Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Public opinion in this country is completely taken over by neo-marxism in its different manifestations such as racial affirmative action and gender preferences. There is a perfect natural experiment in what happened when pure intellectual meritocracy pushes through: Caltech. Caltech did not preferentially admit legacies, athletes, women or people of color. The result was that, just to give an example, the 236 freshman class of 2008 only included 13 hispanic and 2 black students, but a full 40% of Asians. In recent years, the pressure applied by the powers that be has been too much to bear and even that shining bastion has had to bend the knee. Nevertheless, it remains very much an example of excellence above all compared to the rapidly declining standards of its peers. Caltech was known for being the only top school that did not have an embarrassing bottom quartile of students who had no intellectual reason to be on campus.
You radicalized my opinion by implying that I consider test scores the only valid criterion.
However, my argument is that objective measures (including but not limited to test scores) should weigh much more than other factors such as family background. "Abusive stepfather" is obviously a rhetoric expression referring to such inappropriate factors.
Anyway, I know nothing can be changed. In fact, in recent years, college admissions are heading to the opposite direction.
Nobody radicalized your opinion. I was going on the information you provided during the discussion. I even gave you the opportunity to clarify with questions and my counter arguments. You chose to do neither until you realized you boxed yourself into a corner. You never did fully clarify why an admissions committee should not look at the entire applicant when determining if the applicant is both capable of being successful in the program and also adds additional value to the composition of the student body. You also never spoke to my point that a student who happens to have a lower test score than another doesn't always means the one with the lower score is less likely to be just as successful and, in fact, may even be more intelligent. Also, grades are very qualitative and tests vary so I don't really see a point to what you've contributed here. Meritocracy? I like elements of that too. More than one way to measure merit and abilities.
Public opinion in this country is completely taken over by neo-marxism in its different manifestations such as racial affirmative action and gender preferences. There is a perfect natural experiment in what happened when pure intellectual meritocracy pushes through: Caltech. Caltech did not preferentially admit legacies, athletes, women or people of color. The result was that, just to give an example, the 236 freshman class of 2008 only included 13 hispanic and 2 black students, but a full 40% of Asians. In recent years, the pressure applied by the powers that be has been too much to bear and even that shining bastion has had to bend the knee. Nevertheless, it remains very much an example of excellence above all compared to the rapidly declining standards of its peers. Caltech was known for being the only top school that did not have an embarrassing bottom quartile of students who had no intellectual reason to be on campus.
Yeah there is a difference in considering all the merits of an applicant and simply using identity benchmarks. Sometimes those identity benchmarks form part of the basis of demonstrating the abilities that would/may indicate merit, but pure affirmative action was not what I was advocating. I think it's quite possible to take into account qualitative merits which both portend success and add other intangible value to the learning experience. If you have students that are intellectually incapable of doing the work, then that's obviously a problem for all concerned. A student, even if not with the absolute highest grades or scores, would need to fundamentally be capable of performing at a baseline level of success in the program.
You never did fully clarify why an admissions committee should not look at the entire applicant when determining if the applicant is both capable of being successful in the program and also adds additional value to the composition of the student body. You also never spoke to my point that a student who happens to have a lower test score than another doesn't always means the one with the lower score is less likely to be just as successful and, in fact, may even be more intelligent. Also, grades are very qualitative and tests vary so I don't really see a point to what you've contributed here. Meritocracy? I like elements of that too. More than one way to measure merit and abilities.
Because in a discussion we don't need to repeatedly state the obvious, especially when I know you just enjoy arguing against other people, in all threads that involve you. Why waste time?
Of course an application package includes all sorts of information to be considered. The whole point is that we should focus more on objective criteria, and less on irrelevant factors. However, we all check additional information when it is available, especially when something is unique.
Of course tests vary. That is why we have a bunch of research in standardized tests. Students are also allowed to take some tests multiple times. In some countries (e.g. Japan, Korea, China), all college candidates take a national college entrance exam, so everyone has the same test. Not to say the US must adopt the same, but to give you an example how this can be done.
Of course a smarter kid can sometimes score lower. However statistically, more intelligent students do score better. When we make a policy, we rely more on group data not individual exceptions. Some unfortunate individuals who do not perform well may end up attending an undesirable school, but that is not the end of his life either. There are many colleges in the US, and good students can find a chance to stand out.
People who score high can be diverse too. Some play the piano, others play football. We just don't use them for admissions decisions. Nobody says high performing kids are all the same.
Last edited by MtPleasantDream; 04-27-2022 at 05:48 PM..
