5 ms·

"Why not just not aspire to attend" If the schools remove academic testing credentials OP loses the ability to use test scores as a means of entry, which would

"Why not just not aspire to attend" If the schools remove academic testing credentials OP loses the ability to use test scores as a means of entry, which would have potentially levelled the playing field. Additionally if the schools elect to admit students based on racial / gender criteria and OP is a white heterosexual male, then OP cannot compete on a level playing field at all and his accomplishments are meaningless. You tell OP to aspire to attend but these changes would mean his odds are drastically reduced through no fault of his own except he was not born to the 1% and his skin and gender are wrong. Admitting people based on racial criteria is racist no matter the intention and hurts people that have likely done everything right to attend their school of choice.

lazyasciiart 5y ago
It says "NOT aspire". As in, if you think they are so shitty then stop wanting to go there.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>You tell OP to aspire to attend No. It's the opposite. I asked OP why he wouldn't simply NOT aspire to attend if he found the school's "social justice ideals" so disagreeable. >OP cannot compete on a level playing field What is a "level playing field"? That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place. That's what you're missing. It's their prerogative to set the playing field. Your preferred criteria are irrelevant. And, the kicker is, it's a pretty good bet they know better. >at all and his accomplishments are meaningless That's hyperbolic to say the least. I'm sure they're meaningful to Harvard and elsewhere. Likewise, the experiences and capabilities of some whose talents may be reflected outside of a standardized test are meaningful. >Admitting people based on racial criteria is racist That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to.
- freewilly1040 5y ago
  Elite college entrance is a lifelong shortcut in the distribution system of money and power that the rest of us do not get to opt out of. The things you say about racial injustice are true, however if correcting this were truly the goal Harvard and the other ivies would remove legacy admission preference. They won’t because their core mission is to provide a route for the wealthy and powerful to pass down social status to their heirs. The function of anyone else there is to obscure this core mission.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >Elite college entrance is a lifelong shortcut in the distribution system of money and power I'd say it's more a projection of that system. If you eliminated elite colleges entirely, the system wouldn't simply vanish.
- dotnet00 5y ago
  >That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to. Is that something current people who had no choice in what happened deserve to be punished for? and yes, I recognize this applies both ways, but every time this topic comes up it seems like we forget that no college applicant had much of a choice regarding the circumstances that led to the admissions criteria being the way they are, so the claim that one needs to be biased for/against a group because of historical issues isn't entirely morally sound. In the end you are still punishing some group of innocents. Personally I think that instead the focus should be on trying to balance the field at the high school level. If everyone is brought up to a similar level of education by the end of high school, there is no need to bias admissions themselves, instead the university can just offer financial aid to poorer students. Alternatively things change so that the university one goes to doesn't really matter for future career prospects. In my opinion the former is easier to achieve.
DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
> If the schools remove academic testing credentials OP loses the ability to use test scores as a means of entry, which would have potentially levelled the playing field. This doesn't track. College admissions tests are a huge area of concern when it comes to institutionalized racism (due to the racial wealth gap). They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test. (a) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend time studying, and (b) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend money on test prep materials. Compound this with the fact that the tests are fairly expensive themselves, so even retaking the test is often out of the question for people with few means, compared to wealthy students who can retake the test as many times as they like. The idea that entrance exams balanced things in favor of people from lower socioeconomic classes is, and always has been, a bunch of malarkey.
- usaar333 5y ago
  > The idea that entrance exams balanced things in favor of people from lower socioeconomic classes is, and always has been, a bunch of malarkey. You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. The rest of the admissions criteria have similar issues you raise, if not worse. (Essays and interviews especially risk class bias) > They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test. Citation needed here. They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used.
  - DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
    > You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. I do appreciate this point, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant keeping exams in-place. I think we should remove them while also striving to improve the rest of the college admissions process. Having a metric that claims to level the playing field but actually does not is, in my opinion, more harmful than other metrics that are less straightforward. It gives false hope and also allows for a more dastardly scheme of classism, since it is centralized instead of managed separately by each university. > They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used. I think they are indicative of socioeconomic standing, which in turn is predictive of GPA. Students who can afford tutoring, or who have parents who have free time to help while growing up, or who do not need to take on extra jobs, or who don't generally worry about other such stressors that are typically due to low socioeconomic status are consistently shown to achieve greater academic success at all grades, even as early as first grade. Socioeconomic status is the #1 predictor of academic success, and this is reflected by college entrance exams. Keep in mind that it is in the best interests of these organizations to intentionally avoid addressing this point. Also, it's worth remembering that college entrance exams trace their origins back to purported tests of general intelligence that were in fact designed with intentional cultural bias to prevent non-white students from finding admission at universities. (This was later addressed and somewhat rectified, in some ways, but my points is that the organizations responsible have a history of not really caring about crafting a test in the best interests of the student.)

