71–80 of 624 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you suggest we increase admissions for under-represented groups?
Attack the root of the problem by building better schooling in disadvantaged areas so they increase their chance to be accepted?
Set standards, let people meet them, and don't worry about what they look like.
That's one way to do it, but then you just perpetuate the biases inherent in the system. For example if the standards include "child of an alumni", that's not very fair. If the standards include GPA, that's not very fair to someone who went to a school that doesn't offer AP tests. And what they look like is important because certain people experience life very differently depending on what they look like.
Some of this is pretty on-point. 'child of alumni' is somewhat dumb standard. I guess part of it is looking at standards and ensuring they're based in rational, and logical ideas.
However, if the issue with the standard being good GPA is that it's not fair to someone who went to bad school. The issue isn't the standard, it's the school. A better attempt to increased enrollment is to focus on ensuring better schools are provided to those students.
> And what they look like is important because certain people experience life very differently depending on what they look like.
That's correct. However, it's not clear to me how lowering standards is good? It's simply lowering the quality of students overall. Again, the solution falls to actually improving the level of quality of education for the under-represented groups instead of lowering standards.
In general, this discrimination is the definition of racism. Replace Blacks with White, and replace Asians with Blacks and you can be pretty clear how similar it is to racism of the past.
Quoting a paragraph from the article with slight changes:
> Among other things, standardized testing requirements were eliminated, and subjective admission criteria were added in an effort to deny slots to African-Americans and boost enrollment among white Americans.
If I saw that in a newspaper, I would conclude that's some racist stuff right there. If I remember correctly, most of the world, including America, in general decided a while ago that this Racism thing is not good.
the problem is and always has been that the particular school you attend has too much weight, irrespective of ability or aptitude. if college admissions were high school blind then this wouldn't even matter to begin with. simply being great, regardless of which school you attend would be enough. re: TJH admissions: > In 2020, during the summer after George Floyd’s death, the Virginia state government announced that i…
> the problem is and always has been that the particular school you attend has too much weight, irrespective of ability or aptitude. if college admissions were high school blind then this wouldn't even matter to begin with. simply being great, regardless of which school you attend would be enough. Concisely said. Blinding applicants' high schools would reveal the inequality in treatment latent in our educational syst…
Which way?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
(Not saying this study is necessarily predictive of "inequality in schools", just that we shouldn't expect it to be a sure thing like you suggest)
the problem is and always has been that the particular school you attend has too much weight, irrespective of ability or aptitude. if college admissions were high school blind then this wouldn't even matter to begin with. simply being great, regardless of which school you attend would be enough. re: TJH admissions: > In 2020, during the summer after George Floyd’s death, the Virginia state government announced that i…
They should clearly eliminate the test fees and make free prep material available for those who can't afford them. Conduct free preparation classes for anyone to attend etc. A lot can be done to make standardised tests more accessible. That would serve a greater purpose.
What is the mainstream Progressive justification for discriminating against Asians?
I haven't encountered any. When confronted with the evidence of anti-Asian discrimination, I see mostly denials that it is happening, with claims that performance on standardized tests is not a measure of competency, and thus that the admittence rate for Asians being disproportionately low relative to their standardized test results is not a sign of unfair discrimination.
That's mostly an attempt to get around this:
Average US Asian IQ: 105.
Average US White IQ: 99.
Average US Black IQ: 85-90.
Most comments focus on the black-white gap, but the Asian/non-Asian is substantial.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-scor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as you applied and had the minimum required GPA of 3.5, GPA is not a useful measurement across schools in the US, because the scope of difficulty and curriculum varies widely between states and municipalities. It's also easy to game in schools that offer advanced courses- just don't take them. At my school, the people who had the highest GPA did so by avoiding classes like AP calculus BC. Any one of these m…
> GPA is not a useful measurement across schools in the US Didn't Google do some hiring study and find that grades didn't matter as long as they were above a 3.0 or something? I know there is a lot of noise in grades, but there's probably some threshold. Here's some source https://web.archive.org/web/20210610101258/http://qz.com/
What is the mainstream Progressive justification for discriminating against Asians?
Set standards, let people meet them, and don't worry about what they look like.
That's one way to do it, but then you just perpetuate the biases inherent in the system. For example if the standards include "child of an alumni", that's not very fair. If the standards include GPA, that's not very fair to someone who went to a school that doesn't offer AP tests. And what they look like is important because certain people experience life very differently depending on what they look like.
so make AP classes run/subsidized by the state, rather than trying to assign quotas to college admissions.
I understand that tackling overrepresentation and underrepresentation is important; but, when emphasizing race to the degree that these academic institutions are, isn't this leading to representation disparities within the racial categories themselves? The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system. The same underlying disparity potentiality applies to whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc...
The interpretation being, that it's a sort of half-committed approach to equity that isn't really leading to equitable outcomes if that makes sense, and may even be exacerbating ethnic marginalization within the racial categories.
Another question is, if this isn't leading to genuine equity of outcomes and instead passing discriminatory behavior onto smaller, marginalized ethnic groups, what do you do then? Do you revisit implementing an improved meritocracy system, or implement an equity based system with greater accuracy and precision to prevent this?
This doesn't even begin to tackle the issues current racial categorization creates with multiracial people and the essence of "purism."