7 ms·

As a non-american, your obsession with race confuses me for one very specific reason: it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. I wonder if this

by T2_t2 11y ago

As a non-american, your obsession with race confuses me for one very specific reason: it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. I wonder if this is a consequence of the "every kid gets a trophy" phenomenon, where merely showing up is seen as the key. Not once in that article were graduation rates from colleges, or post-college outcomes, mentioned. Surely, that is the most important factor in improving racial outcomes, getting people into education that improves their lifetime outcomes. It is weird to me that the US has made the inbetween goal the only goal, e.g. rather than aiming to close racial gaps in outcomes like income, lifespan, likelihood of being a victim of violence etc and promoting policies that can be shown to achieve that, the US has made the goal to close it in opportunity, assuming (hoping?) that will improve outcomes. Seems to me that more blacks and hispanics at college who don't graduate or, almost worse, choose easier subjects with worse career options, perpetuates the problem rather than solves it. http://spectator.org/articles/64739/little-understood-engine-campus-unrest-racial-admissions-preferences http://spectator.org/articles/64739/little-understood-engine... has a good summation of this argument. I don't think it is really enough to make every college have the right racial mix, if what comes out the other end is a graduate pool that divides along not racial lines, but course lines. If Asians and Whites dominate the degrees that pay well, and Blacks and Hispanics the lesser degrees, we'll be left with a population that is educated, sure, but likely in more debt without much improvement in earnings potential. That hardly seems like a great outcome to me, and seems the complete opposite of what the goal should be.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> As a non-american, your obsession with race confuses me for one very specific reason: it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. As an American, your comment confuses me for one very specific reason: it doesn't at all reflect the actual dialogue about race I've experienced in this country (from all sides of the dialogue), in which very much is about achievement. > It is weird to me that the US has made the inbetween goal the only goal, e.g. rather than aiming to close racial gaps in outcomes like income, lifespan, likelihood of being a victim of violence etc and promoting policies that can be shown to achieve that, the US has made the goal to close it in opportunity, assuming (hoping?) that will improve outcomes. Attending formal education at a higher level is, itself, an outcome. Its also an outcome that is proven to improve other outcomes (both for the person experience it, and in future generations, since not only is education attainment measured in highest level attended shown to be a significant influence on income and other outcomes for the person receiving it, its also shown to be a strong factor in educational attainment of that person's children.) (And, of course, affirmative action and other diversity efforts in colleges aren't the only mechanism, nor is college attendance the only goal, in improving the condition of historically-disadvantaged groups in the US. So the whole criticism of this being the only goal -- which seems to be based on nothing other than the fact that its the focus of the article -- is entirely misplaced.)
- T2_t2 11y ago
  > Attending formal education at a higher level is, itself, an outcome. See, there it is again - SHOWING UP. You didn't say "getting a degree" or "graduating to a high paying job" or even "putting themselves in a position to succeed in life" - simply "attending". That's the problem - merely attending isn't enough to address any historical disadvantage other than "spent at least a day on a college campus as a student". In a list of historical disadvantages, this is just above "has used a ski lift at least once" in importance. Step back, there are four important factors that make up the value of college: 1. Attendance - how many people go to college. 2. Graduation - where total graduates, not a percentage, dictates success. Because 25% of 4 is worse than 10% of 100,000 in addressing disadvantage. 