3 ms·

So what you are saying is that discriminating in some way has a strong effect on the perception of society in general? Yes, there is this theoretical moral deb

by jeb 16y ago

So what you are saying is that discriminating in some way has a strong effect on the perception of society in general? Yes, there is this theoretical moral debate about what is right and what is wrong, but the real effect of doing what you say is right, would result in universities of only asians and whites, and the blacks mostly doing manual labour. Is THAT right?

patio11 16y ago
Affirmative action matters for the most selective colleges in the United States but very little for your average state school, where there is little to no selection pressure. (It is the public policy of the United States that you can get a tertiary degree -- and we will pay for it -- if you have a pulse.) There are many doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc etc, who do not have a degree from Harvard/MIT/etc. The hypothetical, exaggerated dystopian universe in which the most selective ~25 institutions drop to ~2% black doesn't resemble an Orwell novel.
- jeb 16y ago
  So your solution is that these best colleges in the U.S, which select based on criteria OTHER than scores, should stop selecting based on race, but should select based on other factors? So it's okay to select mid western people, because they are different from new york people, but it's not okay to select black over white? Those picky schools mix and match to have a wide array of people. They don't just use scores. If they did, there would be a lot of chinese immigrants and russians jews in there. The difference between two people because of their geographical distance is as great as the difference because of their race.
- hga 16y ago
  Affirmative action and the problems discovered by this study don't matter much for MIT. MIT almost certainly wasn't part of the study, doesn't discriminate against Asians, recruits white working class men from the Midwest when they're underrepresented (and takes into account people's lack of opportunities in general). It probably doesn't discriminate against Christians, those who were in JROTC or farming organizations (I may have too little data to be sure about these categories). MIT's big advantages have to stem from it being a less intense version of CalTech WRT math and physics. It simply can't afford to admit anyone who can't do the work (and there's a lot of self-selection in the applicant pool), doesn't do much with legacies (once again, they have to be able to do the work) and doesn't take many students from "fancy prep schools". So it's got lots of room for these students who are heavily discriminated against by the other elite schools in the nation. And for science, at least, CalTech and MIT really have to make a big difference for those students. Everything in those fields depends on professor recommendations (getting into a good grad school and what you do after getting your Ph.D. and postdoc(s)). No matter how good you are, if your recommendations are from professors the targets have never heard of, you're ... not in a good posture.

by jeb 16y ago

patio11 16y ago

Affirmative action matters for the most selective colleges in the United States but very little for your average state school, where there is little to no selection pressure. (It is the public policy of the United States that you can get a tertiary degree -- and we will pay for it -- if you have a pulse.) There are many doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc etc, who do not have a degree from Harvard/MIT/etc. The hypothetical, exaggerated dystopian universe in which the most selective ~25 institutions drop to ~2% black doesn't resemble an Orwell novel.

jeb 16y ago
So your solution is that these best colleges in the U.S, which select based on criteria OTHER than scores, should stop selecting based on race, but should select based on other factors? So it's okay to select mid western people, because they are different from new york people, but it's not okay to select black over white? Those picky schools mix and match to have a wide array of people. They don't just use scores. If they did, there would be a lot of chinese immigrants and russians jews in there. The difference between two people because of their geographical distance is as great as the difference because of their race.
hga 16y ago
Affirmative action and the problems discovered by this study don't matter much for MIT. MIT almost certainly wasn't part of the study, doesn't discriminate against Asians, recruits white working class men from the Midwest when they're underrepresented (and takes into account people's lack of opportunities in general). It probably doesn't discriminate against Christians, those who were in JROTC or farming organizations (I may have too little data to be sure about these categories). MIT's big advantages have to stem from it being a less intense version of CalTech WRT math and physics. It simply can't afford to admit anyone who can't do the work (and there's a lot of self-selection in the applicant pool), doesn't do much with legacies (once again, they have to be able to do the work) and doesn't take many students from "fancy prep schools". So it's got lots of room for these students who are heavily discriminated against by the other elite schools in the nation. And for science, at least, CalTech and MIT really have to make a big difference for those students. Everything in those fields depends on professor recommendations (getting into a good grad school and what you do after getting your Ph.D. and postdoc(s)). No matter how good you are, if your recommendations are from professors the targets have never heard of, you're ... not in a good posture.