3 ms·

This is obviously a controversial topic, and I have mixed feelings. The bottom line (for me) is that diversity at universities and other organizations is eithe

by umvi 7y ago

This is obviously a controversial topic, and I have mixed feelings. The bottom line (for me) is that diversity at universities and other organizations is either good, neutral, or bad. We've (mostly?) collectively agreed diversity is good as diversity in sex/age/race bring diversity in thought, which presumably results in more innovation/competition/challenging of status quo/etc. The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities... Either that or universities need to dedicate a large amount of funding marketing to minorities so that they get more competitive applicants from said group. However, discrimination is easier and cheaper to implement.

skybrian 7y ago
I think Harvard should be 10x bigger than it is. Why can't we have that? This needn't be zero-sum.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that way in practice, but 10x would entail lowering admission standards.
  - littleweep 7y ago
    Or allowing people who are equally as qualified get in? My understanding is the issue is capacity and not quality.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      Qualification is a continuum, there is no such thing as "equally as qualified." Regardless, if Harvard accepted 50% of applicants rather than 5%, the student body would not be equally as qualified.
  - gog-ma-gog 7y ago
    The number of people “qualified” to go to Harvard is probably more than 10x the current capacity of Harvard, though. Maintaining scarcity/exclusivity in the brand is more valuable than servicing the number of people technically qualified to go there, from Harvard’s perspective.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      Yes, but many of those people choose to go to other prestigious schools. If Harvard admitted 50% of applicants, I don't see how you can claim quality wouldn't suffer.
      - gog-ma-gog 7y ago
        I claimed no such thing :D
        MiroF 7y ago
        You said that they should admit 10x. Presumably that would mean 50% rather than 5%. I think quality would go down, you said it wouldn't. Seems clear cut to me.
- frissonlabs 7y ago
  Even if it was 10x bigger, it might not change the ratio of each ethnicity (which is the implicit metric for diversity, right?)
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  The value of Harvard is in its exclusivity. If they just let anyone in over some SAT/GPA cutoff then the value of a Harvard diploma drops.
- pzh 7y ago
  The value of a brand is derived from its exclusivity. If you making 10x bigger, then a degree from there won’t be as valuable. I’m not saying that is right, but most exclusive colleges do brand management based on exclusivity.
- BadassFractal 7y ago
  Same reason why clubs want to be exclusive and keep a long line of non-VIPs outside waiting to get in.
whatshisface 7y ago
>The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities... That's kind of like saying, "I can either take money out of my wallet or put it in the cashier's hand."
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> "The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities..." Uh, are you saying that Asian-Americans are a dominant group and not a minority? If so, a lot of us would have something to say about that...
- MiroF 7y ago
  i think by dominant group s/he likely meant over-represented group
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    That's just as bad. As the paper notes, these Asian-Americans have justly earned their representation through demonstrated capability and hard work and they are being deprived of it.
- therealdrag0 7y ago
  I think OP means they are dominant in performance, which would lead to "over representation" if that was the only admissions factor.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "I think OP means they are dominant in performance, which would lead to "over representation" if that was the only admissions factor." "Other admissions factors" sounds rather similar to Harvard's tactics used to keep out excessive Jewish applicants in the 1920s (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-proble...) because they were earning too many seats because of their performance as well, doesn't it?
- throw_454324 7y ago
  Makes you wonder if OP would say the same about the NBA? Darryl Morey (Houston Rockets) said one of the reasons he didn’t draft Jeremy Lin is because he’s Asian, despite Lin meeting all his criteria.
jjoonathan 7y ago
> diversity at universities and other organizations is either good, neutral, or bad That phrasing suggests there isn't a tradeoff involved. Instead: diversity is either more important than, equally important to, or less important than avoiding discrimination. > We've (mostly?) collectively agreed Back when I took Justice (the class at Harvard), one week's homework involved a mandatory online poll and debate about affirmative action. Opinions were split 50/50 for and against. My own strategy was to pick the (slight) underdog and argue for it -- and evidently others were doing the same thing, because the poll kept bouncing between 49/51 and 51/49. So no, I don't think we have collectively agreed, even though the administration certainly likes to pretend that we have.
gizmo686 7y ago
The problem is that we have also (mostly) agreed that discrimination is bad. In the case of discrimination being bad, we had a massive civil rights movement, and enshrine the notion into constitutional law. Much of the success of the civil rights movement occurred on the legal front, with a strategy based heavily on fighting against discrimination. In the case of diversity being good, we (or at least some circles of us) have a general sense that it is good, but no where near the cultural (or legal) momentum behind the notion. It used to be the case that discrimination was so bad, that fighting against discrimination and fighting for diversity were nearly indistinguishable. Because of how much progress we have made on those fronts, the two camps now realize that they did not actually have the same goal in mind and are now starting to become opposed to each other. I do not think that either camp has fully internalized this new reality yet, so still assumes that the old coalition all belongs to their camp. I should also mention that discrimination in collage admissions (in the form of affirmative action) is one of the textbook examples of when we decided that discrimination was justifiable in the name of diversity under some circumstances.
wsc981 7y ago
Diversity isn’t necessarily always good, even if this is treated like gospel these days. For example in less diverse societies it’s often true that there is more trust between people [0] and that can provide several benefits like more safety or perhaps a stronger social contract. I do wonder if there has ever been any peer reviewed scientific proof that diversity does indeed bring the benefits you mention. Personally I think in an institution like a university it’s best to just bring the brightest minds together, that’s probably more effective than filtering people based on race, gender, etc... — [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-dive...

by umvi 7y ago

skybrian 7y ago

I think Harvard should be 10x bigger than it is. Why can't we have that? This needn't be zero-sum.

