Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

fivethirtyeight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#101

Post by tomp »

dragonwriter wrote: post #100
tomp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have (and definitely a better one than race or disadvantage - remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite th…

> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's…

> For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades

That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades?

> where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit

Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack merit in math.

> I never said they were.

Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take (as you claim in your original response to me)...

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#102

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #90
yummyfajitas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that some races/ethnicities perform worse on SAT or other explicitly race-neutral metrics does not mean they are not meritocratic. It just means those groups have lower average merit. Similarly, the fact that any individual component of a predictor has little predictive power is a truly terrible critique. Similarly, no individual pixel is particularly predictive of the content of an image. Therefore image re…

> The fact that some races/ethnicities perform worse on SAT or other explicitly race-neutral metrics does not mean they are not meritocratic. That's true, and even the fact that taken together the main objective admission criteria aren't (even considered together) strong predictors of performance taken together with that doesn't mean that the systems using them aren't meritocratic, its just strongly suggestive of tha…

You seem to be suggesting that we should actively use racial and other demographic characteristics as part of a predictor.

Suppose we run our linear regression or random forest, and it turns out holding all else equal, black people underperform others. I.e., same SAT, same GPA, the black guy is likely to perform worse. (Please read your source and note the sign on the black/hispanic coefficients.)

You seem to be advocating that we should then penalize the black guy even though his grades are identical. Is that a fair statement of your post?

I don't have a strong opinion on this, though I definitely have a negative emotional reaction to it.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#103

Post by yummyfajitas »

anigbrowl wrote: post #98
yummyfajitas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, some people are better than others due to luck. For example, some people were strangled by their umbilical cord and born retarded, others weren't. This sad fact of life doesn't mean that choosing non-retards as nuclear physicists contradicts meritocracy.

Perhaps in future technology will advance tot he point that we can give you an empathy transplant, and you'll realize how glaringly obvious your rhetorical fallacies are to others. Most people would agree that 'merit' is not a scalar quality best measured by mathematical ability, notwithstanding your enjoyable position at the extreme right of that distribution. Even in quantitative endeavors, we do not magically have…

I never claimed merit = math ability, except of course perhaps for the job of math professor.

The fact that our predictor is imperfect doesn't mean that it magically becomes better when we attach racial weights to it.

Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious?

Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no?

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

tomp wrote: post #101
dragonwriter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's…

> For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades? > where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack…

> Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take

Yes, it does.

The definition of merit is necessary to assess whether the current system is, excluding AA, actually meritocratic, as claimed. While it would also be necessary in order to assess whether one race or another was better than another, if that were an interesting question to answer -- the fact that I'm not asserting that one race is better doesn't alter the fact that an actual definition of merit is necessary for the claim that the existing system (but for AA) is meritocratic to even have meaning.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#105

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #100
tomp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have (and definitely a better one than race or disadvantage - remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite th…

> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's…

It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT.

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance...

Your source agrees with this if you scroll down to the data tables. Note the sign on the black and hispanic coefficients.

So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics. Consequently, if we wanted to have the most accurate predictor possible, we'd include negative weights for black people. Is this really the critique you are making of using SAT and GPA?

One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups...

That's simply incorrect. If it were true, then blacks would overperform relative to SAT rather than underperform.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#106

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #105
dragonwriter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's…

It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance... Your source agrees with this if you scroll down to the data tables. Note the sign on the black and hispanic coefficients. So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics. Consequently, if we wanted to have the most acc…

> It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT.

Its actually a lot more complicated than that; the degree to which each objective factor predicts grades (and the degree of difference in expected college grades each unit change in the factor represents) differs by race, income, and other factors. (In the case of SAT scores, higher SAT scores mean more in terms of better college grades than they do for whites.)

So the average black student underperforms based on their SAT scores -- but that is less true (and eventually the opposite of the case) for blacks with higher SAT scores.

> So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics.

No, my real critique is that the assertion that without AA, existing admissions would be meritocratic is unsubstantiated, and that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of it.

