That's a lot cheaper than dedicating my working summer to smarmy volunteer/extra-curricular projects.
It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
That is not to say that I think only test scores should matter. But the kinds of extracurriculars colleges value—in particular that they don’t value having a job or working in the farm—smacks of old money ideals.
Western systems vary a lot in their degree of specialisation too. By 16, after the GCSEs the UK is done with being a generalist. Pick 3 or 4 A-Levels of your choice and if you feel like doing Math, Further Math and Physics or three sciences and Maths no one will stop you in the name of "well roundedness".
https://uh.edu/undergraduate-admissions/apply/freshman/fresh... https://www.missouristate.edu/Policy/Op5_01_3_FreshmanAdmiss...
Actually here's a list of a bunch more: https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/10-best-colleges-wit...
These hand-wringing conversations about fair admissions mostly apply only to the elite top X schools. Those places receive tons of applications from academically top-tier students. The are looking for "something else" to make you stand out from the crowd.
Thats why simple systems like a lottery for everyone that's qualified aren't adopted. And the people trying to get in dont want them to be adopted, they dont want the system to be fair or socially useful, they want access for their kids to the exclusive club, with just enough window dressing to make it seem like something else.
Meanwhile, admission to an elite school is neither necessary nor sufficient to a happy, successful life. A couple of the best software engineers I've ever worked with - guys who got 3-4 promotions by age 30 - went to schools I'd never heard of until I met them.
I agree with you strongly that elite schools are not necessary in software engineering, but they make a huge difference in fields like Law.
Pro tip... if you want to be educated well through instruction, don't go to an elite school. The instruction in most of the classes really sucks (with some notable exceptions that are often available for free or cheap online).
Small liberal arts schools tend to do a much better job of educating through instruction.
So trying not to build a aristomafia could be intended as part of the deal with society.
For me, the "HR interview" was "what would you say to convince me of your enthusiasm for physics?" (as in, I was explicitly asked that very question) not "tell me about how your adventures pogo-sticking up the Khyber on your gap yah made you a well-rounded person" (and the "technical interview" asked you do actually do some physics).
As someone who couldn't have afforded a gap yah and would probably have been too frail to go on one, I'm pretty happy about that.
The thing that I'm told they will do is look at your school and weight things like GCSE results and A level results accordingly (as in, if you are at a bad school, they'll make allowances for that). https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambri... is interesting from that point of view.
so imagine how good great test scores and being well rounded is!
For what it's worth, several of my old college friends are heavily involved with extra-curricular programs at the middle school and high school level across a few different states.
From what I've observed, your generalization isn't true at all. The extra-curricular programs are actually heavily populated with students who have two parents working long hours who want something productive for their kids to do after school.
> But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. “Being an officer or winning awards” for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, “has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.” Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/07/12/how_diversity_pu...
If someone is involved in 4H or FFA in a way that would be compelling for an elite school like Harvard or Stanford, I wonder why they would want to go to that elite school.
To use a simple example in California (where I currently reside), highly competitive / leaders in 4H and FFA people would almost always be much better served going to UC Davis rather than Stanford or Berkeley.
If Stanford or Harvard would be a better fit, I think the onus would be on the applicant to explain why. This is very doable (e.g., a focus on agricultural macroeconomics or investing), but I’m not sure most teenagers who do not have connections to elite schools would naturally think to do that in their application and/or other supporting activities.
Not at all.
I live in an area where 4H is big. Many of those people go to Davis and seem to be very happy with their choice, and it seems to be a good fit. Some go to Stanford or Berkeley, and the differences in interests are pretty obvious, even though they are all 4H participants.
If someone is in a club called Future Farmers of America, and they are knocking it out of the ballpark in FFA, then I would expect that there is a high probability that they will have a lot of future prospects in ag. Harvard and Stanford are (usually) pretty bad fits if you want a career in ag, although I can imagine cases when they are actually a good fit. That said, I think the onus is on the applicant (any applicant actually) to show why they are a good fit.
> The same logic would suggest that a kid who won a music competition in high school shouldn't apply to Berkeley because the other Berklee would be a better fit for them
Similarly, if someone has a lot of music accolades but thinks that Berkeley or Stanford or Harvard is a better fit than Berklee, then I think that the onus is on the applicant to explain why. I am definitely not saying it’s impossible or even difficult, rather just that it needs to be done to show that the school is a good fit.
If you spend much time at these elite schools, you see a few people (more than I would prefer) who are completely fish out of water. They are miserable. Sometimes it is because they are not academically prepared (hard to believe, but true), sometimes they have culture shock due to being not from the NE corridor (for Ivies), sometimes they have geographic shock (winters can really suck if you are from SoCal or Hawaii), sometimes they don’t have many peers who share similar interests (e.g., hardcore FFA folks might fall into this category), etc. Many of these students transfer out or drop out. Those are basically failures in fit that admissions officers try to avoid while also maintaining a diverse class (“diverse” here including geographic and SES diversity).
It almost seems like you may have created a straw man here.
1. I’m not an admissions officer.
2. Of course admissions officers look at what the applicant stated and don’t assume.
3. My question “why would a high performing 4h person want to go to an elite school” is a reasonable one. There are good answers to this question. Sometimes the answer is “I have perfect grades and a high sat score.” That’s not a good answer. As a simple example, I have a friend whose daughter has a lot of potential for an elite school, but she wants to be an animator. Her mom wanted her to apply to Harvard, but after they did some research, they realized that Harvard was not a good fit.
4. The issue with most “research” that claims bias in elite school admissions is that they normalize the data based on grades and scores. The scores and grades at elite schools are heavily condensed at the high end, so they aren’t really the main differentiators (unless you are a recruited athlete). The stuff that the researchers can’t easily quantify often swings the decision between reject and admit.
5. So many people seem to be convinced that elite school admissions officers are actively hostile towards highly qualified applicants. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The admissions decisions may look confusing when folks with similar grades and scores have different admissions results, but that’s probably because a key part of their application is unknown to most people, and/or they were marginal candidates and something seemingly small and not easily quantifiable swayed the decision.
6. The biggest source of discrimination I have seen in elite school admissions is at the local school level. Specifically, I have seen school counselors and some teachers subtly sabotage compelling applicants for reasons that had nothing to do with the quality of the applicant (e.g., counselor preferred someone else, counselor/teacher didn’t like something about the student, etc.). But that’s unfortunately on the student to work around — that is out of the sphere if influence of elite school admissions offices (other than to note potential bias).
