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

141–150 of 179 posts

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

#141

Post by rayiner »

dahart wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? Wrong, but not illegal. > What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.

> Wrong, but not illegal. Why is racial preference in partner wrong?? Who agrees with this anywhere?

Maybe I’m out of touch, but 20 years ago expressing a racial preference for dating would’ve gotten you labeled a racist. Is this some new Gen Z thing?

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

#142

Post by jawilson2 »

triceratops wrote: post #81
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…

> But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education...Is it a university’s job to account for [my advantages]? I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer. Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can o…

> Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding...

Eh, not so sure. My son got a 32 on the ACT the first time he took it, and after 4 months of private tutoring got a 35, with 36 on math. Could he have grinded himself and got there? Possibly, but I doubt it. Having someone who knows what they're doing and holding him accountable was invaluable.

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

#143

Post by digitaltrees »

aliasxneo wrote: post #64
Yizahi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the combination of extremely discriminatory, extremely corrupt, extremely predatory and then again discriminated differently by the fact if they are a sportsball player or not is rather amusing and at the same time baffling when observed from the other side of the globe. Of course it is too late by now, by have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam resu…

> have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam results No, because that's "not fair" to some groups.

If we are talking about a meritocracy and access to opportuity this doesn't even have to be about fairness the reality is if there are talented people that dont do as well on tests simply because they cant afford private tutors and prep courses maybe it makes sense to factor that in.

But there is also a legitimate reason to pursue fairness. When a society loses upward mobility and becomes a calcified caste social unrest becomes an existential threat. When we ignore that disparity compounds and locks people out of the social system we risk destroying the very system that we benefit from.

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

#144

Post by ndriscoll »

alistairSH wrote: post #108
blagie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open question is the meaning of "proper representation:" - One which maximizes Harvard's power network? - Most likely to succeed in the future? - Representative of the general public by race? - Representative of the general public in other ways (e.g. religion, political affiliation)? - Academically, best-qualified right now? - Academically, most potential? At birth? Now? - Most likely to donate? Etc. However defi…

Fair questions and criticisms. I would prefer to have colleges [elite or otherwise] be generally representative of the population by race, religion, socio-economic background, etc. The problem, as I understand it, is "best qualified" is massively impacted by things like race, parental income, and other factors outside the control of college applicants. Society is far from a meritocracy.

In what way is that not meritocratic? The goal isn't to find the most Christlike figure born to the humblest beginnings and tempted thoughout his life by literally Satan to fall off the good path; it's to find the actually realized best qualified person.

If you're the smartest, most knowledgeable, most conscientious, most humble person because you had a fantastic support system, well you're still genuinely a great person. If you are a D student with a felony criminal record because everyone around you was a horrible influence and your parents abused you, you're still genuinely terrible.

I've seen parents in a store together where one just "supervises" their toddler watching youtube or something while the other shops. Meanwhile I'm there reading to my kids while my wife shops. I'll not be surprised if my kids have better outcomes in large part due to the family they were born into, because I do that on purpose. Society should incentivize people to devote ourselves to raising the best next generation we can. Trying to define merit via some counterfactual hypothetical person instead of the actual person in front of you makes no sense. In fact it's counterproductive as you end up incentivizing people to do things like send their kids to worse schools so they can appear relatively better.

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

#145

Post by triceratops »

jawilson2 wrote: post #142
triceratops wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education...Is it a university’s job to account for [my advantages]? I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer. Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can o…

> Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding... Eh, not so sure. My son got a 32 on the ACT the first time he took it, and after 4 months of private tutoring got a 35, with 36 on math. Could he have grinded himself and got there? Possibly, but I doubt it. Having someone who knows what they're doing and holding him accountable was invaluable.

You know your son well enough to say he wouldn't have done the grind by himself. But that's not the same as proving that coaching is always superior to grinding. Or that a motivated grinder can't beat a less motivated tutored student.

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

#146

Post by dahart »

rayiner wrote: post #141
dahart wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong, but not illegal. Why is racial preference in partner wrong?? Who agrees with this anywhere?

Maybe I’m out of touch, but 20 years ago expressing a racial preference for dating would’ve gotten you labeled a racist. Is this some new Gen Z thing?

Saying you have a preference is creepy. Having one and making decisions based on that is absolutely normal and always has been, and is not immoral, contrary to your claim. The vast majority of marriages globally are same race marriages.

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

#147

Post by webnrrd2k »

rayiner wrote: post #40
dahart wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended t…

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.

Re: two wrongs/people who had nothing to do with the problem

Obvious counter examples: plenty of people have been drafted and died in wars they did not cause or start. Also, people pay taxes to educate others, which (hopefully) fixes a problem they didn't cause or start. The list just goes on and on. In fact, I think it's a fair argument to say that modern society is fundamentally based on the opposite your claim, that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. In general it's called being an adult. Yeah, sometimed it sucks, sometimes it's unfair, but generally it's better for everyone in the long run.

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

#148

Post by webnrrd2k »

rayiner wrote: post #54
BrenBarn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you conceptualize fairness. If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.

No, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual on the premise that moral wrongs may have been committed against other individuals?

I disagree with your charaterization of the problem as exclusively a moral wrong... Was it only a moral wrong? Was the only effect a moral one? Or were there physical or tangible effects, too? For example, were there economic affects?

I'm not claiming to know the solution to the problem of ~200 years or slavery and ~100 years of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and further discrimination. I am saying that doing nothing about it seems pretty fucked. I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it, which you seem to be doing, makes you look like the worst kind of offensive and racist asdhole, too.

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

#149

Post by armchairhacker »

dahart wrote: post #55
armchairhacker wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except preferential treatment backfires. People will think “if XYZ group has a handicap maybe it’s because XYZ group is genetically inferior?” XYZ members themselves will think that and it will subconsciously affect them. People around them will think that and it will subconsciously affect their opinions towards them. If you point out that XYZ group is only handicapped because they’re statistically environmentally di…

Yes this is true, that can and has happened. I don’t think it’s true as rule, but it’s a valid point. Still, the most important question is what is the alternative? We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right? Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe s…

> We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right?

Correlation does not imply causation

> Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe slavery still exists?

They are better, but it's a low bar and an even lower one

> Would it have happened faster with no quotas or boosts for groups that were historically discriminated against?

Maybe, but even if "no", keeping the quota may cause a backslide.

Artificially balancing preferential treatment by applying it badly in the wrong direction is a duct-tape solution. Sure, it may have been justified after the Civil Rights Act. But it's not ideal and doesn't seem justified anymore, when we can easily positively discriminate for traits that are more obviously and universally negatively discriminated against, like income.

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

#150

Post by csa »

jawilson2 wrote: post #136
NoahZuniga wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We make enough to not qualify for need based aid Are you sure? If you're household income is [1]: https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculat...

This is going to screw me hard. I didn't make a meaningful income (>$95K) until I was 35, 10 years ago; I got a PhD, did a 4 year postdoc, and was an assistant non-tenure-track professor for 3 years. My monthly student loan payments were $1800/month. I changed jobs to HFT, and we have lived comfortably but not able to save much. I have 3 kids aged 17, 15, and 13, the oldest is applying to colleges very soon. 2 years…

> So, assuming all 3 kids go to a $100K/year type school, and we pay cash, that is $12 MILLION dollars over the next decade I will be paying

You forgot a decimal there.

If you want to fund your kids’ elite education and you can’t front the cash, you can take out the loan or agree to pay a loan they take.

Plus, your $300k bonus (maybe $150k after taxes) will go a long way towards financing this obligation.

Post reply on HN