And I will maintain it until someone presents a coherent definition of the merit sought and evidence that supports the claim based on that definition.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#107

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #102
dragonwriter wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that some races/ethnicities perform worse on SAT or other explicitly race-neutral metrics does not mean they are not meritocratic. That's true, and even the fact that taken together the main objective admission criteria aren't (even considered together) strong predictors of performance taken together with that doesn't mean that the systems using them aren't meritocratic, its just strongly suggestive of tha…

You seem to be suggesting that we should actively use racial and other demographic characteristics as part of a predictor. Suppose we run our linear regression or random forest, and it turns out holding all else equal, black people underperform others. I.e., same SAT, same GPA, the black guy is likely to perform worse. (Please read your source and note the sign on the black/hispanic coefficients.) You seem to be advo…

I'm saying that to be actually meritocratic, where the merit to be assessed is expected college performance, using such factors (or, better, identifying the underlying reasons that existing measures do not work consistently across race, etc., and correctly using the underlying factors that research identifies) may be necessary. But I'm not arguing that admissions should be meritocratic, so by suggesting that something would be necessary for meritocracy, I'm not suggesting that it should be done. What I am arguing is that the claim that, but for AA, the admissions processes in use actually are meritocratic was, and remains, unsupported.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #103
anigbrowl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in future technology will advance tot he point that we can give you an empathy transplant, and you'll realize how glaringly obvious your rhetorical fallacies are to others. Most people would agree that 'merit' is not a scalar quality best measured by mathematical ability, notwithstanding your enjoyable position at the extreme right of that distribution. Even in quantitative endeavors, we do not magically have…

I never claimed merit = math ability, except of course perhaps for the job of math professor. The fact that our predictor is imperfect doesn't mean that it magically becomes better when we attach racial weights to it. Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious? Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no?

Perhaps you didn't intend this, but using nuclear physics as your threshold example certainly prioritizes a particular kind of academic merit over other kinds.

Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious?

Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no?

After I tell you that merit isn't a scalar and invite you to consider measures of merit that are somewhat orthogonal to each other, the best you can come back with is to say it depends which (orthogonal) field of endeavor they're seeking to enter? Pretend the answer is neither, they're competing for the last available place in a medical school.

My whole point here is that facility with calculus or chess both demonstrate cognitive ability, but there's no universal standard for asserting that one is better than the other - we can only talk in terms of what sort of utility it is that we wish to maximize. Likewise, absent universally agreeable standards of merit, we can't easily say one group of people is better than another while neglecting structural biases. It might be that people who are good at calculus would in fact make superior chess players if we were to invest in some remedial chess lessons to rectify the shortcomings of their strategic education, so to speak.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#109

Post by anigbrowl »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #103
anigbrowl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in future technology will advance tot he point that we can give you an empathy transplant, and you'll realize how glaringly obvious your rhetorical fallacies are to others. Most people would agree that 'merit' is not a scalar quality best measured by mathematical ability, notwithstanding your enjoyable position at the extreme right of that distribution. Even in quantitative endeavors, we do not magically have…

I never claimed merit = math ability, except of course perhaps for the job of math professor. The fact that our predictor is imperfect doesn't mean that it magically becomes better when we attach racial weights to it. Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious? Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no?

Perhaps you didn't intend this, but using nuclear physics as your threshold example certainly prioritizes a particular kind of academic merit over other kinds.

Between one person who is better at calculus and another that's better at chess, which is more meritorious?

Depends on whether he's applying to a chess or physics program, no?

After I tell you that merit isn't a scalar and invite you to consider measures of merit that are somewhat orthogonal to each other, the best you can come back with is to say it depends which (orthogonal) field of endeavor they're seeking to enter? Pretend the answer is neither, they're competing for the last available place in a medical school.

My whole point here is that facility with calculus or chess both demonstrate cognitive ability, but there's no universal standard for asserting that one is better than the other - we can only talk in terms of what sort of utility it is that we wish to maximize. Likewise, absent universally agreeable standards of merit, we can't easily say one group of people is better than another while neglecting structural biases. It might be that people who are good at calculus would in fact make superior chess players if we were to invest in some remedial chess lessons to rectify the shortcomings of their strategic education, so to speak.

Re: What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action in College Admissions

#110

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #107
yummyfajitas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be suggesting that we should actively use racial and other demographic characteristics as part of a predictor. Suppose we run our linear regression or random forest, and it turns out holding all else equal, black people underperform others. I.e., same SAT, same GPA, the black guy is likely to perform worse. (Please read your source and note the sign on the black/hispanic coefficients.) You seem to be advo…

I'm saying that to be actually meritocratic, where the merit to be assessed is expected college performance, using such factors (or, better, identifying the underlying reasons that existing measures do not work consistently across race, etc., and correctly using the underlying factors that research identifies) may be necessary. But I'm not arguing that admissions should be meritocratic, so by suggesting that somethin…

According to your source, SAT, GPA and AP/IB courses are all positive and statistically significant predictors of performance.

Am I correct that according to you, the main gap between an SAT/GPA based metric and meritocracy is applying the appropriate penalty to blacks/hispanics and the appropriate bonus to females, as per the regression table in your source?

Post reply on HN