7. Lastly, I would love to see the data on the folks who were were active in ROTC, 4H, etc. being negatively correlated. There may be a correlation, but I doubt it’s the cause. I would guess that something that is not easily quantifiable is missing in the application. I will also add that some elite schools have ROTC, so that is especially surprising to me.
How do we square scores being heavily condensed at the high end with still seeing large between-group score differences? We'd expect, surely, to see smaller between-group score differences if one end is cut off.
You are asking about a completely different issue.
That said, I think my last sentence still answers your question:
"The stuff that the researchers can’t easily quantify often swings the decision between reject and admit."
I beg to differ.
Anyone who does any of these things at a regional, national, or international level would probably be very strong candidates, assuming they have competitive grades and scores.
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- First chair violin in city youth orchestra
- Winner of regional ice-skating competitions, but not nowhere near Olympic competition-level.
- Winner of regional judo tournaments, again not at Olympic competition-level.
- Winner of regional chess tournaments. Not a national champion. Can’t remember his rank, but he actually didn’t spend much time playing or studying chess as a teenager… he was just a crusher.
- Winner of school-based regional trivia tournaments. Attended nationals but never placed.
- Winner of regional solo sailing competitions. Note that free/cheap access to small racing sail boats was pretty easy in this person’s community.
- Soccer player selected to regional-based national team development squad. Note that, imho, this is not nearly as impressive as it sounds. He also played on a “travel team” (about half of whom also made the development squad) that won many regional tournaments, but never succeeded nationally.
- Many athletes who were not recruited (in that they did not get preferential admissions treatment… see “Academic Index” for more insight), but who were varsity athletes in high school and college in track and field, cross country running, rowing, gymnastics, golf, swimming, diving, etc.
> National depends on the sport and instrument.
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- For instrument, see local orchestra above as being adequate.
- Took two years off after high school to tour and perform with a jazz band.
- Starter on nationally ranked football team who was definitely not recruited to any elite schools and had no intentions of playing collegiately.
- Player on nationally ranked ultimate (“frisbee football”) team.
- Several people who were nationally ranked in various niche sports like fencing, squash, etc., but were not Olympic-caliber.
> International they'd care about even as a bit if it's big enough to get covered in national newspapers
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- Went to international science fair four years in a row. Got there’s by scoring well enough in locals, regionals, and nationals. Note that this is something that an elite school-bound 4Her could do if they tried.
- Co-authored science research that was published into an international journal.
All of these fall into the “sports, instruments, and 4h” that was originally mentioned. It could easily be expanded if community development examples were included.
Note that most of my examples were regional, so I humbly suggest your concept of what is needed for admission is way off base.
Also note that not all of these folks went to Harvard (not all applied to Harvard), but some did.
Off the top of my head, with provincial city being something like Akron, OH and provincial town being something like Bangor, ME:
Provincial cities in DE, IL, MI, TX, MT, IN, FL, OK.
Provincial towns in GA (2... both near military bases), CA (2), TX, HI, WA, WI, PA.
The interesting thing is that being from a provincial area has a lot of merits (and some demerits).
MERITS
- There is often very little competition for slots (depends on state).
- It's relatively easy to have a very high class rank and to be the top 1% of students that a teacher has ever taught.
- It is relatively easy to find ways to stand out in community development, since there are not dozens or hundreds of local kids who are trying to do the same (some for resume padding, some because they are genuine leaders).
- It is relatively easy to get unique learning opportunities like Rotary scholarships to study abroad since most of the people around you lack interest and/or ability.
- It is relatively easy to latch on to some local research initiative because most people around you lack interest and/or ability.
- It can often be easy to be a varsity athlete in some sport just because you are willing to participate. This is true even if you are not particularly athletic, but you are willing to work at it. This may sound trivial and potentially distracting, but note that some elite schools (e.g., Harvard) specifically rate you on athletics.
DEMERITS
- Many/most teachers will not know how to write strong recommendations, even if that is what they want to convey. Short version... provide specific details/examples that describe someone who is actually amazing.
- One or more folks in the process may try to keep you down, especially if they don't like you -- think school counselor, a teacher, etc. It helps a lot to be liked, but a lot of smart kids realize that K-12 schooling (especially in provincial areas) is the farce that it is, so they are often cynical and antagonistic towards teachers and administrators.
- Since school is often very easy, it can be tough to motivate oneself to study tougher topics, many of which have to be studied at a different venue (e.g., junior college, summer studies, self-study, etc.). The smartest kid in school often chooses to coast rather than push themselves, since it is not clear how pushing themselves has the potential to benefit them.
- Unless they are in a good private school or learn from another source, some/many folks from provincial areas are underprepared for an elite education. They often don't have the same foundation of knowledge and study skills that folks who went to better schools have, often times because they rarely or never had to study. Catching up in foundational knowledge and study skills is not impossible to overcome, but it's definitely starting a square or two behind everyone else.
- You probably won't know anyone at your university going in, but some of your dorm mates (e.g., from Stuyvesant) will have quite a few peers with whom they attended high school.
Definitely not typical rural midwestern town by any stretch then.
I’ve spent time in small towns like that (not in the Midwest), and I don’t recall anyone having any ambition to attend an elite academic school (but lots of interest in elite sports schools).
I still stand by my suggestion that someone from a small midwestern town of 10k in the middle of nowhere can get into elite schools. I think the information available in the internet makes this easier than ever before. That said, I wonder how many actually apply.
That happens in certain circles.
I will add that the list above easily does not include the 10 most interesting people I know who got into elite schools.
The “dirty little secret” that helicopter parents don’t want to accept is that the vast majority of elite school students are just really damn interesting people (typically with great grades and scores). You can’t coach interesting, although you can cultivate it over time as a good parent.
More precisely it was first invented by Yale to limit the number of Jewish students admitted, and was later repurposed to limit the number of Asian students admitted.
I get what you're saying though, being a typical jack of all trades high school overachiever isn't the best strategy for getting into MIT. I don't think that's because they don't consider personality though - heck one of the admissions short answers is "what do you do for fun?". I think it's actually because they are trying to avoid the type that does things just to get into college or just because it's the thing to do at their school. If you're an absolute prodigy then it probably doesn't matter either way, but if you're borderline MIT is definitely the top school that tries the hardest to take the kid that seems more genuinely passionate and not like a social climber.
MIT also does the best job of considering context of all the elite schools. If you went to a great private high school you better have taken full advantage of those opportunities, whereas most other elite schools will just see the better overall resume/prior education. This is pretty clearly reflected in the schools' respective demographics.
