The idea you describe in your second paragraph is to some extent rational, too. For example, a degree from a top college means less for a black job applicant because of the heavy affirmative action advantage given to them.

What exactly makes you think that a degree "means less" for a black job applicant than it does for a white one, when a white applicant is approximately 150% likelier to have a degree than a black one is?

Are you attempting to assert causation in the absence of correlation?

I think he meant the following.

Suppose that for University X, the minimal SAT requirement for white applicants was 700/700, and for black applicants was 400/400.

Suppose that the SAT scores of all white students at X are uniformly distributed over (700-800/700-800), and those of the black students are uniformly distributed over (400-800/400-800).

Now randomly pick one white student, and one black student.

Which of them is likely to have the higher SAT score?

And which do you want performing heart surgery on your child?

That is indeed what I meant.

It's a whole lot more "obvious" here in South Africa. There are actual quotas, rather than "score" enhancements and juggling like there is in America.

With the assumption that the "range" of ability is equal in both groups. The simple fact that you take a smaller quantity of one, rather than the other, implies that you're taking a different ability range of one group over the other.

So if you have 100 black, 100 white students, and both their group scores range using a normal distribution from 500-1000. But you enforce that only 10 whites can be taken, and 40 blacks should be taken. Then you're guaranteeing that only the "top" 10 of the white students get picked, while with the blacks the top 40 get picked. This means you're going down the distribution and selecting black individuals that have lower scores.

American schools also use quota-like systems.

Your heart surgery question is ridiculous. As anyone who has taken the SAT can attest, it has nothing to do with ability to perform complex medical procedures.

As for your question about which number drawn at random from two differently distributed populations would be higher on average - yes, in this hypothetical college that admits black students with SAT scores below the black population's average but only takes white students who are 1+ STD above the white population's average, I would expect the white students to have higher SAT scores.

What I would interrogate is why you seem to be defining the worthiness of students by their SAT scores, which most elite colleges now essentially disregard, since studies have shown that it correlates alarmingly well with parents' income.

I also don't understand why so many people, when discussing the merits of college or job applicants, are so focused on the exact point of application, to the point of refusing to consider earlier opportunities and environmental effects.

Wouldn't you consider a 500 SAT score from a low-income family's student more impressive than a 500 SAT score from a high-income family's student, based on the relative availability of SAT prep classes to the two students? Shouldn't such contextual information be considered when evaluating candidates? Wouldn't you say that the candidate from the less advantageous background who has achieved identical "on paper" results is more deserving of selection, considering what they must've overcome to achieve such results? If the candidate from the less advantageous background is more deserving, why do studies find that, when presented with identical applicants, hirers will choose the one with the whiter name? [0] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...

His heart surgery question is ridiculous, but standardized testing is clearly necessary. There are more than 30,000 high schools in the US, meaning 30,000+ valedictorians. There are ~1,500 freshmen spots at Harvard, how does Harvard choose who to admit? And which elite schools disregard SAT scores? I only did a small sample (MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale) and they all require the SAT/ACT.

Secondly, many elite schools pride themselves on "need-blind" admissions, meaning they do not know the applicant's financial situation when deciding whether or not to admit him/her. This is to protect poor kids from being discriminated against (since they would need extra financial aid from the school), but it also means they can't give a leg-up to poor students.

Given that family income is highly correlated with SAT performance, it's pretty perverse that the best way for a poor student to gain admission into an elite university is to ace their SAT's and masquerade as a rich kid on their application.

My post above was merely an attempt to clarify, in broad strokes, the garanduss's point ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13432466 )

Perhaps my use of SAT scores in particular was a mistake, but hopefully you came away with a better understanding of garanduss's original post.

You're pontificating too much on test scores when that's only part of it. Standards are generally lower for black and Hispanic applicants - they don't just receive a test score handicap. Also, they get much of this advantage regardless of the quality of their home life and previous schools.

> If anything, I'd argue that they are creating a boogey man.

The concept itself perpetuates the boogey man.

We see these lawsuits and each one subconsciously implies, "Yep, racism is still a big problem in the industry. Here's another big company being sued for it. It's a good thing we have the Dept of Labor watching out for stuff like this. Who knows what these companies would be getting away with without it."

But it's the lawsuit itself that makes you think that, regardless of how much actual racism in the industry plays into it. It's self-perpetuating.

I'd argue that most people will only pay lip service to the idea of equality until someone steps in to actually force them to walk their talk.

Most of the problems I've seen with diversity hires being "less capable" has been because they've had to work with people who are poor communicators and can't get past the idea that not everyone has the same shared background they do.

That means your co-worker from Taiwan doesn't recognize your carefully constructed metaphors based arounds star wars quotes, and they will likely try their best to understand what you meant, but you should have just communicated like an adult instead of an excited teenager.

> I'd argue that most people will only pay lip service to the idea of equality until someone steps in to actually force them to walk their talk.

Most people don't care about anything. But apathy isn't inequality unless it's applied unequally.

> Most of the problems I've seen with diversity hires being "less capable" has been because they've had to work with people who are poor communicators and can't get past the idea that not everyone has the same shared background they do.

Lack of shared background is a type of being less capable. People use Star Wars metaphors because when everybody gets them, the metaphor is more engaging and takes less explaining than the non-metaphor version.

And you're making this out to be a problem, but it's really only an advantage of cultural assimilation. Hang around coders for a while and you'll decide it's time to see Star Wars. Which you can do even if you're originally from Taiwan.