3 ms·

Such policies never end well. A university's best chance of relevance long term is to unabashedly pursue the best and the brightest, regardless of race. This h

Such policies never end well. A university's best chance of relevance long term is to unabashedly pursue the best and the brightest, regardless of race. This holds in the valley too - merit trumps everything else. There's ample evidence of a (happy) best-in-class workforce affecting bottom lines.

hux_ 9y ago
Bias has its advantages. There is ample evidence of that too.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
These policies at least begin with good intentions. After starting from a long history of discrimination, bias may be ingrained and require intentional counter-action. Once you've adjusted, however, the policy stops being useful.
coldtea 9y ago
>Such policies never end well. A university's best chance of relevance long term is to unabashedly pursue the best and the brightest, regardless of race Such universities don't really care for the "best and brightest" (they can have a picking on those to keep up their academic prestige high). They care about catering to rich elites. "Best and brightest" don't pay the bills, either as students, or as alumni.
MagnumOpus 9y ago
> pursue the best and brightest Well, for Harvard (and most other top universities apart from Caltech) the "best" and the "brightest" are not necessarily synonyms. First, from the viewpoint of prestige, it is better to accept those into the program who don't cut the mustard but have a good chance of becoming presidents/prime ministers/kings/business tycoons. And who has a good chance? Kids of senators, dictators, billionaire movers and shakers, way more so than the politically active 4.0 student from next door. Second, from the viewpoint of long term relevance, spitting out one student who will endow the university subsequently with a few millions is worth way more than spitting out twenty eminently smart professors who go on to teach in obscurity - Harvard is the best example, even if their marketing goes badly, their $30bn endowment will buy sufficiently many Nobel-prize-winning faculty and scholarships for bright students to stay relevant for centuries.

hux_ 9y ago

Bias has its advantages. There is ample evidence of that too.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

These policies at least begin with good intentions. After starting from a long history of discrimination, bias may be ingrained and require intentional counter-action. Once you've adjusted, however, the policy stops being useful.

coldtea 9y ago

>Such policies never end well. A university's best chance of relevance long term is to unabashedly pursue the best and the brightest, regardless of race Such universities don't really care for the "best and brightest" (they can have a picking on those to keep up their academic prestige high). They care about catering to rich elites. "Best and brightest" don't pay the bills, either as students, or as alumni.

MagnumOpus 9y ago

> pursue the best and brightest Well, for Harvard (and most other top universities apart from Caltech) the "best" and the "brightest" are not necessarily synonyms. First, from the viewpoint of prestige, it is better to accept those into the program who don't cut the mustard but have a good chance of becoming presidents/prime ministers/kings/business tycoons. And who has a good chance? Kids of senators, dictators, billionaire movers and shakers, way more so than the politically active 4.0 student from next door. Second, from the viewpoint of long term relevance, spitting out one student who will endow the university subsequently with a few millions is worth way more than spitting out twenty eminently smart professors who go on to teach in obscurity - Harvard is the best example, even if their marketing goes badly, their $30bn endowment will buy sufficiently many Nobel-prize-winning faculty and scholarships for bright students to stay relevant for centuries.