...
> is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture
First of all, I don't know what "blue blood WASP culture" is. Explain that please.
Second, there's nothing wrong with expecting students to participate in extra-curricular activities like music and art as a basis for admission. MIT is still going to evaluate those things.
Poor kids are getting 'well rounded' by spending summer break at work, saving enough money to survive the school year.
This is an interesting point: why shouldn't work count towards being well-rounded? If anything, work is much more grounded in reality, and a lot of kids who never had to work in high school and college would come off as out of touch (at least to me, as someone who did work thru high school and college). It would be nice if work experience (even if unrelated to a field) was valued as much as being part of a silly club.
Those kids got in.
I think the point is to show you offer something more than just being good at school. It doesn't have to be volunteer opportunities or something expensive.
Based on the admissions decisions the school made (as reported by Reddit) and the changes to content length made over the years, I suspect the school cares about precisely four things.
- Can your write a coherent essay?
- Can you clearly state what your qualifications to pursue the academic program are?
- Can you clearly articulate why you want to complete a 3 year program?
- If there is a problem in your background e.g. a low GPA, can you clearly state why you don’t think this will be a problem going forward?
I suspect everything else was entirely ignored.
> spending summer break at work, saving enough money
is going to count in your favor
if you go to a competitive high school that sends lots of kids to top universities, then you need to stack up your extra-curriculars to stand out wrt all the other kids in a similar position
Having to arrange separate transportation home because you stayed after school past when the buses leave is also a cost.
But elite schools select for (1) students who will enrich the experience for their classmates and (2) who are likely to have an outsized impact on the world as adults and bring prestige to the institution.
There are some people who are so quantitatively intelligent that a lack of social skills/intelligence doesn't matter (geniuses), but these people are so exceptional they can't be really measured by a test like the SAT. It's too easy to get a perfect score.
Instead they'll distinguish themselves by excelling at STEM competitions (eg. Math Olympiad, programming contests, the Putnam).
Usually if someone has an impressive extracurricular that is tough to document, one of their recommendations will mention it in a compelling way.
As a simple example, a relative of mine was a co-founder and editor of the school newspaper at his high school… and it got banned for uncovering shenanigans within the administration and board of education.
That would stand out in an application.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestants
See also: https://www.hbo.com/the-gilded-age. These are the folks who founded Harvard, Yale, etc., and created the ethos of higher education that remains nearly universal in America today.
> Second, there's nothing wrong with expecting students to participate in extra-curricular activities like music and art as a basis for admission. MIT is still going to evaluate those things.
It’s pointless and classist.
Of course, now the term blue blood, just means wealth that has established generational history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastime_with_Good_Company
More seriously, it’s fairly well acknowledged that most of the ivies started as seminaries or were modelled after english places of HL.
This concept finds heritage in Greco-Roman tradition moreso than anything Anglo or Saxon. It's also not uncommon for non-European civilizations to have emphasized educating their elites in both aesthetic and practical matters. For good reason. If your job is to lead a civilization, people are your tool of trade.
The tradition in America has racist--specifically, anti-Semitic--roots. But that doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If there's something sorely lacking in modern American culture, it's attention to matters in civic, philosophical and possibly even literary.
yeah, well so are the ivy leagues
I'm trying to say that we all here are skillful in hollow rhetorics.
So are the schools that gated admissions this way.
using this things as credentials to gain entry into schools is a late development.
I was the only kid in my class who didn't go to college, but I went to one of the top 3 prep schools in terms of Ivy League placement in the country, and the entire focus for extracurricular activities was doing volunteer work. Sports, music, fine art and theater were all there as a potential route, but the advisers pushed kids who wanted to do those things as a career away from leaning on them as a way to be "well-rounded" in the eyes of the college admission boards.
TL;DR In my experience, a kid who had no creative talent but took a summer to build houses in Ecuador was much more likely, in the 90s, to get into the Ivy League than one who played violin, or football.
And how is a lower middle class kid in the Midwest supposed to be able to swing a summer off to build houses in Ecuador?
Church groups would be one option.
Or, Kayak shows round trip flights this summer from Cincinnati to Ecuador for $500. So, Set up a table outside the local grocery store for a few weekends with pictures of starving Ecuadorans and beg. Or, gofundme.
I think the key is initiative, which is one of the main traits they’re looking for.
Kind of wild to erase centuries of cultural heritage by implying that teaching academics with art is a uniquely Anglo-Saxan ideal.
WASP is a tiny subset, and that subset has a very specific history with that concept that's coming into play here.
Sorry it felt uncouth to add the race and religion letters...
I found the emphasis on Indian cultural roots so disturbing that I had to weasel out of conversations by saying "I don't know anything about classical dance, I am mostly interested in science-fiction". It is easier to have your own way as an Indian middle-class student in India than as second generation Indians in the US.
Being an Indian middle-class student in India myself, I'm not sure you understand the level of privilege from which you're making that statement.
As a matter of fact - I wrote a letter of recommendation for someone to volunteer at the library. Due to the competitive nature (I live in an area with lots of 1st/2nd generation, especially Indians)...she did not get a position. Imagine competing to work for free!
Your wife’s hamsters pay to run on the hamster wheel. And your family benefits!
Yes, this has been extremely exploited in America, particularly in tech, where it has:
- Created a sense that some work should be "free", hiding the true cost of labor from employers
- Turned students into an endless pool to be exploited
- Undercut the wages of professionals
That being said, the answer is for the student interns to recognize when it's time for them to be paid and to demand it. A lot of Americans think interning is just about getting your "foot in the door" so you "know the right people" and get a leg up on a cushy job. That's simply not the way immigrant families think. There is a value proposition to interning for free when you're learning a trade. It's how I started. When I came to feel I was being exploited, I asked for money, and got it.
>> Preparing for internship culture
This quote itself implies that you're not willing to put in the effort other people are willing to put in. So now, as an employer, why would I hire someone who didn't feel like putting in the extra work for their resume? I suppose you're owed a job - but then, isn't everyone?
This is very unlikely to happen for East Asians or Indians.
> and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
This “trivial” stuff is often not trivial when done well.
- Sports, especially varsity athletics and Olympic sports, has social currency in elite circles. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but it’s foolish to deny that it’s true. In some cases, participation in sports actually develops character leadership skills.
- The things some high school students are able to do as “volunteers” can blow your mind. The soft skills that these activities can develop carry over really well to the “real world”. Lots of extracurriculars are BS, but the folks who do the BS ones aren’t getting into elite schools based on those.