3. Degree choice - the choice of degree is almost as important as getting one. 4. Post-graduation outcomes - like career earnings, opportunities, stability etc. Attendance does not address true disadvantage unless the other three also improve - and specifically I think what society wants is more absolute numbers of graduates of good degrees, who go on to great post-graduate success. That seems, to me, a pretty uncontroversial summation of the issue. The goal of uni quotas is to improve 1, so that 2, 3 and 4 improve. It isn't to address historical rates of attendance. But I could be wrong, and if the case is that the goal is simply getting more blacks and Hispanics to go to uni for at least a day/semester, outcomes be damned, then I withdraw my argument. I think that the idea of addressing disadvantage is a lofty, important and praise worthy goal. And because it is such an important goal, policy choices have to be effective, and rigorously shown to be effective, because failure only fails the most disadvantaged more. My fear is that a lot of people judge policy by INTENTIONS, not OUTCOMES, and this leads to inbetween goals of attendance trumping deeper issues. As an analogy, the push to change people from "I donated so I feel good" to "my donations DID good" is a huge mental shift that effective altruists are championing. If quoatas help improve life outcomes, they need to stay. If they don't, if they put black and Hispanic students in positions to fail or almost worse, to choose lesser paths, then they should be replaced by something better. Rather than quotas, what is needed is policy that puts black and hispanic students into colleges where they get the largest number of the best degrees for to improve their lives. Going to an Ivy league school to flunk out is worse than going to a tier 2 school and graduating with honors. I could be wrong about the inbetween goals being a focus, and there may be a whole raft of research that shows these inbetween goals achieve positive outcomes making them the metric to focus on. I'd honestly like to be proven wrong, and know that these policies are on the right track, but it seems to me that the circle of policy to outcomes is rarely fully closed, and with even 15 years of data, the outcomes achieved should be dictating policy, not something more immediately measurable, but ultimately less important, like attendance rates. TL;DR good outcomes dictate the quality of a policy, not intentions.
hsitz 11y ago
College admissions are hardly the only arena where affirmative action operates. And of course it's not an ideal solution, but it's at least a start. Where are you from? Quite possibly your country also has some similar sorts of policies, even if it lacks the huge minorities that have suffered past discrimination to the extent some have in U.S. You can start by checking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
- kuschku 11y ago
  Actually, Germany has been replacing Affirmative Action in most areas in the past years with purely random, or purely achievement-based systems. Due to the simple fact that hiring people based on direct affirmative action violates the constitution. Even the famous "womens quota" in Germany is just a quota that 30% of each gender have to be represented in a company’s board. (The official statement of the constitutional court regarding affirmative action, which is called "positive discrimination" here, was that "even positive discrimination is, as the name says, still discrimination")
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
curryst 11y ago
> it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. The ultimate goal is achievement, but that's much harder to achieve without creating more borderline racist policies. Unless you're going to adopt affirmative action for grades as well, and punish professors for fair grading, it's hard to affect those rates. > the US has made the goal to close it in opportunity, assuming (hoping?) that will improve outcomes Affirmative action is meant to be a way to help reverse some of the ill effects of slavery and racism that have had long lasting impacts that even today can depreciate the opportunity of racial minorities. The goal is to even out that playing field and provide an equal opportunity, not an equal outcome. What an individual chooses to do with that equal opportunity is up to them. > Seems to me that more blacks and hispanics at college who don't graduate or, almost worse, choose easier subjects with worse career options, perpetuates the problem rather than solves it. This is partly a difference in what you see as the problem. Is your goal equal opportunity or equal outcomes? If your goal is equal opportunity, what someone does with that opportunity is up to them. They may choose to go to a university where they are in over their heads, but that's a choice that they made and doing poorly is a consequence of that choice. They may also choose to take an easier degree than to go to a less selective college, again, that's up to them.
- kuschku 11y ago
  But how does putting people with worse grades in college help? It doesn't fix the actual issue: access to quality primary and secondary education. If a person going to a school with mostly minorities and underpaid staff never heard of complex numbers, then their math study won't be successful, no matter if they need a 3.5 or 3.0 GPA to attend. Sure, attendance rate goes up, but the outcome is the same. You need to target the roots of the issue, not the outcome.

