: I'd take interpreted,

what things in the harbor case they said he didn't control for enough thinks it wasn't there it's okay. So so why do you think? Okay, so, okay, fair enough? So why do you think that your arguments so to speak or the side of the cases that you were testifying on behalf of? Why do you think that that carried the day at the supreme court level and not in relationship to the lower courts? And what do you think of I mean the one of the response patterns, especially from the radical types? Is that well, you know with the supreme court, is stacked with reprehensible conservatives and, of course that's how they voted, and that was why the anti affirmative,

in say, a pro merit, that's another way of looking at it side carried the day. What what's your sense of that? I think that I certainly came out of those cases but cynical about the role of the statistics here. You know both judges at the lower court could have called in a third expert. the thing which one of us is right: but that would have limited their ability to rule out. They wanted to raw theory we funny, works right. Where we say was the conservative porch they're gonna rule over, they want to rule basin the statistical evidence I feel quite strongly, that was what happens at the lower the lower court case. Maybe your left with the really bad record you know in terms What was admitted as evidence- and you think, do well, do you think europe? Do you think that your political affiliation? How do you control for the potential

consequences of your political affiliation, which I dont know by the way. How do you control for the potential consequences of your political affiliation or viewpoint on the outcome of the studies that you ve been running and the testimony that you provide like how do you? How do you protect yourself You'll bias! Well, I'm very cautious on this front, and partly because of that protest, Well, my burden of proof is yeah. I know I can get in big trouble, so I'd have to be very careful. How I'm going, to be talking about these things. Very high bar for coming to particular conclusions? feel is reserving general migrate to cost his heart. That's right, so the evident seems to be much better in that regard. Yeah yeah, but my tent was always did get peer, reviewed pay who's out of this. So I published five peer, reviewed publications in good economics. Colonels out of the case

and the growing unease, numeric indiscriminate lobbies, on violent efforts, and I want to elaborate on that for a second do, because for everyone who wants listening is like the social side, still domain is overwhelmingly tilted politically towards the left. That may be less true for economics than it is for psychology, but it's true across the social sciences, and so what that means is that if you published a paper with so called conservative implications in a decent peer review journal, The probability that robust is extremely high, because if there are any reasons to thwart its progress forward, those reasons will make themselves manifest. I think that's right on and you could really fear my view with them. He published one paper legacy unhappily preferences in another paper, in asian american discrimination. The thing commentator will trash the asian american description.

why should one enlarge the legacy, an athlete one and it's the same model right right? It's the same model right right right! Right in that was was actually funny. Starboard. The evidence against harvard was so damning. They had their An internal research team, the estimated models of harvard's admissions and they found a big penalty against asian americans and harvard just like, oh well. We don't know what to do with that, but in that same model they found that they were giving a bump to low income students and I knew that that was true- it's the same bodily cared can't interpret it one way when you get the result, you like Another way when you get the result you don't like it, doesn't make it sensitivity thing based upon the strength of the applicants, you should I believe the low income result, not the asian america result, because all the observable effect

our point asian americans being stronger their prey the stronger the unobserved ones as well right right. Ok, ok, so you protect yourself against biased first, while just by sea It is actually a good way of light. You're going to do I used to tell my students look guys, you don't publish unreported reproducible data right to further your career. What why What do you want to study? Seven that doesn't exist for the rest, your life, but that's stupid. Don't you that and you're going to be motivated to do it, because it's hard to admit that a research project was a failure you're going to try to scrape something out of it. She have to be careful, but then- the end. So that's another! You know use of fear like be careful because you convince yourself or something that isn't true and waste your life. That's stupid! Yours situation!

is well, if you say anything, even vaguely, untoward or inaccurate you're going to get slaughtered for it and then said, that's a fair, that's a fair protection and then also well, if you have to publish season peer review, journals, you're, going to hit the ideological vanguard and and and to argue your way through it, and if you can do that? Well, obviously the data has to be so credible that it can't be dismissed by people with an ideological bent. Okay, so that's good. so how's, harvard in you and see, and you and see, were hit hard by this ruling practically, and I would say morally too they got wallet. How have they reacted and how of other universities reacted well, that the public free react is to send out emails, how had disappointed they are, and that is freedom. Court decision other than we do abided by. Our commitment to diversity is and changed. So I I think, gonna try to figure out

legal ways or illegal is we're not gonna to get caught to fund I'll put the preferences preferences back in right right. What that does that open them up? On the liability front? Now I mean they ve been told in no uncertain terms that they can't do this anymore. It's not. This is pretty black and white, so it seems to me that, if hard, continues to gerrymander their admissions process. Is that their setting themselves up for a pretty warping fall? I dont know what that would mean on the liability front. For example, I mean there was a class actions suit at one point right. anybody really wasn't about getting damages so much as changing the move. The system by I We would have a very hard time because they just went through a whole trial thing saying that we need to explicitly consider race in order to get this. Levels of diversity if they come out. The same levels of diversity. Now then wit when there is personal

