5 ms·

Meanwhile, the same California government is trying to legalize discriminatory race-based admissions.

by google234123 6y ago

czzr 6y ago
How is that related to this?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  Because universities such as Berkeley claim they are a bastion of "diverse admission policies" as opposed to meritocracy which they call "a tyranny" which make them hypocrites as they have corrupt admission policies and practice cronyism.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    So there are tons of people in this thread saying "it seems fine to me, of course wealthy people should get special treatment, that's fine." It was never a "meritocracy". Wealthy people and well-connected people have always had an advantage, and still do. This seems to me an argument for things like affirmative action. To try to balance the scales a bit. Not sure why you see it as an argument against.
    - throw_m239339 6y ago
      > It was never a "meritocracy". Of course it wasn't meritocracy since it was cronyism and nepotism like what happens at Berkeley. But neither is "affirmative action", a racist policy which isn't going to end nepotism and cronyism, just make things even more arbitrary. No need to be an "athlete" now, just put "latino" or "black" on your registration form and don't forget the bribes. That's the system you are rooting for.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrochkind1 6y ago
        Obviously "just putting latino or black on your registration" form does not in fact automatically get you into any university, you know you are exaggerating. Then you add "and don't forget the bribes" -- you think most bribes come from Black and Latino people, or most people who are Black and Latino also bribe schools to get in? I don't think you actually think this, because it would be insane? I find it disturbing that when confronted with information about how wealthy and socially connected people have long been able to use their wealth and social connections to get into universities -- you are less concerned about doing something about this, than you are concerned about programs meant to give some advantage to less wealthy and socially-connected people. It's like, you see bribery and special favors from the wealthy and socially-connected, and you somehow still find a way to blame the poor and not socially connected for this problem, to focus the discussion away from the misdeeds of the wealthy and socially-connected! It really says something that this whole discussion is full of people saying "I don't see the problem with that, it seems fine" for wealthy and socially-connected people (who are mostly but not entirely white) to have advantages, and also comments like yours complaining about perceived advantages they think not white people have. America really has done a number on us.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Unqualified students with connections might be a better place to free up space vs. qualified students of the wrong color?
Gibbon1 6y ago
And then we have google which likes to only hire from 'top tier schools' and then everyone else follows along. Believe me I've noticed how THAT has changed tech culture in the bay area.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jedberg 6y ago
re-leaglize. It was legal until the 90s. When it became illegal, the diversity on campus dropped significantly. There is an argument to be made that the race-based admissions help make up for prior injustices.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Why can't you mix the two? Admit 1/2 your class as top students, and the other 1/2 as people who are being uplifted. That is in fact exactly how admissions at the UC schools work. The first 1/2 of the class is admitted on test scores and grades alone, the second 1/2 is admitted via reading of their essays and considering other factors, such as extracurriculars, economic circumstance, and, until the 90s, race.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Or you can choose to define "top students" as those who performed best, relative to their starting conditions. You could make an argument that such student are most efficient at using the opportunities they are given, and thus would benefit most from the education.
    - samatman 6y ago
      That would work, if the last measure taken was immediately prior to admission. Alas, university doesn't work that way: students continue to be measured throughout their tenure, and those measures are an important component of the next phase of their life, be it work or further education. The evidence is unequivocal: lowering the admissions standards for some section of the student body, results in those students doing poorly relative to students who were subject to the full standards. This shouldn't be surprising, and no, it doesn't seem to matter why the standards were lowered, affirmative action, legacy preference, or otherwise.

Meanwhile, the same California government is trying to legalize discriminatory race-based admissions.

czzr 6y ago

How is that related to this?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throw_m239339 6y ago
Because universities such as Berkeley claim they are a bastion of "diverse admission policies" as opposed to meritocracy which they call "a tyranny" which make them hypocrites as they have corrupt admission policies and practice cronyism.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  So there are tons of people in this thread saying "it seems fine to me, of course wealthy people should get special treatment, that's fine." It was never a "meritocracy". Wealthy people and well-connected people have always had an advantage, and still do. This seems to me an argument for things like affirmative action. To try to balance the scales a bit. Not sure why you see it as an argument against.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > It was never a "meritocracy". Of course it wasn't meritocracy since it was cronyism and nepotism like what happens at Berkeley. But neither is "affirmative action", a racist policy which isn't going to end nepotism and cronyism, just make things even more arbitrary. No need to be an "athlete" now, just put "latino" or "black" on your registration form and don't forget the bribes. That's the system you are rooting for.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrochkind1 6y ago
      Obviously "just putting latino or black on your registration" form does not in fact automatically get you into any university, you know you are exaggerating. Then you add "and don't forget the bribes" -- you think most bribes come from Black and Latino people, or most people who are Black and Latino also bribe schools to get in? I don't think you actually think this, because it would be insane? I find it disturbing that when confronted with information about how wealthy and socially connected people have long been able to use their wealth and social connections to get into universities -- you are less concerned about doing something about this, than you are concerned about programs meant to give some advantage to less wealthy and socially-connected people. It's like, you see bribery and special favors from the wealthy and socially-connected, and you somehow still find a way to blame the poor and not socially connected for this problem, to focus the discussion away from the misdeeds of the wealthy and socially-connected! It really says something that this whole discussion is full of people saying "I don't see the problem with that, it seems fine" for wealthy and socially-connected people (who are mostly but not entirely white) to have advantages, and also comments like yours complaining about perceived advantages they think not white people have. America really has done a number on us.
closeparen 6y ago
Unqualified students with connections might be a better place to free up space vs. qualified students of the wrong color?

Gibbon1 6y ago

And then we have google which likes to only hire from 'top tier schools' and then everyone else follows along. Believe me I've noticed how THAT has changed tech culture in the bay area.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 6y ago

re-leaglize. It was legal until the 90s. When it became illegal, the diversity on campus dropped significantly. There is an argument to be made that the race-based admissions help make up for prior injustices.

ciarannolan 6y ago
I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Why can't you mix the two? Admit 1/2 your class as top students, and the other 1/2 as people who are being uplifted. That is in fact exactly how admissions at the UC schools work. The first 1/2 of the class is admitted on test scores and grades alone, the second 1/2 is admitted via reading of their essays and considering other factors, such as extracurriculars, economic circumstance, and, until the 90s, race.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Or you can choose to define "top students" as those who performed best, relative to their starting conditions. You could make an argument that such student are most efficient at using the opportunities they are given, and thus would benefit most from the education.
  - samatman 6y ago
    That would work, if the last measure taken was immediately prior to admission. Alas, university doesn't work that way: students continue to be measured throughout their tenure, and those measures are an important component of the next phase of their life, be it work or further education. The evidence is unequivocal: lowering the admissions standards for some section of the student body, results in those students doing poorly relative to students who were subject to the full standards. This shouldn't be surprising, and no, it doesn't seem to matter why the standards were lowered, affirmative action, legacy preference, or otherwise.