6 ms·

Is there a difference?

KirinDave 8y ago
Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a difference? "We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards." Biasing entry standards is a thing that may or may not make sense. For public and public-funded institutions, transparency and honesty are absolutely essential.
- hnaccy 8y ago
  >We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed This seems like a generous description of affirmative action given it punishes asian students and examples of demographics that benefit underperforming once accepted.
  - intended 8y ago
    How? One of the key criteria for performance today is "grit", which is an evolution over the previous performance indicators such as education/SAT scores (which had poor long term correlation). The assumption that they will underperform is unsubstantiated. Especially considering - all/most Asian American/SE Asian kids go through the ringer to prepare them from the word go, to get into a prestigious school. (Do note - that if they dont get into their first choice college, they will get into their equally good backup schools.) As the dean of Harvard said - he could fill his class with Valedictorians (and probably have many more to spare). Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. ---- Living in a world where Academics decide everything, you can easily see the kind of damage it does to daily life. Societal worth, marriage prospects depend on what is said on that Degree - even if you are terrible at solving real world problems or have 0 motivation to actually work in your field.
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      >Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. Instead it should be the color of your skin? That they will underperform is not unsubstantiated in cases like black law students.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        The entire thesis is that they're starting from harder place, without necessarily having a superior talent distribution. Therefore, it's not unexpected they'd have a longer mean time to peak performance (which is what studies show). The same is true, by the way, of folks with extremely religious anti-science backgrounds (like me!). Either way, graduation standards don't change.
        hnaccy 8y ago
        So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? >which is what studies show Which studies? Graduation standards have changed for all races, in undergraduate institutions grade inflation is rampant and hard curves or class ranks are relics. The performance of the student body and specific demographics is increasingly muddled. In premier law schools affirmative action demographics continue to underperform, as well as have lower LSAT scores which strongly predicts probability of passing the bar.
        KirinDave 8y ago
        > So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? No. And this, "If anything I am an asian supremcist" angle is so dated, so boring, and so tedious I'm not going to entertain you further. Everyone can see what you're doing. Go debate a 6 year old youtube video rather than waste an instant more of 2018's time. Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently, and that economic disparity is clearly reflected in many social scales. We're also acutely aware of many eugenicists using "well asian people are just genetically and culturally better" as a blind in America for their racial oppression for years. That history is well-documented.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    It doesn't punish anyone. This is entirely a anti-racial-equality talking point with no basis in fact.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  My rejection letter did not tell me how much my race/ethnicity affected the decision. So how is it any different?
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    Probably because Affirmative Action doesn't have direct influence on rejections, only admissions. But if you think publicly funded colleges should have 100% transparent admission standards, I'm behind you all the way. They should!
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      > doesn't have direct influence on rejections, only admissions. What bullshit. Accepting someone underqualified means rejecting someone perfectly qualified, by definition. > But if you think publicly funded colleges should have 100% transparent admission standards I think all colleges should have transparent standards. Publicly funded ones should have fair and non-racist transparent standards.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        > What bullshit. Accepting someone underqualified means rejecting someone perfectly qualified, by definition. Ah yes, because college admission caps are not at all arbitrary and never change. > Publicly funded ones should have fair and non-racist transparent standards. Careful there with your language. Racism is an institutional proposition, discrimination is an individual one. So long as "white" (whatever that means) Americans hold the majority of political and economic power in America, the conditions for "racism" don't exist except in the most degenerate dictionary sense of the word.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        No. Racist means discrimination based on race.
- rimliu 8y ago
  May not sound very nice, but the attitude "you will be treated by not so knowledgeable and skilled doctor — it was difficult for them to become skilled" does not encourage me a bit.
  - cooper12 8y ago
    Getting into med school and graduating it are two separate steps.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    This confuses admission standards (which are arbitrary) with graduation standards (which are also transparent and subject to regulation and practical workforce critique).
- Double_a_92 8y ago
  You are comparing the "winners" view with the "loosers" view. E.g. "I made something nicer for you" vs. "I made something worse for you". Of course the second is the negative, dishonest one.
- guessthejuice 8y ago
  > Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a difference? Both are equally dishonest. > "We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards." That's just rationalizations to justify your bias. The japanese made similar rationalizations. Female candidates are likely to get pregnant and society is better off with females getting pregnant because japan has a low birth-rate problem. Their justification is just as "good" as yours. Both are discriminatory and evil.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Depends what you think the entry criteria is. If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it. If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more.
    - guessthejuice 8y ago
      > If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it. Not absolute mark. Just the same standards. > If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more. Which is fine with me as long as the same criteria is applied equally. Equal being the key here.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        Show us where graduation criterion is skewed. An effort is being made to provide opportunity to those with less access to it, but painting affirmative action as a free ride is a malicious category error that needs no debunking, it's simply a garbage argument that involves talking as fast as possible and hoping no one notices.
        guessthejuice 8y ago
- supernova87a 8y ago
  What kind of mental contortions do you have to go through to justify this to yourself? Pray, tell us more about the difference between subtracting points from someone for their identity, versus giving extra points to someone for their identity?
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > Pray, tell us more about the difference between subtracting points from someone for their identity, versus giving extra points to someone for their identity? But that's not what admissions processes do. They say, "Here is the criterion for folks with consideration to their ethnic minority." All the research I've done does not suggest there is a single score folks are adding and subtracting to. In the case of the article, they didn't say, "Sorry your womb makes you ineligible" they actually graded the tests with a penalty attached. They "changed the results" of the entrance exams. > Pray, tell Prithee sir, read with care. I hope thy question was answered. Fie, sir, fie! For this craven fear of loss and refusal to harken to the scope of history holds back your potential.

Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a difference? "We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards." Biasing entry standards is a thing that may or may not make sense. For public and public-funded institutions, transparency and honesty are absolutely essential.

hnaccy 8y ago
>We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed This seems like a generous description of affirmative action given it punishes asian students and examples of demographics that benefit underperforming once accepted.
- intended 8y ago
  How? One of the key criteria for performance today is "grit", which is an evolution over the previous performance indicators such as education/SAT scores (which had poor long term correlation). The assumption that they will underperform is unsubstantiated. Especially considering - all/most Asian American/SE Asian kids go through the ringer to prepare them from the word go, to get into a prestigious school. (Do note - that if they dont get into their first choice college, they will get into their equally good backup schools.) As the dean of Harvard said - he could fill his class with Valedictorians (and probably have many more to spare). Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. ---- Living in a world where Academics decide everything, you can easily see the kind of damage it does to daily life. Societal worth, marriage prospects depend on what is said on that Degree - even if you are terrible at solving real world problems or have 0 motivation to actually work in your field.
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    >Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. Instead it should be the color of your skin? That they will underperform is not unsubstantiated in cases like black law students.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      The entire thesis is that they're starting from harder place, without necessarily having a superior talent distribution. Therefore, it's not unexpected they'd have a longer mean time to peak performance (which is what studies show). The same is true, by the way, of folks with extremely religious anti-science backgrounds (like me!). Either way, graduation standards don't change.
      - hnaccy 8y ago
        So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? >which is what studies show Which studies? Graduation standards have changed for all races, in undergraduate institutions grade inflation is rampant and hard curves or class ranks are relics. The performance of the student body and specific demographics is increasingly muddled. In premier law schools affirmative action demographics continue to underperform, as well as have lower LSAT scores which strongly predicts probability of passing the bar.
        KirinDave 8y ago
        > So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? No. And this, "If anything I am an asian supremcist" angle is so dated, so boring, and so tedious I'm not going to entertain you further. Everyone can see what you're doing. Go debate a 6 year old youtube video rather than waste an instant more of 2018's time. Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently, and that economic disparity is clearly reflected in many social scales. We're also acutely aware of many eugenicists using "well asian people are just genetically and culturally better" as a blind in America for their racial oppression for years. That history is well-documented.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  It doesn't punish anyone. This is entirely a anti-racial-equality talking point with no basis in fact.
dingo_bat 8y ago
My rejection letter did not tell me how much my race/ethnicity affected the decision. So how is it any different?
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Probably because Affirmative Action doesn't have direct influence on rejections, only admissions. But if you think publicly funded colleges should have 100% transparent admission standards, I'm behind you all the way. They should!
  - dingo_bat 8y ago
    > doesn't have direct influence on rejections, only admissions. What bullshit. Accepting someone underqualified means rejecting someone perfectly qualified, by definition. > But if you think publicly funded colleges should have 100% transparent admission standards I think all colleges should have transparent standards. Publicly funded ones should have fair and non-racist transparent standards.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      > What bullshit. Accepting someone underqualified means rejecting someone perfectly qualified, by definition. Ah yes, because college admission caps are not at all arbitrary and never change. > Publicly funded ones should have fair and non-racist transparent standards. Careful there with your language. Racism is an institutional proposition, discrimination is an individual one. So long as "white" (whatever that means) Americans hold the majority of political and economic power in America, the conditions for "racism" don't exist except in the most degenerate dictionary sense of the word.
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        No. Racist means discrimination based on race.
rimliu 8y ago
May not sound very nice, but the attitude "you will be treated by not so knowledgeable and skilled doctor — it was difficult for them to become skilled" does not encourage me a bit.
- cooper12 8y ago
  Getting into med school and graduating it are two separate steps.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  This confuses admission standards (which are arbitrary) with graduation standards (which are also transparent and subject to regulation and practical workforce critique).
Double_a_92 8y ago
You are comparing the "winners" view with the "loosers" view. E.g. "I made something nicer for you" vs. "I made something worse for you". Of course the second is the negative, dishonest one.
guessthejuice 8y ago
> Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a difference? Both are equally dishonest. > "We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards." That's just rationalizations to justify your bias. The japanese made similar rationalizations. Female candidates are likely to get pregnant and society is better off with females getting pregnant because japan has a low birth-rate problem. Their justification is just as "good" as yours. Both are discriminatory and evil.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Depends what you think the entry criteria is. If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it. If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more.
  - guessthejuice 8y ago
    > If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it. Not absolute mark. Just the same standards. > If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more. Which is fine with me as long as the same criteria is applied equally. Equal being the key here.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      Show us where graduation criterion is skewed. An effort is being made to provide opportunity to those with less access to it, but painting affirmative action as a free ride is a malicious category error that needs no debunking, it's simply a garbage argument that involves talking as fast as possible and hoping no one notices.
      - guessthejuice 8y ago
supernova87a 8y ago
What kind of mental contortions do you have to go through to justify this to yourself? Pray, tell us more about the difference between subtracting points from someone for their identity, versus giving extra points to someone for their identity?
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > Pray, tell us more about the difference between subtracting points from someone for their identity, versus giving extra points to someone for their identity? But that's not what admissions processes do. They say, "Here is the criterion for folks with consideration to their ethnic minority." All the research I've done does not suggest there is a single score folks are adding and subtracting to. In the case of the article, they didn't say, "Sorry your womb makes you ineligible" they actually graded the tests with a penalty attached. They "changed the results" of the entrance exams. > Pray, tell Prithee sir, read with care. I hope thy question was answered. Fie, sir, fie! For this craven fear of loss and refusal to harken to the scope of history holds back your potential.