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

What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

sorting-machine.pages.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#121

Post by dahart »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #109
dahart wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only it were actually that simple and fixed with platitudes. Culture and belief is passed on from generation to generation, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the persistent problem in the first place. How do we fix a problem that we already have historical evidence that when left alone doesn’t go away on its own, that people who weren’t the original cause of the problem still, in fact, perpetuated it? How can we know…

The alternative proposal is not treating racial discrepancies in outcome as a problem to be solved.

Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965. The discrepancies have been on the decline since then. So, when exactly, did equal opportunity start? We didn’t have it in 1966 yet, despite the law. Did we have it in 1980? Outcomes have closed since then, so no, obviously not. When, then? What reason is there to believe outcomes discrepancies aren’t a problem, given that society generally believes they are?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#122

Post by kxyvr »

triceratops wrote: post #97
kxyvr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not. My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preferen…

> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers. > My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw s…

My continued assertion is that "hard data" can be misleading, wrong, and discriminatory. It requires judgement to understand what it tells us and whether there is error in the collection of the data itself.

As far as Kaplan, I don't have metrics to share, but what I saw shocked me at the time. It appeared as though they collected data as to how much their test prep improved scores and it was pretty dramatic. And, they were smart enough to distinguish between their test prep books and their in person tutoring. In person tutoring worked better and by a lot, but it all helped.

As far as tests, I've never contended that they shouldn't be done, but that these scores need to be part of an overall portfolio. I have in fact sat on admittance boards for graduate school and the two dominant factors other reviewers used were GPA and where they went to undergrad. Both of these were hard metrics and full of bias. I'll also contend that they weren't particularly effective in identifying students who successfully completed the program.

Something to consider, I do think test scores can help screen candidates. For example, if one is going to admit into a math program, then their quantitative score should probably be above a certain level. After that, I personally don't think it matters. In that way, one could just set minimum criteria to be accepted, which includes GPA, tests scores, research, jobs, whatever, and then randomly select from that group. That would certainly eliminate a huge amount bias, though not all, but most people hate this approach because it contradicts this belief that we live mostly in a meritocracy. They want rankings and they want to know who number 1 is. My continued argument is that it's impossible to distill a person down to a hard ranking in a reasonable matter, especially with test scores, and it's not necessary for college admission since one can select a group of applicants for acceptance without ordering them.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#123

Post by [deleted] »

UncleMeat wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of problems in society that are hard to fix. But there's nowhere else in society where our solution to a problem is to subject people who had nothing to do with the problem to unfair treatment. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a good general principle.

Hm. How does this vibe with your blanket judgement about Bangladeshis?

[deleted]

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#124

Post by BrenBarn »

rayiner wrote: post #85
esafak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take something from me and the government takes it back that's two wrongs in your book??

If I steal something from you and then you retaliate by stealing something from my cousin, then that’s the definition of two wrongs.

So, what if you steal $1000 from me and then give it to your cousin?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#125

Post by BrenBarn »

rayiner wrote: post #92
dahart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh. Whoa. They should be happy with what the…

> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle. > They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here b…

> No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.

I think this discussion shows that there is fundamental disagreement about that. Many people believe that our laws as written do not reflect the moral principles they ought to reflect (and that the implementation/enforcement of those laws often does not even reflect the principles they supposedly encode).

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#126

Post by exogeny »

nec4b wrote: post #116
exogeny wrote: post #35

Alright, I’m going to try to weigh in on this subject in good faith. Wish me luck! I grew up in suburban Pittsburgh and attended a very good public school. I had friends who lived only ten or fifteen minutes away but attended schools that were substantially worse by nearly every measurable standard. How should a university compare our applications on an apples-to-apples basis? Some people would say, “Just use standar…

>How exactly should those advantages be measured? Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?

I suppose I just disagree that someone from a less affluent or privileged than me with got a 1400 SAT is less qualified than me (1510) simply because one number is larger than the other. These numbers don't exist in a vacuum.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#127

Post by cleandreams »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #99
cleandreams wrote: post #36

I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such. I think there is a good argument for a…

Glenn Loury & John McWhorter?

No. Briahna Joy Gray and a guest whose name I don't remember.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#128

Post by cleandreams »

blagie wrote: post #93
cleandreams wrote: post #36

I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such. I think there is a good argument for a…

This is not an accident. If you talk to admissions officers, over drinks, they'll tell you that poor black students from marginalized US communities have abysmal performance at elite schools. The decision to admit rich black students is very deliberate. There are many reasons why. Schools in the US are locally-funded, and a marginalized community might have 25% of the per-student spending of a rich community (actual,…

There is more to this story. I have heard Harvard (and its ilk) described as a smallish university attached to a massive investment fund. One of the criteria for admission is how much you and your family will be "good for" donations to the university. They much prefer students from rich families, even if they are the children of disagreeable dictators.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#129

Post by rayiner »

UncleMeat wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of problems in society that are hard to fix. But there's nowhere else in society where our solution to a problem is to subject people who had nothing to do with the problem to unfair treatment. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a good general principle.

Hm. How does this vibe with your blanket judgement about Bangladeshis?

You shouldn’t make “blanket judgments” that apply to every individual Bangladeshi. In a context where you’re evaluating individuals, you should do so without regard to their ethnicity or nationality. In the context where you’re talking about masses, then it’s permissible to draw inferences about aggregate characteristics.

Simple example: at the doctor’s office, I want them to measure my height, without regard to the fact that I’m Bangladeshi. But that doesn’t mean that medical journals must blind themselves to the fact that a group of 10,000 Bangladeshis is going to have a much lower average height than a group of 10,000 Germans.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#130

Post by nec4b »

exogeny wrote: post #126
nec4b wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How exactly should those advantages be measured? Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?

I suppose I just disagree that someone from a less affluent or privileged than me with got a 1400 SAT is less qualified than me (1510) simply because one number is larger than the other. These numbers don't exist in a vacuum.

Both the front door and the window on the second floor are just openings. I'm sure you would prefer to walk out through the former than the later.
Post reply on HN