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

How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 247 posts

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#201

Post by light_hue_1 »

tester34 wrote: post #178
light_hue_1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with…

>Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist. Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? What's your alternative then? >The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and…

> Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke?

A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities.

> What's your alternative then?

Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. If a university doesn't like this, that's fine, they can go their own way. They get 0 federal dollars and no federal backing for student loans that go there.

Let colleges figure this out. They're smart. You need to solve problems at the output level, what society you want. And we can all agree that the society we want is one where your skin color doesn't determine your fate.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#202

Post by musingsole »

caseysoftware wrote: post #82
hardwaregeek wrote: post #45

As a current student, I see this first-hand. I go to a school that is moderately prestigious, but not well known for CS. Far too many of my classmates are obsessed with the same hamster wheel of optimizing grades, superficial extracurriculars and rec letter chasing. This isn't surprising; it's what got them into this school in the first place. Unfortunately for them it's also quite useless in tech. Some of them go as…

Years ago, I was advising the "entrepreneur club" at a major university and I met with one of the students. He introduced himself as "president" and we chatted and talked out their Vision. A week later, I met with him and another member who introduced herself as "president" Slightly confused, I asked if they'd just had an election. Nope. Turns out they called their members "president" which looked great on their resu…

In any other context, that'd be at least a little slimey. But here, with these budding grifters? It's downright admirable.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#203

Post by light_hue_1 »

usaar333 wrote: post #125
light_hue_1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with…

> it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, are biased by class or race. Are they? The article you linked doesn't say. > The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! What percent of students scoring over a 1500 on the SAT are from the top 1% of household earners? I doub…

> What do you mean by these terms?

By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes.

That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate.

> How do you propose selecting students?

Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes.

We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Colleges can do whatever they want, if they don't like the deal, that's fine, but they get no federal funding and they get no federally-backed student loans.

You start with the outcomes you believe are just. And you set up incentives to get that outcome. That's literally what we do everywhere else. We tell car manufacturers that they need to make cars that have fewer emissions, we don't tell them how. They figure it out. Universities will figure out how to make this happen, they're full of smart people.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#204

Post by flowerlad »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #113
usaar333 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a 0.95 R^2. That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower with other factors more significant ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). > The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism. Huh? Prior to tests, schools wer…

> That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv ). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with…

> Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist.

Is there some aspect of standardized tests that makes the test easier for rich white kids while making it harder for others? If so the solution is to fix the test, not eliminate the test.

It should be expected that in a nation that prides itself as the land of opportunity, there will be some correlation between wealth and the genes you were born with. Hard work is important, but it is not the only determinant. Being born smart is a factor too, right? Smarter parents beget smarter kids. If so there will be some correlation between wealth of parents and how well the kids do in tests. Blaming that on some kind of bias in standardized tests is insane.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#205

Post by rejectedandsad »

xvector wrote: post #93
rejectedandsad wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the rest of us? Should we just be just be shunted to the second, third, and fourth rungs of society because we didn’t have the right extracurriculars or only got a 1450 instead of a 1550? 99% of Americans have never attended and likely could not gain admittance to the top 20 schools, to paraphrase William Jennings Bryan the rest of us should not be crucified on a cross of Ivy.

You are not being “crucified” in any sense of the word. I guarantee you that there are still incredible opportunities available for second, third, etc place. The current system encourages high levels of academic performance, which is precisely what our species needs to advance. There must be some sort of incentive.

It's abundantly clear that there aren't incredible opportunities on the second, third, fourth rung of society, speaking as someone that "lost" all of the meritocracy games. We get the message from everyone that we clearly do not matter.

For the record, I don't know how the average Yale graduate is "advancing our species" more than the average UMBC or UNC Wilmington graduate.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#206

Post by rejectedandsad »

the_only_law wrote: post #187
rejectedandsad wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the rest of us? Should we just be just be shunted to the second, third, and fourth rungs of society because we didn’t have the right extracurriculars or only got a 1450 instead of a 1550? 99% of Americans have never attended and likely could not gain admittance to the top 20 schools, to paraphrase William Jennings Bryan the rest of us should not be crucified on a cross of Ivy.