Because in a discussion we don't need to repeatedly state the obvious, especially when I know you just enjoy arguing against other people, in all threads that involve you. Why waste time?
Of course an application package includes all sorts of information to be considered. The whole point is that we should focus more on objective criteria, and less on irrelevant factors. However, we all check additional information when it is available, especially when something is unique.
Of course tests vary. That is why we have a bunch of research in standardized tests. Students are also allowed to take some tests multiple times. In some countries (e.g. Japan, Korea, China), all college candidates take a national college entrance exam, so everyone has the same test. Not to say the US must adopt the same, but to give you an example how this can be done.
Of course a smarter kid can sometimes score lower. However statistically, more intelligent students do score better. When we make a policy, we rely more on group data not individual exceptions. Some unfortunate individuals who do not perform well may end up attending an undesirable school, but that is not the end of his life either. There are many colleges in the US, and good students can find a chance to stand out.
People who score high can be diverse too. Some play the piano, others play football. We just don't use them for admissions decisions. Nobody says high performing kids are all the same.
There's a really substantive answer. lol
I'm all for standardized tests. That doesn't mean they should form the primary basis of admissions decisions for reasons I've already stated. Playing the piano or football are not unique challenges that a child may have encountered during their lifetime, overcame, and still performed well academically (and perhaps also engaged in other activities). The world is not comprised of 0's and 1's and neither are people. We look at entire people and situations for that reason. All these people will need to function in a multi-faceted world that goes well beyond the black and white not quite so objective paradigm you claim to favor. A world that requires talents that go well beyond what is measured on a SAT or GRE. Your assertion that in admitting those with unique or multi-faceted potential we are simply giving a prize to someone who doesn't deserve it, is a false characterization based on your seemingly narrow view of what education is about. We're not talking about a trade school.
And the higher test scorer who doesn't get admitted didn't "lose" their seat to someone who had a lower score, the school determined that the student possessed other qualities and experiences that added value to the learning experience and that their education posed a potential positive for society. In the selective schools at issue here there will always be many worthy students not admitted. There are many colleges in the US, and good students can find a chance to stand out.
Of course a smarter kid can sometimes score lower. However statistically, more intelligent students do score better.
Forgot to mention, high SAT scores are also statistically correlated to students from families according to their wealth, as well as intact families and other factors. And yes, if you have a higher IQ you are more likely to have successfully acquired the knowledge you need to get a good score on the SAT. If you get a great score you are more likely to have access to the resources to study for it in home environment that is probably supportive and conducive to doing so.
Last edited by bostongymjunkie; 04-27-2022 at 07:17 PM..
Public opinion in this country is completely taken over by neo-marxism in its different manifestations such as racial affirmative action and gender preferences. There is a perfect natural experiment in what happened when pure intellectual meritocracy pushes through: Caltech. Caltech did not preferentially admit legacies, athletes, women or people of color. The result was that, just to give an example, the 236 freshman class of 2008 only included 13 hispanic and 2 black students, but a full 40% of Asians. In recent years, the pressure applied by the powers that be has been too much to bear and even that shining bastion has had to bend the knee. Nevertheless, it remains very much an example of excellence above all compared to the rapidly declining standards of its peers. Caltech was known for being the only top school that did not have an embarrassing bottom quartile of students who had no intellectual reason to be on campus.
As a Caltech alum, it’s worth pointing out that part of the reason for such low numbers of black and Hispanic students wasn’t that they weren’t admitted, but that they chose to go elsewhere. I think one of the reasons I heard was that the very small numbers of black and Hispanic students made it off putting for perspective black and Hispanic students.
I'm all for standardized tests. That doesn't mean they should form the primary basis of admissions decisions for reasons I've already stated. Playing the piano or football are not unique challenges that a child may have encountered during their lifetime, overcame, and still performed well academically (and perhaps also engaged in other activities). The world is not comprised of 0's and 1's and neither are people. We look at entire people and situations for that reason. All these people will need to function in a multi-faceted world that goes well beyond the black and white not quite so objective paradigm you claim to favor. A world that requires talents that go well beyond what is measured on a SAT or GRE. Your assertion that in admitting those with unique or multi-faceted potential we are simply giving a prize to someone who doesn't deserve it, is a false characterization based on your seemingly narrow view of what education is about. We're not talking about a trade school.
And the higher test scorer who doesn't get admitted didn't "lose" their seat to someone who had a lower score, the school determined that the student possessed other qualities and experiences that added value to the learning experience and that their education posed a potential positive for society. In the selective schools at issue here there will always be many worthy students not admitted. There are many colleges in the US, and good students can find a chance to stand out.
