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)

#301

Post by murgindrag » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #281

murgindrag wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point wasn't about the level of validity. My point about making inane comments. OP claimed we don't know things which we DO know simply because OP hasn't bothered to look. Your numbers, 99.9997% to 99.9998%, roughly ask whether we can distinguish the second-best student in America from the fourth-best with an SAT. I'm not quite sure anyone is either using the SAT for that, or claiming it's a helpful tool for that.…

Harvard, Yale, etc. absolutely are claiming that they can separate the 2000th "best" student who gets in from the 2001st student who doesn't. If they wanted to fill their freshman classes entirely with valedictorians with perfect SAT scores, they have the applicant pool to do that. My assertion is that there's no way for them to accurately make distinctions that fine. Much more honest to set some bar of "you must be…

Where do Harvard and Yale claim that?

This is thread reads like a Donald Trump speech. AstralStorm claims science doesn't exist, when there are whole conferences. rhino369 fakes up some numbers. And now, you come in making fake claims about Harvard and Yale admissions.

I mean, yes, no one is arguing that the admissions regime isn't there to reify class privilege, but if you're going to try to fix the problem, you can't start with falsehoods, half-truths, or sloppy thinking.

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

#302

Post by _Nat_ » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #248

_Nat_ wrote: post #241

This ISN'T a social-justice article. Picking the top applicants backfires because people game it. For example, consider Students A and B who're mostly identical except Student A likes to binge on Wikipedia while Student B spends every night doing SAT practice problems. Colleges that select only the top applicants get the B's of the world, who optimize their observables, while the A's seem somewhat less competitive on…

right but if you’re looking for people who will succeed in college (or the corporate world) wouldn’t you be looking for people who can achieve based on specified rules and fun to within a system, instead of undisciplined people who can’t do that but may naturally be intellectually curious? the first makes a terrific employee, the second might not put in hard work for stuffthey don’t find interesting or may leave alto…

Depends on the job.

If you've got a simple, mechanical job that a trained monkey could do if monkeys were more intelligent, then, definitely, you'd want folks who'll slavishly adhere to whatever task is assigned -- the folks who'll spend all night doing SAT prep problems would be perfect hires.

But if you want to train innovators who'll actually advance their fields -- whether we're talking mathematicians, scientists, engineers, doctors, or business leaders -- then you'll want the folks who'll pursue such things on their own initiative along with the talents they've developed due to that intrinsic motivation.

Elite non-innovators can have their place. In science/engineering/math, they won't be leaders, but they can still be effective researchers with strong publication records, reliably churning out decent-quality papers. In medicine, they can be great practicing doctors. In business, they'd be reliable middle-management types.

Still, it'd be weird for a top institution to only have middle-management types.

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

#303

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #295

lotsofpulp wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://opportunityatlas.org/

This is interesting but I'm not sure it supports that moving to affluent areas will help scholastic achievement. For example, looking at the "median household income" feature, it doesn't seem to correlate well with "fraction of college graduates".

It might not need to, as long as median income does. The saying of “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” and “you are the company you keep” rings very true in my experience. Just being around the kids of successful parents should help in opening more doors.

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

#304

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #303

bumby wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting but I'm not sure it supports that moving to affluent areas will help scholastic achievement. For example, looking at the "median household income" feature, it doesn't seem to correlate well with "fraction of college graduates".

It might not need to, as long as median income does. The saying of “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” and “you are the company you keep” rings very true in my experience. Just being around the kids of successful parents should help in opening more doors.

[deleted]

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

#305

Post by murgindrag » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 10:47 AM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #287

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASS…

The feds are paying for research, not George's tuition. George didn't need a scholarship.

About 2/5 of the Fed's money goes to research, and about 3/5 goes to "overhead."

"Overhead" then funds $200 million buildings, million dollar salaries, yacht clubs, financial ponzi schemes, press/legal/branding departments, and what not.

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

#306

Post by jonnypotty » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

Randomini wrote: post #255

jonnypotty wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think getting good students to go to crappy schools is a way to improve those schools? I'd say you don't know anything about schools then. And you think randomly selecting students instead of selecting them on the basis of merit is a way to find gems? This is all such wishful thinking without any evidence or even, I have to say, common sense.

If you're refuting based on lack of evidence, I'm interested in counter-evidence, beyond the anecdotal.

I'm not refuting anything! What I'm saying is if you claim to know how to change and improve education you better have some evidence to support your claim. As to why I feel like I can comment..my father has been an education consultant for the past 30 years, before that he was a teacher, my sister is a teacher and so was my mum. What you're espousing is an ideological approach that you'd like to be true. Why not claim its true, I mean, you're smart right, why would you need evidence to backup what you're saying?

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

#307

Post by jonnypotty » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:54 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #257

jonnypotty wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think getting good students to go to crappy schools is a way to improve those schools? I'd say you don't know anything about schools then. And you think randomly selecting students instead of selecting them on the basis of merit is a way to find gems? This is all such wishful thinking without any evidence or even, I have to say, common sense.

> You think getting good students to go to crappy schools is a way to improve those schools? I'd say you don't know anything about schools then. You'd say that, but it would be wrong. > And you think randomly selecting students instead of selecting them on the basis of merit is a way to find gems Totally. Especially since there's little about "merit" in the current system.

So, as outcomes for kids are hugely affected by the school they go to, you'd like to take kids OUT of schools where they're expected to do really well and put them into schools where they probably are not going to, in the hope they slightly improve grades for other students. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you've thought this through.