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

Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

hechingerreport.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 602 posts

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#201

Post by tjs8rj »

overrun11 wrote: post #175
tjs8rj wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is really simple: discrimination not on race, but on inequalities. Don’t discriminate because someone is black or white, but give due consideration to factors like family situation/income/legacy/etc This seems like the most reasonable solution. If you believe that systemic racism exists in the background, then this corrects for its real effects. If you don’t, I’m sure you at least accept that all else equa…

Or we could acknowledge that society functions best when the most qualified people are chosen and decide to only discriminate on merit. These selection criteria are meant to match students with schools filled with students of the same ability level. Of course there will always be factors in life that make it harder or easier for people to succeed. Having had exceptionally difficult life circumstances doesn't somehow…

To be clear, this is about university admissions where their goal is to identify the most capable people for the school, and a smart but poor person might very well be the most capable (even if it’s not clear on paper given their previous lack of resources). This IS merit-based, but it’s an attempt to find the diamonds in the rough.

Someone with an IQ of 140 but poor might not have accomplished as much as a rich person with an IQ of 100, so on paper the rich person looks better, but correcting for circumstances the poor (smart) person is wayyy better. This is meritocratic.

And I’m certainly not suggesting you take the objectively worst person, especially in a job market. Universities are given public money to provide societal benefits. If they aren’t properly able to give people opportunities, they don’t deserve my tax dollars.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#202

Post by tomatotomato37 »

D13Fd wrote: post #135
JadeNB wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like a perfect environment for a generation of conservatives to get elected. Hopefully they stay close to the center for a long time. The conservative groundswell is because generations of conservatives have already been getting elected, especially in less flashy positions that wield influence. Conservatives have really played the long game, at least since the New Deal.

I think people’s need to frame seemingly every issue and even their entire worldview as liberal vs conservative is the biggest problem in politics.

Yes, I agree. It's like sports teams now, where people cheer on whoever has the correct letter next to their name rather than bases on their actual personal policies or beliefs.

It's also resulted in an effect I've noticed in most debates now where people just shout the advantages of their position and the disadvantages of their opponents position at each other without any attempt at addressing what their opponent is counter-arguing, if that makes sense.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#203

Post by tjs8rj »

kenjackson wrote: post #131
tjs8rj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then discriminate on the socioeconomic inequalities. A poor white person and a poor black person should get aid. Obama’s daughter (black, but rich and powerful) doesn’t need any aid or discrimination in her favor. Discriminating on the basis of race for these programs is so stupid. Ask why and people say “because socioeconomic status”, but then why don’t you discriminate on that? I think people know this but it’s a p…

Quoted post unavailable.

I disagree that poor whites are specifically against welfare because they think it helps black people more. That’s just another way of saying they are all racist.

Ive grown up around poor whites and dislike for welfare among them was pretty much always a dislike of government generally, and the perception that welfare makes people lazy (often because they knew other poor people who would take advantage of welfare. One of whom got their kids taken away because they couldn’t financially support them, were told they could get them back if they could hit some financial milestones, then proceeded to use their tax return to buy a used mustang).

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#204

Post by MichaelCollins »

thegrimmest wrote: post #184
MichaelCollins wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting things back where they were depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect and subject to various biases and confusion with myth. But even ignoring that, the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past so past laws won't work the same in the present as they did in the past. Even if you could perfectly replicate past laws in the present, you couldn't get the same…

> depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history. > the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past Surely some circumstances, such as human nature and social biology, have not changed. I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of…

> I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction.

I think it is, since there is great cultural variation in the ways humans think about violence and sex. Monogamy or harems; human sacrifice or the abolition of the death penalty. Any combination of these can be "normal" to people raised in that context, there is little which is fundamental about the way human societies are structured with respect to these subjects.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#205

Post by kenjackson »

tjs8rj wrote: post #203
kenjackson wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I disagree that poor whites are specifically against welfare because they think it helps black people more. That’s just another way of saying they are all racist. Ive grown up around poor whites and dislike for welfare among them was pretty much always a dislike of government generally, and the perception that welfare makes people lazy (often because they knew other poor people who would take advantage of welfare. On…

The discussion tends to devolve right around here. Let’s just say we have different data points and agree to disagree.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#206

Post by themitigating »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #198
moviewatcher333 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why rural Appalachia and small, highly religious towns across America are absolutely ravaged by meth and fentanyl and the crime around it, which you really should not ignore. You’ll find a lot of “lock em up and throw away the key! … But not my son. Or my daughter. Or my nephew and his children and my former coworker. Or my pastor’s children. But everyone else, yeah”

Overly-liberal cities (SF, Vancouver, LA, etc) are killing far more of their citizens with failed drug policies than COVID, and with circumstance they've engineered such as giving extra "safe" fentanyl to people, telling dealers they won't be arrested, and never institutionalizing against their wishes. The difference between approaches isn't "lock them up / don't" or "my kids / their kids". It's not a left/right or c…

"and with circumstance they've engineered such as giving extra "safe" fentanyl to people"

Fentanyl is cut with other drugs and there's no fentanyl distribution that I can see. Care to provide a source? The drug is extremely potent to be consumed alone.

