Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#151

Post by ghaff » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

>randomly from a pool of good enough

It's probably closer to that today than most would care to publicly admit. Oh, they don't roll a dice but they mostly have some sort of academic cutoff and then decide on admissions from the remaining pool by lots of factors aiming for a diverse student body across many somewhat arbitrary dimensions. A handful may be slam-dunks above a certain floor (star athlete, parents donated a building, did some amazing humanitarian project in high school). But for the most part, there is a lot of randomness among the admissions of solidly good-enough students.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#152

Post by wonder_er » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #147

wonder_er wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the parent's comment is true, I wouldn't trust the AMA to market itself honestly. Ditto for legislative solutions. There's too much conflict of interest, susceptibility to lobbying, non-representation of marginalized groups or those who would be doctors but are not because of troubling practices, etc. From Mises.org[0] To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formu…

Though I can believe there being a preference toward reducing competition, their argument is weakened by including homeopaths as maligned groups. Homeopaths are not competitors with physicians, as that would imply that homeopaths provide medical treatment. At best, homeopaths provide a placebo. At worst, they actively poison customers (e.g. belladonna teething tablets) and prevent them from seeking out actual medical…

I believe the article addresses approximately your point:

  AMA's initial drive to increase physician incomes was motivated by increasing competition from homeopaths (AMA allopaths use treatments--usually synthetic--that produce effects different from the diseases being treated while homeopaths use treatments--usually natural--that produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated).

  [...]

  Apart from reversing rapidly declining incomes, allopaths also wanted to rescue their public reputations, which quite reasonably suffered given their proficiency in killing patients through such crude practices as bloodletting ("exsanguination") or mercury injections (poisoning).

You're right - homeopaths were competitive with allopaths.

But in the late 1800s (when most of the doctors/homeopaths grew up) the state-of-the-art physician was not much better (and perhaps often far worse) than what you are judging homeopaths.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#153

Post by tyingq » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

"If someone could build a system that scoops up these people, they'd find quite a few gems in the pile."

I was surprised at the amount of people that had aced the military ASVAB test when I showed up at basic training. Not that acing that is similar to acing the SAT, but it's not easy either. Some of them were signed up for pretty menial jobs too.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#154

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #131

bilbo0s wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one wil…

> The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people…

I believe the point was that these schools don't need to accept subsidized student loans or other forms of federal funding. That doesn't mean only admitting rich people; they have enough resources to offer student aid to bring in the academic overachievers on their own, thus maintaining their reputation without federal help.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#155

Post by dcolkitt » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #138

abeppu wrote: post #126

A bunch of commenters here have gotten fixated on two questions: (a) "meritocracy" and what it means or should mean and (b) whether the value of top colleges derives mainly from being exclusive. I think an interesting / illustrative case is the AMA as the credentialing authority for medical schools. An association of people in the profession, who have a clear interest in the supply of doctors being low, has a clear l…

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

> The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either.

There's a very simple solution to this problem that requires nothing other than the stroke of a pen: allow residents from OECD nations to practice medicine in the US.

There's nothing magical about an American residency. Countries like France, Britain, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Czechia, Costa Rica, Chile, and Portugal have better health outcomes than the US. Obviously there's nothing deficient about how doctors are being trained in Prague or Santiago or Seoul.

Yet American doctors have by far the highest compensation of any country in the world. Demand meet supply. Let's open up our borders and let doctors from qualified countries come here to practice. Many would flood our shores for significantly higher wages. We'd solve the doctor shortage over night.

Of course the AMA absolutely knows this. That's why they vehemently lobby against any change to the residency requirement. The AMA is a self-interest political lobby, just like any other interest group. They look out for the interest of doctors at the expense of patients. The issue about residency expansion being blocked is just a red herring. There's no reason the US can't outsource its residency training to other, much lower wage countries that are already producing superior physicians.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#156

Post by camelite » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #73

hliyan wrote: post #23

Commenters bringing up "meritocracy" don't seem to realize that fair meritocracies rarely exist in society. Often, your merit allows your to accumulate more merit, making the merit function geometric rather than linear. When the merit function is geometric, all it takes is a small change of fortune to start a rapid rise or a rapid decline. "Turning 100 dollars into 120 is work. Turning 100 million into 110 million is…

The concrete example I often give is that as a conference organizer we decide to be a meritocracy. Great! As a fair meritocracy, all else being equal between speakers a tie breaker is how many talks you have already done. Experience should count right? So let's look at it in detail. Fred and Sarah both submit great talk proposals. But Fred has done ten talks and Sarah has done nine, so he gets the slot. Looking back…

We live in a society where tech conference organisers, far from being biased in favor of white men, are actually desperate to shield themselves from accusations of anti-female/poc bias. Derive from that what you will.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#157

Post by eindiran » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #134

hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

"they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools" Sort of. Most of them that want to go to UT want UT Austin. There's not enough room there for all of them.

This is also how the UC system works: the top 9% (IIRC) students are eligible for guaranteed admission, but they are not necessarily admitted to the campus or program of their choice, so you might not get to go to eg Berkeley.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#158

Post by dhosek » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #153

hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

"If someone could build a system that scoops up these people, they'd find quite a few gems in the pile." I was surprised at the amount of people that had aced the military ASVAB test when I showed up at basic training. Not that acing that is similar to acing the SAT, but it's not easy either. Some of them were signed up for pretty menial jobs too.

Really? I took the ASVAB when I was looking for ways to fund my college education and considered doing Army Reserve. The only question I had to pause on was one about manual transmissions (I'd never driven stick before and couldn't remember how the gears were numbered on my Schwinn). The recruiter claimed to be blown away by the fact that I scored so high on the test. I was never actually given my score. I wonder if those people claiming to have aced the ASVAB were bragging with nothing to back it up. Or alternately, that some recruiters routinely tell their recruits they aced the test to help seal the deal.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#159

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #113

murgindrag wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the basic idea behind an elite school is you have: * A community of rich folks who get to look smart-by-association * A community of smart folks who get networked into the power networks All the decision-makers would lose out on this. Why would this even fly? George Bush Jr went to Yale and Harvard. He looked smart. And, a bunch of people were friends with the President. Folks like him make the laws.

The fact that GWB went to Yale made it possible for him to become President. Elite schools make it easier for people who have money (but aren’t too academically inclined) to get into positions of political power by building credentials and connecting with a community of smart people.

I bet it wouldn't really have hurt GWB to have gone to UT-Austin instead. Especially if all the other rich kids stopped getting accepted (so he wouldn't stand out).

He got jobs and power because his daddy was President. Not because he went to Yale.

I think these schools think its the opposite. They'd rather have someone who already has power within their network.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#160

Post by nmca » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #147

wonder_er wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the parent's comment is true, I wouldn't trust the AMA to market itself honestly. Ditto for legislative solutions. There's too much conflict of interest, susceptibility to lobbying, non-representation of marginalized groups or those who would be doctors but are not because of troubling practices, etc. From Mises.org[0] To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formu…

Though I can believe there being a preference toward reducing competition, their argument is weakened by including homeopaths as maligned groups. Homeopaths are not competitors with physicians, as that would imply that homeopaths provide medical treatment. At best, homeopaths provide a placebo. At worst, they actively poison customers (e.g. belladonna teething tablets) and prevent them from seeking out actual medical…

Whether homeopathy works (it doesn't) doesn't have a huge amount of bearing on whether homeopaths compete in the market with physicians (they do), because their customers are seeking the same thing.