The Case Against Harvard Relies on This Analysis. But the University Says It’s Deeply Flawed.

Two economists are set to square off in the case challenging Harvard University’s use of race-conscious admissions — one who says Harvard definitely discriminates against Asian-American applicants, and one who says there’s no evidence to suggest that.

Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist and expert witness for Students for Fair Admission, the plaintiff, testified on Thursday, during the second week of the trial in a federal courtroom in Boston. His analysis is a key piece of evidence for the advocacy group.

Among other things, Arcidiacono’s analysis found that Asian-American students were the most academically qualified ethnicity by objective measures, like test scores, and that they suffer a “statistically significant penalty” when officers assign two separate ratings to their files.

Here’s his report:

But Harvard’s expert economist, David Card, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted his own analysis that addressed what he considers major shortcomings in Arcidiacono’s analysis of the university’s admission data.

Among other things, Card argues, Arcidiacono’s analysis fails to incorporate the complexity of Harvard’s admissions process beyond academic achievement. “Harvard’s whole-person evaluation extends beyond test scores, GPA, and other measures of prior academic achievement,” he wrote. “Yet Prof. Arcidiacono focuses overwhelmingly on the relative academic strength of Asian-American applicants.”

Here’s his analysis:

Follow Cailin Crowe on Twitter at @cailincrowe, or email her at cailin.crowe@chronicle.com.