4 ms·

> "equal this" and "equal that" Uh, I'm going to need some clarification on what this means? Because one interpretation could be, "letting minorities into univ

by yardie 8y ago

> "equal this" and "equal that" Uh, I'm going to need some clarification on what this means? Because one interpretation could be, "letting minorities into university has ruined it." And that way, there be dragons.

dkersten 8y ago
"equal outcome" vs "equal opportunity". Some people believe that we're all equal and therefore should expect equal outcomes (regardless of how hard you work). Eg, they expect that everyone gets paid the same, without necessarily putting the work in. Others believe that we're all equal in the sense that we should be given the same opportunities, but what you do with them, is up to you. If you get the same opportunities to me, but you work on and capitalise on them and gain some beneficial outcome from it, but I don't capitalise on them, don't put the work in etc, then I can't complain that I didn't get the same things you did. I think GP is talking about that and not at all about letting minorities into university. Although, I've also heard stories of discrimination due to not being under-represented, that is, not getting a place despite having excellent grades in order to make space for minorities. That's not fair either. Its a difficult thing to solve fairly, someone will always be unfairly rejected when places are contended. (I do think the minority-person should get the place in this case, since the other person likely has other options that the minority may not). I think most reasonable people would agree that giving minorities more opportunities is a good thing.
- tnzn 8y ago
  I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes, versus equality of opportunity, and I don't believe we're "all equal" in the sense you make it look like. This is a strawman. I believe we should distribute ressources depending on each people's needs, and not "merit", for instance. But that's not on the basis of the idea that "we're all equal". Btw in a world in which opportunities are bound to be dependant on ressources and social/cultural capital, reaching an actual equality of opportunity would require everyone to have "equal" social/cutlural/material capital in the begining smh. And if you let people accumulate said capitals, then the next generation... won't have equal opportunity once again.
  - CarlSchmitt 8y ago
    > I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes... Whenever someone says this, I become very leary of what they say next...to achieve "equal outcomes" you're gonna have to meddle in somebody's personal business at some point to achieve the desired "leveling"...this is bad news
choeger 8y ago
Letting minorities into universities and thinking "case closed" has ruined them. The current (leftist) propaganda is in the form of "if you build it, they will come". Its proponents focus solely on some measurable metrics (grades, degrees, salaries) without noticing that it originally was, at least to some degree, about capabilities. It's much easier to demand better grades/more degrees/higher salaries for minorities instead of actually making sure that they gain the same professional capabilities. Hence many people simply game the system by lowering the requirements. In consequence, achieving academic success through hard work becomes a liability for your personal career plan and then capabilities are simply lost. Exhibit a: how many CS graduates over the last 20years could explain how a OS context switch works. Exhibit b: how many graduates of med school know how to integrate a simple polynomial.

by yardie 8y ago

dkersten 8y ago

"equal outcome" vs "equal opportunity". Some people believe that we're all equal and therefore should expect equal outcomes (regardless of how hard you work). Eg, they expect that everyone gets paid the same, without necessarily putting the work in. Others believe that we're all equal in the sense that we should be given the same opportunities, but what you do with them, is up to you. If you get the same opportunities to me, but you work on and capitalise on them and gain some beneficial outcome from it, but I don't capitalise on them, don't put the work in etc, then I can't complain that I didn't get the same things you did. I think GP is talking about that and not at all about letting minorities into university. Although, I've also heard stories of discrimination due to not being under-represented, that is, not getting a place despite having excellent grades in order to make space for minorities. That's not fair either. Its a difficult thing to solve fairly, someone will always be unfairly rejected when places are contended. (I do think the minority-person should get the place in this case, since the other person likely has other options that the minority may not). I think most reasonable people would agree that giving minorities more opportunities is a good thing.

tnzn 8y ago
I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes, versus equality of opportunity, and I don't believe we're "all equal" in the sense you make it look like. This is a strawman. I believe we should distribute ressources depending on each people's needs, and not "merit", for instance. But that's not on the basis of the idea that "we're all equal". Btw in a world in which opportunities are bound to be dependant on ressources and social/cultural capital, reaching an actual equality of opportunity would require everyone to have "equal" social/cutlural/material capital in the begining smh. And if you let people accumulate said capitals, then the next generation... won't have equal opportunity once again.
- CarlSchmitt 8y ago
  > I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes... Whenever someone says this, I become very leary of what they say next...to achieve "equal outcomes" you're gonna have to meddle in somebody's personal business at some point to achieve the desired "leveling"...this is bad news

choeger 8y ago

Letting minorities into universities and thinking "case closed" has ruined them. The current (leftist) propaganda is in the form of "if you build it, they will come". Its proponents focus solely on some measurable metrics (grades, degrees, salaries) without noticing that it originally was, at least to some degree, about capabilities. It's much easier to demand better grades/more degrees/higher salaries for minorities instead of actually making sure that they gain the same professional capabilities. Hence many people simply game the system by lowering the requirements. In consequence, achieving academic success through hard work becomes a liability for your personal career plan and then capabilities are simply lost. Exhibit a: how many CS graduates over the last 20years could explain how a OS context switch works. Exhibit b: how many graduates of med school know how to integrate a simple polynomial.