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

In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

news.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 363 posts

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#191

Post by akomtu »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #79
btilly wrote: post #33

To quote from the brief. Unlike applicants whose identities have been affected mainly by their socioeconomic or geographic circumstances, applicants whose formative experiences relate to race or ethnicity would be denied the opportunity to convey their full, authentic selves when competing for admission to selective schools like Amici. And so we guarantee that millions of Americans will have a formative experience th…

I really don't understand current progressive ideology. Apart from discrimination against Asians, there is also the whole "Hijab empowers women" nonsense. I come from a part of the world where women have to fight for the right to take off hijab. They are shunned socially for doing so. In worse places, they can be jailed or beaten. Imagine coming from such a place to America, and seeing here women are wearing that sym…

These leftists (there's nothing progressive in them) are the good old priesthood. They invent dogmas that mock logic to control the crowd, and they do it by fear, but they are keenly aware of the real power - the royalty - so when the roylaty wants something that contradicts the existing dogmas, the priests swiftly invent a new dogma.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#192

Post by tomrod »

Lendal wrote: post #160
tomrod wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a few other comments in this thread on this. Can you define what you mean by diversity (background or thought or something else)? Also, how do you measure its improvement? My speculation is that, because these are hard terms to nail down but easy to say, this becomes a perennial topic.

I would define diversity as a representative sample of the population and time in which the organization is situated. In this case, the US 2020 census. If it's good enough for the US Constitution and for Congressional representation, it's good enough for Yale. Maybe this was difficult to nail down in 1791 but not so much today. It doesn't have to be perennial. Once every 10 years is sufficient.

So, diversity := statistically similar to joint distribution of population demographics.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#193

Post by itsoktocry »

Aunche wrote: post #154
aceHN wrote: post #48

If your goal is equal opportunity you can look at socioeconomic class without considering race. Fundamentally the idea that race must be considered to achieve diversity is an inherently racist idea - you don't believe some races will get in without help.

The problem is that the wealthy and powerful can fake socioeconomic class. In fact, they already do for financial aid. I recall two of my classmates got accepted by Harvard. One was the son of a doctor, and the other was the daughter of a lawyer. The doctor's son said that he was turning down Harvard because they didn't give any financial aid. Meanwhile, the lawyer's daughter said she actually got a lot of financial…

>In fact, they already do for financial aid. I recall two of my classmates got accepted by Harvard.

So you could figure out the financial circumstances of these classmates, but Harvard couldn't? Or are you saying they outright committed fraud?

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#194

Post by hackerlight »

Lendal wrote: post #160
tomrod wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a few other comments in this thread on this. Can you define what you mean by diversity (background or thought or something else)? Also, how do you measure its improvement? My speculation is that, because these are hard terms to nail down but easy to say, this becomes a perennial topic.

I would define diversity as a representative sample of the population and time in which the organization is situated. In this case, the US 2020 census. If it's good enough for the US Constitution and for Congressional representation, it's good enough for Yale. Maybe this was difficult to nail down in 1791 but not so much today. It doesn't have to be perennial. Once every 10 years is sufficient.

So let's admit some old Republicans? Oh wait...

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#195

Post by TameAntelope »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #188
TameAntelope wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone thinks their only chance of going to college is Yale, they're wrong. They're not wrong, that's literally the lived experience of many, many folks. This is exactly the problem; you're not taking the perspective of people who actually are discriminated against in America. And I didn't say "of going to college". This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person…

> This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person's life. Yale doesn't represent "college" it represents "prestigious college that will open doors for the rest of their life". Why is Yale the only shot for the child of a wealthy, well-connected person of one race but not the poor, unconnected child of another? > makes perfect sense to prefer them over people who will g…

Yale is often the only shot at a high level of success for poorer, less educated racial groups. I'm not sure you're understanding me if you believe what I'm saying is designed to support wealthy, well-connected people generally.

And there is no assumption about Asian success, there's cold, hard data about the comparative lack of discrimination in academia and in life outcomes.

But it does sound like you're laser focusing here on Asian kids, and ignoring the many white kids who are also being bumped out of these programs. Odd...

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#196

Post by ModernMech »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120
rileymat2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To go with your analogy, when I am sick, I want both the root of the problem dealt with along with the symptoms. I don’t see why you would not attack things from both angles.

> when I am sick, I want both the root of the problem dealt with along with the symptoms Society isn't conscious and people aren't microbes. The analogy of a cytokine storm taking out healthy cells to drive off infection becomes grim when the "healthy cells" are people.

> Society isn't conscious and people aren't microbes.

Maybe, maybe not :P

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#197

Post by TameAntelope »

throwawayjun21 wrote: post #164

I dont know why peoplehate meritocracy but i can say one thing for sure that communities/orgs dont encourage meritocracy go down the drain. I look for the best surgeon not someone with some race to do a surgery on me.

No post body was provided.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#198

Post by hotpotamus »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #190
hotpotamus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't believe some races will get in without help. What if they didn't? What if the Supreme Court decision results in zero (or near zero) black people being admitted into Ivy League schools?

Then I would say the Ivy League is doing something very wrong. When California and Washington passed ballot initiatives prohibiting race-conscious admissions, demographics shifted a bit but black admissions were nowhere near zero.

Is that to say the California and Washington schools now have the appropriate demographics? I'm curious to know what those numbers are.

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#199

Post by shkkmo »

btilly wrote: post #78
tomrod wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty far removed from my direct experience with Ivy League alumni and professors (coauthors, colleagues, coworkers). It is a common refrain though. Elements of conservatism are sometimes viewed as being eschewed when they are ideologically based and the evidence doesn't support claims. But this is true generally and a consequence of the academic incentive structure where there are never enough resources to…

It is not at all removed from my direct experience. (And I am, in fact, an Ivy League alumnus.) See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... for the shocking level of acceptance of Marxist ideas in the social sciences, despite a lack of anything resembling evidence for it. And a tremendous amount of evidence that attempts at implementing Marxism have done insane amounts of damage to the world.

How is 18% Marxists in the social sciences evidence for "a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated"?

Re: In Supreme Court brief, Yale and peers defend use of race in admissions

#200

Post by eloff »

api wrote: post #118
eloff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the danger of focusing on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. In my opinion, the former is not possible anyway, it's not a good goal. People are different and they're going to have different outcomes, even if only considering chance. But they should have the same opportunities regardless of race, gender, etc. Making policy to address this is tackling the root of the problem instead of the…

I largely agree, but here's an attempt at a "steel man" of the opposing point of view: Unjust discrimination is complex, often subconscious, and deeply rooted in institutional structures and culture. It's too complex and elusive to address directly beyond the obvious removal of explicit regulations (desegregation) and finger wagging. Those things have already been done and yet extreme inequalities persist, so address…

The problem with this argument is it assumes the differences are due to discrimination, but when we try to measure that we almost can't detect the effect of discrimination because it's so small. The differences are not skin deep like that, but usually have deeper roots. To be clear I'm not saying there are no biases like racism, but that it doesn't seem to be the dominant factor causing differences in outcome. Often the roots are deeper, like higher divorce rates, worse schools, differences in parents' socioeconomic status. Between men and women the salary difference is almost entirely a difference between women with children and men and women without.
Post reply on HN