Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-18-2015, 09:39 PM
even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmytheseal2 View Post
I'm not opposed to your stances here, and not arguing with you per se, but don't forget Cambridge, Oxford, (and LSE?), the Sorbonne, Queen's, McGill, etc.



Also, I think it's relevant to this conversation that Terr has indicated in another thread that he thinks there is no substantial racial discrimination in the US, and that the racial disparities in socioeconomic well-being are due to "victim culture" and things like that.



On top of that, Chief Pedant, WTF?

Of course. There are great universities outside the U.S. But the U.S. is still, overall, the most desirable academic destination in the world.

If our namby-pamby touchy-feely admissions process was counterproductive to excellence, as is being posited here, you would think there would be some evidence of that.

The crazy racial people bore me, but I would like to provide some actual information about university admissions process.
  #202  
Old 05-18-2015, 09:47 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Terr, if Harvard's approach to picking students is so god-awful, why do you think Harvard has such a high reputation?

Seems to me if it's been going about things the wrong way for so long, it's record would be dismal and no one would care about being rejected from its lofty halls.

If Cambridge's approach is superior, then it won't take long for all the smart students to ditch Harvard and flock there.

I won't be holding my breath.
  #203  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:03 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher View Post
Amazing how Cambridge requires a personal statement, as do all of the schools in the UCAS system. They also want to see if you have held a job as well. They also might have an interview.
I agree with you, but just a small correction: to the best of my knowledge, everyone who is accepted at Cambridge must have a personal interview, along the same lines as Harvard. They also might be required to submit one or more essays, depending on the college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Sometimes I despair when I think that this kind of stupid crap passes for educational policies in the US. Apparently we don't need world-class engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc. etc. etc. in the United States. No, we need a bunch of less-than-stellar specialists who "overcame adversity". Because overcoming adversity is what's important. Not ability or talent.
The "stupid crap" here is the extraordinarily narrow view of education in general and science in particular that considers science to operate in a vacuum independent of society and the humanity it serves.
  #204  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:09 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
What an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Not quite as ridiculous as the rest of your rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Sometimes I despair when I think that this kind of stupid crap passes for educational policies in the US. Apparently we don't need world-class engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc. etc. etc. in the United States. No, we need a bunch of less-than-stellar specialists who "overcame adversity". Because overcoming adversity is what's important. Not ability or talent.
So a school that has so many applicants in the highest tiers of education that it can pick and choose who it will admit is giving up candidates who will be world class engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc. by seeking to get a better cross-section of society by using criteria in addition to test scores and grades. Your complaint pretends that they are letting in C- students while looking at additional criteria. In reality, all the students who get accepted are already at the top of their classes, but there are so many that Harvard is able to set some additional selection criteria.

(And, of course, that is without even getting into the whole examination of just how many 4.0 students actually turn out to be exceptional engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc. I presume that they will be qualified. However, I have known rather few 4.0 students who went on to be truly exceptional in their fields. Certainly, some are, but a rather large number of those 4.0 students get passed by in real life in terms of quality of output from "lesser" students.)

Your complaint is bad joke.
  #205  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:13 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Terr, if Harvard's approach to picking students is so god-awful, why do you think Harvard has such a high reputation?

Seems to me if it's been going about things the wrong way for so long, it's record would be dismal and no one would care about being rejected from its lofty halls.

If Cambridge's approach is superior, then it won't take long for all the smart students to ditch Harvard and flock there.

I won't be holding my breath.
Let me turn the question around. Harvard's approach is racial discrimination (among other methods). When that is brought up, the response is (as it has been in this thread) that we have to discriminate, because it's the "holistic" approach that creates "diversity", without which academic excellence is impossible.

Well then, how come Cambridge that doesn't do "holistic approach" and actually judges applicants on academic credentials somehow manages to be one of the top universities in the world?
  #206  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:17 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Well then, how come Cambridge that doesn't do "holistic approach" and actually judges applicants on academic credentials somehow manages to be one of the top universities in the world?
Britain does not have the same history as the U.S., nor the same populations. (It may be working toward it, but it is not there, yet.)
  #207  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:19 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Britain does not have the same history as the U.S., nor the same populations. (It may be working toward it, but it is not there, yet.)
That has nothing to do with the question. That is - if in the US the application process was done using academic criteria only, would that damage the academic institution's excellence? Cambridge's example says no. And it would get rid of the evil of racial discrimination. Win-win.
  #208  
Old 05-18-2015, 10:54 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Let me turn the question around. Harvard's approach is racial discrimination (among other methods). When that is brought up, the response is (as it has been in this thread) that we have to discriminate, because it's the "holistic" approach that creates "diversity", without which academic excellence is impossible.

