Live data from Hacker News

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

chronicle.com

111–120 of 307 posts

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

#111
post #23

Commenters bringing up "meritocracy" don't seem to realize that fair meritocracies rarely exist in society. Often, your merit allows your to accumulate more merit, making the merit function geometric rather than linear. When the merit function is geometric, all it takes is a small change of fortune to start a rapid rise or a rapid decline. "Turning 100 dollars into 120 is work. Turning 100 million into 110 million is…

How does that explain the vast over representation of African Americans in professional basketball? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NB...

It doesn’t, does it?

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

#112
post #23

Commenters bringing up "meritocracy" don't seem to realize that fair meritocracies rarely exist in society. Often, your merit allows your to accumulate more merit, making the merit function geometric rather than linear. When the merit function is geometric, all it takes is a small change of fortune to start a rapid rise or a rapid decline. "Turning 100 dollars into 120 is work. Turning 100 million into 110 million is…

Whenever people talk about meritocracies as being real things or potentially real things that merely require everyone to be on board to implement, I always wonder how old they are and whether or not they think they would benefit from being in a meritocracy, and to what degree they think they’ve been screwed over in the past by not being in a meritocracy. IME, they’re almost always little kids up through people working their first job and frustrated that everyone hasn’t perceived their brilliance yet. Or insecure adults frustrated at their lack of success compared to what they think they deserve.

I’m not saying meritocracies are bad- they’re the ideal, they’re generally what everyone wants. Of course you want the best people for a given job or educational opportunity. But when people start talking about meritocracies as if the only thing preventing us from having better ones are people making conscious decisions to have them, I seriously wonder about their life experiences, worldliness, and personal/professional maturity.

For example, it’s common for people to attack things like pushes for diversity as being antithetical to meritocracies, but the intention of things like encouraging diversity is to build the foundation for better meritocracies in the future by helping weed out the things that stand in the way of better meritocracies now. And it’s also very common for those same people to be convinced that if only the world was more meritocratic, they would personally be more successful and everyone would respect them more, because they see themselves as not getting what they think they deserve. Funny how that works, kinda like how libertarians generally think that if only everything was more libertarian, they personally would be more successful, because other people would no longer hold them back. They think some other people would be more successful too, and some less deserving people would be less successful, but their emotional pull for the whole belief system comes from thinking they deserve more than they’ve got and that it must be someone else’s fault. And IME, in practice they’re super wrong about that, but it must be a wonderful sort of fantasy to go through life believing. “I’m better than everyone seems think I am, and it’s other people’s fault that everyone doesn’t see me that way. If only all those other people would see the light and stop holding me back and allow the truly meritorious like myself to flourish!”

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

#113

We have lower-hanging fruit. If a college accepts students taking government-subsidised loans, or otherwise receives any federal funding, it should not be permitted to consider legacy [1] or institutional advancement for admissions. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

I mean, the basic idea behind an elite school is you have: * A community of rich folks who get to look smart-by-association * A community of smart folks who get networked into the power networks All the decision-makers would lose out on this. Why would this even fly? George Bush Jr went to Yale and Harvard. He looked smart. And, a bunch of people were friends with the President. Folks like him make the laws.

The fact that GWB went to Yale made it possible for him to become President.

Elite schools make it easier for people who have money (but aren’t too academically inclined) to get into positions of political power by building credentials and connecting with a community of smart people.

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

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, it allows you avoid just selecting the people best able to game your admissions process.

For all you know the "good enough" crowd were also trying to game your scores, but just sucked at it.

Or gamed it enough to get into the "good enough" pool.

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

#115
post #3

College should be a meritocracy, it's just that we want people to be able to be able to afford it and not be shit out of luck if they can't go to it. This would also reduce stress as you don't have to worry about not getting into a college if you know your life is going to turn out fine either way. Why has this goal been malformed and twisted around to the point where people are coming up with any solution that doesn…

You're assuming that standardized testing procedures, high school grading, and college admissions officers have the precision necessary to correctly distinguish between the 99.9997% perfect candidate and the 99.9998% perfect candidate. All I can say is that's nuts. I got a perfect score on my ACT, and I know for a fact that I guessed on some questions. Am I really a stronger applicant than somebody else who made less…

> Am I really a stronger applicant than somebody else who made less-lucky guesses?

Well, what you seem to be saying is that the selection process is basically randomized among the top candidates already, per the linked article... so, no change needed?

