3 ms·

The idea is that there are more kids who could succeed at the college than there are spots. So find the right bar and do lottery. A lot of this comes down to

The idea is that there are more kids who could succeed at the college than there are spots. So find the right bar and do lottery. A lot of this comes down to what you think the mission of college is. Is it to educate the highest achieving kids who apply? Or to graduate a certain type of student? Or something else? For me I know it’s not just to educate the highest achieving kids. If the top college in the world ended up accepting all terrorists who were trained to be exceptional students that wouldn’t sit right with me. Even if I could acknowledge they had the best academic records. That seems like such a shallow goal for university.

judge2020 3y ago
The way I see it, this is only a problem if you must go to one of the top schools in the nation, such as MIT, because you want to be able to graduate and secure an extremely competitive job at the best companies with no questions asked. If you aren't actively trying to achieve stardom in the professional world, there are tons of good universities that will provide a great education and will look good on your resume, you just might not be hired right out of the gate at Apple with only one or two rounds of interviews.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  I wonder if there's also a difference between engineering and non-engineering schools. I tend to agree that at MIT you mostly just want the very best engineers and the more objective the metric, maybe the better. But if I'm looking to educate the best politicians, judges, business people, activists -- I think that I really do care about a lot more than SATs and transcripts. It's funny because I feel like no one has this argument about Cal Tech. They might have affirmative action, but if they didn't everyone seemed to be OK with it.
kelipso 3y ago
[flagged]
- malnourish 3y ago
  Do you believe we live in a meritocracy?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Not a perfect meritocracy, but yes, I believe Merritt and performance has a significant impact on outcomes. If you don't try, don't go to school, or don't go to your job, your average outcome will be much worse than someone that does
- kenjackson 3y ago
  Why is the analogy ridiculous? You should read The Chosen, by Karabel, which is probably the best history of elite college admissions. Much of what we do in college admissions today are remnants to reduce the number of Jewish people at Ivy League schools -- and then later a focus on meritocracy. Colleges have historically taken stock of the "type" of people they accept and adjust to their liking.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    I'm ignoring analogies containing terrorists in it lol. It's true that colleges are historically and currently biased. But that does not mean that you just drop the idea of meritocracy and just say fuck it have a lottery. Instead you move towards the ideal and crack down on college biases, e.g, you can assign students to colleges based on prospective student's college preferences and SAT scores; that's how it works in plenty of countries.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      I choose terrorists because everyone dislikes them. Seemed non-offensive. But you can make them whatever group you think is harmful in your mind (maybe progressives for you). The question is what is the ends meant to achieve by the meritocracy? The goal of most institutions in our world is to make the world a better place for us to live in. If the meritocracy seems to run counter to that then it may not be achieving its goal. And the point I was trying to make with the terrorists is that if you blindly treat meritocracy as its own ends then you can end up making the world a worse place for it.

judge2020 3y ago

The way I see it, this is only a problem if you must go to one of the top schools in the nation, such as MIT, because you want to be able to graduate and secure an extremely competitive job at the best companies with no questions asked. If you aren't actively trying to achieve stardom in the professional world, there are tons of good universities that will provide a great education and will look good on your resume, you just might not be hired right out of the gate at Apple with only one or two rounds of interviews.

kenjackson 3y ago
I wonder if there's also a difference between engineering and non-engineering schools. I tend to agree that at MIT you mostly just want the very best engineers and the more objective the metric, maybe the better. But if I'm looking to educate the best politicians, judges, business people, activists -- I think that I really do care about a lot more than SATs and transcripts. It's funny because I feel like no one has this argument about Cal Tech. They might have affirmative action, but if they didn't everyone seemed to be OK with it.

kelipso 3y ago

[flagged]

malnourish 3y ago
Do you believe we live in a meritocracy?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Not a perfect meritocracy, but yes, I believe Merritt and performance has a significant impact on outcomes. If you don't try, don't go to school, or don't go to your job, your average outcome will be much worse than someone that does
kenjackson 3y ago
Why is the analogy ridiculous? You should read The Chosen, by Karabel, which is probably the best history of elite college admissions. Much of what we do in college admissions today are remnants to reduce the number of Jewish people at Ivy League schools -- and then later a focus on meritocracy. Colleges have historically taken stock of the "type" of people they accept and adjust to their liking.
- kelipso 3y ago
  I'm ignoring analogies containing terrorists in it lol. It's true that colleges are historically and currently biased. But that does not mean that you just drop the idea of meritocracy and just say fuck it have a lottery. Instead you move towards the ideal and crack down on college biases, e.g, you can assign students to colleges based on prospective student's college preferences and SAT scores; that's how it works in plenty of countries.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    I choose terrorists because everyone dislikes them. Seemed non-offensive. But you can make them whatever group you think is harmful in your mind (maybe progressives for you). The question is what is the ends meant to achieve by the meritocracy? The goal of most institutions in our world is to make the world a better place for us to live in. If the meritocracy seems to run counter to that then it may not be achieving its goal. And the point I was trying to make with the terrorists is that if you blindly treat meritocracy as its own ends then you can end up making the world a worse place for it.