Well then, how come Cambridge that doesn't do "holistic approach" and actually judges applicants on academic credentials somehow manages to be one of the top universities in the world?
I don't know. My guess is that the British aren't as likely to believe their society is a meritocracy, so they are a lot more tolerant of systems that cater to notions of aristocracy and nobility. Americans, on the other hand, like to imagine there's a Horatio Alger, Abraham Lincoln, or Oprah Winfrey around every corner. The only way to find them is to make people talk about their lives.

An interesting story gives someone a chance to broadcast how much of a rugged individualist he or she is. Americans love them some rugged individualism. If a fat Mexican can get into Harvard by making people laugh, then so can anyone. The sky's the limit for everyone in America.

But I'm not a sociologist, so I could be completely off-base.
  #209  
Old 05-18-2015, 11:01 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I don't know. My guess is that the British aren't as likely to believe their society is a meritocracy, so they are a lot more tolerant of systems that cater to notions of aristocracy and nobility. Americans, on the other hand, like to imagine there's a Horatio Alger, Abraham Lincoln, or Oprah Winfrey around every corner. The only way to find them is to make people talk about their lives.

An interesting story gives someone a chance to broadcast how much of a rugged individualist he or she is. Americans love them some rugged individualism. If a fat Mexican can get into Harvard by making people laugh, then so can anyone. The sky's the limit for everyone in America.

But I'm not a sociologist, so I could be completely off-base.
That doesn't answer what I asked. See #207.
  #210  
Old 05-19-2015, 06:32 AM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Terr, if Harvard's approach to picking students is so god-awful, why do you think Harvard has such a high reputation?
Because the reputation comes from something that has nothing to do with undergraduates, that being faculty research:

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/harvard-...medical-school

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The "stupid crap" here is the extraordinarily narrow view of education in general and science in particular that considers science to operate in a vacuum independent of society and the humanity it serves.
Look at the list of achievements in my last link. And then consider than about half those advances occurred when not only was there a lot of discrimination against Jews (and, I think, blacks) in admissions, but there was even greater discrimination when it came to medical school faculty appointments (not sure about liberal arts).* Of course, I think this discrimination was terrible. Without it, science, and medical care, would be more advanced than it is today. However, there are a lot of factors in what makes for a great university. They can very bad in some ways and outstanding in others.

____________________
* Source is early chapters of:
http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Folkmans-Wa.../dp/0812974840
  #211  
Old 05-19-2015, 06:37 AM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
And it would get rid of the evil of racial discrimination. Win-win.
Nah. It would just shift the racial discrimination to a state more acceptable to old white guys.

(And, of course, we have only your claim that Cambridge relies exclusively on academic criteria, a point that has already been successfully challenged. The non-academic criteria are simply different in Britain, so you can pretend they do not exist.)

Last edited by tomndebb; 05-19-2015 at 06:40 AM.
  #212  
Old 05-19-2015, 06:59 AM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
I would like to provide some actual information about university admissions process.
The actual admissions process for any competitive institution of secondary education is pretty straightforward:

1. Get the best academic applicants you can, using standardized scores as the primary criterion; grades (against rigor of topics and institution in which those grades were gained) as a secondary criterion.

2. Winnow the pool using secondary criteria such as breadth of life experience; recommendations; well-roundedness; demonstration of leadership or community involvement...all the soft items which try to evaluate areas not purely academic.

3. Balance for race-based diversity using self-identified (or obvious) race and ethnicity assignments.
  #213  
Old 05-19-2015, 07:16 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
Because the reputation comes from something that has nothing to do with undergraduates, that being faculty research:
Hmm. I don't think the student who applies to Harvard does so ONLY because of faculty research. They apply because they want to surround themselves with incredibly smart, talented people...the kind of students who can take advantage of top-notch faculty research.

If Harvard's approach failed at crafting smart, talented classes, then it wouldn't take very long for in-coming students to notice it and react accordingly. It also wouldn't take long for professors to realize their classes contain too many students who are riding on the fat Mexican overcoming stories and not on innate talent.