- If I understand what you are saying, suggesting that immigrants should not need to have the skills to participate in society is mind boggling to me. Elite schools aren’t just looking to churn out brainiacs (and the real brainiacs are getting in on more brainy stuff than high SAT scores and perfect grades). They are looking to churn out people who will impact society. Honestly, some sort of impressive community involvement in the Indian community (as an example) is something that would be a strong part of an elite school application.
I loathe to say it but you've been got. Reread the OP in a sarcastic tone, you'll see what I mean.
I agree with what you're saying but in the spirit of disagreeing with OP, I would devilishly advocate:
When evaluating extracurriculars, there is a chance that the type of extracurricular may matter as much/more than the degree of participation, which can be problematic.
In theory, colleges are just a place where you go to learn. So it doesn't make much theoretical sense to me that an admissions officer would probably think different things when they hear "rugby captain and president of the debate club" as opposed to "full time brother and avid programmer." That's because traditionally, colleges are also where children of privilege learn what the status quo is and how to fit in with one another. Of course we have to measure something other than SAT scores (i.e. IQ), we have to measure how nice they are/capable of leading/willing to learn (i.e. how white they can act/how much their parents know about and push them towards traditional leadership positions/how much free time their family can afford). To some degree, it isn't in the interest of the college to admit someone who isn't also a cultural fit; but the more important culture is in your selection process, the more problematic that process is.
How many DFW public schools have cricket or kabaddi teams? How many bands and choirs play primarily non-European music?
Are you sure that these students are one dimensional boring test-takers with absolutely no interest in being part of their community? Could it possibly be that many are very active members of a vibrant and deeply rooted immigrant community, but that this community involvement doesn't show up because they aren't either playing in a football game or putting on a half time show for a foot ball game?
(I'm also deeply skeptical that participating in band, choir, extra-curricular activities, or sports is actually indicative of much of anything in terms of community participation... playing unorganized pick-up games with friends feels much more participatory than leveraging the well-oiled pre-college apparatus of an upper middle class neighborhood to check the "scholar-athlete" box.)
I’m not even on the side of the Asian families that force their children to study and study alone, but your comment seems to suggest that somehow they don’t have the right to (or are abusing a system). Sounds a bit prejudiced. In the end families which want their kids to “look successful” will make them do whatever is needed, and merely focusing on studies is just one flavor. Look at the Tiger mom bs about Carnegie Hall or Yale law. But at the least they are fully American in their right to do so, and I’d rather have more of them than broken families with kids not even being taken care of.
I'm a child of Jewish immigrants. I had NO planned school/extracurricular activities except for music. I had these requirements from elementary school through high school: (1) Never get less than a B+ on any test or any class, or you're grounded. (2) Read 50 pages of books my father would assign every night, some light fiction, some history, everything in between, and spend 15 minutes reporting what I read to him. (3) No television or video games. A computer was okay as long as I was using it to "work", which could mean writing my own video games. (4) Find a job the day you turn 15, and work every day. Any job you want. Ideally something that deals with the public, like selling shoes. (I went into advertising).
Now, some of my best friends in high school were Korean immigrants. They had a lot more fun than me, but they also studied a lot harder for tests. By no means would I ever think their parents were doing it wrong.
What this sarcastic poster means about the society you live in, is ultimately very shady. The society he lives in is lazy. It doesn't want to study or work. It cries foul when people ask for "welfare handouts", but meanwhile, he is asking for a welfare handout from us the people who work and study harder - by means of claiming it's his culture and we're just here doing all the math right while failing to integrate. That's just not true. It's sour grapes from someone who has been eclipsed in all areas of intellectual and artistic achievement, and is likely to soon be eclipsed in the realm of popular culture as well.
So anyway /rant over. I wouldn't take it too seriously. Just keep doing what you do well.
Exactly this.
And you know what, maybe these immigrants that can't demonstrate their ability to play rugby have more important things to do, like actual work for some purpose other than virtue signaling or self care/healing from dealing with existential threats.
So you're saying only studying and not doing anything else to eventually become a doctor that serves a community in Dallas doesn't demonstrate enough participation in society as much as being able to play a sport?
And don't get me wrong, extra curriculars are important, but the simplistic reduction of immigrants studying hard equates they don't participate in the society is a bit much.
To be fair, it is Texas. Plus, he also mentioned band. Someone needs to play in the halftime show, after all.
Just because they aren't participating in YOUR extra-curricular activities doesn't mean they aren't engaged.
I suspect it's more like their parents prohibit them from having any interest in these extra-curricular activities. Academics > *.
Trying to find some objective ground for discussion, I'll take the bait on your specific analogy: Americans are spending progressively less time in shopping malls[1] and the military[2].
[1] https://www.jeremykisner.com/shopping-malls-will-they-become... [2] https://www.newsmax.com/us/army-recruitment-reduction-milita...
[1] Are Amazon, ebay et al shopping malls?
Given healthcare and college tuition being paid by the state I think you might see [2] drop very, very fast and far. I've heard the argument made that this was why the establishment corrupt of Washington united so cohesively against Bernie.
Weasel words from which my immediate instinct is to recoil.
Do you believe the argument? Then simply make the argument.
Are you skeptical of it? Then do not repeat it.
If indeed you heard someone special make the argument, tell us who.
But saying “I’ve heard the argument made” typically means it’s your opinion and your trying to lend the argument more weight than it has.
I've heard the argument, I repeat it because I take it seriously and it seems plausible to me. I am not sufficiently expert to know with /certainty/ so I don't claim certainty because that would be silly. Moreover when you point out an argument that appears to have some merit but you have not yet made up your mind about, someone here frequently responds with a well-reasoned perspective that is different and based on evidence. Such things make conversation here worthwhile like this particular one basically isn't. Best.
What part of that comment are you calling a smear?
Obviously is not engaging with an argument, idea or evidence and isn't much more than abuse. Also completely wrong in every way as I politely outlined.
And engaging with an argument requires understanding it, and their post is a pretty good way to get an understanding of your actual argument. Unless you mean they needed to engage with your quote independently of what your argument is, which I would disagree with.
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
Much the same as if were to say, (which I am emphatically not) that you are just "piling-in" and are trying to distract from a point about possible contributors to Washington corruption and ensuring that anyone who even suggests such a thing about corruption is worth considering and exploring should be condemned as being weasel-like.
