4 ms·

> If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the clas

> If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. That's insane. They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. Limiting the number of smart & hard working kids in universities will lead to a dumber nation.

light_hue_1 5y ago
> They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? What you wrote is exactly how all of this insanity of scientific and rational racism started in the 1800s. How we ended up with standardized tests, IQ tests, phrenology, and eventually with Hitler and Stalin exterminating inferior people. If you adopt your view, then you end up with a strictly racist and classist society. People at the top get their kids into the best schools because they have money and connections, those schools provide the best education and the best social connections, and the cycle continues forever. No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people.
- flowerlad 5y ago
  > That is literally what racism is! No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. > White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? You are putting words in my mouth. > The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! If the goal is to help people in lower socio-economic brackets, then the best way to do that is to make college free, not eliminate standardized tests. I see too many deserving students accepted into good colleges decide that they can't go because they can't afford it.
  - light_hue_1 5y ago
    > No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. It is literally saying "people of this race should be given more stuff" > You are putting words in my mouth. I am not. I repeated what you said. You said that the children of the 1% are somehow genetically superior. I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. That is the simple logical consequence of your beliefs. And it a chain of reasoning we have already followed right into slavery and concentration camps as a species. One that we should not follow again. > Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! Look back on that chain of inferences and think to yourself where you went wrong, how did your thoughts, that you consider innocent, lead to an extremely racist conclusion. There are only two outcomes possible. Either you look at your chain of reasoning and its simple plain outcome "white people are genetically superior" which you seem to believe in, and you feel ok with that. In which case this is just plain racism. Or you look at it and realize that no there is something deeply wrong here. And you will find that the idea that your parents are wealthy somehow meaning that their children are genetically superior is bankrupt. Your choice. Racism or changing your thought process.
    - flowerlad 5y ago
      > No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. All I am saying is that if people who are in the top 1% got there because of being smarter and being willing to work hard, then to the extend these traits are heritable you should expect their children to have these traits as well. Such kids can be expected to do well in school. Should they be given disproportionate opportunities? Absolutely not. But if they do well in school do not assume that's because they have been given disproportionate opportunities! > I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. Nonsense. I am not white, and I do not believe white people are genetically superior. I am Asian.
- tester34 5y ago
  >No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people. You act as if parents just paid some money and people could score anything they want on standarized tests. It requires shitton of effort to score top 1%. I knew people who if could, then would buy themselves $top_score easily, but on standarized tests they didnt/barely passed.

light_hue_1 5y ago

> They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? What you wrote is exactly how all of this insanity of scientific and rational racism started in the 1800s. How we ended up with standardized tests, IQ tests, phrenology, and eventually with Hitler and Stalin exterminating inferior people. If you adopt your view, then you end up with a strictly racist and classist society. People at the top get their kids into the best schools because they have money and connections, those schools provide the best education and the best social connections, and the cycle continues forever. No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people.

flowerlad 5y ago
> That is literally what racism is! No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. > White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? You are putting words in my mouth. > The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! If the goal is to help people in lower socio-economic brackets, then the best way to do that is to make college free, not eliminate standardized tests. I see too many deserving students accepted into good colleges decide that they can't go because they can't afford it.
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  > No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. It is literally saying "people of this race should be given more stuff" > You are putting words in my mouth. I am not. I repeated what you said. You said that the children of the 1% are somehow genetically superior. I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. That is the simple logical consequence of your beliefs. And it a chain of reasoning we have already followed right into slavery and concentration camps as a species. One that we should not follow again. > Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! Look back on that chain of inferences and think to yourself where you went wrong, how did your thoughts, that you consider innocent, lead to an extremely racist conclusion. There are only two outcomes possible. Either you look at your chain of reasoning and its simple plain outcome "white people are genetically superior" which you seem to believe in, and you feel ok with that. In which case this is just plain racism. Or you look at it and realize that no there is something deeply wrong here. And you will find that the idea that your parents are wealthy somehow meaning that their children are genetically superior is bankrupt. Your choice. Racism or changing your thought process.
  - flowerlad 5y ago
    > No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. All I am saying is that if people who are in the top 1% got there because of being smarter and being willing to work hard, then to the extend these traits are heritable you should expect their children to have these traits as well. Such kids can be expected to do well in school. Should they be given disproportionate opportunities? Absolutely not. But if they do well in school do not assume that's because they have been given disproportionate opportunities! > I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. Nonsense. I am not white, and I do not believe white people are genetically superior. I am Asian.
tester34 5y ago
>No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people. You act as if parents just paid some money and people could score anything they want on standarized tests. It requires shitton of effort to score top 1%. I knew people who if could, then would buy themselves $top_score easily, but on standarized tests they didnt/barely passed.