Yet I haven't heard complaints from either side about Harvard's inferiority. By all accounts, Harvard is still held in very high regard.

So I'm wondering what's the rational basis for besmirching their admissions approach. You may not like such touchy-feely stuff, but that doesn't mean it does not work.
  #214  
Old 05-19-2015, 07:53 AM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
(And, of course, we have only your claim that Cambridge relies exclusively on academic criteria
That's what their web site says - that I linked to.
  #215  
Old 05-19-2015, 07:54 AM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
So I'm wondering what's the rational basis for besmirching their admissions approach.
Because it is racial discrimination. That's not rational enough for you?
  #216  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:03 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Race-based AA is absolutely necessary, and we should keep it, because all race groups are not of equal potential for all skillsets. Therefore no amount of cultural adjustments will ever mean outcomes are equivalent in groups whose average gene pools for the source populations have been separated by tens of thousands of years.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with this argument, it's no more than a hypothesis as a possible explanation for a few paltry decades of disparate test scores (and feeble efforts at correcting these disparities), with no evidence about the actual genes for these "skillsets" or how they may differ between various populations. And the stuff about "average gene pools" being separated by tens of thousands of years (when most African Americans have significant amounts of European/white ancestry and many European/white Americans have some African ancestry) is completely bunk.

'Black people are inherently inferior in intellectual ability, on average, due to inferior genes for intelligence' is kind of Chief Pedant's big thing... and for some unfathomable reason, he believes that if only this 19th century view on the abilities of black people were accepted (again!) by most of America, things would be better for black people (because, after all, things were so great the last time most of America believe black people were intellectually inferior!).

Hopefully we can avert any hijack, and I recommend any further discussion on Chief Pedant's assertions about the inherent average genetic inferiority of black people's intelligence be in a new thread.
  #217  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:21 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Because it is racial discrimination. That's not rational enough for you?
Since a holistic approach doesn't not equate to racial discrimination, then no, that's not a rational argument against using it.
  #218  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:34 AM
robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The 'Burg
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Hmm. I don't think the student who applies to Harvard does so ONLY because of faculty research. They apply because they want to surround themselves with incredibly smart, talented people...the kind of students who can take advantage of top-notch faculty research.

If Harvard's approach failed at crafting smart, talented classes, then it wouldn't take very long for in-coming students to notice it and react accordingly. It also wouldn't take long for professors to realize their classes contain too many students who are riding on the fat Mexican overcoming stories and not on innate talent.

Yet I haven't heard complaints from either side about Harvard's inferiority. By all accounts, Harvard is still held in very high regard.

So I'm wondering what's the rational basis for besmirching their admissions approach. You may not like such touchy-feely stuff, but that doesn't mean it does not work.
This is a hilarious line of argument that I'd love to see applied to every other organization. Presumably the women advocating for sufferage had no rational basis to besmirch the unequal political process which held that their opinions were not equal to those of a man's, because of how successful early-1900s America was relative to the rest of the world.

Being racist does not mean that you necessarily have a bad lineup of candidates. It means that you're excluding good candidates for stupid reasons, to the detriment of both you and them.
  #219  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:42 AM
robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The 'Burg
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Since a holistic approach doesn't not equate to racial discrimination, then no, that's not a rational argument against using it.
The literacy tests for voting didn't equal racial discrimination, either; they were just the mechanism by which said discrimination was carried out. You could tell this by looking at the degree to which various cohorts passed them (or were never given them in the first place).

So, we're cool with things that have blatantly and obviously disproportionate racial impact as long as they don't actually say they're screening for race? Is this the standard you're comfortable applying to, oh, the criminal justice system?
  #220  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:42 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
Being racist does not mean that you necessarily have a bad lineup of candidates. It means that you're excluding good candidates for stupid reasons, to the detriment of both you and them.
Affirmative Action (and similar policies) act on the assumption that, without it, various biases and forces inherent in society make it harder for various minorities to achieve -- that our society really isn't yet fully equal. I understand many people think that this isn't the case, and that minorities and women who work hard are just as likely to succeed as white men. But for those of us who believe this is still true -- that, in America, there still exist various obstacles that make it harder for hard-working minorities and women (and other groups) to succeed -- the situation without Affirmative Action and similar policies results in "excluding good candidates for stupid reasons, to the detriment of both you and them".
  #221  
Old 05-19-2015, 08:49 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
This is a hilarious line of argument that I'd love to see applied to every other organization. Presumably the women advocating for sufferage had no rational basis to besmirch the unequal political process which held that their opinions were not equal to those of a man's, because of how successful early-1900s America was relative to the rest of the world.

