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

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

#261

Post by 082349872349872 » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #84

djrobstep wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to interrogate the concept of meritocracy a lot more: "Many deride our meritocracy for not really working for the poor, for people of colour, for women; they see structural impediments to these groups as preventing a real meritocracy from flourishing. But I would put it to you a different way: What could be crueler than an actual meritocracy, a meritocracy fulfilled?" Because once we acknowledge that n…

I think wealth is essentially a means of distributing, directing and exchanging social power. So wealth and scarcity are not necessarily cruel, unless you feel like cruel deprivation is necessary to maintain social power. Then the question is not how do you distribute cruelty and wealth, but rather, how do you direct society in order to minimize cruelty? I think meritocracy would be a really bad way to go about this,…

Goldstein says the Inner Party of Oceania is a meritocracy:

> "The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area."

> "The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat."

I don't know how reliable a narrator Smith may be, because as an Outer Party member he's obviously an auxiliary who failed his quals...

Also, we mustn't forget that reasonable incumbents won't protect against all challengers, merely most. The cream of society must consist not solely of the rich and the thick, but also a few nouveau aristos, if it wishes to be stable.

    I capture the rising elite
    You utilise potential leadership cadres from historically superseded classes
    They cut in the smart boys from the opposition, so that they can't set up a racket of their own

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24070333

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

#262

Post by murgindrag » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #127

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASS…

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

The facade is central to the business model. If the only people going to elite schools were rich and politically-connected:

(1) It would look bad for everyone involved.

(2) The schools would lose their prestige.

Right now, if I want a good lawyer, I look to Yale, followed by Harvard/Stanford/Chicago. I have a 70% chance of getting a brilliant lawyer, and a 30% chance of getting a rich douchebag. For law firms, it doesn't actually matter too much, since reputation is mostly circular.

If I want a good engineer, I look to MIT/Stanford/Caltech. I have a 80% chance of getting a good engineer, and a 20% chance of getting a rich douchebag. That's not a guaranteed hire, but it gets you in the door. Hopefully, my interview will screen out the rich douchebags, but it doesn't always. That model is breaking down a little bit, since people are starting to notice that the typical engineering applicant from e.g. Georgia Tech, Northeastern, or similar is better than MIT/Stanford/Caltech+++.

Upside to rich douchebags: They're past the first round of all hiring processes. Between university brand and network, their kids can always find at least upper middle class jobs. In a best case, they can go on to be president! Or if they're running a company, they don't look obviously nepotistic.

+++ It's worth noting there are sample biases here. Most qualified MIT/Stanford/Caltech graduates can find jobs without going through proletarian hiring processes, so the people who do actually apply for jobs through my web site are prefiltered.

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

#263

Post by murgindrag » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 12:13 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #176

murgindrag wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point wasn't about the level of validity. My point about making inane comments. OP claimed we don't know things which we DO know simply because OP hasn't bothered to look.

Your numbers, 99.9997% to 99.9998%, roughly ask whether we can distinguish the second-best student in America from the fourth-best with an SAT.

I'm not quite sure anyone is either using the SAT for that, or claiming it's a helpful tool for that. Indeed, at that level, it's not even clear what ranking even means. If you believe people are using the SAT this way, please point me in their direction.

Again, inane comments aren't helpful for advancing the discussion. We have specific facts and numbers to work from. Trump popularized the art of making up facts on the fly, but it's not one I recommend adopting more broadly.

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

#264

Post by bumby » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 12:24 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #226

jldugger wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously your family moves freshman year to optimize your chance of getting into UT /s

I’ve had plenty of discussions with people on how they plan to move from starter homes to homes in more affluent areas so their kids can mingle with richer kids and go to their schools.

Is there good evidence this makes a difference in the outcome of their children?

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

#265

Post by bumby » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 12:34 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #208

chrisseaton wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the military as bottom of the rung enlisted people, yes. Some people just want to get stuck into the work and tactics rather than all the fuss of being an officer! Being a private soldier in many units can be an extremely challenging and rewarding experience. Yes the pay isn't great for people with other opportunities, but money isn't everything in life. I know many people who could easily commission but want to…

I mean bottom of the rung, E1. You can do 2 years of community college and enter a couple of ranks higher.

If rank was the only factor, that’s a bad choice considering you can fairly easily make that same rank in less time by simply enlisting.

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

#266

Post by bilbo0s » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

murgindrag wrote: post #262

bilbo0s wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

The facade is central to the business model. If the only people going to elite schools were rich and politically-connected: (1) It would look bad for everyone involved. (2) The schools would lose their prestige. Right now, if I want a good lawyer, I look to Yale, followed by Harvard/Stanford/Chicago. I have a 70% chance of getting a brilliant lawyer, and a 30% chance of getting a rich douchebag. For law firms, it doe…

The schools won't lose that prestige, however, because the majority of the kids they admit are academically gifted. If, say, 30% of a class are legacies, that means they pick and choose 70% of the class from academically gifted kids who are verified to be, "Our kind of people". (With all the exclusionary connotations of that phrase.)

What we're talking about is the connection, during formative years, of the academically gifted to the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful. The idea that this would result in less prestige is fanciful in the extreme.

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

#267

Post by michaelbuckbee » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

emddudley wrote: post #170

hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

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…

Ohio had a system where you could opt to go to neighboring school systems (but you would need to provide your own transportation).

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

#268

Post by RIMR » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #195

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASS…

> What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.

But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace.

Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone.

It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.

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

#269

Post by bumby » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #214

tyingq wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean bottom of the rung, E1. You can do 2 years of community college and enter a couple of ranks higher.

> I mean bottom of the rung, E1. You can do 2 years of community college and enter a couple of ranks higher. But...you can't. At least, not that would show up at Basic. The higher grade you get for sufficient vo/tech or collegiate study prior to enlistment is applied after graduating from Basic. AFAIK,that's true even for the programs where you enlist with guaranteed OCS after Basic, you still are an E-1 when you go…

Sure you can if what is meant by “a couple ranks higher” means a couple enlisted ranks. This can occur before leaving for basic.

You can be guaranteed E3 out of boot camp with enlistment incentives and each platoon generally has at least one merit promotion E3 (aka ‘honor grad’)

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

#270

Post by 908B64B197 » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

doktorhladnjak wrote: post #239

dcolkitt wrote: post #155

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. There's a very simple solution to this problem that requires nothing other than the stroke of a pen: allow residents from OECD nations to practice medicine in the US. There's nothing magical about an American residency. Countries like France, Britain, Israel, Korea, New Zealand,…

Only problem is American medical students take on massive student loans while those in other countries often have their tuition subsidized by their governments. Instead of paying for medical education via taxes, we pay via employers, insurance premiums, deductibles and Medicare taxes.

That's a problem (paying for training and loosing their doctors) for foreign countries, not the US.