Oh of course people have different experiences, talents and capabilities, which can all be valuable.
I admire, say, Tom Brady for his talents and perseverance, which far exceed mine. However, I am strongly against the idea that MIT (STEM program) should accept him because of that.
They have other ways to shine, and there is no need to take the seats of top universities from others.
Finally, things are all relative. If some disabled student has about the same academic records as a healthy student, it is not unreasonable to favor the former, since education has many purposes, not just to produce workers. However, the fact is George W Bush and alike are often favored in the current system. Those who do not have fancy stories to tell, but just work very hard, are discriminated against.
Oh of course people have different experiences, talents and capabilities, which can all be valuable.
I admire, say, Tom Brady for his talents and perseverance, which far exceed mine. However, I am strongly against the idea that MIT (STEM program) should accept him because of that.
They have other ways to shine, and there is no need to take the seats of top universities from others.
Finally, things are all relative. If some disabled student has about the same academic records as a healthy student, it is not unreasonable to favor the former, since education has many purposes, not just to produce workers. However, the fact is George W Bush and alike are often favored in the current system. Those who do not have fancy stories to tell, but just work very hard, are discriminated against.
You're making up things that were never at issue and arguing against them. Nobody argued that an athlete like Tom Brady should be admitted based on his sports ability or legacy admissions. If anything, your favoring the SAT over anything else favors wealthier people. Below are the assertions I've been arguing against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtPleasantDream
So basically it's like those reality competition shows.
If you are not the best performer, you can still win with some interesting story: abused by stepfather, suffering brain cancer, supporting siblings like a parent, blah blah.
Those who have normal parents and work hard are screwed, unless they are really on the top and make people wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtPleasantDream
It's only a good marker of trauma and abnormal behaviors in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtPleasantDream
Basically I support meritocracy, not aristocracy or opportunism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtPleasantDream
Yes. Then publicize the "various ways" so people can see them.
Also I doubt having an abusive stepfather helps you write computer programs. If you don't get good scores, most likely you don't have the aptitude.
You've gone from "interesting stories" to terminal illnesses, to stepfather abuse. You've implied that normal parents are getting screwed and that kids who overcome challenges are doomed to a life of trauma and "abnormal behaviors" ( high IQ is actually a risk factor for mental illness but that's another topic). You say you support meritocracy but never really defined your meaning of that in this context or acknowledged that merit can be measured in many ways. You later said that the reason the US has to import programmers is because of students who are not the top scorers are admitted and pointed to two immigrants who are CEO of big tech firms. Then you denied that and said "However, I do believe using too many subjective criteria is indeed inappropriate." You give examples of what you believe are objective but those examples (wrote some software programs in high school) may be no more objective in determining overall success than the kid who got decent grades and implemented a project in his community that addressed a significant community issue, and also dealt with a single parent household and a serious medical issue. Point is, it's all subjective unless you ONLY consider the test scores as the primary marker and you say that's not what you're in favor of. I don't think you really know what you favor and nobody really knows the extent to which the schools take any of this into account so it doesn't sound like you've identified a real problem. You apparently believe some deserving kid (or parent) got screwed and you think it's because some undeserving kid (or their parent) got rewarded for nothing. You accuse me of "radicalizing your opinion" yet your opinion seems to change as the conversation evolves and you never really come out and say precisely what you think the problem is or how you propose to resolve it.
Sorry, ain't buying it but it might be to your advantage to consider a world that is a little more complex than the one you seem to have imagined. There's a host of reasons why schools admit some people who are not the '"top" scorers or grades and there are a host of reasons why having a school class comprised of students with those criteria wouldn't make for a good class or wouldn't necessarily portend overall success. If you want to argue that students shouldn't be admitted based solely on identity or legacy, or even probably one single challenge then we agree. But that wasn't the discussion.
Last edited by bostongymjunkie; 04-28-2022 at 05:21 AM..
We were talking about schools, not careers. Then we shifted the topic a little bit to show how American educational system, as an example, failed to produce sufficient IT workers, including those in management. (IT management requires understanding of technology too.) One problem in the educational system, in my opinion, is to make certain evaluation criteria too subjective.
Of course you don't have to be an A student to become George W Bush or Donald Trump. (Or maybe that's the problem of America?)
Not really. We have a shortage of really top US-born IT people because it doesn’t pay as well as other professions. Everyone wants the Harvard MBA and Goldman Sachs job. You can live comfortably upper middle class with a Computer Science degree but few ever get to 1%er income.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
