41–50 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe colleges can just accept the best students and do their job of educating them instead of arrogantly appointing themselves as saviors and righters of all wrongs in the world.
> Maybe colleges can just accept the best students If you want to see what a world where universities do that, check Europe in the 11th century. You might just like it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you want to see a world where colleges accept everyone, without requiring a minimum qualification, look at our current system: over 50% of students lack proficient literacy skills. It shouldn’t be controversial to recognize that some students are not capable of success in college.
do you mean intrinsically not capable, or systemicaly not capable.
The idea that anyone can be anything is harmful to everyone. If you are 5’2”, you won’t make it in today’s NBA. If you are 400lbs, you are not healthy.
I’m sure some people have been failed by the K-12 educational system, but the answer isn’t to further degrade the college system.
I once listened to a scientific presentation that was interesting, but I don't remember the professor's name or whether his hypotheses have panned out long-term. That said, he flipped the script on the usual take on research trying to understand why some people respond to early adversity by going off the rails while others seem to trek through it relatively unaffected with positive outcomes. Usually the research focu…
sounds like he didn't say much, saying either you overcome adversity or you don't.
Maybe colleges and scholarships that make admission decisions based on adversity can someday objectively measure it by DNA methylation. Also for reparations or welfare benefits. It would seem to be a more direct proxy than melanin pigment density. But on the other hand, adversity does not equal disadvantage, and in fact the trials that leave those marks -- beneath some threshold -- may bestow an advantage over unstre…
I once listened to a scientific presentation that was interesting, but I don't remember the professor's name or whether his hypotheses have panned out long-term. That said, he flipped the script on the usual take on research trying to understand why some people respond to early adversity by going off the rails while others seem to trek through it relatively unaffected with positive outcomes. Usually the research focu…
Almost anything can be made sense of from an evolutionary perspective. Often even the opposite of what's being observed. Can be a fun game to play. The corollary is it's not useful for vetting theories for plausibility.
I once listened to a scientific presentation that was interesting, but I don't remember the professor's name or whether his hypotheses have panned out long-term. That said, he flipped the script on the usual take on research trying to understand why some people respond to early adversity by going off the rails while others seem to trek through it relatively unaffected with positive outcomes. Usually the research focu…
sounds like he didn't say much, saying either you overcome adversity or you don't.
Maybe colleges and scholarships that make admission decisions based on adversity can someday objectively measure it by DNA methylation. Also for reparations or welfare benefits. It would seem to be a more direct proxy than melanin pigment density. But on the other hand, adversity does not equal disadvantage, and in fact the trials that leave those marks -- beneath some threshold -- may bestow an advantage over unstre…
Maybe colleges can just accept the best students and do their job of educating them instead of arrogantly appointing themselves as saviors and righters of all wrongs in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you mean intrinsically not capable, or systemicaly not capable.
Intrinsically. Someone with an IQ of 85 will not be successful in college. The idea that anyone can be anything is harmful to everyone. If you are 5’2”, you won’t make it in today’s NBA. If you are 400lbs, you are not healthy. I’m sure some people have been failed by the K-12 educational system, but the answer isn’t to further degrade the college system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intrinsically. Someone with an IQ of 85 will not be successful in college. The idea that anyone can be anything is harmful to everyone. If you are 5’2”, you won’t make it in today’s NBA. If you are 400lbs, you are not healthy. I’m sure some people have been failed by the K-12 educational system, but the answer isn’t to further degrade the college system.
This assumes "IQ" is fixed, but it isn't.
It’s even more predictive when you realize that the SAT/ACT are given a year or two before college: this isn’t tracking someone at age 5, but saying someone a year away from college lacks the skills and knowledge to perform well in class next year.
If schools actually consistently applied standardized test scores as part of admissions, without padding scores for race or economics, it’d be better for everyone. It might sting to be told you won’t do well in college, but wouldn’t that $100 test be better than taking on $50K in debt to find that out?
Research backs this: SAT scores strongly correlate with GPA, retention, and degree completion. High scores even are predictors of life outcomes: income, occupational achievement, medical degrees, etc.