So funny thing. I was doing some research into the “non traditional” programs at the top schools. A handful have programs for people who have been outside of academic for some years, and allows them to earn the same undergrad degree. However the same gpa and test score requirements are all in place and you’re still being judged by who you were at 17/18. I suppose the main difference is instead of looking at involveme…

It's extremely depressing. I really don't feel like I have much hope knowing I'll never be able to achieve anything because of who I was when I was in high school - it's even worse because I knew what I wanted in high school (Siemens, high school research, etc), but had no idea how to accomplish it.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#207

Post by flowerlad »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #201
tester34 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist. Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? What's your alternative then? >The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and…

> Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities. > What's your alternative then? Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket.…

> If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket.

That's insane. They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. Limiting the number of smart & hard working kids in universities will lead to a dumber nation.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#208

Post by flowerlad »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #203
usaar333 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, are biased by class or race. Are they? The article you linked doesn't say. > The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! What percent of students scoring over a 1500 on the SAT are from the top 1% of household earners? I doub…

> What do you mean by these terms? By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate. > How do you propose selecting students? Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not rac…

> That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes.

Yes, your appearance does have an impact on life outcomes, that much is true. But standardized tests are not to blame. In fact, standardized tests are the solution, because the test doesn't know what you look like.

> 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners.

If the 1% of earners are in the 1% because of being smart and because of being hard working, and the children inherit these traits, why punish the children for that?

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#209

Post by CogitoCogito »

gundmc wrote: post #23
sashavegas wrote: post #13

Consider old Russian system After 8 years of school there were exams (written and spoken) where person would be selected to go to 2 more years of school (equivalent of hi school) or if he performs poorly on exam, he can go to professional school for associated degree. The person who goes to 2 more years of hi school, take exam again, and receive diploma. Then the person can apply to any university, but to get there i…

> For example, if person decided to go to math/physics, it was required to pass 4 exams (2 for math, written and spoken) and 2 for physics. I don't mean to derail, but what is a "spoken" math exam like? It sounds like my nightmare and I graduated with a STEM degree in a competitive program.

I took oral math exams in Germany 15 years back when studying there for a year. In many ways I actually preferred it to written. A nice thing about oral exams is that it allows the professor to quite effectively determine your skills very quickly. If you're stuck at small parts, they can give you a hint. If you then just start rolling, you clearly knew the subject matter. Or if you don't understand an area very well, the professor can switch to another area. Maybe you happen to know other parts of the course very well, but the first thing the professor asks is in one of your weak areas. The professor can also drill down into specific subjects you understand well and give you more and more difficult and detailed questions that you've maybe never even thought about at all and help you through them.

I think the system is great. The main downside is that one-on-one tests just don't scale. But other than that, I wish they would be more common in undergraduate studies in the US.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#210

Post by Balgair »

J253 wrote: post #145

I have a (perhaps unpopular) pet theory that college as we know it going to cease to exist sometime in the next several decades. In its current direction it feels like it’s becoming more about gaming the system. Those who do the “best” are really just the best at looking like the best. I saw so many of my peers in college “learning” strictly for the sake of getting good grades, not to understand the material conceptu…

In the Humanities, your theory is widely accepted.

Eidolon was an online Classics magazine that recently closed up shop. In their version of a 'fail essay', the head editor says the following about formal Classics education:

"I’m not going to downplay the extent of the problems we’re facing. In addition to the concerns facing Classics specifically and the humanities more widely, there are also enormous and terrifying problems facing higher education in general. Even before the massive disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, these problems already looked insurmountable: on one side the student debt crisis, which has financially crippled an entire generation, and on the other side the increasing precarity of the academic workforce has made teaching Classics (and every other discipline in academia, really) a terrible professional prospect. This is not to mention academia’s endemic problems with classism and sexual harassment."

The rest of the essay is quite good and you should read it all. But the thesis is the same: Fixing higher education is insurmountable.

I want to note the author/editor, because I feel many of the people that read the essay may not have. Her name is Donna Zuckerberg. If that name rings a bell, it should. She is the sister of good ol' Mark Zuckerberg. One of the richest people in the history of mankind. That a woman of such extraordinary and astronomical privilege is saying that things are insurmountable (with experience in fighting against it) should lend even more credence to her words.

https://eidolon.pub/my-classics-will-be-intersectional-or-14...

Post reply on HN