4 ms·

I think the two of you are using slightly different definitions of "meritocratic". Yummifajitas means "who's better", whereas you mean "who's potentially better

by tomp 11y ago

I think the two of you are using slightly different definitions of "meritocratic". Yummifajitas means "who's better", whereas you mean "who's potentially better". Obviously, in average whites are better than blacks (and Asians are better than whites). All test scores prove that. That's what yummifajitas is referring to when he says "meritocracy". Obviously blacks have been severely disadvantages throughout their lives (before college), so they aren't as good as they could be (again in average). Therefore, you're saying that we should accept more blacks, who could be just as good as whites are. Personally, I agree with yummifajitas' definition of the word "meritocratic", but I think that favoring the disadvantaged is a better outcome for the society than a purely meritocratic system. However, I also think that favoring (affirmative action) should be non-racist, but instead targeting the disadvantaged people/families (regardless of their race); furthermore, I believe that the effect of such policies would be orders of magnitude greater if they were favoring people waaaay before university.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> I think the two of you are using slightly different definitions of "meritocratic". Yummifajitas means "who's better", whereas you mean "who's potentially better". I think both are using "who is better", the problem is that there "who is better" is very vague: better in what way? Claims to "meritocracy" only have substantial meaning with a concrete definition of "merit", and while yummyfajitas is happy to assert that but for AA college admissions process are certainly meritocratic, there is no identification of the merit that the combination of measures used is supposedly assessing, against which one could evaluate the claim that using those measures without considering race is, in fact, meritocratic.
- tomp 11y ago
  Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have (and definitely a better one than race or disadvantage - remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse (although there is some research that claims SATs systematically underscore women)). Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have Its not. For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades, or even first-year grades (weaker than high school grades, class rank, or even just the high school you attended), and, to the extent its useful, at least one study has indicated that its predictive power is almost entirely explained by the degree to which it serves as a proxy measure for the high school that the student attended, and that within-school variation in SAT scores lacks predictive power. Also, there is evidence that the relationship between SAT scores (and the same is true of other measures, like GPA) and college performance is not consistent across various axes of demographic variation (race, income, etc.) -- I've cited one analysis on this elsewhere in the thread. > remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups, where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit. > Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians? I never said they were.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades? > where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack merit in math. > I never said they were. Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take (as you claim in your original response to me)...

by tomp 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> I think the two of you are using slightly different definitions of "meritocratic". Yummifajitas means "who's better", whereas you mean "who's potentially better". I think both are using "who is better", the problem is that there "who is better" is very vague: better in what way? Claims to "meritocracy" only have substantial meaning with a concrete definition of "merit", and while yummyfajitas is happy to assert that but for AA college admissions process are certainly meritocratic, there is no identification of the merit that the combination of measures used is supposedly assessing, against which one could evaluate the claim that using those measures without considering race is, in fact, meritocratic.

tomp 11y ago
Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have (and definitely a better one than race or disadvantage - remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse (although there is some research that claims SATs systematically underscore women)). Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have Its not. For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades, or even first-year grades (weaker than high school grades, class rank, or even just the high school you attended), and, to the extent its useful, at least one study has indicated that its predictive power is almost entirely explained by the degree to which it serves as a proxy measure for the high school that the student attended, and that within-school variation in SAT scores lacks predictive power. Also, there is evidence that the relationship between SAT scores (and the same is true of other measures, like GPA) and college performance is not consistent across various axes of demographic variation (race, income, etc.) -- I've cited one analysis on this elsewhere in the thread. > remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups, where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit. > Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians? I never said they were.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades? > where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack merit in math. > I never said they were. Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take (as you claim in your original response to me)...