been explicitly considering race that because they must be kidding somehow in order to in order to get there. So you are almost half to see a drop or the whole record in their cases was off right right. Ok, ok! Now, how do you think that universities should select in the aftermath of this decision? Will I think they should fall it's just based on tat score, but even we enter just got checked of test yeah. I mean the promises that the c t for a place like carver doesn't tested high enough level. We actually need to go. tests liberated the college and kili are a much higher level than what we have in the. U s, right, so they should refine them and make them more demand. so they can discriminate. So listen everybody watching in listening. You know imagine that you get people who score ninety fifth. First

gentile on the s, a t and people who score ninety ninth percentile, and you might think. Well, you know what what the hell's the difference and the difference is this. If if you ve, got the ninety five percent, while you're the smartest person in a roomful of twenty people, and if you scored the ninety nine percent, tell you the smartest person in a room full of a hundred people, and then the difference is just big from ninety ninety ninety nine point, nine its one in a hundred versus one in a thousand and so forth. All the way up the scale and there's no indication that I can see in the psychiatric literature that that ever stops being relevant, and so it is important to differentiate if that operand. In also mean we put together models to predict academic performance, and you can predict academic performance quite accurately, with. general called usability and trade conscientiousness and then loan eroticism helps and if you're lookin, to expand.

the creative front. You could you could look at measures of creative ability and there are good measures and you can look at performance and and then you can make a formal model where you specify exactly what way you put on it's variables and you can easily test that against actual university performance, which is what you would recommend early yeah, we clearly for math. You will put more weight on your map, a crowd, maybe less so in english. That's not taken into account at all I think those tests right now or to easy, let that distinction at that top level could be like. I just made a stupid mistake. That's too bad! You really want to test much deeper. You bet you bet you're, ok, ok! Now we just outlined outline how university should select this: is our businesses should like two by the way and their sheer jack and I'll make it vantage in doing that by the way like if you dont have to increase your ability to select top people very much to benefit

in a staggering manner. From the consequence of that improvement, I tried to convince corporations of this. For, like fifteen years, I went on the road to sell to you to corporations which turned out to be absolutely one hundred percent impossible. That's when I first run and age our departments by the way that was back- and you know early, two thousands, but we should. We talked about how the university should select in the aftermath of the decision. The the lurking question is: will they. I saw you, see, Davis, for example, at the medical school there trying to produce and adversity quotient, which I think is just an absolutely catastrophically dreadful idea. I can understand why they're doing it, but god that's a dismal contest rate to match your. history against someone else's and to try to rank order. You know who had done artist? Lot I mean that's it

were felt rather than little man so prone to political actor. Adversity experience at a pro life rally where people are arrested me. I don't think that's going to sell fundamentally fun write it yeah, it introduces ideological conformity workshop yeah. I think I've. Seen quite alone is just somebody like a role prior bring more or less diversity. Role is not a progressive black, not a progressive. to me that in substance brings more diversified, we why we dont want The case services are all white euro. Yet that really how I think it seem. I think of them, it s a b there. While the thing, I think, the whole the whole diversity shibboleth is a front for posers to attain status, they don't deserve fundamentally

because I don't think you can do better than merit defined we already defined marriage, which is your american this candidate? If you're the features you bring to the position match the desired outcome of performance in the position and fundamentally as as we we also pointed out earlier you're actually bound by law to do that, especially for an employer. You know now the lost tricky, because it contains self contradictory aspects but at some point counter. Example for that year, there's a guy that passes afar universe, you. He does amazing work in my mind. Any from these a muslim from Pakistan and he's able to go to these atrocities middle schools and interview then gets the data to me that, factually That's the kind of diversity that I think is good in the sense that actually is putting up these new areas of research that

There's no way the redress would ever give meet it, so there might be some, but that the limited scope for the four you're getting certain questions answered that you might argue tat. You could argue that as a form of competence like if you were going to hire, someone in the person said look wanted to. I bring to this position, is that I have access to an ethnic group say or anthropological group another candidate will have, I mean I do I do that is actually a measure I merit and could and could could be put put under that ruby the key is not to have a measure bear just be because I'm a particular race drink is that that death effectively helots argued now is. that is why you re gives you view you do merited, because you ve got a unique insight into the into that community right right. Why not also a strange? That's also astray

like to raise. Is that merely because you have a very what would you say, low Who resolution feature that you're, somehow an emblem in standard barrier, verify that group you don't like I've, never thought of myself as a representative of the white community, you know it's preposterous because well, first of all, preposterous, because we know as researchers into individual differences that the difference within any give given ethnic or racial group much larger than the differences between groups right, which is actually the no unequalled non racist statement right within group variants, trumps between group there. And it even does that between men and women and in almost all domains. In fact, I dont know of a single domain with that's not true. Even in interest where men and women differ most widely the differences. One standard deviation, Your way more variants within the group than there is between the groups, so so

you think the universities will respond. we set out, they should respond. Well, how will they respond? Well, I'm hoping it will be a heterogeneous response. They think schools? Will go there, you see route and get rid of the test, scores the other things like diversity statement sunset hoping that other schools will focus more on addressing some of the pipeline issues. I think we'll see a big will bid against legacy. Emissions I was surprised it actually how quickly that happened, so that sort of stuff is is, is going to go me. I'm elaborately pushing for is for them to use their data is to be able to say look. I can tell you that your gun to really succeed here and we set up programmes for the again succeeded, because the competition for those students is gonna be fierce while right, so what a universe

