4 ms·

I think this is just a logical conclusion of the US's wider mentality towards higher education. It seems to me that the US considers the main purpose of a high

I think this is just a logical conclusion of the US's wider mentality towards higher education. It seems to me that the US considers the main purpose of a high quality college education is to produce good economic and cultural elites. Thus, the focus for these colleges is on identifying and fostering 'good citizens' - those that have the highest potential to be shaped into a well-rounded and ethical stewards of this economic and cultural capital. It follows that these citizens are to be drawn from and reflect the diversity of the US. I suppose the thing that's odd is that - uh - education and academics feels very secondary in all of this? For example, for college admissions in my country (the UK), you take national subject-orientated coursework and exams at age 16 and 18 on topics like History or Chemistry, write an essay about the subjects you want to study at university and then maybe have an extra exam or interview that's run by the university. And we're not even a particularly academics-driven culture. I'm sure other commenters can more succinctly describe the US college admissions process, but it really does seem to elevate the importance of (1) extra-curriculars + cultural + social action (2) high school class grade percentiles (3) standardised 'IQ-adjacent' testing and (4) motivations and outlook. What's missing from this list is identifying and developing the next top wave of scholars that might have a narrow but deep interest in an academic field.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago
The thing is, ordering your student's scores from top to bottom and selecting the Nth best, is going to create a pointlessly competitive system where students strive only to get the best scores and not get actually meaningful education (ex. South Korea, China). Even things like giving more points to extra-curricular activities, volunteers, and good admission essays, are eventually going to be gamed and impose tons of unnecessary stress at the students. (And these additional 'social' metrics can hinder the selection of eccentric intellectuals, since it systematically filters out the ones regarded as "outcasts" and encourage normalcy and complacency among the students). My proposal is then: the top X% of students based on test scores will probably have roughly similar intellectual skills, and the much more gifted 0.1% of students are not going to be revealed simply through test scores, examinations, or admission essays. So my solution: take the top X% and filter them through a lottery. In that way you can motivate students to achieve a certain baseline minimum while also minimizing the stresses of college admission (although for this to work well you also need to ensure that universities throughout the nation are funded, supported, and operated more equally, so a talented student who failed to get into one of the top-rated schools because of bad luck can still get a decent-enough education, and then transfer to a better school later)
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  Having a lottery determine your future is scifi dystopia. Why even filter by top X% at this point? Just make everything a lottery. People should have as much control over their destiny as possible. They should have the opportunity to better themselves through hard work.
xvector 5y ago
> It follows that these citizens are to be drawn from and reflect the diversity of the US. No, that is a non-sequitur. Being an "economic and cultural elite [...] well rounded and ethical steward" does not mean that the proportion of Asians in higher education must be forcefully decreased. Are Asian-Americans not valid "economic and cultural elite[s]?" No, the only thing that would logically follow your statement is a rigorous meritocracy that filters to let individuals rise to the top based off of objective measures. Race should not be considered - doing so is plainly racist.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago

The thing is, ordering your student's scores from top to bottom and selecting the Nth best, is going to create a pointlessly competitive system where students strive only to get the best scores and not get actually meaningful education (ex. South Korea, China). Even things like giving more points to extra-curricular activities, volunteers, and good admission essays, are eventually going to be gamed and impose tons of unnecessary stress at the students. (And these additional 'social' metrics can hinder the selection of eccentric intellectuals, since it systematically filters out the ones regarded as "outcasts" and encourage normalcy and complacency among the students). My proposal is then: the top X% of students based on test scores will probably have roughly similar intellectual skills, and the much more gifted 0.1% of students are not going to be revealed simply through test scores, examinations, or admission essays. So my solution: take the top X% and filter them through a lottery. In that way you can motivate students to achieve a certain baseline minimum while also minimizing the stresses of college admission (although for this to work well you also need to ensure that universities throughout the nation are funded, supported, and operated more equally, so a talented student who failed to get into one of the top-rated schools because of bad luck can still get a decent-enough education, and then transfer to a better school later)

cuteboy19 5y ago
Having a lottery determine your future is scifi dystopia. Why even filter by top X% at this point? Just make everything a lottery. People should have as much control over their destiny as possible. They should have the opportunity to better themselves through hard work.

xvector 5y ago

> It follows that these citizens are to be drawn from and reflect the diversity of the US. No, that is a non-sequitur. Being an "economic and cultural elite [...] well rounded and ethical steward" does not mean that the proportion of Asians in higher education must be forcefully decreased. Are Asian-Americans not valid "economic and cultural elite[s]?" No, the only thing that would logically follow your statement is a rigorous meritocracy that filters to let individuals rise to the top based off of objective measures. Race should not be considered - doing so is plainly racist.