Being racist does not mean that you necessarily have a bad lineup of candidates. It means that you're excluding good candidates for stupid reasons, to the detriment of both you and them.
If you use a metric-based approach, some groups are going to have higher rejection rates than other groups.

If you use a holistic approach, some groups are going to have higher rejection rates than other groups.

Does this mean that both approaches are racially discriminatory?

What's your basis for saying that the metric-based approach chooses better students than the holitistic approach? If both approaches result in super-intelligent, talented classes, then what's your basis for saying that one is inferior to the other?

If Harvard says they've got research indicating that the holistic approach is superior to the metric-based approach at creating the kind of enriching, dynamic environments that college kids thrive under best, what evidence would you point to to counter this assertion?
  #222  
Old 05-19-2015, 09:03 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
If the "holistic approach" is engineered for the purpose of excluding Asians, it's a problem. There seems to be ample evidence that it is, starting with the fact that the entire notion of "holistic approaches" was invented as a way to implement the Jewish quota without openly acknowledging a Jewish quota and continuing from there to the contemporary practice of "balancing" classes by admitting noticeably few Asians in years after a lot of Asians make it in.

Of course, at many other universities, "balancing" takes the form of an explicit numerical penalty on the admissions formula for being Asian. Is this acceptable too?
  #223  
Old 05-19-2015, 09:26 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
If the "holistic approach" is engineered for the purpose of excluding Asians, it's a problem. There seems to be ample evidence that it is, starting with the fact that the entire notion of "holistic approaches" was invented as a way to implement the Jewish quota without openly acknowledging a Jewish quota and continuing from there to the contemporary practice of "balancing" classes by admitting noticeably few Asians in years after a lot of Asians make it in.

Of course, at many other universities, "balancing" takes the form of an explicit numerical penalty on the admissions formula for being Asian. Is this acceptable too?
By this logic, because aptitude tests have been employed for racist purposes, schools shouldn't use aptitude tests to screen applicants today.

A metric-based approach discriminates against people from disadvantage backgrounds--students who through no fault of their own were not able to take a slate of AP courses or SAT prep classes.

Why is it okay to discriminate against these students, but it is bad to discriminate against the eleventy-billion-and-one STEM geek to apply when there are only eleventy-billion slots reserved for STEM geeks?

Shouldn't Harvard or any other institution have the right to have a quota for STEM geeks? Is it their fault that Asians happen to be disproportionately represented in this category*?




*assuming this is true. If you've got data showing that Asians are just as well-rounded in their academic interests as other groups, I'm open to changing my mind.
  #224  
Old 05-19-2015, 09:40 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Sometimes I despair when I think that this kind of stupid crap passes for educational policies in the US. Apparently we don't need world-class engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc. etc. etc. in the United States. No, we need a bunch of less-than-stellar specialists who "overcame adversity". Because overcoming adversity is what's important. Not ability or talent.
I should have said, in the previous response, that "the 'stupid crap' here is your extraordinarily narrow view of education in general and science in particular that considers science to operate in a vacuum independent of society and the humanity it serves". There's more to science than solving equations, and universities aren't just vocational schools -- they also have social responsibilities that should figure in the selection and teaching of society's future leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
That's what their web site says - that I linked to.
I don't think you're really understanding the point about the criteria Cambridge is looking at. In a society where an aristocracy still flourishes, they're saying that individual potential is more important in admissions criteria than ancestry, not that they judge people by sorting their numerical test scores. That's why interviews are mandatory, personal background is important, and they plainly make the point that "we're looking for an indication of your ability to think critically and independently, and your willingness to argue logically but to keep an open mind to new ideas. You also need self-discipline, motivation and commitment, and the desire and potential to go beyond what you've learned so far."