If I said that, which again I am not, that would be personal, not helpful, not engaging with an argument. So I am not saying that. I am now saying explicitly I have zero reason to believe that. I am giving you the benefit of of the belief that the argument is in good faith and engaging with it accordingly rather than casting aspersions about you.
We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth. You're allowed to consider a plausible argument before having been awarded your PhD in it.
What do you think? Is it plausible that the corrupt in Washington united so cohesively against Bernie because with health care and tuition covered the numbers volunteering for the armed services would plummet? Do you think there was a different reason and that isn't significant? Or do you think the corrupt in Washington were not against Bernie? Or do you think there isn't meaningful influence of the corrupt in Washington? Or something else? Or do you not have the right to express any ideas about any of it because there must always be something you can't know about it. If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat. Would I dismiss this idea? Would it become more plausible?
The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist), is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
> The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist), is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
No, but you have to state a stance at all.
If you don't state a stance at all then you're not engaging with the argument you've quoted!
People should engage with what you're arguing, but much less so something you just toss out as having heard. If you don't say what your opinion is, then don't complain that there isn't engagement.
> We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth.
Okay. But say what your view is. It doesn't have to be firm and unshakable. Be clear about if you believe it and how strongly you believe it.
> otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense
The phrase "I've heard the argument made" is one of the clearer examples of weasel words I've seen. Your dictionary definition isn't perfect. From wikipedia: Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think", and "researchers believe."
> being weasel-like
It's a term, not calling you a weasel.
> What do you think? Is it plausible
I guess?? I'd need to see a lot more about priorities in washington before I can have more than a ghost of an opinion, personally. Without that I find it a little bit interesting.
> If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm encouraging you to better express your opinion.
But if you only have a vague idea yourself, then you're not going to change mine either. If you were actively looking for evidence instead of just mentioning the idea I might be more interested? Whatever, I'm not here to post about that, I'm here to explain weasel words.
Intentionally ambiguous or misleading. Heavy emphasis on the intentionally misleading. When you accuse someone of using weasel words you are accusing them of intent to mislead. You aren't calling them a small furry mammal. You are calling them someone who is, in other words, basically telling lies. That is a smear every damn day of the week. "Weasel" being a word used to describe someone untrustworthy hence "Weasel words." Calling mere ambiguity "weasel words" is unambiguously incorrect usage of that term.
My comment was not intending to mislead. I don't believe it is in any way misleading. How you can think that I'm trying to mislead you is not obvious to me at all. This is not cross-examination under oath. This is not a politician's response as to whether their hand was in the till and the photograph of the nude holding the S&M gear was themselves and they were not in their place of worship at that time. I have stated my view. I have heard the argument. Implicitly by phrasing it like that I have not endorsed it but find it has some merit based on my limited knowledge about it. As I have now spelled out in full a few times.
If you think you or anybody has been misled here, I can't really help you, I did not do that nor did I contribute to it. If you think your post is totally unambiguous and are going to ignore the "intentionally misleading" aspect of "weasel words" I also can't help you.
Just don't deliberately smear people speaking to their intentions when you don't know what those intentions are and are totally, utterly and 100% wrong about them. Seems pretty unambiguous to me, I guess that's why its the rule around here. dang does get cross when you get personal. Like accusing people incorrectly of using weasel words, speaking to their intentions with zero evidence, and making them cross about it, just like I am.
It remains a smear and I continue to call it what it plainly is. Maybe they didn't mean it?
You can emphasize that. I'm going to emphasize the ambiguous. As in, you made it pretty ambiguous whether it was your opinion.
> Calling mere ambiguity "weasel words" is unambiguously incorrect usage of that term.
Your use was almost exactly the same as "some people say".
> It remains a smear
Not when calling out ambiguity.
I say the pejorative is there in Weasel Words and so does the dictionary and indeed it must be there to describe something as weasel words or we end up with everything being weasel words. Hilariously the work of max plank is weasel words. He intentionally does not express an opinion on whether light is a wave or a particle.
My opinion on your good faith in that post above is now also unstated.
Some people say Jimi Hendrix is a wonderful guitarist and it's a shame he died so young. What weasel words. You should recoil. Some people say using words with their accepted meanings is essential to communication but James Joyce might disagree.
I intended nothing personal, and indeed my point was to elevate the level of discourse. I would call out 'ad hominem', 'no true Scotsman' or 'motte and bailey' as easily as I would 'weasel words'.
I assure you I too have been guilty in the past and I'm sure I will slip in the future.
Let's let this die.
You doubled down? With no explanation. No justification of claiming it to be weasel words? I guess you can't or chose not to defend your use for which I have called you out. Maybe, in your words guilty in the past, the future and also right here & now then. Consider it.
I've heard the argument made that Louis Armstrong was the most important and influential musician of the past 200 years and yeah whatever edifying conversation were possible it's now very, very dead.
I genuinely thought your comment was serious before reading other comments and realizing you were being sarcastic.
It actually *is* important that these people can get into these schools. If they are studying and working diligently they will contribute to society.
If you need them practicing sports or singing in choir for you to understand that they can participate in society, then that is your failure on assessing students.
That's a nasty bit of what I assume to be sarcasm
Which society? The one that has mass shootings on a regular basis but makes gun ownership a viable identity? Or the one praises love and peace while buying clothes made in sweatshops?
>especially immigrants
not their fault Rutesh has maidens and you don't
“…based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.”
I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities.
To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture.
This means they try to look at the "whole student." For some students, that means academics and test scores to show academic prowess. For others, it's working summers to pay for their college to show it's a personally meaningful step for them. For others, it's being a primary caregiver to siblings or parents while still meeting college requirements to show grit and determination. For others, it's demonstrating consistent progress in pursuing a passion (e.g., volunteering or music or art) with a trajectory that continues through college.
Admission officers say they want a student body comprised of all of the above, and that's how they get the diverse range of students to create a dynamic learning environment.
Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder.
Test scores can be a useful data point towards determining collegiate success, but it certainly won't be the only one used. Nor will extra-curriculars or any other single factor.
The single biggest piece of advice for any applying student: create a narrative that shows how your activities (whatever they are) demonstrate why you will be a successful student that achieves your major-related goals. Your grades, scores, work life, home life, interests, and personal experiences should all be connected to show you are thoughtful, motivated, driven, and have your shit together. Do that, and you'll have the best chance of success at most admissions offices.
This comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry these "box checkers" worked too hard to follow the rules of the game as described to them by their teachers? Your assertion that they "probably flounder" is completely devoid of any evidence, and just reflect your own idiotic biases. People who think like you were the ones giving Asian kids systematically lower "personality scores," dismissing them as "grinds" without a shred of evidence.
