101–110 of 286 posts
I'm curious as to why affirmative action in the US has always been race-based and not economic-status or household income based? Asking as someone with no skin in the game; I'm merely curious if anyone has any constructive opinions on why they think economic status based affirmative action may/may not work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the correct move here is not to go full-on "merit-based access", but change the affirmative action to be based on socio-economic status. Boom, you just solved the issue the race-based AA was claiming to address, but by going directly to the source of the problem (socio-economic inequality). I am not saying this out of some abstract concern about asian kids with perfect scores failing to get admitted to Harvar…
While I mostly agree - can't this be gamed (see what people do to qualify for MediCAL in CA), though?
However, I would much rather have a tiny percentage of wealthy game it, than a much larger number of poor people of the "wrong race" getting shafted and another number of wealthy people of the "right race" "gaming" it. Because race is pretty deterministic, you don't need to game anything. Poor people of "wrong races" get hurt by the current AA system heavily. While under AA based on socio-economic status, at least the poor won't get screwed over.
Quoted post unavailable.
There are plenty of liberal reasons to dislike race-based admission processes as well. I agree with the spirit of what these programs are trying to accomplish, but punishing Asian applicants for their race is a perfect example of what is wrong with this solution from a fundamental level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened to it refers to a concept called the meritocracy trap.
Let's say you need open heart surgery. Doctor one has a 3.9 GPA from Harvard medical. Doctor two barely passed your state's medical school Which do you want doing your operation? The "meritocracy trap" often caves into "wealth and privilege" and this is not meritocracy.
If race is barred then the next method could be increased emphasis on perfect price discrimination to distinguish applicants socioeconomically. Outrageous tuition prices coupled with generous "scholarships" can also create a diverse student body.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A true meritocracy wouldn't be a friendly world to live in. Think about the current state of education. Parents with resources over-optimize their kids' education because they understand the inefficiencies in the system and/or understand what it takes to become successful in our society.
Yeah this is the problem with meritocracy, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The reason someone has merit is arguably _only_ due to external factors. You are the way you are because of your DNA and environment. You are who you are because of who your parents are and how they chose to raise you, but they are only who they are because of their parents. And that recurses all the way back to the first organisms.
The important thing to consider is the benefits afforded by meritocracy. When we have adequate filtering mechanisms to help put competent trustworthy people in positions of power, we get less bridges that collapse, less space shuttles that explode, less government officials demanding bribes, and less subtle failures at many levels of the economy. These failures are years downstream of the decisions that set people on their path in life. Most people have not yet mastered their profession; helping this process along is good for everyone.
Those who criticize meritocracy should be honest with themselves as well that these failures can happen.
> Institutions like Harvard say they consider an applicant's race as one of several factors - including economic status and religious belief - in order to build classes that accurately represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the country. I mean, this is all kind of window dressing for elite institutions to be elite, right? There are millions of people qualified to attend these university, Harvard gets to hand se…
Ever talked to someone from Harvard? (they'll usually tell you in the first 4 minutes you meet them telling you they went to school in Boston). They admit quite a number of conservative people if that's what you're worried about, and even their more left people are pretty center-right, as in they really don't want to pay more taxes.
> they could always expand the size of their enrollment
Really the feds could (and imo should) force them to do so, given a ton of their money come from federal grants. It's always been insane to me that private schools can receive 50k+ per grad student from my taxes, knowing that most people will never get in. Also insane how the elite UCs for example educates more people than the entire ivy league combined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SO.. tell us what would allow a surgeon to start operating in the first place? You simply presented a chicken and egg problem... Does the mediocre surgeon get all the surgeries and therefor become excellent at it?
We should do what pilots have to do: start with simulators, then move to copilot, then primary pilot with an experienced copilot, then finally primary with inexperienced copilot. The medical system gets the later parts right, but there are no simulation components at the beginning. IMO it would even be helpful for surgeons to do some time as carpenter, mechanic, fitter/turner etc for some time to really drill the han…
And this is EXACLY what they do, using cadavers, schooling, and internships. Their work on cadavers is graded, much like most of what they do. This goes back full circle, grades do have an input into the quality of a surgeon. It may not be the "best" or "only" indicator but it shouldnt be outright discounted.
People with high GPA's work hard to get them and have a high level of understanding of the topics at hand.
My ex is excellent in math and always scored very high on tests, but she is not very practical.
If i a math problem i'd have full confidence her answer was correct. If i asked her some non-math questions my trust would be adjusted.
If they're ending race-based admissions, does that mean they're also ending athletics scholarships for runners? Sorry.