331–340 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's definitely a zero-sum game.
The new American left does treat it as a zero sum game. That is why they focus on disparities instead of universal programs that would eliminate the largest absolute amounts of poverty and suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most high school students take the SAT/ACT in their junior year already. Many only take the test that once. Many high schools have test-taking built into the curriculum for the first half of that year of school. Some states have replaced their standardized testing with the SAT/ACT.
What states are those? No schools that I know of locally have SAT prep as a school course or use the SAT as their standardized tests. It is good that some schools are already moving this way. I think it makes sense to have just one standardized test that can be used for admission and also tracking progress of schools and states.
SAT: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia.
ACT: Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Also, the implementation of SAT prep is spotty at best. As with most things, whether the schools have test prep is pretty reliant on how well funded the individual district is. At least that's my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very cynical answer to what's the logic here: objective measures get in the way of many non-academic college admission goals, so colleges want to do away with them. One of those goals is racial diversity, and that's the only one colleges openly talk about because it's the only one that can positively impact society. Other goals include raising more money by admitting the children of major donors, improving the pres…
>improving the prestige of the college by admitting top athletes What's the logic here? I'll admit I'm not a big fan of college sports myself, but who assesses the credibility of a college by their athletics program?
At Harvard specifically, beating Yale in football is a big deal within the community.
At large state schools, sports can function as an incredible arm of marketing. In addition to benefits for the alumni community and donations, it also can impact recruiting to undergraduate and graduate programs. Case in point, check out the change in the quality of the student body at the University of Alabama since Saban has been coaching the football team. It has improved not just the profile of the undergrad student body, but also the profile of the law school student body (among other grad schools, I’ve been told).
I will also add that being a varsity athlete puts the student in a totally-not-a-club club that makes a difference in certain social circles (especially in the northeast corridor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>improving the prestige of the college by admitting top athletes What's the logic here? I'll admit I'm not a big fan of college sports myself, but who assesses the credibility of a college by their athletics program?
I think athletic success increases the awareness of the college among potential applicants, more people apply, the selectivity percentage goes down, the college looks more selective from a naive perspective used by college ranking formulas, its ranking increases, and thus its prestige increases.
One factor that comes to mind is location- Notre Dame is in the middle of damn nowhere, if they did not have the appeal of the football team I think they would have a harder time attracting students to actually go there (regardless of name recognition).
It also will probably depend on how much the rich alums care about sports, so again for a school like Notre Dame that has always been big on sports and is also very big on legacies and promoting alum community and what not, it makes sense.
To be honest I don't see why it matters much for today's Harvard though, at least none of the benefits I can think of really line up. Plus Harvard can never attract the truly best athletes because no Ivy scholarships/the generally lower level of Ivy competition in most sports. Maybe they just care about being better than Yale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets ignore your claim at possible discrimination, and ask what the ability to game a high score on an ACT/SAT has anything to do with how successful or contributing to society someone will become? In the internet age that we live in today, with access to all sorts of methods of memorization, I would argue scores on a standardized test are largely irrelevant, beyond testing for if someone can pass a test or not. The…
I would argue that "structured schooling" refers more to a university than to the SAT. Personally I see more merit in performing well on an exam with a clear statistical context, than in filling out some bullshit lab notebook or whatever it is that people at Harvard do to earn their A- (mean grade) or A (mode). One problem with your argument is that, without the SAT, admissions counselors will have to depend MORE on…
No its not. What are neurons? What are networks of neurons? How do the wiring of neurons affect the way an intelligence output answers? Can neurons be cultivated in certain ways? If so, can you cultivate a network of neurons to output answers with the most efficiency and correctness?
If so, what is the difference between one network optimized for standardized testing and another optimized for political upheaval? Do the neurons fire less quickly in the latter because they can't pass the answers to a test as quickly?
As an Asian who went to an Ivy, I welcome this change. Yes, it will mask a policy of keeping the proportion of Asians lower than a race neutral policy. Yes, it's racially discriminatory. Yes, it's somewhat unfair to Asians who are trying to get in. But no, being fair isn't the point of these schools. Nor is having the most academically excellent student population. If you want that, go to Berkeley or CalTech. The poi…
In fact, paying $85k/year is not worth any bachelor's degree if you are paying out of pocket for it (and God forbid you took out any student loans). If you have a full scholarship, go for it! If you are affluent enough to afford it, go for it! For the rest, go for a less expensive but still quality university - and the US is blessed with tons of those (heck you can even do a 2-year community college degree, which may be free in some states, and transfer credits to an affiliated university - and that still will net you a quality education in the US).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new American left does treat it as a zero sum game. That is why they focus on disparities instead of universal programs that would eliminate the largest absolute amounts of poverty and suffering.
What falls in the bucket of “universal programs”?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classism may not be quite as "trendy" as racism or sexism right this minute, but I think you'll still find plenty of interest in the topic (and it's intersections with the others) on the left.
>>I think you'll still find plenty of interest in the topic (and it's intersections with the others) on the left. Please provide examples because I am not aware of any.
I highly recommend watching the video by Scott Galloway on The College Implosion. [1] "Colleges have become luxury brands and are adopting a strategy of artificial scarcity to create irrational margins" There's a large movement right now where many are saying the large tuition fees for Zoom lectures aren't worth it. Colleges sell themselves for the experience and are a luxury lifestyle brand almost, but with covid th…