lazyasciiart 5y ago

It says "NOT aspire". As in, if you think they are so shitty then stop wanting to go there.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>You tell OP to aspire to attend No. It's the opposite. I asked OP why he wouldn't simply NOT aspire to attend if he found the school's "social justice ideals" so disagreeable. >OP cannot compete on a level playing field What is a "level playing field"? That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place. That's what you're missing. It's their prerogative to set the playing field. Your preferred criteria are irrelevant. And, the kicker is, it's a pretty good bet they know better. >at all and his accomplishments are meaningless That's hyperbolic to say the least. I'm sure they're meaningful to Harvard and elsewhere. Likewise, the experiences and capabilities of some whose talents may be reflected outside of a standardized test are meaningful. >Admitting people based on racial criteria is racist That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to.

freewilly1040 5y ago
Elite college entrance is a lifelong shortcut in the distribution system of money and power that the rest of us do not get to opt out of. The things you say about racial injustice are true, however if correcting this were truly the goal Harvard and the other ivies would remove legacy admission preference. They won’t because their core mission is to provide a route for the wealthy and powerful to pass down social status to their heirs. The function of anyone else there is to obscure this core mission.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Elite college entrance is a lifelong shortcut in the distribution system of money and power I'd say it's more a projection of that system. If you eliminated elite colleges entirely, the system wouldn't simply vanish.
dotnet00 5y ago
>That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to. Is that something current people who had no choice in what happened deserve to be punished for? and yes, I recognize this applies both ways, but every time this topic comes up it seems like we forget that no college applicant had much of a choice regarding the circumstances that led to the admissions criteria being the way they are, so the claim that one needs to be biased for/against a group because of historical issues isn't entirely morally sound. In the end you are still punishing some group of innocents. Personally I think that instead the focus should be on trying to balance the field at the high school level. If everyone is brought up to a similar level of education by the end of high school, there is no need to bias admissions themselves, instead the university can just offer financial aid to poorer students. Alternatively things change so that the university one goes to doesn't really matter for future career prospects. In my opinion the former is easier to achieve.

DonaldPShimoda 5y ago

> If the schools remove academic testing credentials OP loses the ability to use test scores as a means of entry, which would have potentially levelled the playing field. This doesn't track. College admissions tests are a huge area of concern when it comes to institutionalized racism (due to the racial wealth gap). They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test. (a) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend time studying, and (b) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend money on test prep materials. Compound this with the fact that the tests are fairly expensive themselves, so even retaking the test is often out of the question for people with few means, compared to wealthy students who can retake the test as many times as they like. The idea that entrance exams balanced things in favor of people from lower socioeconomic classes is, and always has been, a bunch of malarkey.

usaar333 5y ago
> The idea that entrance exams balanced things in favor of people from lower socioeconomic classes is, and always has been, a bunch of malarkey. You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. The rest of the admissions criteria have similar issues you raise, if not worse. (Essays and interviews especially risk class bias) > They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test. Citation needed here. They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used.
- DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
  > You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. I do appreciate this point, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant keeping exams in-place. I think we should remove them while also striving to improve the rest of the college admissions process. Having a metric that claims to level the playing field but actually does not is, in my opinion, more harmful than other metrics that are less straightforward. It gives false hope and also allows for a more dastardly scheme of classism, since it is centralized instead of managed separately by each university. > They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used. I think they are indicative of socioeconomic standing, which in turn is predictive of GPA. Students who can afford tutoring, or who have parents who have free time to help while growing up, or who do not need to take on extra jobs, or who don't generally worry about other such stressors that are typically due to low socioeconomic status are consistently shown to achieve greater academic success at all grades, even as early as first grade. Socioeconomic status is the #1 predictor of academic success, and this is reflected by college entrance exams. Keep in mind that it is in the best interests of these organizations to intentionally avoid addressing this point. Also, it's worth remembering that college entrance exams trace their origins back to purported tests of general intelligence that were in fact designed with intentional cultural bias to prevent non-white students from finding admission at universities. (This was later addressed and somewhat rectified, in some ways, but my points is that the organizations responsible have a history of not really caring about crafting a test in the best interests of the student.)