541–550 of 660 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
College admissions are zero-sum
Not if we keep building colleges, no.
Not that being "Harvard" would make it better, but to a lot of people the prestige of the name is important.
So to that effect, it is a zero sum game.
We have to consider not about who gets into Harvard. What is more important is the incentive structure that our education system is creating. If our system rewards people who play "victimization" games, that would encourage the next generation to prioritize writing stories that complain about the barriers in their way. If we had a system that rewarded learning a skill like mathematics, reading, writing, and only focu…
How about a balanced culture that can appreciate eduction, sports AND drama? We don't need a culture where everyone strives for excellence in one dimension. That's a very boring world and implicitly creates a pyramid/caste system where the high academic achievers get the lion's share of attention and praise. There's a reason National Exams in Asian countries are sometimes viewed negatively.
I would say given the rapid economic growth of Asian countries, the success of Asians around the world, and the need of America to import Asian engineering labor, we have a lot to learn from Asia.
Just look at the 2012 CIA debacle in China. The entire CIA informant network in China was decapitated because China has superior engineers that hacked the CIA communication system. We need to open our eyes and realize that playing silly games have left us weak. We have a weak minded electorate that elects a weak minded president while China is racing ahead with CRISPR and rail guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since Harvard receives federal funds, it has to play by the same anti discrimination rules as the Federal government.
Yes, that's why I point out that it's status under title IX should be in question, even if what it's doing is legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods are in worse positions than poor kids in eastern Kentucky? Because the current policies treat white kids from trailer parks like white kids from fancy suburbs. And they treat FOB Asians like they are doctor's children. And black kids from fancy suburbs are treated as if they came from poor ghettos. The idea that "oppression" is limited to dimensions of race and ge…
>they treat FOB Asians like they are doctor's children Diversity measures not withstanding, universities try to admit the students most likely to go on to have the most success in adult life and for Asians adolescent academic performance is a worse predictor of this than for Europeans. https://www.unz.com/article/why-harvard-is-right-to-discrimi...
Why do you think this is the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
College admissions are zero-sum
Not if we keep building colleges, no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bakke established that specific quotas are not legal, but race as one of multiple factors is permissible. If Harvard's admissions policies include any kind of quota, they will probably be ruled illegal.
The first line of the opinion's conclusion is that Harvard's admissions process survives strict scrutiny. If it were found to be dependent on quotas, this would likely not be the case, based on the previously mentioned well established precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the obvious thing is to aim to eliminate racial/national/gender bias as much as possible by blinding admission/hiring processes to those things. Then on top of that offer spots for people who have had to deal with exceptional difficulty. Whether that be physical handicap, racial prejudice, economic, etc. There are companies/grants that take an approach like this. Its going to be subjective but perfect is the en…
Out of curiosity, why not just lump most of it under "socioeconomic disadvantages" category (mostly based on the family's financial situation)? E.g., poor asian kids shouldn't be grouped with the less poor asian kids and shouldn't have been at a disadvantage compared to a rich african american kid for admission purposes. This proposed approach sounds so obvious, I feel like there has gotta be some caveat in it that I…
This ruling is a travesty and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it when this is appealed. It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Take a look at the distribution of students by race in the University of California system, where they're not permitted to discriminate in this manner, thanks to Prop 209 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_20..…
> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, why not just lump most of it under "socioeconomic disadvantages" category (mostly based on the family's financial situation)? E.g., poor asian kids shouldn't be grouped with the less poor asian kids and shouldn't have been at a disadvantage compared to a rich african american kid for admission purposes. This proposed approach sounds so obvious, I feel like there has gotta be some caveat in it that I…
I think this is the ultimate solution. Of course people will still try to game this system by e.g. sending their kids to high school in poorer districts.