4 ms·

> it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, a

> it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, are biased by class or race. Are they? The article you linked doesn't say. > The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! What percent of students scoring over a 1500 on the SAT are from the top 1% of household earners? I doubt it is not a minority. There's obviously an income correlation, but it's far better than simply taking rich kids. How do you propose selecting students?

light_hue_1 5y ago
> What do you mean by these terms? By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate. > How do you propose selecting students? Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Colleges can do whatever they want, if they don't like the deal, that's fine, but they get no federal funding and they get no federally-backed student loans. You start with the outcomes you believe are just. And you set up incentives to get that outcome. That's literally what we do everywhere else. We tell car manufacturers that they need to make cars that have fewer emissions, we don't tell them how. They figure it out. Universities will figure out how to make this happen, they're full of smart people.
- flowerlad 5y ago
  > That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. Yes, your appearance does have an impact on life outcomes, that much is true. But standardized tests are not to blame. In fact, standardized tests are the solution, because the test doesn't know what you look like. > 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. If the 1% of earners are in the 1% because of being smart and because of being hard working, and the children inherit these traits, why punish the children for that?
- usaar333 5y ago
  > who happens to be born poor Yes, that's troublesome, but it is inherently impossible to solve this. Less poor parents generally educate their children better (or at least keep their children in better environments), so this is difficult if not impossible to correct. I ensure my preschooler does her reading lessons every night - poorer parents (on average) don't. How are you supposed to correct for this? > or who happens to be born with a darker skin color Huh? Are you in tech? If anything, the "darker" kids were performing better at the schools I attended growing up (in the Bay Area). > We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Well, demographics is a bit arbitrary, so the only way to do this across whatever you are trying to measure is to run a US-wide lottery for every school. This would functionally kill the concept of universities as tracked systems and I imagine it would be strictly better for all of the top schools to simply forgo federal funding to preserve their very purpose.
- tester34 5y ago
  >Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. How about your look, height, voice and so on?
- naveen99 5y ago
  and should the us let immigrants in that match the current us demographic or the global demographic ? If global demographic, then eventually the us will be similar to the global demographic. If not, what point in time should the us demographic be frozen ? What about remote workers, should they have the us demographic or the global demographic?
- naveen99 5y ago
  Should mbti types be represented in university equally 1/16, or proportionally to their demographics in the usa ? What about in engineering ? Should mbti types be equally represented in all professions?

light_hue_1 5y ago

> What do you mean by these terms? By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate. > How do you propose selecting students? Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Colleges can do whatever they want, if they don't like the deal, that's fine, but they get no federal funding and they get no federally-backed student loans. You start with the outcomes you believe are just. And you set up incentives to get that outcome. That's literally what we do everywhere else. We tell car manufacturers that they need to make cars that have fewer emissions, we don't tell them how. They figure it out. Universities will figure out how to make this happen, they're full of smart people.

flowerlad 5y ago
> That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. Yes, your appearance does have an impact on life outcomes, that much is true. But standardized tests are not to blame. In fact, standardized tests are the solution, because the test doesn't know what you look like. > 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. If the 1% of earners are in the 1% because of being smart and because of being hard working, and the children inherit these traits, why punish the children for that?
usaar333 5y ago
> who happens to be born poor Yes, that's troublesome, but it is inherently impossible to solve this. Less poor parents generally educate their children better (or at least keep their children in better environments), so this is difficult if not impossible to correct. I ensure my preschooler does her reading lessons every night - poorer parents (on average) don't. How are you supposed to correct for this? > or who happens to be born with a darker skin color Huh? Are you in tech? If anything, the "darker" kids were performing better at the schools I attended growing up (in the Bay Area). > We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Well, demographics is a bit arbitrary, so the only way to do this across whatever you are trying to measure is to run a US-wide lottery for every school. This would functionally kill the concept of universities as tracked systems and I imagine it would be strictly better for all of the top schools to simply forgo federal funding to preserve their very purpose.
tester34 5y ago
>Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. How about your look, height, voice and so on?
naveen99 5y ago
and should the us let immigrants in that match the current us demographic or the global demographic ? If global demographic, then eventually the us will be similar to the global demographic. If not, what point in time should the us demographic be frozen ? What about remote workers, should they have the us demographic or the global demographic?
naveen99 5y ago
Should mbti types be represented in university equally 1/16, or proportionally to their demographics in the usa ? What about in engineering ? Should mbti types be equally represented in all professions?