The irony of what you seem to think about Cambridge is that both Cambridge and Oxford have long-standing reputations for providing well-rounded, deeply humanist-oriented educations as opposed to the traditionally more career-oriented approach of American universities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Because it is racial discrimination. That's not rational enough for you?
Except it isn't, as has been amply pointed out here. Universities are a part of society, and when racism was relatively rampant in society, universities were part of that, too. But to suggest that today, the Harvard admissions office is run by a bunch of racist bigots is truly absurd.
  #225  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:09 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
"Disadvantaged backgrounds" (which is your term for 'people who didn't do anything of academic note in high school' by the definition you then give) and "STEM geeks" are not races. It's racist to discriminate against people because of their race, and actually evaluating someone's qualifications for a position in a matriculating class is not the same thing other than in your constructed world where making any distinctions at all is an interchangeable practice, therefore racism is acceptable.

Come on.
  #226  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:10 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
But to suggest that today, the Harvard admissions office is run by a bunch of racist bigots is truly absurd.
So if the lawsuit by the Asian groups is "truly absurd," do you predict it will be dismissed before trial?
  #227  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:44 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
One of the greatest ironies of affirmative action is that it makes liberals argue for racial discrimination and makes conservatives argue against it.
  #228  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One of the greatest ironies of affirmative action is that it makes liberals argue for racial discrimination and makes conservatives argue against it.
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it's quite different.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-19-2015 at 10:53 AM.
  #229  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:59 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it's quite different.
Except that Asians are a minority, too.
  #230  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:03 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it's quite different.
It's still racial discrimination, just towards a different end - "balancing."

Last edited by Velocity; 05-19-2015 at 11:08 AM.
  #231  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:05 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
By this logic, because aptitude tests have been employed for racist purposes, schools shouldn't use aptitude tests to screen applicants today.
The notion of IQ or other "innate intelligence" is, in fact, both racist and scientifically unsupportable, and the myth persists only because, when forced to choose, the sort of insecure white liberals who take great pride in their "IQ score" side with racists over the victims of the IQ myth whom they claim to support. No one should use any purported measure of "innate intelligence" for admissions or hiring.

Now what?
  #232  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:07 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Since a holistic approach doesn't not equate to racial discrimination, then no, that's not a rational argument against using it.
The term 'holistic approach' tends to be a dog whistle.
  #233  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:14 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it's quite different.
This is an amazing insight into the left-wing mindset.

1) Only the other side is capable of doing The Bad Thing.
2) When we engage in it, it can't possibly be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side.
3) Even if our reasons for doing it are to exclude a racial minority in favor of more white people, it can't be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side, and not capable of doing The Bad Thing.
4) Therefore, it is not racist to penalize Asians for being Asian in order to create more spots for white people at Harvard. In fact, it's making up for the "discrimination and bias inherent in society today" against rich white Harvard applicants.

The real racists are those Incorrect people on the other side who think that adopting race-blind policies that would result in fewer white people attending Harvard is acceptable! Don't they know that everything they do and support is The Bad Thing, since they are Incorrect?
  #234  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:19 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Damn dude, save some straw for the poor cows.
  #235  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:52 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Your complaint pretends that they are letting in C- students while looking at additional criteria. In reality, all the students who get accepted are already at the top of their classes, but there are so many that Harvard is able to set some additional selection criteria.
This is what I typically hear about AA. No obvious discrimination, just sort of a tiebreaker aspect. IOW, my hypothetical kid and the fat, gay, Mexican kid have nearly identical test scores and GPAs. The school needs to find a way to break this tie. They read his story about overcoming adversity and pick him. Not because he is fat, nor gay, nor Mexican, but simply how those particular things built his character, so to speak, it enabling him to succeed despite the pressures he was under.

That's the theory, but the reality I experienced was much different. During the law school admissions process it was known that schools cared about two things: Undergrad GPA and LSAT score. The school admissions officer would candidly tell you that you were an "auto-admit" at a certain GPA or LSAT score. A different score would get you "waitlisted" for further review, and a certain other score would likely mean you wouldn't make it. They would also talk about scores that would get you offered scholarships.

Oh, but if you are a "URM" (Under represented minority) those cutoff points were different. (Except for the scholarship limits--those were the same). Drastically different. Scores that would have not even qualified me for the waitlist were auto-admits for a URM. Not a URM with a nice story, but anyone. You could have black candidate who lived like Carlton on the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and a white candidate who suffered from having an alcoholic father who beat him daily; didn't matter. Are you a URM? These are the numbers.

