31–40 of 188 posts
http://news.yahoo.com/us-colleges-seek-better-integration-ch...
I'll be very happy when everyone can just stop worrying about what race everyone else is. I understand the issue, but at what point does it sound ridiculous to even use the term minority when there are 1B+ Chinese and not much less Indian descendants around the world? In the tech world it is certainly ridiculous. Trying to micro-categorize who is a minority in what context has to qualify as some sort of vanity.
I think the Australian system is fairer, where university entrance is determined almost solely by the results of our SAT equivalent and our final year of high school in a largely automated matter. Universities don't even know the race of applicants (although they do know if the applicant is a member of the underrepresented Aboriginal minority).
That would only be fairer if everyone has the same level of access to education up to that point. I don't know anything about the Australian school systems, but I know for sure that is not the case in the U.S.
I'll be very happy when everyone can just stop worrying about what race everyone else is. I understand the issue, but at what point does it sound ridiculous to even use the term minority when there are 1B+ Chinese and not much less Indian descendants around the world? In the tech world it is certainly ridiculous. Trying to micro-categorize who is a minority in what context has to qualify as some sort of vanity.
Minority/minor is political term. Women are declared minority even though they outnumbers men. It's related to something recently called victimhood culture[1]. Declaring yourself as minor brings you advantage. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...
* Dumping data from an advocacy group into a sidebar chart without doing any critical analysis of the data. The ratios of professionals to managers and executives are meaningless without factoring age cohort ratios into the data.
* Comparing Asian student admission rates between Ivy League universities to two California public universities, making an implicit assumption that they have comparable candidate pools and an explicit assumption that the only real difference in their admissions policies is that California forbids using race in making admissions decisions. Neither of those assumptions is close to being true.
* Implicitly accepting the idea that SAT or ACT scores are the only metric on which students ought to be judged for making admissions decisions. (Okay they mentioned "extracurriculars" and I was amused by the Northwestern person who said recruiters were looking for people who played lacrosse and rowed crew. But all the data mentioned were based on test scores alone.)
About the only sentence in the article I feel I can put any trust in is: "Asian-Americans are a large, diverse group exposed to a range of influences." But that very true statement feels almost out of place in an article that sure frames things as if all Asian-American high schoolers are academic powerhouses who want into the Ivy League at all costs.
What's interesting to me too, is that they are also neglected in the discussion about diversity in tech. They are the most over represented minority in tech, and instead of looking into why, and how it happens, can we find a leverage for other minorities, what open them doors but not blacks and hispanics, they are just overlooked. Complaining people just overlook them as: "it's a bunch of white males", but Asians (an…
You have to fit it into the narrative that's being peddled. Communists have never cared much for truth. They love using jews as shield, but the left is becoming as anti-semitic as national socialists. Especially in this day and age as BDS.
We know there are de facto quotas at a lot of otherwise great schools. (Probably not MIT -- yay!) Hopefully the word 'quota' reminds people of the time when Feynman couldn't get into Columbia because he was Jewish.
I'll be very happy when everyone can just stop worrying about what race everyone else is. I understand the issue, but at what point does it sound ridiculous to even use the term minority when there are 1B+ Chinese and not much less Indian descendants around the world? In the tech world it is certainly ridiculous. Trying to micro-categorize who is a minority in what context has to qualify as some sort of vanity.
When a race delivers quantitative metrics that beats other races out of the water, what does it mean? When black people dominate in basketball and athletics does it mean their race is genetically and physically superior to others? When asians dominate academically does it mean asians are genetically more intelligent?
I don't know the answer to these questions. It may be that asians just work harder... but I do know one thing: All races are NOT equal. Political correctness states that although races look different, all races are otherwise equal. Although this idea permeates the cultural reality of the United States, there is no logical universe where this makes sense. If races look different, then the possibility of other metrics being different is a logical induction.
What does this mean? The implications are scary. Historical mistreatment of black people have made this concept a very touchy issue in the united states.
While it is of my personal opinion that asians are academically successful mainly due to hard work, I do believe that the heart of the issue that articles like this discuss is this: We live in a culture where we are taught that all races are equal, this is not the logical reality and subconsciously we all know it. It's what causes the discrimination in the first place and it's what causes defensive comments like this to be posted.
At my first internship, people were commenting on how timid I seemed. I was used to obeying my parents and teachers without question; all I did was try to keep my head down and work harder. This sort of upbringing makes for great workers but bad leaders. I hope to come out of my shell more during the rest of college and my formative years.
So uh, why aren't admissions implemented as an algorithm that reviews academic performance? Minor human intervention could be used to prevent mistakes by the algorithm... Or not, humans make mistakes too. But machines don't intentionally discriminate.
The first is technical: how does one guarantee that the algorithm is actually fair? And that of course hinges on how one defines 'fair'. Many of the measures that appear objective aren't. There is a growing amount of evidence that the method in which a test is administered can have a statistically significant impact on how different races and sexes perform [1][2]. On top of that, there is evidence that similar biases creep into how teachers grade essays and even math problems [3].
The second is more social science-y: switching to an algorithm doesn't fix the problem that affirmative action attempts to solve, which is that even after correcting for any test bias certain minorities or subgroups will still perform statistically worse than others, not due to inherent differences in intelligence, but due to the cumulative effects of the inequalities of opportunities in society, eg lesser performing schools, less time/energy for parents to help with homework, less money for extracurricular activities, &c. &c. [4]. Yes, socioeconomic status accounts for a large amount of this, but it does not 100% account for it. There are still statistically significant amounts that are due to things like race, sex, or religion.
[1]: http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/picture-yourself-as-a-s... [2]: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat [3]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/02/10/teacher_bias... [4]: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate