4 ms·

>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"

>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.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >I recognize this applies both ways Yes, it does work both ways but, while you acknowledge that, it's kind of like you want to read past that part quickly. Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" This line of discussion, BTW, overlooks a few other oft-overlooked points: 1. There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society 2. All of these students are of top quality. They're not eschewing a bunch of Einsteins to admit a bunch of dullards. 3. Harvard has an abysmal 4.6% acceptance rate. The overwhelming majority of applicants are being rejected for all kinds of reasons. The idea that qualified people are losing their seats en masse due to racial preferences is wildly inaccurate. 4. There's never been an objective, quantitative admissions process in any case. It's kind of funny that people are so focused on the SAT score, as if that was part of some numeric point-scoring system.
_-david-_ 5y ago
wonderwonder 5y ago
Yup, you're right I misread. With that said, a degree from Harvard is a golden ticket to success, anyone would be torn about giving that up. The issue is not that the ideals are disagreeable its that they have very real consequences in making it harder for certain demographics to have an equal shot at that ticket. "That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place" This argument can then be applied to any school or workplace. Upset that google has started prioritizing White candidates, refer to your argument, who are you to question it? Upset that Princeton suddenly said they had too many minority students, who are you to question it? It doesn't work that way, anyone is free to question anything and blindly accepting things because someone says that these people know better is not a good thing in a free society. "If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to" No one is ignoring racism and its history but rather I am arguing that college admissions is not the place to address them. College should provide an equal arena for everyone to compete for admissions based on academic and extra-curricular achievements. Intervention to bring minority applicants up to a competitive level should be done in early childhood up through highschool. The SAT is simply a series of questions that test academic achievement, getting rid of a test because a group does not do well on it is a race to the bottom in much the same way as removing advanced math from a highschool curriculum is. The problem should be fixed at the source, if Harvard wants to make an impact, take a few billion of their endowment and donate it to local school districts that are struggling to provide for their children. "That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history" I'm going to ignore the insults. Coming to a resolution that helps the affected minority should not be based on punishing one group to raise up another. It should be focused on raising all groups up to an equal stage, that can only happen if work starts with the young. You're right, its Harvard's call to do what ever they want and to spend their endowment however they want but everyone is entitled to an opinion and to proffer a proposal on a message board. Discrimination based on race is the definition of racism, that's not an opinion, its simply the factual definition of the word. From the oxford dictionary, racism is defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Note: typical means usually, not always. I appreciate your view point; as a father of young white kids, I disagree with it but I understand how you are likely approaching this from an equal but opposite position. Edit: Harvard's current racial demographics white: 39% Asian: 20% Black: 8% Whites are already underrepresented as a portion of the general population by 50%. Blacks are underrepresented by ~5%

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.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I recognize this applies both ways Yes, it does work both ways but, while you acknowledge that, it's kind of like you want to read past that part quickly. Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" This line of discussion, BTW, overlooks a few other oft-overlooked points: 1. There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society 2. All of these students are of top quality. They're not eschewing a bunch of Einsteins to admit a bunch of dullards. 3. Harvard has an abysmal 4.6% acceptance rate. The overwhelming majority of applicants are being rejected for all kinds of reasons. The idea that qualified people are losing their seats en masse due to racial preferences is wildly inaccurate. 4. There's never been an objective, quantitative admissions process in any case. It's kind of funny that people are so focused on the SAT score, as if that was part of some numeric point-scoring system.

_-david-_ 5y ago

wonderwonder 5y ago

Yup, you're right I misread. With that said, a degree from Harvard is a golden ticket to success, anyone would be torn about giving that up. The issue is not that the ideals are disagreeable its that they have very real consequences in making it harder for certain demographics to have an equal shot at that ticket. "That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place" This argument can then be applied to any school or workplace. Upset that google has started prioritizing White candidates, refer to your argument, who are you to question it? Upset that Princeton suddenly said they had too many minority students, who are you to question it? It doesn't work that way, anyone is free to question anything and blindly accepting things because someone says that these people know better is not a good thing in a free society. "If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to" No one is ignoring racism and its history but rather I am arguing that college admissions is not the place to address them. College should provide an equal arena for everyone to compete for admissions based on academic and extra-curricular achievements. Intervention to bring minority applicants up to a competitive level should be done in early childhood up through highschool. The SAT is simply a series of questions that test academic achievement, getting rid of a test because a group does not do well on it is a race to the bottom in much the same way as removing advanced math from a highschool curriculum is. The problem should be fixed at the source, if Harvard wants to make an impact, take a few billion of their endowment and donate it to local school districts that are struggling to provide for their children. "That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history" I'm going to ignore the insults. Coming to a resolution that helps the affected minority should not be based on punishing one group to raise up another. It should be focused on raising all groups up to an equal stage, that can only happen if work starts with the young. You're right, its Harvard's call to do what ever they want and to spend their endowment however they want but everyone is entitled to an opinion and to proffer a proposal on a message board. Discrimination based on race is the definition of racism, that's not an opinion, its simply the factual definition of the word. From the oxford dictionary, racism is defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Note: typical means usually, not always. I appreciate your view point; as a father of young white kids, I disagree with it but I understand how you are likely approaching this from an equal but opposite position. Edit: Harvard's current racial demographics white: 39% Asian: 20% Black: 8% Whites are already underrepresented as a portion of the general population by 50%. Blacks are underrepresented by ~5%