And as has been said by others critical of AA, you see this resentment in the school. When there is a black student, the initial impression is that he must have gotten in simply because of AA. If he is confused and says something silly in class it seems to confirm it.

In short, I think that this holistic review is simply a back door for quotas. The Supreme Court won't let them get away with a quota system, so they hide it under the review process which turns out to act just like a quota. The numbers indicate that this whole "we just use race along with a compelling story as a tiebreaker" is simply untrue.

Your point about Harvard having cream of the crop applicants is well taken. They would certainly not admit a C- student no matter how compelling his personal essay. But they would likely take a 3.7 GPA student. That is unfair to another student who has a 4.0 being marked down only because his parents gave him a good 18 years of childhood. It is also completely irrelevant to the University's mission that a certain student has a compelling story.

Unless we are ready to adopt Chief Pendant's view that some people are genetically inferior and need this bump, we need to end it. An 18 year old white kid did not play a part in Jim Crow or the other abuses of the past. To punish him today for the actions of his ancestors (who may have actually been freedom riders or abolitionists) serves only to keep the racial fires burning.
  #236  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:52 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
So if the lawsuit by the Asian groups is "truly absurd," do you predict it will be dismissed before trial?
Having read the complaint, I do. I am not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs, but the lawsuit is largely based on unsupported allegations and cherry-picked quotes from prior SCOTUS decisions on the use of race as a factor in admissions.
  #237  
Old 05-19-2015, 11:56 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
So if the lawsuit by the Asian groups is "truly absurd," do you predict it will be dismissed before trial?
You mean the same way this one against Harvard was dismissed in 1990 by the Office of Civil Rights of the DoE? Quite likely.

It would be all the more amazing if this got any traction given that the court has already ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that selective admissions criteria that take into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant do not constitute discrimination even if they have racially disparate impact, nor does it constitute a quota system, "thinly veiled" or otherwise. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying, and contrary to some of the claims being made here.
  #238  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Except that Asians are a minority, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's still racial discrimination, just towards a different end - "balancing."
I'm certainly open to the possibility that modern society discriminates against Asians in such a way that makes it more difficult for them to succeed than white people (or others). But the facts that, according to statistics that I've seen, Asians are significantly over-represented among high-scorers, high-achievers, in prestigious universities, in income and other financial indicators, etc., are indications that they are not discriminated against significantly in terms of educational opportunity, from what I understand.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-19-2015 at 12:15 PM.
  #239  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
This is an amazing insight into the left-wing mindset.

1) Only the other side is capable of doing The Bad Thing.
2) When we engage in it, it can't possibly be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side.
3) Even if our reasons for doing it are to exclude a racial minority in favor of more white people, it can't be The Bad Thing, since we are the Correct side, and not capable of doing The Bad Thing.
4) Therefore, it is not racist to penalize Asians for being Asian in order to create more spots for white people at Harvard. In fact, it's making up for the "discrimination and bias inherent in society today" against rich white Harvard applicants.

The real racists are those Incorrect people on the other side who think that adopting race-blind policies that would result in fewer white people attending Harvard is acceptable! Don't they know that everything they do and support is The Bad Thing, since they are Incorrect?
I'm sure this is accurate for the fantasy-liberals inside your mind, but I don't see what it has to do with me or anyone in the real world.
  #240  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:32 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Who's selfish, and who's trying to change which rules?
The Asians are, for both questions.

I think its perfectly fine to have racial quotas (ie. Affirmative Action) to get groups that would otherwise be underrepresented into tops schools. At one point in time, these were created because schools were only filled with white people, and white males to be specific. It is good and correct to force schools to accept a percentage of women and minorities.

Now the stereotype has flipped. Asians are the smart ones getting into a lot of the top schools, at least around here in Southern California. Harvard seems to have a lot of Asians enrolled too, more than their percentage of the population. Doubtless, many more would be qualified if there were no racial quotas at all. So after a period of benefiting from affirmative action, now this group of them wants to eliminate it. Its selfish

Anyone can just claim that "getting rid of racial bias" is what they're trying to do. It apparently takes more sincerity and less bias to acknowledge that superficial racial bias isn't really what some people want to frame it as, and that there is a lot more history that some would like to suppress. You should not ask the question of why banning racial considerations is racist. That's a poor paraphrase of what's actually happening. Instead, I challenge you to ask why it was necessary in the first place and how have those conditions changed to be counter-productive to the original goal of having a racially diverse campus.
  #241  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:33 PM
robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The 'Burg
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm sure this is accurate for the fantasy-liberals inside your mind, but I don't see what it has to do with me or anyone in the real world.
You do note the part where you said that discrimination based on race wasn't racial discrimination, yes?