by T2_t2 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> As a non-american, your obsession with race confuses me for one very specific reason: it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. As an American, your comment confuses me for one very specific reason: it doesn't at all reflect the actual dialogue about race I've experienced in this country (from all sides of the dialogue), in which very much is about achievement. > It is weird to me that the US has made the inbetween goal the only goal, e.g. rather than aiming to close racial gaps in outcomes like income, lifespan, likelihood of being a victim of violence etc and promoting policies that can be shown to achieve that, the US has made the goal to close it in opportunity, assuming (hoping?) that will improve outcomes. Attending formal education at a higher level is, itself, an outcome. Its also an outcome that is proven to improve other outcomes (both for the person experience it, and in future generations, since not only is education attainment measured in highest level attended shown to be a significant influence on income and other outcomes for the person receiving it, its also shown to be a strong factor in educational attainment of that person's children.) (And, of course, affirmative action and other diversity efforts in colleges aren't the only mechanism, nor is college attendance the only goal, in improving the condition of historically-disadvantaged groups in the US. So the whole criticism of this being the only goal -- which seems to be based on nothing other than the fact that its the focus of the article -- is entirely misplaced.)

T2_t2 11y ago
> Attending formal education at a higher level is, itself, an outcome. See, there it is again - SHOWING UP. You didn't say "getting a degree" or "graduating to a high paying job" or even "putting themselves in a position to succeed in life" - simply "attending". That's the problem - merely attending isn't enough to address any historical disadvantage other than "spent at least a day on a college campus as a student". In a list of historical disadvantages, this is just above "has used a ski lift at least once" in importance. Step back, there are four important factors that make up the value of college: 1. Attendance - how many people go to college. 2. Graduation - where total graduates, not a percentage, dictates success. Because 25% of 4 is worse than 10% of 100,000 in addressing disadvantage. 3. Degree choice - the choice of degree is almost as important as getting one. 4. Post-graduation outcomes - like career earnings, opportunities, stability etc. Attendance does not address true disadvantage unless the other three also improve - and specifically I think what society wants is more absolute numbers of graduates of good degrees, who go on to great post-graduate success. That seems, to me, a pretty uncontroversial summation of the issue. The goal of uni quotas is to improve 1, so that 2, 3 and 4 improve. It isn't to address historical rates of attendance. But I could be wrong, and if the case is that the goal is simply getting more blacks and Hispanics to go to uni for at least a day/semester, outcomes be damned, then I withdraw my argument. I think that the idea of addressing disadvantage is a lofty, important and praise worthy goal. And because it is such an important goal, policy choices have to be effective, and rigorously shown to be effective, because failure only fails the most disadvantaged more. My fear is that a lot of people judge policy by INTENTIONS, not OUTCOMES, and this leads to inbetween goals of attendance trumping deeper issues. As an analogy, the push to change people from "I donated so I feel good" to "my donations DID good" is a huge mental shift that effective altruists are championing. If quoatas help improve life outcomes, they need to stay. If they don't, if they put black and Hispanic students in positions to fail or almost worse, to choose lesser paths, then they should be replaced by something better. Rather than quotas, what is needed is policy that puts black and hispanic students into colleges where they get the largest number of the best degrees for to improve their lives. Going to an Ivy league school to flunk out is worse than going to a tier 2 school and graduating with honors. I could be wrong about the inbetween goals being a focus, and there may be a whole raft of research that shows these inbetween goals achieve positive outcomes making them the metric to focus on. I'd honestly like to be proven wrong, and know that these policies are on the right track, but it seems to me that the circle of policy to outcomes is rarely fully closed, and with even 15 years of data, the outcomes achieved should be dictating policy, not something more immediately measurable, but ultimately less important, like attendance rates. TL;DR good outcomes dictate the quality of a policy, not intentions.

hsitz 11y ago

College admissions are hardly the only arena where affirmative action operates. And of course it's not an ideal solution, but it's at least a start. Where are you from? Quite possibly your country also has some similar sorts of policies, even if it lacks the huge minorities that have suffered past discrimination to the extent some have in U.S. You can start by checking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

kuschku 11y ago
Actually, Germany has been replacing Affirmative Action in most areas in the past years with purely random, or purely achievement-based systems. Due to the simple fact that hiring people based on direct affirmative action violates the constitution. Even the famous "womens quota" in Germany is just a quota that 30% of each gender have to be represented in a company’s board. (The official statement of the constitutional court regarding affirmative action, which is called "positive discrimination" here, was that "even positive discrimination is, as the name says, still discrimination")

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

curryst 11y ago

> it is all about involvement, and never about achievement. The ultimate goal is achievement, but that's much harder to achieve without creating more borderline racist policies. Unless you're going to adopt affirmative action for grades as well, and punish professors for fair grading, it's hard to affect those rates. > the US has made the goal to close it in opportunity, assuming (hoping?) that will improve outcomes Affirmative action is meant to be a way to help reverse some of the ill effects of slavery and racism that have had long lasting impacts that even today can depreciate the opportunity of racial minorities. The goal is to even out that playing field and provide an equal opportunity, not an equal outcome. What an individual chooses to do with that equal opportunity is up to them. > Seems to me that more blacks and hispanics at college who don't graduate or, almost worse, choose easier subjects with worse career options, perpetuates the problem rather than solves it. This is partly a difference in what you see as the problem. Is your goal equal opportunity or equal outcomes? If your goal is equal opportunity, what someone does with that opportunity is up to them. They may choose to go to a university where they are in over their heads, but that's a choice that they made and doing poorly is a consequence of that choice. They may also choose to take an easier degree than to go to a less selective college, again, that's up to them.

kuschku 11y ago
But how does putting people with worse grades in college help? It doesn't fix the actual issue: access to quality primary and secondary education. If a person going to a school with mostly minorities and underpaid staff never heard of complex numbers, then their math study won't be successful, no matter if they need a 3.5 or 3.0 GPA to attend. Sure, attendance rate goes up, but the outcome is the same. You need to target the roots of the issue, not the outcome.