The admission officer was describing someone who shows no passion towards anything, and only does it because they're supposed to - which often includes why they're applying to college, because they're supposed to. Is it an idiotic bias to think that someone without passion in a subject area will be less successful than someone with passion and direction?
In case you missed the earlier part of the comment, kids with high GPAs, test scores, etc. - the "grinder" you describe, regardless of race - fit into a different category of a likely successful student that they also look for. To elaborate though, there are lots of "grinders" and differentiation still matters. Are they grinding in math and CS, and also have a Github and contribute to OSS and are applying to the college of engineering? That's better than someone with super high scores but nothing else, because there are probably lots of other applicants with even higher scores. Competing on only one axis is hard.
Like it or not, in a limited resource like seats at a competitive school, admissions officers are looking for small signals. It may seem unfair, but it's what I was told.
And as for the evidence, I'm merely passing on the information I was told by the people making the decisions. They hold the evidence (if it's even an evidence-based decision) not me. Feel free to have your own discussions with them if you'd like, I've generally found admission officers to be extremely friendly and open about their criteria.
we don't talk like that here.
These schools don't systematically reject all box checkers, it's just that there are so damn many of them the admit rate is going to be very low for box checkers if you want a class with diverse perspectives.
I also don't think it's a binary property, and to some extent is a product of how one spins their application. This is definitely a downside of the current system. But there are fundamental, educational reasons to not want your entire class consisting of students that poured every waking hour of high school into gaming the college app.
It's discriminatory and a massive waste of resources. We have to do away with these institutions to build something that actually meets the needs of today. But given government is involved i doubt it ever will.
Their interests are (generally) aligned with their statements, in that they want to find people who will be a good fit for the school and want to stay there. That means academically and also culturally.
As an aside, my kid got into several schools and was rejected by several others. She chose a small private campus you've probably never heard of that was a perfect fit - and she has thrived like I can't believe. They also gave her a scholarship that made the cost lower than almost anywhere else, including public/state universities.
The real tragedy is people who only look at top 10 schools and feel they're a failure if they don't get in. There really is a school for everyone. And I'm not sure what "government" has to do with it, most universities are either private or run by independent boards of regents or trustees.
> To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture.
> This means they try to look at the "whole student."
In the 1920s, "look at the whole student" meant "exclude Jews". In fact, the whole modern "holistic" admissions process was brought into being to exclude Jews [1]. And the "holism" of the process was instrumental to creating the desired racial bias, as "holism" affords tremendous room for subtle biases to entrench themselves. This persists today in Harvard's "personal rating" bias against Asians, which launders anti-Asian bias out to the wider society that rates those students.
I do not think that admissions officers are hellbent on racial exclusion today, but I also do not think that admissions officers can be trusted to describe the full nature and biases of their processes.
[1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_kara...
Yet if a student defines "success" as "playing a musical instrument really well" you'll think that he is well-rounded and deserves to get admitted.
East Asian female at my high school.
- 1st chair violin in the city youth orchestra
- perfect grades
- very high SAT scores
- no sports
- took or tested out of all of the classes in our high school except advanced and AP German… in three years
- admitted into MIT after her junior year
- IIRC, she had some volunteer activities in a science research lab, but nothing significant like being an author on a research paper.
She seemed to be well-rounded enough.
I gamed the SAT by "studying". It took an SAT book checked out from the library and a few hours of practice. The SAT is not particularly hard for a bright student of any background that puts some effort into it. And these days there are more free resources available than ever before.
I get the feeling policies to remove standardized tests are set by those who have no idea what real intelligence and achievement is.
>Yes! Having a job in high school can definitely look good on your college application. As long as it doesn't end up negatively impacting other key areas such as academic performance and extracurricular participation, working in high school is an excellent way to increase the strength of your application.
https://admissionsight.com/will-a-high-school-job-help-or-hu...
It does seem pretty screwed up. I don't see how working couldn't have a negative impact on time for extracurricular activities. Or say someone wasn't even officially a worker, like providing care for elderly relatives living at home.
lol
as such, i'm immensely thankful that the route exists and believe that it should continue to exist as part of a variety of routes for prospective students to demonstrate their aptitude, grit and readiness for higher education.
just as exams and associated scores should not discourage anyone from applying, neither should grade averages or k-12 school experiences. the application process should provide those with all manner of experiences and strengths to make cases that suit their situations best.
Do you really think there's this untapped group of "non-standardized" thinkers out there who belong in the to institutions but for standardized tests?
This sounds a lot like something I'd tell myself when I was 16 instead of dealing with the reality that I was just a lazy, underachieving high school student and would have made a lazy, underachieving college student.
In reality, those unconventional thinkers you're talking about find a way to achieve anyway by unconventional means.
"You have a high IQ, you are smart, you are intelligent, you don't study and you do well etc"
I let it get to my head and instead of growing, instead of recognizing what I didn't know, I focused on what I knew. Pride and ego. For a while it worked so I had no reason to doubt it. But when the sheer work load got to a point where effective time management, strong and consistent work ethic were required I couldn't pull it off.
its a downward spiral, you are not used to putting in effort and seeing good results. that is setting you up for failure.
now? people who do well on tests, who do well in school, are completely deserving because they put in the work and patience.
same with success, its not a matter of rolling dice but focus and it requires:
- knowing what i dont know
- effort & work
Yes there are really smart people out there who could really benefit from the above but many do not like to admit it. I do and now I take the time and effort to know what I don't know. This has nothing to do with race or equity but more to do with your attitude. Yes it can be influenced by our surroundings and events but everyday we get up and make the choice to believe or not believe what we don't know and know.
Having said that if you realize you are unconventional, realize why that is, because an unconventional path is riddled with false paths, pain and require faith. If you are conventional you need to rely less on faith and it is why many try to get others to follow it because it is less risky.
Reading is the most important part. Your score on this section is determined by how much time you spend reading. A student who reads for an hour a day will get a top score, while a student who doesn't read at home will get a low score. Colleges require students to be capable of reading for long periods of time, and the SAT is a great way of filtering out people who are not active readers.
A student with a low reading score might be otherwise intelligent, but intelligence does not make a scholar. A college education involves consuming copious amounts of information; it is no place for someone who struggles with reading comprehension.