I mean, I think that Haberdash went a bit overboard, but the pro-AA side is doing the same thing for the same reasons as the anti-Semites who didn't want too many Jews upsetting the holistic racial balance of the Ivy League around the turn of the century. Either you're advocating racial discrimination, or they weren't back then.
  #242  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:36 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
the pro-AA side is doing the same thing for the same reasons as the anti-Semites who didn't want too many Jews upsetting the holistic racial balance of the Ivy League around the turn of the century. Either you're advocating racial discrimination, or they weren't back then.
Well, as we know, Jews are significantly over-represented among high-scorers, high-achievers, in prestigious universities, in income and other financial indicators, etc. Therefore it would be racist NOT to discriminate against them.
  #243  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
You do note the part where you said that discrimination based on race wasn't racial discrimination, yes?
No, I didn't say that.
  #244  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:49 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
It can't be the case that "Harvard doesn't discriminate against Asians" and "it's good for them to discriminate against Asians." The pro-racism argument in this thread is incoherent.
  #245  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
The pro-racism argument in this thread is incoherent.
I've noticed that pretty much all pro-racism arguments are incoherent.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-19-2015 at 12:50 PM.
  #246  
Old 05-19-2015, 12:57 PM
robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The 'Burg
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Only if you see it from the perspective that AA is racial discrimination. If you see it as making up for (in an imperfect way) some of the discrimination and bias inherent in society today, then it's quite different.
Dude, you said it right there. You're saying that racial discrimination in admissions is quite different than racial discrimination.

Now, you might mean that racial discrimination is good when it's preserving the diversity of the Ivy League schools from those pesky [strike]Jews[/strike] Asians and not otherwise, but that is what you are saying. You are saying that it is a good thing that a school is going "OK, you people of this race! It's not that we don't like you in small numbers, but what we really want are students of this race over here, so we'll take them over you when you are otherwise equal scholars!"

This is goddamn surreal. Racial discrimination is discrimination based on race. It does not magically stop being racial discrimination because you think it's for a good cause.
  #247  
Old 05-19-2015, 01:00 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
The Asians are, for both questions.
"Asians are selfish" -- the attribution of negative characteristics to an entire race -- is not racist according to you, I presume?

Quote:
I think its perfectly fine to have racial quotas (ie. Affirmative Action) to get groups that would otherwise be underrepresented into tops schools.
The beneficiaries of the Asian quota at Harvard are rich white people.

Quote:
So after a period of benefiting from affirmative action, now this group of them wants to eliminate it. Its selfish
At what point in time do you believe there was affirmative action in favor of Asians at Harvard?

Quote:
Anyone can just claim that "getting rid of racial bias" is what they're trying to do.
Especially those who are correct in making that claim.

Quote:
You should not ask the question of why banning racial considerations is racist. That's a poor paraphrase of what's actually happening. Instead, I challenge you to ask why it was necessary in the first place and how have those conditions changed to be counter-productive to the original goal of having a racially diverse campus.
When the goal of "having a racially diverse campus" only arose after Harvard noticed Asians taking spots that used to go to whites, and is implemented in a manner that changes on an annual basis to achieve the end of creating a formula that caps Asian enrollment, then it becomes as hollow as "holistic criteria."
  #248  
Old 05-19-2015, 01:01 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
This is goddamn surreal. Racial discrimination is discrimination based on race. It does not magically stop being racial discrimination because you think it's for a good cause.
But only the other people can do The Bad Thing! No good leftist can do The Bad Thing, therefore it's not racist when he supports it.
  #249  
Old 05-19-2015, 01:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertliguori View Post
Dude, you said it right there.
No I didn't. Still don't know what words/phrases you're referring to in my post.

Quote:
You're saying that racial discrimination in admissions is quite different than racial discrimination.
No, I said that AA is not necessarily racial discrimination.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-19-2015 at 01:02 PM.
  #250  
Old 05-19-2015, 01:03 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
I believe we're having this discussion in English. If you'd like to use idiosyncratic definitions of words, you'll have to share them with the rest of the class.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017