For example, just 1000 of the NMSF students were Jewish yet 3000 got into the top 3 Ivies. That means that 2000 of the non-Jewish NMSF were denied.
WAT? How do you get from there to here? It is not possible to make a logical conclusion from the previous two statements.
A comparison to Caltech to NMSF shows that Caltech admits solely on merit and the relative numbers by race from Caltech deviate by several orders of magnitude from the Ivies relative numbers.
A comparison of Caltech to Harvard fails on soooo many levels:
- Harvard is a liberal arts school, which generally appeals to Jews.
- Caltech is a technical school, which generally appeals to Asians.
- Significantly higher concentrations of Jews live near Harvard.
- Significantly higher concentrations of Asians live near Caltech.
The author fails still when he compares schools within the same geographical region, because he credits the different makeup of MIT to them being better able to objectively evaluate prospective students, rather than stating the obvious: it's MIT. Maybe the fact that both of these schools (Caltech and MIT) have "Technology" in their full names would have been a clue.
Then again, there's no reason to expect a high level of scholarship from The American Conservative, and any illusions a reader may have had along those lines are dashed the minute they see made-up statistics based on "names that sound Jewey."
One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.”