----------------------------------------

Here's a DEA warning about mass overdose events from Fentanyl "Fentanyl-related mass-overdose events, characterized as three or more overdoses occurring close in time and at the same location, have happened in at least seven American cities in recent months, resulting in 58 overdoses and 29 deaths. Cities impacted include Wilton Manors, Florida; Austin, Texas; Cortez, Colorado; Commerce City, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; St. Louis, Missouri; and Washington, D.C."

I don't' see SF or LA mentioned here. I'm sure some of these are Democrat controlled but You are claiming that liberal policies cause an increase in overdoses. Do you have a source for your death rates?

https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/04/06/dea-warns-incr...

------------------------------

Top 10 states by drug overdose in 2020 (latest year for this source)

West Virginia 81.4 1,330 Kentucky 49.2 2,083 Delaware 47.3 444 Ohio 47.2 5,204 Tennessee 45.6 3,034 Maryland 44.6 2,771 Louisiana 42.7 1,896 Pennsylvania 42.4 5,168 Maine 39.7 496 Connecticut 39.1 v1,371

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...

-------------------------------------

"We need to regain the compassion we've thrown away in the "everything is okay!" anti-conservative backlash such that we can help people in obvious distress."

Ant-conservative backlash? Republicans, as in elected officials, are calling their political opponents pedophiles and communists. They claim guns are going to be taken away for the last 40 years guess what actually gets banned? Abortion. Multiple Republicans are still lying about election fraud and you wonder why there's a backlash?

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#207

Post by MichaelCollins »

themitigating wrote: post #188
FredPret wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm in a bubble, but every anecdote I read online in the past year or two is someone royally fed up with liberal politics. On Twitter, Reddit, and real life, the majority of people keep complaining about crime, drugs, homelessness. Sounds like a perfect environment for a generation of conservatives to get elected. Hopefully they stay close to the center for a long time.

I'm angry about the loss of abortion rights federally, the rise of Christian nationalism, politicians lying about election fraud, people calling their enemies pedophiles and communists, politicans not knowing what those words mean, and facism What is this center you think we are going back to because all I see are far right politicans and the end of American democracy

> the end of American democracy

Granting all the problems you've cited, things have still been much worse in the past than they are today. Maybe not in the recent past, the 90s and 00s look quite rosy today in some (not all) respects, but think a bit further back. America has gone through civil war, anti-communist witch trials, frequent politically motivated bombings and assassinations, etc. Throughout all of that, people have remained hopeful that things could get better.

The greatest threat facing America today is demoralization. The belief that demise is inevitable and cannot be prevented could do America more permanent harm than anything else.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#208

Post by D13Fd »

thegrimmest wrote: post #150
D13Fd wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people’s need to frame seemingly every issue and even their entire worldview as liberal vs conservative is the biggest problem in politics.

I think many things can be framed as "change things" or "leave them".

I think that is mostly imagined. Lots of “conservative” positions involve deep societal change and lots of “liberal” policies maintain the status quo. The reverse is true as well.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#209

Post by thegrimmest »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #204
thegrimmest wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history. > the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past Surely some circumstances, such as human nature and social biology, have not changed. I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of…

> I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction. I think it is, since there is great cultural variation in the ways humans think about violence and sex. Monogamy or harems; human sacrifice or the abolition of the death penalty. Any combination of these can be "normal"…

And yet, some things are near universally constant amongst large scale agrarian civilizations. For instance the confinement of violent criminals or the institution of marriage.

You're right in that there is some variation, but there do actually seem to be some choices in this regard that are more conducive to a stable, prosperous, society. Just like there are many ways to run a company, but only some of them lead to success. Point being that if you live in such a society, "changing things" may lead you off the golden path that brought you where you are. It's true that some change is inevitable, but any operator of any system that prioritizes stability above all is always wary of any unnecessary change.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#210

Post by D13Fd »

thegrimmest wrote: post #184
MichaelCollins wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting things back where they were depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect and subject to various biases and confusion with myth. But even ignoring that, the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past so past laws won't work the same in the present as they did in the past. Even if you could perfectly replicate past laws in the present, you couldn't get the same…

> depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history. > the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past Surely some circumstances, such as human nature and social biology, have not changed. I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of…

> We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history.

But why does it even matter, other than setting things up as “us” vs. “them”?

Post reply on HN