5 ms·

100%. To truly level the playing field requires far earlier intervention (of the sort we see through LeBron James' I Promise initiative), and is entirely beyond

by rlue 7y ago

100%. To truly level the playing field requires far earlier intervention (of the sort we see through LeBron James' I Promise initiative), and is entirely beyond the ability of the College Board or even the university system as a whole. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > (or adjust the SAT so it is more representative of their actual skills). The problem, as you point out just one sentence later, is that adversity materially diminishes students' abilities. Either we can test them on their actual skills, which correlate strongly with socioeconomic status, or we can give disadvantaged kids preferential treatment at the last minute. You can't have both. I don't know how to reconcile the belief that everyone deserves a fair shot with the reality that there are only so many open seats at America's premier universities (or anywhere else advancement and prosperity reside, for that matter). If you truly believe in equal opportunity, you must concede that the rich and poor are equally deserving of the chance to go to Harvard, and artificially closing the gates on some of the rich in favor of some of the poor is a crude facsimile of justice.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
Why fixate on Harvard? It can only ever serve a few thousand kids. There are hundreds of universities and colleges that can provide a good education and more than a fair shot. The problem isn't a poor kid who graduates from University of Wisconsin or University of Colorado instead of Harvard or Stanford, it is the kid who didn't even graduate high school, can't really read, and isn't prepared to show up at work in the morning, let alone do the job.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  The reason why the elites fixate on Harvard is because they’re completely out of touch with the 99% of folks that don’t apply to or don’t get into elite institutions. It’s pure condescension on their part.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    I agree. Also, there is no policy ever that will make admission to Harvard completely equitable, so as long as you hold up Harvard as the example, it justifies any intervention you want to try. Because Harvard.
- rlue 7y ago
  I meant “Harvard” as a metonym for desirable/high-status universities. Like it or not, when an employer has to sift through 100 applications for a single vacancy, a Harvard graduate is far more likely to still be in the running by the time they’ve narrowed it down to five. This matters less the longer you’ve been out of college, but by then, the effect will have made its mark on your resume already anyway.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    What do you consider high status? Top 10? Top 20? A poor kid coming out of University fo Wisconsin (ranked ~50) is not going to look as good as a Harvard grad, but so what? That's my point, only a few thousand kids are ever going to get to be from Harvard. That kid from Wisconsin is going to do great, and have plenty of opportunity. It does a huge disservice to imply that he is lesser or lost out because he didn't make it to Harvard. Same for the kid who goes to the local community college. He will obviously have less opportunity than if he went to opportunity, but that doesn't mean he won't have a lot of opportunity, and enough to live a good life.
    - rlue 7y ago
      Okay, sure. Let's include University of Wisconsin and not include the local community college. University of Wisconsin received north of 42,000 applications for the freshman class of 2019,[0] almost exactly the same number that Harvard did.[1] Even a prestigious-but-small liberal arts college like Reed will have an order of magnitude fewer applications; the local community college, another order of magnitude fewer still. What I am saying is that we try to protect children from the profound unfairness of the real world, but by the time they're getting ready to go to college, they are competing with each other on a national scale for scarce resources (i.e., a 5% shot at a seat at Harvard, or a 15% shot at a seat at UW if you prefer). I'm not fixating on Harvard specifically, but it is symbolic of this competition for scarce resources and the compounding effects of early advantages and opportunity. [0]: https://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/ https://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/ [1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/record-42742-apply-to-harvard-college-class-of-22/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/record-42742-...
DuskStar 7y ago
> To truly level the playing field requires far earlier intervention And what happens when intervention in preschool also doesn't produce equal outcomes? Is there a point at which we accept that certain groups are just going to do better in a way that we can't eliminate?

by rlue 7y ago

WillPostForFood 7y ago

Why fixate on Harvard? It can only ever serve a few thousand kids. There are hundreds of universities and colleges that can provide a good education and more than a fair shot. The problem isn't a poor kid who graduates from University of Wisconsin or University of Colorado instead of Harvard or Stanford, it is the kid who didn't even graduate high school, can't really read, and isn't prepared to show up at work in the morning, let alone do the job.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
The reason why the elites fixate on Harvard is because they’re completely out of touch with the 99% of folks that don’t apply to or don’t get into elite institutions. It’s pure condescension on their part.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  I agree. Also, there is no policy ever that will make admission to Harvard completely equitable, so as long as you hold up Harvard as the example, it justifies any intervention you want to try. Because Harvard.
rlue 7y ago
I meant “Harvard” as a metonym for desirable/high-status universities. Like it or not, when an employer has to sift through 100 applications for a single vacancy, a Harvard graduate is far more likely to still be in the running by the time they’ve narrowed it down to five. This matters less the longer you’ve been out of college, but by then, the effect will have made its mark on your resume already anyway.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  What do you consider high status? Top 10? Top 20? A poor kid coming out of University fo Wisconsin (ranked ~50) is not going to look as good as a Harvard grad, but so what? That's my point, only a few thousand kids are ever going to get to be from Harvard. That kid from Wisconsin is going to do great, and have plenty of opportunity. It does a huge disservice to imply that he is lesser or lost out because he didn't make it to Harvard. Same for the kid who goes to the local community college. He will obviously have less opportunity than if he went to opportunity, but that doesn't mean he won't have a lot of opportunity, and enough to live a good life.
  - rlue 7y ago
    Okay, sure. Let's include University of Wisconsin and not include the local community college. University of Wisconsin received north of 42,000 applications for the freshman class of 2019,[0] almost exactly the same number that Harvard did.[1] Even a prestigious-but-small liberal arts college like Reed will have an order of magnitude fewer applications; the local community college, another order of magnitude fewer still. What I am saying is that we try to protect children from the profound unfairness of the real world, but by the time they're getting ready to go to college, they are competing with each other on a national scale for scarce resources (i.e., a 5% shot at a seat at Harvard, or a 15% shot at a seat at UW if you prefer). I'm not fixating on Harvard specifically, but it is symbolic of this competition for scarce resources and the compounding effects of early advantages and opportunity. [0]: https://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/ https://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/ [1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/record-42742-apply-to-harvard-college-class-of-22/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/record-42742-...

DuskStar 7y ago

> To truly level the playing field requires far earlier intervention And what happens when intervention in preschool also doesn't produce equal outcomes? Is there a point at which we accept that certain groups are just going to do better in a way that we can't eliminate?