3 ms·

There are many folks who have little sympathy for this argument, because they believe one or more of these: - each student is not an individual, but a represen

There are many folks who have little sympathy for this argument, because they believe one or more of these: - each student is not an individual, but a representative of an ethnic group - the use of test scores discriminates against ethnic groups who, in aggregate, do poorly due to reasons that are unrelated to merit or potential (socioeconomic factors, legacy of discrimination in the past etc.) - Asian students who are rejected from Harvard 'will do fine' wherever they land - SAT/ACT scores aren't predictive of academic success - college admissions processes shouldn't be trying to maximize expected college GPA The most balanced work I've read about these issues is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling.

usaar333 3y ago
> I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling. I found the arguments on page 44 particularly weak and undermine much of the paper. It destroys a previously more objective definition of "invidious" and "benign" motives [1] made earlier in the paper. Because the author doesn't want to justify preferring whites to Asian students, even though her own earlier analysis on page 12 does view that as a benign motive (reduce race gaps), she constructs this cop-out based on a completely arbitrary definition of "disadvantage". A more confident author would have accepted the implication and moved on OR established objective criteria for disadvantage. [1] The word choice can be disputed, but at least it was objective.

usaar333 3y ago

> I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling. I found the arguments on page 44 particularly weak and undermine much of the paper. It destroys a previously more objective definition of "invidious" and "benign" motives [1] made earlier in the paper. Because the author doesn't want to justify preferring whites to Asian students, even though her own earlier analysis on page 12 does view that as a benign motive (reduce race gaps), she constructs this cop-out based on a completely arbitrary definition of "disadvantage". A more confident author would have accepted the implication and moved on OR established objective criteria for disadvantage. [1] The word choice can be disputed, but at least it was objective.