7 ms·

I think the debate from progressives is the definition of the term discriminate. We all agree choosing an unqualified person over a person who is qualified bas

by slg 7y ago

I think the debate from progressives is the definition of the term discriminate. We all agree choosing an unqualified person over a person who is qualified based on their race is discrimination. However is it discrimination to choose the diverse candidate when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? Because that is often the situation. There is no shortage of people who are qualified to get into Harvard or capable of succeeding there.

alexis_fr 7y ago
Yes it is discrimination, because it gives people of that race systematically fewer chances of having a life. The difference is when it is systematic. It is currently systematic in most universities and schools.
dwoozle 7y ago
Why set a minimum bar at “qualified”? If you try out for an NBA team they won’t say “you are really fucking good at basketball, you’re not as good as these guys but you’re diverse so you’re hired.” You get scarce positions by outcompeting people, not by clearing a bar and then getting selected for your race.
- defen 7y ago
  Basketball is zero-sum, undergrad college admissions mostly aren't. As long as Harvard lets in enough students who are "good enough" to not fail out or besmirch their reputation, it can continue indefinitely as a prestige-generating institution. Put another way - the "Michael Jordan" of undergraduate academics doesn't really exist (in other words, there is no individual undergraduate you could admit who would instantly make your college superior to every other one)
  - dwoozle 7y ago
    Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... presidents, Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, famous authors... Harvard is prestigious because they admit people who later do those things. The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
    - defen 7y ago
      You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        > You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
        defen 7y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
  - rohit2412 7y ago
    So, Bill gates, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page etc etc did not bring their amla mater's any extra fame? Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
    - defen 7y ago
      Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard. Neither Brin nor Page went to Harvard and are both more famous for their connection to Stanford as graduate students IMO
      - rohit2412 7y ago
        They did bring fame though right?
        defen 7y ago
        Sure, but this is about undergraduate admissions, not graduate.
        sjg007 7y ago
        I mean I don't think the graduate level is that different.
        Retric 7y ago
        I think their dropping out may have hurt Harvard’s reputation as much as helped it. It’s often viewed as a place smart people and the elite go, but not always where they receive a great education.
- brlewis 7y ago
  Professional sports have well-defined skills and roles to compete for. Diversity of backgrounds/perspectives/ideas is not as valuable in athletes as it is in an academic community.
tooltalk 7y ago
> ... when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? ... Because that is often the situation Is that the case? I always thought that the case is brought on because the diversity candidate is NOT often "equally qualified,"
- rohit2412 7y ago
  If you read the argument, he/she is setting a lower bar and calling everyone qualified. They do not even acknowledge that their policies discriminate.
- slg 7y ago
  That depends on what "equally qualified" means? If it means "someone who is equally likely to be successful at Harvard" the answer is likely yes. Like I said there is no shortage of people who fit that definition. If it means "someone who has quantifiably the exact same quality of resume" the answer is potentially no. Although if you subscribe to the second definition, you should probably have a bigger complaint against athletes and children of alumni, staff, or donors. Almost half of all white students at Harvard are in one of those groups[1] and yet there are always more complaints about "diversity" than there is about these students. [1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...
TulliusCicero 7y ago
This only makes sense if you're looking at it as a binary thing: qualified vs not-qualified. But the reality is that it's more of a spectrum, and in general universities usually want to take the most qualified people they can, just like companies want to get the most qualified job applicants.
bluecalm 7y ago
Of course it's discrimination. Just look at the definition of the word. The only debate is if slight discrimination is acceptable if it achieves higher goals.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gatvol 7y ago
> However is it discrimination to choose the diverse candidate when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? Absolutely discrimination. Unless the definition of discrimination has changed significantly that is.

by slg 7y ago

alexis_fr 7y ago

Yes it is discrimination, because it gives people of that race systematically fewer chances of having a life. The difference is when it is systematic. It is currently systematic in most universities and schools.

dwoozle 7y ago

Why set a minimum bar at “qualified”? If you try out for an NBA team they won’t say “you are really fucking good at basketball, you’re not as good as these guys but you’re diverse so you’re hired.” You get scarce positions by outcompeting people, not by clearing a bar and then getting selected for your race.

defen 7y ago
Basketball is zero-sum, undergrad college admissions mostly aren't. As long as Harvard lets in enough students who are "good enough" to not fail out or besmirch their reputation, it can continue indefinitely as a prestige-generating institution. Put another way - the "Michael Jordan" of undergraduate academics doesn't really exist (in other words, there is no individual undergraduate you could admit who would instantly make your college superior to every other one)
- dwoozle 7y ago
  Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... presidents, Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, famous authors... Harvard is prestigious because they admit people who later do those things. The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
  - defen 7y ago
    You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
      - defen 7y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
- rohit2412 7y ago
  So, Bill gates, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page etc etc did not bring their amla mater's any extra fame? Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
  - defen 7y ago
    Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard. Neither Brin nor Page went to Harvard and are both more famous for their connection to Stanford as graduate students IMO
    - rohit2412 7y ago
      They did bring fame though right?
      - defen 7y ago
        Sure, but this is about undergraduate admissions, not graduate.
        sjg007 7y ago
        I mean I don't think the graduate level is that different.
      - Retric 7y ago
        I think their dropping out may have hurt Harvard’s reputation as much as helped it. It’s often viewed as a place smart people and the elite go, but not always where they receive a great education.
brlewis 7y ago
Professional sports have well-defined skills and roles to compete for. Diversity of backgrounds/perspectives/ideas is not as valuable in athletes as it is in an academic community.

tooltalk 7y ago

> ... when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? ... Because that is often the situation Is that the case? I always thought that the case is brought on because the diversity candidate is NOT often "equally qualified,"

rohit2412 7y ago
If you read the argument, he/she is setting a lower bar and calling everyone qualified. They do not even acknowledge that their policies discriminate.
slg 7y ago
That depends on what "equally qualified" means? If it means "someone who is equally likely to be successful at Harvard" the answer is likely yes. Like I said there is no shortage of people who fit that definition. If it means "someone who has quantifiably the exact same quality of resume" the answer is potentially no. Although if you subscribe to the second definition, you should probably have a bigger complaint against athletes and children of alumni, staff, or donors. Almost half of all white students at Harvard are in one of those groups[1] and yet there are always more complaints about "diversity" than there is about these students. [1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...

TulliusCicero 7y ago

This only makes sense if you're looking at it as a binary thing: qualified vs not-qualified. But the reality is that it's more of a spectrum, and in general universities usually want to take the most qualified people they can, just like companies want to get the most qualified job applicants.

bluecalm 7y ago

Of course it's discrimination. Just look at the definition of the word. The only debate is if slight discrimination is acceptable if it achieves higher goals.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gatvol 7y ago

> However is it discrimination to choose the diverse candidate when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? Absolutely discrimination. Unless the definition of discrimination has changed significantly that is.