651–660 of 674 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have a lot of signal on what kind of session it is. It's not the conclusion I'd jump to from one Free Beacon screenshot.
Do you think multiple people would naturally volunteer to say those things in a regular session?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you read what I wrote you will not find the word extremist anywhere. I missed that you were a different poster than the one I responded to. > I didn’t say you you intend to sabotage quality education. I said you were against excellence. Turning a gifted school into a normal one will in practice be the end of academic acceleration. But it isn't turning a gifted school into a normal one. The proposal still require…
I do not support the entrance standards you describe but if the school is as AP test centric as you describe not that much will be lost. I oppose any standards that for a gifted and talented school that allow anything but test scores on blindly marked tests to count because I trust that they will be used to keep the wrong sort out, whether that’s currently Asians or Jews. IB is at best very little better than AP. If…
The school is stunningly AP centric. When I attended, total number of AP courses taken was the primary measure distinguishing students. There were entire core classes that were not offered as non-AP courses. It is a major metric in what makes the school so highly rated in magazines.
The school does teach advanced classes, but the best stuff isn't in the test-driven structure. I'm married to a college professor and friends with many of them. The idea that APs are equivalent to college courses is largely bunk.
> a limited amount will be lost by allowing administrators more leeway to discriminate against Asians.
How precisely is a random lottery that requires certain education history and grades to enter discriminating against asians? Asian students still disproportionately make up lottery-eligible students.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...have you been to Harvard’s campus? There are many, many Asian students there. In fact, nearly one in five students at Harvard are of Asian descent. The idea that elite schools are purposely excluding Asians is absurd on its face.... So, as long as you see some people of a given race and it meets some arbitrary % in your mind, that's enough, is that the argument you're making? No discrimination going on then? This…
Harvard makes an effort to create a diverse class of students. That includes race but it also includes geography. Is Harvard excluding kids from New Jersey and New York because it goes out of it's way to admit kids from Nebraska and Montana?
"According to enrollment data from the Office of Admissions provided by Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson Anna Cowenhoven, 51.5 percent of the non-international students who enrolled in Harvard’s Class of 2018 hail from just four states: New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts." https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/3/26/regional-divers...
The following has numbers by state that seem consistent with the article from the Crimson: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/s...
It suggests that (New York and New Jersey) have over an order of magnitude more students admitted to Harvard per capita than (Montana and Nebraska).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US isn't the world.
Sadly, it's not solved in the rest of the world either. LGBT rights in Poland and Russia are in dire straits. In Chechnya, I think they still deport gay people. In far too many countries, homosexuality is still illegal. Even in the Western world, growing up gay or trans often is associated with a measurably higher level of stress. Of course, it got better, but it's still not over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No evidence is given about whether the bias is unconscious.
I believe it can be inferred that it's not conscious, because if women were actually being hired intentionally at a 2 to 1 ratio, that would be an obvious violation of law against gender discrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Saying "economics reject the LTV" is in my mind a bit like saying that physicists reject Newtonian mechanics. No. It is not rejecting it in the way that physicists reject Newtonian mechanics. Instead it is that most modern day economists reject Marxian economics in the same way that astronomers reject flat earthers. The labor theory of value is just completely bunk. Source: https://voxeu.org/article/marx-and-modern…
I'm not quite sure how to say this in a non-confrontational way, but... the thesis of the article you quote is literally identical to the thesis of my posts -- that Marx is in fact influential on modern economics. Again, I don't want to be confrontational, but... did you read the article you're quoting? The thesis is literally the opposite of what you claim it is. > "Few economists doubt that Marx flunked economics"…
So you do not refute this statement?
I using this source to reference the opinions of economists.
This is what economists believe.
The rest of the blog post makes no other references to what economists actually believe.
I am merely using the source to explain to you, what the general opinion of economists is. (even though the author disagrees with the opinion of economists)
The person in the blog post (Samuel Bowles) is literally a Marxian. So yes, I do know that a Marxian believes in Marxian economics.
But I am using this source, because even a Marxian is willing to admit that basically all economists think that Marx was bunk.
Even a supporter of Marxian economics is aware that his opinions are fringe, and that the rest of academia disagrees with him.
Which is why I am using him as a source. Because even though he gives arguments in favor of Marx being relevant, he is willing to admit that all of his fellows in academia, disagree with him.
> it looks like the best source you can muster for your claims is making substantively exactly the same argument I'm making
The source that I am showing, is by a Marxian economist who admits that he is in the extreme minority position, and that everyone disagrees with him.
This absolutely supports my point. Even a strong supporters of Marxian economics is saying that everyone disagrees with him, and that he is fringe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not clear that cigarette smoking is actually net harmful, due to the substantial decrease in obesity associated with smoking.
What an insane point of view. Both are terrible things that we should find solutions to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Standardized tests could also be considered a way for picking the right kind of person: namely, people who know that standardized tests are something to prepare for. I’ve tutored students at both elite and underperforming high schools. Students at elite schools, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, are highly aware of the importance of standardized tests. Some of the underperforming high schools don’t even adm…
> " As for affirmative action being an effort to keep out Asians...have you been to Harvard’s campus? There are many, many Asian students there. In fact, nearly one in five students at Harvard are of Asian descent. The idea that elite schools are purposely excluding Asians is absurd on its face. The people pushing the idea have an axe to grind and it usually isn’t actually in the interest of Asian-Americans. " If you…
I was wrong to minimize the struggles of Asians in this country. There is real discrimination against Asians. Your comment and others have changed my view. Thanks for helping me work through my own blind spots on this issue. I didn’t mean to wave away your pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook could have chosen not pursue algorithm-based advertising as a business model. I think this is hugely presumptuous. Is there an alternative model they could have used? Are there companies using such alternative models? It's hardly persecution to insist that American businesses stop doing gross harm to the American people. Agreed, but it's very much not clear what the harm is. To say that it's algorithm-based…
Algorithmic advertising allows companies to take advantage of evolved human behaviors to drive sales. For my tastes, it has gotten out of control and disgusting. I'm tired of being treated like a consumer, and I'd imagine the majority of people feel that way in their bodies, even if they aren't conscious of it (my small N sample is pretty heavily in agreement). The whole process of being advertised to is exhausting.…