Live data from Hacker News

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

chronicle.com

171–180 of 307 posts

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

#171
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…

I think your argument is engaging in “what aboutism” and detracts from the issue this article is trying to address. The problem they are trying to address is that true meritocracy only exists in a perfect system, that is to say that you can not fairly compare individuals across different environments. More concretely one of the problems it is trying to account for the situations where wealth or post code privilege gi…

There is also a question of how to define "merit." Standardized tests aren't that meaningful or accurate. It's a good way to roughly separate people out, but it shouldn't be considered merit. Especially since people spend a bunch of time learning strategies for it, further reducing its predictive ability.

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

#172
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't claiming. Your scores are all posted on the wall in basic training. I walked the dorms and saw ~5 aces or very near aces out of maybe 200ish total people's scores. It's just somewhat odd because starting out as an E1 isn't terribly lucrative. It doesn't surprise me that 5 of 200 do that well. It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

I'm curious how the Montgomery GI Bill changes that calculus. My distant understanding is that a not-insignificant number of people join the military because this will give them a full ride in college. They can't make much more than the Army pays with a high school diploma, and they can't afford college without either crippling debt or something like the GI Bill. But I don't have any facts here, just going off what a…

Sure. It's just those scores (or the implied intelligence) could probably get you into programs like the one where the Navy pays you a stipend while at college, and pays for college...before you join the military, as an officer. The other branches have similar programs.

There's quite a lot of crap to go through before you get to use that GI bill money :)

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

If the parent's comment is true, I wouldn't trust the AMA to market itself honestly. Ditto for legislative solutions. There's too much conflict of interest, susceptibility to lobbying, non-representation of marginalized groups or those who would be doctors but are not because of troubling practices, etc. From Mises.org[0] To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formu…

Because your excerpt starts with "To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients."

The thoroughly footnote supporting the latter part of that sentence is supposedly comes from something written by The Massachusetts Medical Society, but actually comes from a speech written by a single physician over half a century before the rise of the AMA's Council on Medical Education. And it does not say that mankind "should be 'looked upon by the mass of mankind with a veneration almost superstitious.', as is stated. It doesn't even get the year of publication of the quote right.

Packing an article with footnotes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Other footnotes include such thorough scholarship as this one time an unnamed Chemistry instructor told me off the record that white men have a harder time getting into med school with mediocre scores than black women do, and editorialized quotes from sources where neither a long enough quote, or enough information on the source is provided to lookup the full quote.

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

#174

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

> One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools. I would assume this is the case for 95% of Americans. You must have had a different experience? My family was not wealthy so I did not get a cho…

> You go to your local high school

Parents are often willing to move to areas where there are good schools.

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

#175
Quantifying "good enough" is not easy. I work in higher ed analytics. For even a mildly selective school that accepts 40-60% of it's students, there's certainly a group that are very likely "accepts", a group that are very likely "rejects", but 15-20% in the middle require very close review and interpretation of academic trends, non-cognitive attributes, how hard they pushed themselves, and more.

The more selective a school gets, the more applicants meet sone easy to quantify metrics, and the more that close review becomes necessary for making all decisions.

It is a problem that such room for professional judgement introduces room for bias and unfairness. But a random selection based on one-dimensional metrics isn't really the solution: sound training and transparency into the decision-making process would be good start in resolving these problems, though probably just a start.

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

And the scientific consensus says they aren't in the same galaxy as ranking 99.9997% to 99.9998%. SAT, for example, is better than grades are predicting first year GPA, but it's still not that great.

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

#177
post #166
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When the benefits of a society that's lead well bubble up to a small elite, why should anyone else give a shit about how well-optimized the operations of society are? To put it more directly - why should someone on the floor staff of Wal-Mart care about how optimally Wal-Mart is ran? They get paid by the hour, they don't own any stock in the company - and if it collapses, they'd just find another crappy job in anothe…

In a well-functioning society, they should care because taxation of the small elite disproportionately funds the social safety net that means that, even though they mop a Wal-Mart, they'll get chemotherapy if they have cancer, and won't immediately become homeless when Wal-Mart deploys a floor-mopping robot and lays them off.

We don't have that, or, we don't have all of that. But we could. And historically, simply confiscating the wealth of the elite, or just stacking their headless bodies in mass graves, doesn't do great things for the prosperity of the average citizen.

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

#178
post #163
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I took the ASVAB when I was looking for ways to fund my college education and considered doing Army Reserve. The only question I had to pause on was one about manual transmissions (I'd never driven stick before and couldn't remember how the gears were numbered on my Schwinn). The recruiter claimed to be blown away by the fact that I scored so high on the test. I was never actually given my score. I wonder if…

They weren't claiming. Your scores are all posted on the wall in basic training. I walked the dorms and saw ~5 aces or very near aces out of maybe 200ish total people's scores. It's just somewhat odd because starting out as an E1 isn't terribly lucrative. It doesn't surprise me that 5 of 200 do that well. It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

> It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

I’m generalizing here, but: No matter what their score was (high or low), most people are going to take the ASVAB because they want to join the military and reap the benefits of it (i.e. TRICARE, GI bill). We can’t forget that military granted health insurance covers around 3-4% of the total insured (US Census, 2019, p.3)[1]. It is also a heavily road traveled road out of poverty for many POC and low-income students. There’s a reason you see more military recruiters in counties, states, and especially schools which have a overall lower income level. But we must also remember we do not know where their true interests lie. Or if they’d be able to — or even want to — handle efficiently the responsibility of being in a higher education setting as opposed to the more structural hierarchy of the military.

However, this does not take away from the fact that some of those 5 people may have a certain given ability to excel in a field that only the military provides. They may want to take that skill all the way to an Officer position instead of working up a corporate ladder. Say geography for example. Someone may have an educational knack for it and perhaps they change their military career goals toward something more technical (cyber defense, intel) instead of labor intensive (infantry). Either of these career choices would only be possible in a military setting. (Lucrative military contractor and paid mercenary jobs are moot points for this discussion.)

In the end, I do not think the ASVAB should be looked at as a moment of enlightenment the same way the SAT would be. They are serving two different purposes and a majority of people sitting in the recruiters office already have their mind made up; it’s now just a matter of figuring out which base you’re attending for training and how long it’ll last.

1: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

Edit: Just saw your reply to another user.

I think you’re missing a major point: Not everybody wants to go to college. Yes there are ROTC programs and you’ll be commissioned as an officer after 4 years BUT you still have to attend school.

If someone does not want to attend higher ed, telling them about a stipend and quick ranking will fall on deaf ears. They’re sitting in the recruiters office to find an escape from their current situation and reality. I’d wager most kids do not want to be told “stay in this town for 4 more years and then it’ll be better. Trust me.”

They want to get out NOW and start a new life and a new career. Not be told what they want to do is wrong.

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

#179
post #126

A bunch of commenters here have gotten fixated on two questions: (a) "meritocracy" and what it means or should mean and (b) whether the value of top colleges derives mainly from being exclusive. I think an interesting / illustrative case is the AMA as the credentialing authority for medical schools. An association of people in the profession, who have a clear interest in the supply of doctors being low, has a clear l…

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

> They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors.

They were in favor of restricting slots some 25-40 years ago. The facts have changed, but the memeplex hasn’t.

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

#180
post #134

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

"they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools" Sort of. Most of them that want to go to UT want UT Austin. There's not enough room there for all of them.

Also, the colleges within UT can have much more stringent requirements. You're not getting into the engineering or business colleges with a mediocre background.
Post reply on HN