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

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that standardized testing procedures, high school grading, and college admissions officers have the precision necessary to correctly distinguish between the 99.9997% perfect candidate and the 99.9998% perfect candidate. All I can say is that's nuts. I got a perfect score on my ACT, and I know for a fact that I guessed on some questions. Am I really a stronger applicant than somebody else who made less…

Single sample estimation is never that good. Even were the tests perfect, rich people and ones with additional free time can take more attempts with reduced cost to themselves and families. Additionally, tests are extremely time boxed, while actual research work is much more lax. Tests also do not measure cooperation, a crucial thing in real life research and development. Speed is not necessarily quality, and we don'…

75 years of test validity research say we DO know how correlated tests are with every conceivable definition of "quality." Your comment suggests you just haven't bothered to look.

Multiple attempts on tests don't help very much. We have 75 years of reliability research to show that. It's not single sample estimation. It's a couple hours to collect A LOT of samples.

Of course, money for tutoring, better schools, and highly-educated parents help with test outcomes and are a barrier to socioeconomic mobility. The basic problem is, random selection aside, no one has proposed a fairer system. Read Animal Farm at some point to see what happens when you have revolutions against an unfair system, without proposing something better to take its place..

But my basic point is you're confusing things YOU don't know with things WE don't know. We know a lot about tests, their upsides, their downsides, and alternatives. It's not like there aren't scientific conferences on this stuff.

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

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works for a bachelor but fails for a PhD, where students need to have a much closer relationship with their professors.

If we simply cannot accept the PhD students that qualify and are willing, then maybe we are doing it wrong.

"qualify" is nebulous. When professors accept PhDs, they are looking for people who they want working in their specific labs. It is much more like applying to a job than applying to undergrad. I have pulled candidates from the pile who had sub-par test scores but excellent writing skills, for instance, because teaching good writing to adults is much harder for me than teaching computer science. Similarly, I've taken students who reached out to me with ideas for followup on my papers over students with great test scores who didn't seem to care what they worked on. Random sampling is a terrible strategy for PhD admissions.

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

#118
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the basic idea behind an elite school is you have: * A community of rich folks who get to look smart-by-association * A community of smart folks who get networked into the power networks All the decision-makers would lose out on this. Why would this even fly? George Bush Jr went to Yale and Harvard. He looked smart. And, a bunch of people were friends with the President. Folks like him make the laws.

The fact that GWB went to Yale made it possible for him to become President. Elite schools make it easier for people who have money (but aren’t too academically inclined) to get into positions of political power by building credentials and connecting with a community of smart people.

Isn't that exactly what I wrote? The whole point of elite schools is to give rich people appearance of intelligence by association.

If you take 2000 valedictorians and 500 rich douchebags, have the 500 rich douchebags pay to educate the whole lot, and everyone comes out with a common brand stamp, who benefits?

Answer: Everyone involved!

Taking away federal funding (as if that were politically possible) would slow it down a little bit, but the rich douchebags are really, really rich. They'll just pay a little bit more. I don't know how you're going to stop that without a totalitarian state.

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

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concrete example I often give is that as a conference organizer we decide to be a meritocracy. Great! As a fair meritocracy, all else being equal between speakers a tie breaker is how many talks you have already done. Experience should count right? So let's look at it in detail. Fred and Sarah both submit great talk proposals. But Fred has done ten talks and Sarah has done nine, so he gets the slot. Looking back…

It's a good point. Does it go both ways? What if Sarah spoke at a women's only conference. At this conference, it's not just a "bias" towards women speakers, it's a downright rule. How do we regard Sarah's experience here?

Sure, goes both ways. But at scale would reflect systemic biases (which broadly lean to white men in many fields).

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

#120
post #23

Commenters bringing up "meritocracy" don't seem to realize that fair meritocracies rarely exist in society. Often, your merit allows your to accumulate more merit, making the merit function geometric rather than linear. When the merit function is geometric, all it takes is a small change of fortune to start a rapid rise or a rapid decline. "Turning 100 dollars into 120 is work. Turning 100 million into 110 million is…

Social justice and "fairness" is rarely one of the main goals of a meritocracy. The main goal of a meritocracy is peak performance. NFL teams select the "best" quarter-backs not because it's most fair, but because it will produce the most wins. Universities grant tenure to the most productive professors, because that will enhance the University's reputation. Hospitals hire the best doctors, because they can save the most lives. A society should delegate its most important responsibilities to its smartest/most-knowledgable members, because they can best lead society through worldly challenges.

Which is not to say that Social Justice isn't important. It is vital. But you don't get to it by hiring the wrong people in the wrong roles. A meritocracy excels at producing wealth - Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare, Unemployment Insurance, better Public Schooling... these are the kind of Social Justice programs that best distribute the wealth back to society.

Post reply on HN