Couldn't do you know the hypothetically imagine that they set up actually rigorous objective testing models, so university could say to a given candidate. Your problem: But billowy of succeeding in this discipline. Here is ex percent and so that would mean that qualified students could look at a range of universities and they could say, for example, if they were slightly lower performing on the academic front. What we're interested in sciences? They could pick you firstly, where they had a say a seventy percent chance of graduating. so then they know that if they worked, they could pick the university that was the most challenging that would give them some reasonable opportunity of success. Right that'd be a good deal, right does is a very wide range of universities and objective testing could establish that across time, could feel happy in state like florida. You know where the governor set of some

the red things could move towards that model for their state system, at least so that that that's, where I think the best Therefore, it is, I think there are other ways too. You know the whole tied. All this terms, racial preferences was losing your government funding. We see on the emissions, frank you're sort of stock there, but if you look at how these the way were pain, college athletes. Now you can either easily have a separate organization that was sort of were giving scholarships to black suited to attend, duped. They're, not tied with the government funding. You could feel like a huge competition working for that we're thing, happen more on the financial aid side, not as the university, so there's no scope to saying that its elite because the decisions not very great randy right right, you see anything. inside did out. I'd have to think

about that. I made to me that there are other, not yeah, yeah yeah yeah. It's not there's. No, there's no downsides. That leap obviously the mind so now or anything else that we were right. We're running out of time here on the youtube site, I'm going to flip over to the daily wire side, for everyone wants you listening in and talk Peter a bit. Or about how his interest in this domain and economics in general made itself manifest. So you could you're welcome to join the stairs, your inclined to is there anything else. It we didn't today in relationship to the supreme gorgeous and in relationship to affirmative action, its complexities full I don't know we conclude with. Perhaps you spend a lot of time studying affirmative action? Do you have what would you say in relationship to its putative advantages. How has it has the

in any manner in which affirmative action has actually been a policy. Success would certainly is increasing there of minority students at top schools- and I think those when you, as as applicants, are graduates, even an ass graduates, because I think a place like harvard now they will graduate great you. They will graduate. You fill them I always been sort of a gamble right that by yes, who might be these processes with it, but by giving them to harvard great things are going to happen later on in society. You know and that's yeah, we there'll there'll, be the supreme court justices to get to those very top of the top positions. That would be the arguments to me. That's a little, but but I understand the arguing- do you think, there's any merit. That argument mean the sea

the counter argument would be, giving less qualified people a pedigree that indicates their qualifications and putting them in ever more important situations that they're not qualified for is not a net good right. That's a rough argument to make, and I will necessarily say I'm making that argument. But that is the counter argument. That's right, so on the one hand we are supreme, court is- we're diverse, because we affirmative action. On the other hand, I think that that is a clarence farmers would say the cinema serious disservice, because I've been viewed that way and you dont know- and that's that's the problem

right is ill yeah. Well, that's one of the really ugly things about affirmative action as far as I'm concerned is that it is the question is then begged and that's not good, and that's particularly hard on people who are truly qualified right does what a bloody qatar we that is to have to face that additional level of doubt. Who are you really Jesus brutal brutal We make similar glad lowery, who had to give out on he's what as brilliant people. I've ever met, yet I think he's just fantastic. and yet he had to endure. All that you know that is a sum edward wish on your worst enemy. That's for sure Your genuine competence in question right well, I guess we should wrap up on this site. So, I said everyone watching and listening I'm going to talk Peter at some additional

on the delaware plus platform about the development of his career and its interests, and so, if you want to join, is there then you'd be more than welcome to do so? It's not a bad time to final some support the daily wire way by the way, because youtube, for example, has been pretty assiduously at war with the daily work contributors over the last month, three of my podcast have been taken and I suspect there is more in the pipeline that will suffer the same fate and that's not good and the other people who were thank you to bind the data. Delaware side have been hit harder than me. I quite a substantial margin, so, if you're ever thinking about subscribing to the daily, where platform, this isn't such bad time to do it lets say on the moral front, in any case, You can give that some consideration. Thank you to film crew here in Manhattan today for making this a pleasant experience and technically feasible and to the data where plus for facilitating the conversation peter. Thank you very much for her

can you me today and fur grim occasionally, while your efforts on research front, you bet good good to see you chow everybody till next time The