521–530 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caltech is very different today than it was 50 years ago. Modern Caltech recently cancelled Robert Millikan (the founder)
Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.
The following paragraphs were especially powerful: > The chattering class is using poor kids as pawns to eliminate standardized testing. Which helps their own kids. Rich kids who “don’t test well.” But they know how to strategically boost their GPAs, get recommendation letters from important people, stack their resumes with extracurriculars, and use the right slogans in their admissions essays. They have “polish.” >…
This is a general question for the whole "social justice" movement. If you're concerned about the wellbeing of black people, and you justify your concern with statistics pointing out that they're disproportionately poor, why not, instead of instituting preferential treatment for black people (which, btw, is racist), you support preferential treatment for poor people instead? That way, you are more efficient (e.g. you…
Basically whatever metric you choose will leave gaps. And if you try to universally implement a system you get other negative effects (from cost, to information overwhelm, to non-adaptability).
Standardized tests remain the only criteria totally in the control of the student. You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant. Everthing else is either circumstantial or based in the opinion of others, mostly highschool teachers. If i had to rely on my highschool teachers' opinion of me i would not have ever gone to university let alone have won scholarships. Standardized testing allo…
> Standardized tests remain the only criteria totally in the control of the student. You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant. This view ironically makes schools and education irrelevant. Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student?
Because the tests measure knowledge, and schools are intended to impart knowledge.
As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" If my local gym is really trash or I can't afford one, I can still do pushups on my own or go for runs, but nobody would argue based on that that gyms are worthless.
Likewise, schools are (or should be) built for students to learn. Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests.
The fact that other means of learning exists, though, doesn't mean that schools aren't important or useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harvard has an endowment worth more than $50B. Harvard grads are the ruling class of our nation, and their system of legacy admissions mean it’s essentially a hereditary system of nobility. This endowment isn’t taxed, and generates huge returns. Its one thing to defend poor kids getting a leg up with federal grants, but I’m not sure the ones who pay for it are the same ones who benefit, and the system seems to be eno…
I noticed you didn't come close to answering the question. Complaining that people who aren't you are making money isn't a good look, and certainly isn't a sound basis for federal public policy. You indicated a problem with the way federal funds are spent. What section of what federal statute should be changed? In what way should it be changed?
I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of these basic hypotheses supports reparations? I'm pretty sure there needs to be a 3) blacks are poorer as well.
Take both of the two, and add the theory of compounding interest They're poor now because they were prevented from gaining wealth then, and wealth grows geometrically
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the data supports this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit... I do think it's true that Caltech students are all very passionate about STEM, so the average family wealth is less apparent.
> the data Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. One obvious change is their mission statement has changed drastically. In the 1978 "Caltech Information for Students" pg 105 it says simply: > The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of the California Institute of Technology, as stated by the Trustees, is "t…
Even in the 1990s, a CS program was easy to get into and a local 4 year degree was sufficient for most lines of work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate. > The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation. I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluo…
>I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure? No. You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure, in total. >I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist. https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai... It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it…
> If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. Or the universities could spend a bit less money. Most donations go to things that aren't exactly central to the supposed mission of a university, like football fields or $90 million dining halls [1]. The explosion of administrative staff over the last couple decades also doesn't help. [1] https://www.bizjo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist. https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai... It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it…
> If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. Aren't costs going up for everyone else anyway? Hot take: instead of hoping that rich alumni would donate to universities, the nation could tax these folks properly instead, and use that money make public education free/cheap. There are quite a few countries in the world doing this, not all of them rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist. https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai... It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it…
Elite institutions like MIT, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Harvard do not need more donations. Look at the worth of theirs endowment funds at the end of 2021 : Harvard 53G$ Yale 42G$ Stanford 37.8G$ Princeton 37G$ MIT 27.4G$ Can you honestly tell me that they need more donations ?