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

Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#31

Post by Danihan »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #20
Danihan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination can't be "solved" because 1. People are genetically different and 2. Anyone can have biases about anything. I could shut down every interviewee with big ears, or beady eyes, if I wanted to. Again, all you can do is treat people as fairly as possible by basing admissions policies on merit and standardization, rather than sloppily basing them on perceived group identity.

I encourage you to teach a science course for non-majors at a local university that serves minorities. Unless you are intentionally blind the experience will be enlightening. The variation in quality of high schools in the US is astounding and needs to be experienced first-hand. Where does the talk about genetic variation and unconscious bias even come from? It's not relevant in this context.

That's like saying I need to go live in a bad neighborhood to understand they are bad. Or that I need to do opiates firsthand to understand they feel good.

I 100% realize that there is massive variation in high school quality. It doesn't astound me. [1]

What does that have to do with making college admissions fair and standardized?

[1] http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/6-baltimore-s...

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#33

Post by evanlivingston »

Danihan wrote: post #21
jacalata wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other way? The one where some people have enormous structural disadvantages due to decades or more of discrimination? We agree it doesn't work, but many people get angry and defensive when we try and create systems that are fair enough to take this into account, like affirmative action policies.

Because you can't fight bias with more bias, it's hypocritical.

You understand the problem with color-blindness, yes?

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#35

Post by wheaties »

p_monk wrote: post #24

The only benefactors of affirmative action have been white women.

In general, women outperform men in educational results. So, no, affirmative action isn't benefiting women at all. See these for references:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-expl...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?m...

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#36

Post by [deleted] »

Danihan wrote: post #21
jacalata wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other way? The one where some people have enormous structural disadvantages due to decades or more of discrimination? We agree it doesn't work, but many people get angry and defensive when we try and create systems that are fair enough to take this into account, like affirmative action policies.

Because you can't fight bias with more bias, it's hypocritical.

[deleted]

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#37

Post by sokoloff »

The denominator used is "college-age population". I wonder what the charts would look like if they used "4-year college attendees".

I'm not saying that's the only way to look at things, but if the overall attendance rate for 4-year colleges is lower because a large swath of the population self-excluded from 4-year colleges, it would surprise me if that effect didn't show up in the data.

Now, you could fairly ask why that large swath selected out of 4-year college, but the answer there probably isn't in the recruitment and admission processes of the specific colleges even though that's where the problem appears.

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#38

Post by jimrandomh »

There is something very funky about the numbers used in this article. All their charts are measuring "enrollment gap", defined as (percentage of college-age population) minus (percentage enrollment). But this conflates changes in enrollment with changes in population. This is especially obvious when looking at the graph for Hispanics, where the number of college-age Hispanics has greatly increased from 1980 to 2015; the "gap" has grown from 3% to 9%, but without using a ruler, it's hard to tell whether the actual percentage of Hispanics attending college has gone up or down!

This makes me feel like the author of the article is trying to deceive me, and I'd much rather get numbers from somewhere else.

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#39

Post by fiter »

leejoramo wrote: post #28
fiter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative that we play poker and after every N rounds the chips are redistributed so that everyone has the same amount? At what point(s) should redistribution happen? At what point(s) should it stop to allow better decision making?

At the point when you realize that the original distribution is out of line with your current moral and ethical values.

Non-sarcastically, I think this is a completely reasonable subjective way to resolve the issue. It's what our political systems are doing.

Re: Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago

#40

Post by evanlivingston »

fiter wrote: post #22
evanlivingston wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's your problem: you assume that redistributing every n rounds means that decision making suffers.

I grant you that this example is contrived, but I'd play poker very differently if that was the case!

Word, but I think it underlines a real problem. For some people with low chances of losing in the game (trust fund, property, stable family, no prior convictions, etc) life can be a game about maximizing gains. For others it's toothe and nail. When the rules of the game are historically set by people who are already too stable to really lose, it's the "weaker" players who get exploited.
Post reply on HN