Basically, think a very very fun summer camp, BUT we would package in X service features, one per week. This was a win win. Parent's would pay because kid could put the stories of painting the walls in X town on the application, or cleaning up Y pollution on a beach. And the rest of the times the kids could have fun and learn cool stuff (I'm being vague because I liked the program even though you had to have good money to go).
OTOH, I test higher than my actual abilities in my opinion, and that was a relatively unfair advantage the test gave me.
I'm guessing either you think the test is an imperfect proxy for a different (more important) skill, or otherwise you have imposter syndrome.
There's no abnormality here i can see. Your score reflects your real ability.
Would not have happened without the SAT as I was working after school through middle and high school and had very limited 'extracurriculars'
Arguably, someone who knew more than I did but was too hesitant to go out on a limb about it should still have gotten a higher score if the test is designed to assess knowledge.
Anecdote: I recently did some tests where I read a bunch of material before hand and used a combination of short term memory and multiple choice trickery to pass with flying colors, but I still don’t have any real knowledge of the subject area. I barely remember any of it, other than a few bits of jargon.
I feel my grades more accurately portrayed me as a whole but the test was accurate as to potential if that makes sense.
Tests generate a lot of false positives, but they give false negatives less. If you fail you fail for a valid reason.
standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT.
yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.
Obviously many people who are in favor of this hateful divisive racism will try to gaslight you into believing it somehow isn't racism, or try to redefine the meaning of words such that they are innocent and you are guilty. But that doesn't change what it is.
So at the end of the day these institutions will bring in whatever policies they want, and they don't really give a crap about actual racism. All they care about is money, PR, etc.
I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in.
I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that.
I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.
Just wanted to note that this is partly why the SAT was stopped from being used at MIT and other universities - because it tend to score lower for people who are considered to be under disadvantage. In other words, I'm not sure that this approach necessarily leads to a more positive outcome.
Edit: Looks like HN resolve this and it's ranked properly now (no offense meant to the OP).
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted good comments on unrelated things, but if this pattern continues, we're going to have to, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.
The most defensible explanation that folks who claim standardized tests are racist is that the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into the argument, many with which I disagree, but it’s an interesting idea.
Much of the data supports the idea that most of the differences in test scores are due to socio-economic status. When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores
Iirc, race is the largest contributor to variance when SES is controlled for, but folks within the same SES perform much more similarly than same race folks in different SESes.
This is a good example of what I meant by "they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism". If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion you have to explain why races don't have similar ranges while also accounting for the core belief that "we are all equal and race doesn't matter."
The "socio-economic factors" argument is easier to argue and also more widely accepted, yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race.
In my experience:
- Race-based arguments seem to be easier for folks in general to understand than SES-based arguments. Race-based oppression is something that all Americans learn about in school, while SES-based oppression has been occurring non-stop since the start of the country, and it is not covered nearly as much in schools.
- It’s easier to get social support, political support, and/or funding for race-based projects, while SES projects are tougher.
- One possible reason the above two are true is that highlighting SES discrepancies reveals that the concept of American “equality”, even for the majority race, is a myth. This idea of Americans being equal and having equal access to institutions is, imho, an American value that many Americans hold dear and believe to be true, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
Just my 2 cents…
This is sadly not at all the case. See the below famous charts about SAT results split by race and SES (proxied by either parental income or parental education). The lowest SES segments of the white/Asian population score as well as the highest SES segments of the black population.
This then makes it obvious that colleges need to choose between either (a) equality of opportunity where SAT matter and that gets you more Asian kids and fewer black students or (b) equality of outcomes where extracurriculars and 'personality' matter and get rigged until racial balance is the same as in the general population, disregarding the maximisation of talent or ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Educa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Incom...
That said, I think two charts that try to summarize the data should probably combine the two if they actually want to measure SES rather than just SS or ES.
I like this study and summary:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280232788_Race_Pove...
Note that there definitely still is a statistically significant difference based on race, but I am fairly certain it’s not as large as the charts you linked to seem to suggest.
Specifically, I think it has to do with generational efficiencies in optimally using the opportunities that higher education presents.
Simple examples: knowing the hows and whys of relationship cultivation in college, knowing how to avoid or navigate potential educational pitfalls, knowing how to optimally use university resources, etc.
“In addition, the differential direct and indirect effects of income on high school achievement and, in turn, high school achieve-ment on SAT scores may also be explained in terms of residential racial and economic segregation which are, through property values and taxpolicies, related to the quality of schooling. Moreover, the poverty effects reported here suggest the lack of social and educational resources in the larger community that are needed to supplement and complement the learning taking place in schools.”
You’re taking poorly summarized opinions and pretending that combination of opinions are held by a group of significant size.
Just my observation as an outsider looking into America. Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman or whataboutism.
I'm just seeing this from an objective data driven view and puzzled why ppl would react so harshly.
You are taking two different points of views which are made by two different groups, reducing their arguments down to practically nothing, and pretending they’re being made by the same group.
You are mutating the arguments and inventing a boogie man. Textbook straw man argument.
> Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman
There’s a reason for that. It has nothing to do with following a mainstream narrative or not. It has to do with the false assumptions in the basis of your questions.
Yet the standard test does not differentiate the race of the test taker. If race was factored into the test scores somehow then what you are claiming makes sense, but the SAT/LSAT/MCAT/PCAT do not, cannot know the race or socioeconomic status of the test taker because as society we benefit from placing people of merit, who have the aptitude.
Are you comfortable with a lawyer/doctor who is responsible for you because they fit a certain affirmative action profile but scored low on their aptitude test and low gpa to meet a certain quota for that demographic group vs someone who were hired because of their high score on standardized aptitude test and consequently high gpa (that does not discriminate the test taker based on their race or socioeconomic class)?
Would you trust the latter or former if it meant your life/bank account depended on it and is it racism if you do not choose the former?
> What do you think about the argument that standardized tests are systemically racist?
Thanks for asking! IMHO, a couple of ways:
1. Your original asked what GP thinks of people that make the argument. Mine asks about the argument itself. It's subtle but important difference, and to have productive discussion about sensitive topics it's imperative to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Even if one's answer might be "those people are stupid" it doesn't help. By addressing the claim/substance rather than the person, it will likely be a more productive conversation.
2. By omitting your opinion portions, it keeps the conversation more focused. When you introduce "standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT", you move the conversation away from systemic racism and toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well. These seem to me like completely separate topics/discussion.
The examples I added of standardized aptitude test for law school entry and the very real biases against Asians in American institutions requiring standardized testing quod erat demonstrandum was designed to set the context in which you are to understand the implicit spirit of the question (not the people rather the focus on standardized test = systematic racism).