MiroF 7y ago
Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that way in practice, but 10x would entail lowering admission standards.
- littleweep 7y ago
  Or allowing people who are equally as qualified get in? My understanding is the issue is capacity and not quality.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Qualification is a continuum, there is no such thing as "equally as qualified." Regardless, if Harvard accepted 50% of applicants rather than 5%, the student body would not be equally as qualified.
- gog-ma-gog 7y ago
  The number of people “qualified” to go to Harvard is probably more than 10x the current capacity of Harvard, though. Maintaining scarcity/exclusivity in the brand is more valuable than servicing the number of people technically qualified to go there, from Harvard’s perspective.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Yes, but many of those people choose to go to other prestigious schools. If Harvard admitted 50% of applicants, I don't see how you can claim quality wouldn't suffer.
    - gog-ma-gog 7y ago
      I claimed no such thing :D
      - MiroF 7y ago
        You said that they should admit 10x. Presumably that would mean 50% rather than 5%. I think quality would go down, you said it wouldn't. Seems clear cut to me.
frissonlabs 7y ago
Even if it was 10x bigger, it might not change the ratio of each ethnicity (which is the implicit metric for diversity, right?)
hackinthebochs 7y ago
The value of Harvard is in its exclusivity. If they just let anyone in over some SAT/GPA cutoff then the value of a Harvard diploma drops.
pzh 7y ago
The value of a brand is derived from its exclusivity. If you making 10x bigger, then a degree from there won’t be as valuable. I’m not saying that is right, but most exclusive colleges do brand management based on exclusivity.
BadassFractal 7y ago
Same reason why clubs want to be exclusive and keep a long line of non-VIPs outside waiting to get in.

whatshisface 7y ago

>The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities... That's kind of like saying, "I can either take money out of my wallet or put it in the cashier's hand."

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

> "The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities..." Uh, are you saying that Asian-Americans are a dominant group and not a minority? If so, a lot of us would have something to say about that...

MiroF 7y ago
i think by dominant group s/he likely meant over-represented group
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  That's just as bad. As the paper notes, these Asian-Americans have justly earned their representation through demonstrated capability and hard work and they are being deprived of it.
therealdrag0 7y ago
I think OP means they are dominant in performance, which would lead to "over representation" if that was the only admissions factor.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "I think OP means they are dominant in performance, which would lead to "over representation" if that was the only admissions factor." "Other admissions factors" sounds rather similar to Harvard's tactics used to keep out excessive Jewish applicants in the 1920s (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-proble...) because they were earning too many seats because of their performance as well, doesn't it?
throw_454324 7y ago
Makes you wonder if OP would say the same about the NBA? Darryl Morey (Houston Rockets) said one of the reasons he didn’t draft Jeremy Lin is because he’s Asian, despite Lin meeting all his criteria.

jjoonathan 7y ago

> diversity at universities and other organizations is either good, neutral, or bad That phrasing suggests there isn't a tradeoff involved. Instead: diversity is either more important than, equally important to, or less important than avoiding discrimination. > We've (mostly?) collectively agreed Back when I took Justice (the class at Harvard), one week's homework involved a mandatory online poll and debate about affirmative action. Opinions were split 50/50 for and against. My own strategy was to pick the (slight) underdog and argue for it -- and evidently others were doing the same thing, because the poll kept bouncing between 49/51 and 51/49. So no, I don't think we have collectively agreed, even though the administration certainly likes to pretend that we have.

gizmo686 7y ago

The problem is that we have also (mostly) agreed that discrimination is bad. In the case of discrimination being bad, we had a massive civil rights movement, and enshrine the notion into constitutional law. Much of the success of the civil rights movement occurred on the legal front, with a strategy based heavily on fighting against discrimination. In the case of diversity being good, we (or at least some circles of us) have a general sense that it is good, but no where near the cultural (or legal) momentum behind the notion. It used to be the case that discrimination was so bad, that fighting against discrimination and fighting for diversity were nearly indistinguishable. Because of how much progress we have made on those fronts, the two camps now realize that they did not actually have the same goal in mind and are now starting to become opposed to each other. I do not think that either camp has fully internalized this new reality yet, so still assumes that the old coalition all belongs to their camp. I should also mention that discrimination in collage admissions (in the form of affirmative action) is one of the textbook examples of when we decided that discrimination was justifiable in the name of diversity under some circumstances.

wsc981 7y ago

Diversity isn’t necessarily always good, even if this is treated like gospel these days. For example in less diverse societies it’s often true that there is more trust between people [0] and that can provide several benefits like more safety or perhaps a stronger social contract. I do wonder if there has ever been any peer reviewed scientific proof that diversity does indeed bring the benefits you mention. Personally I think in an institution like a university it’s best to just bring the brightest minds together, that’s probably more effective than filtering people based on race, gender, etc... — [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-dive...