How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning • Hacker News Board

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#211

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:33 PM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #204

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. 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 lan…

> Is there some aspect of standardized tests that makes the test easier for rich white kids while making it harder for others?

Rich white kids are less likely to have, for one of many examples, been deliberately exposed to toxic levels of lead by action of their state government.

There are a myriad of other unequally-distributed social and environmental impacts on cognitive function and academic ability, and evaluations of standardized testing tend to control for very few of them.

Standardized testing reveals uncorrected racial and economic injustice, it isn’t the source of it. Blaming standardized testing is a way of avoiding addressing the problems it reveals.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#212

Post by light_hue_1 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #207

light_hue_1 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

> 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.

That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? What you wrote is exactly how all of this insanity of scientific and rational racism started in the 1800s. How we ended up with standardized tests, IQ tests, phrenology, and eventually with Hitler and Stalin exterminating inferior people.

If you adopt your view, then you end up with a strictly racist and classist society. People at the top get their kids into the best schools because they have money and connections, those schools provide the best education and the best social connections, and the cycle continues forever.

No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#213

Post by GPerson » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

tlqsb wrote: post #168

GPerson wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel palpable despair about this. For me it has tended to imply that the work itself is not valuable, for otherwise the incentive system would be corrected quickly.

What would be the corrective factor? The charismatic oligarchy has inserted itself between the productive people and the money. The Gervais principle is a thing. The charismatic CEO is helped by the 90% mediocre employees, who like the system. The 10% productive employees are exploited and shouted down. All that the 10% can do is change jobs or start a company.

I guess I long to work on teams where the outcome and the actual activity of working on the project are the primary motivators for the people involved, and not the associated status or credit gain. So when I said it seems to imply the work is not valuable, I meant in the view of the people working.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#214

Post by hardwaregeek » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

Bukhmanizer wrote: post #122

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…

> Some of them go as far as to apply for a masters program. Where else does a budding CS major with no technical skills but a lot of meaningless accolades go? You’re just being needlessly smug here. The point of life isn’t to be as technically useful to FAANG as possible. I know lots of people who go on to masters programs because they’re curious about advanced topics in CS (e.g. robotics) that you don’t get to touch…

You're not wrong. I am being rather blithe. However I'd point out that I'm not saying all masters students have no technical skills but a lot of meaningless accolades. I'm saying that a sigificant number of budding CS majors with no technical skills but a lot of meaningless accolades get masters. There's a difference of A -> B versus B -> A.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#215

Post by bawolff » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #163

bawolff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a canadian, are we really that much more equal than the USA? Sure, maybe we have less of the extremes on both sides (Less billionairs, and i suspect less hopelessly poor, although i don't know the number on that), but we still have rich people and poor people, a good uni still gives you a major step up.

By college exclusivity yes, you are substantially more equal. Your good universities expand, theirs stay about the same size and become even more exclusive. No one goes Ooooh! if they hear someone went to McGill or Waterloo, excellent as they are. They’re just universities.

True, but i suspect the canadian elite go to harvard just like the american elite.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#216

Post by flowerlad » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

light_hue_1 wrote: post #212

flowerlad wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

> 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. That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genet…

> That is literally what racism is!

No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism.

> White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior?

You are putting words in my mouth.

> The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior.

Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me!

If the goal is to help people in lower socio-economic brackets, then the best way to do that is to make college free, not eliminate standardized tests. I see too many deserving students accepted into good colleges decide that they can't go because they can't afford it.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#217

Post by usaar333 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

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…

> who happens to be born poor

Yes, that's troublesome, but it is inherently impossible to solve this. Less poor parents generally educate their children better (or at least keep their children in better environments), so this is difficult if not impossible to correct. I ensure my preschooler does her reading lessons every night - poorer parents (on average) don't. How are you supposed to correct for this?

> or who happens to be born with a darker skin color

Huh? Are you in tech? If anything, the "darker" kids were performing better at the schools I attended growing up (in the Bay Area).

> 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.

Well, demographics is a bit arbitrary, so the only way to do this across whatever you are trying to measure is to run a US-wide lottery for every school.

This would functionally kill the concept of universities as tracked systems and I imagine it would be strictly better for all of the top schools to simply forgo federal funding to preserve their very purpose.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#218

Post by jollybean » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #108

jollybean wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Soviet System was a complete failure from top to bottom, producing some great scientists is nice but a side show. Using standardized tests from 14-21 to select leadership feels very meritocratic, but it's also very crude. Also there is the ugly notion that maybe the best way to lead a nation is not purely meritocratic. American Ivy League, despite their follies, produce a ton of very high calibre people. So d…

Producing great scientists is a failure? Maybe we should aim to fail more.

Yes, if all you do is produce some good scientists, win a few gold medals, and your people starve in oppression and poverty, that is a pretty big failure.

Also, throughout that time and even now the US produces amazing scientists and also has the means for them to 'do stuff'.

FYI I'm not American, I understand these things are far from perfect. I'm mostly harking back to the notion of 'standardized test and ABC school as elite' is probably not so good. America is open enough that even though some industries are chock-a-block Ivy League, many are not.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#219

Post by drc500free » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

Going by the experience of the Russian chemist that mentored me as a kid...

You stand in front of a few adults as a middle schooler. You have a chalkboard and chalk. They ask you to prove that n^2+1 is never divisible by 3. You do so with aplomb.

Decades later you ask an American middle schooler to do the same. He covers a ream of paper with attempts to find the right answer, and stares at you in confusion. You wonder if escaping the Soviet Union was worth dealing with lazy fools who can't already do calculus at 13.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#220

Post by planet-and-halo » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #84

planet-and-halo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not be in school any more, but you can still study whatever you want. I went the other direction: studied humanities in school, taught myself programming once I was working as a professional because I found it intriguing, and now I do this for a living. You have a whole lifetime. If you want to learn something, you can do it. Even Einstein got started in his spare time.

Einstein was 12 when he started learning calculus; the myth that he was bad at math as a child is just that (a myth). Einstein didn't "get started in his spare time" - thoughts about the universe consumed him as a person, to the point where him being "absent minded" was because he was visualizing the universe; his love letters even contained frequent discussions of science. His brain was preserved after his death, an…

Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything suggestive of that old myth that he was bad at math. My point was exactly what you were saying: he was thinking about and studying these things under his own direction at first.