Anything else you derived ad litteram to accuse me of malo animo by "moving the conversation away from systemic racism toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well" is exactly what you are doing here.
However, I am curious to hear what other possible scalable medium you think exists for an institution to properly vet millions of applicants every year and evaluate one's aptitude for law school that does not involve unbiased standardized testing that measures ability to think logically and work under timed pressure? Do you mean to say then that physically active professional sports must properly test a candidates aptitude from their understanding of game theory and physics through a written examination or is that somehow exempt from alternative means to detect aptitude? Shall law schools instead pit candidates in a simulated combat environment like Navy Seal's hell week to test their mental grit? Where does this end?
How does this constitute as systematic racism in your view when the test taker's scantron is measured against a pre-configured solution? Does the scantron system take account the race, socioeconomic background of the exam taker to invalidate and validate their exam responses at the time of scanning? Are test takers given penalties or extra time based on their demographic?
If you want to have productive conversations, you really need to read and write more carefully. Please point out where I did any of these things you're accusing me of doing:
1. Warped your intended context by accusing or even suggesting that you actually only care about people. If I thought that was your intent, I wouldn't have offered you constructive feedback to help improve the conversation. You were getting downvoted, in my opinion unfairly, and I was trying to help you see some potential reasons why. You literally asked about what GP thinks of "the people" and if I thought that's what you actually meant, why would I have suggested that you change it to something else? I would have just downvoted you and moved on like most others did.
2. Suggested in any way that I think SATs are systemically racist
3. Suggested in any way that I have any of the answers to any of the questions here.
Since you seem to care what I think on the topic (even though I didn't offer any opinion on it), let me first disclaimer this by pointing out that if I were going to advocate for a position on this, as a responsible person I would want to do a lot more research because I always try to maintain a healthy volume of Socratic Ignorance, and I recognize that I know very little on this subject. But anyway, I am pro-standardized testing. I think there are real flaws to it that should be admitted, just as there are with any quantitative analysis of something as complex as "likely to succeed," but I think the pros of testing outweigh the cons. I think that standardized testing is one of the few things that give people with less than ideal home situations a chance at a good education and a pedigree (which undoubtedly helps set people up for success). I think the focus on race that discriminates against Asians absolutely is systemic racism. I think it fits the definition of systemic racism better than almost anything else I can think of.
I'm not trying to be a pedantic prick who corrects your grammar, as I said before, I was trying to improve the conversation by giving you a tip (something your downvoters did not do I might add). People on the internet (especially in written forums) are not mind readers. They're not going to magically know that you didn't mean what you literally said (asking about "people"). If you're lucky, they'll do exactly what I did: Give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the best possible interpretation of what you wrote, which is that you didn't mean it literally. As you yourself just illustrated wonderfully, there are serious limits to written communication and it behooves us all to remember that and give each other the benefit of the doubt. From the HN FAQ: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Now, please stop being so defensive, and please start reading more carefully, especially if you're going to get this offended and go off on the attack against people that care about you and are offering you kindness. I think if you re-read everything I said but this time do it with the idea that I'm a friend trying to offer you help to improve your writing and to get less downvotes, I think you'll come away with a much different impression.
Finally, welcome to Hacker News! This is a great community that I think you'll enjoy, but do please review the posting guidelines, especially the section "In Comments": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thank you that's helpful feedback! I certainly didn't intend to be patronizing.
It took a bit of restraint to look past what felt like a personal insult and extract the useful part of your comment though. In the future it would have been a lot better as just a simple informative statement that assumes good faith:
> Your tone comes off as patronizing.
Re:
> I just wish you took the time to read them
Which rules would you like me to read? Can you either provide more information, or give a link and section header so I can know what specifically you're referring to?
They don't measure human potential at Birth and don't try to.
The tests measure certain cognitive capabilities. Genes have an effect, nutrient intake has an effect, nurture has an effect. Trying to fix racism via test scores (or disregarding it) isn't going to help fix racism.
To be blunt. You can look at life expectancy for black and white americicans. Whites live longer. Measuring the difference is not systemic racism. We should not avoid measurements for this reasons.
Some minorities perform worse on SAT. This is a fact. SAT predicts performance in college, this is also a fact.
The question becomes, how do we select college students. Those most likely to succeed, or other values.
People throw this out as though it is fact, when in reality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions...
“In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies do not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.”
“In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and ultimately ruled in late 2020 in favor of Harvard, concluding that Judge Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.”
Elite admissions is more than great grades and great standardized test scores. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but that doesn’t make it less true, and it doesn’t (necessarily) make it racist.
Kids are bombarded with media telling them that success is when you get rich and famous, or when you reach the absolute top of your field. Then again, at school, we're drilled with the lies that college is required and that you need to be in x percentile to get into x school to get x job. Finally, once we get into the workforce, we all judge each other based on our initial salaries, positions, and career trajectories.
As long as there is unequal distribution of resources, anyone with an opportunity to further cement their family's socioeconomic status by taking advantage of the system will tend to do so. We need to be able to offer houses, leisure, and fulfillment to everyone from hyper-privileged techy college grads (like a lot of us) to housekeepers, bus drivers, social workers, teachers, etc.
I'm ashamed at how easy it is to do so little and 'win' in this system while so many others suffer. And there's nothing I can do with my smidge of resources to help more than a few people at a time which makes no meaningful trajectory change to the millions (billions?) that need help.
Sorry for the rant.
If you were able to get good grades in school it wasn't because of your efforts, as a child and teen your brain is largely programmed by the community and environment you grow in. There are no gifted children, only those with educated parents that started early. This is becoming an ever more common theme, especially of kids with teachers for parents whom make too little yet know the systems enough to know exactly how to get their kid past the trite systems created for class warfare.
The solution is to defund universities and stop this elitist nonsense. Just like COVID has shown we don't need to show up to the office, we don't need universities either. We are a better society without their control and political agendas. There is little of value that isn't better done by a YouTube video today.
> The solution is to defund universities and stop this elitist nonsense. We are a better society without their control and political agendas.
As someone currently doing a PhD, I definitely agree that there is some elitism in academia, and that school administration usually sucks. However, I also love the work I do, which I couldn't really do anywhere else, and the community of students and faculty, which is pretty unique.
What makes you condemn the institution as a whole?
> There is little of value that isn't better done by a YouTube video today.
As someone who enjoyed the liberal arts education portion of their education, it seems like we don't have the same way of defining "value." Could you describe how you measure if something has value?