5 ms·

By that logic every school should admit as many males as it can. Let's not even get into race, you're cutting out most women of any color. Turns out that maki

by tsally 17y ago

By that logic every school should admit as many males as it can. Let's not even get into race, you're cutting out most women of any color. Turns out that making billions and winning the Nobel prize isn't what education is really about.

codexon 17y ago
You are looking at it the wrong way. There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit.
- tsally 17y ago
  You are looking at it the wrong way. I'm only looking at it through the lens you presented, which was maximizing the number of billionaires and Nobel winners. If I'm looking at it wrong, it's your logic that is at fault. There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit. You need to reassess the idea that selecting the most academically talented students will result in the most successful graduating class.
  - codexon 17y ago
    It is only by your own racist assumption that white males are the best for that. Edit This comment was at +4, but people are now downvoting it for looking like a non sequitur because tsally removed his racist comment.
    - tsally 17y ago
      It is only by your own racist assumption that white males are the best for that. There are more male billionaires and Nobel winners than any other demographic in the world. If I wanted to maximize my output of these types of alumni in the short term, my class would overwhelmingly be male. --- It's a subtle point, but this statement is far from racist. You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future. EDIT: I'm going to change my statements to males in general, so you can't play the race card and obnoxiously ignore my point. Let the record show my original contention was white male, which I still stand by.
      - mbrubeck 17y ago
        "There are more white male billionaires than any other demographic in the world." So "billionaire" is a good statistical predictor for being male. That does not imply that "male" is a good predictor for being a billionaire.
        tsally 17y ago
        I'm not going to get into correlation does not imply causation bullshit with you. I understand statistics very well. Point is, admission committees don't care about statistical relevance, they care about simple measures. Since when was your GPA between the ages of 14 and 17 a predictor of success?
        codexon 17y ago
        I've talked to a few admissions staff and they want nothing more than to find a better predictor of success than GPA. It is certainly not perfect, but its still better than nothing, which is why it is usually supplemented with SATs and interviews.
        mbrubeck 17y ago
        I'm not talking about correlation vs. causation. Considering correlation alone, "most billionaires are male" does not mean that selecting only males will help maximize the number of billionaires you pick, especially since billionaires are a small group while males are a large one. Suppose 1% of males are billionaires and 0.1% of females are billionaires. (Then if the total population is half male, this means 89% of billionaires are male.) Eliminating females from your sample will increase your "billionaire rate" from .55% to 1%. Now suppose that 10% of billionaires are children of billionaires; half of those are male and half female. Let's say 1% of both males and females are children of billionaires. Suppose your college has two applicants, a male child of a billionaire, a female child of a billionaire, and a male child of non-billionaires. Which has a better chance of being a billionaire? In this (totally contrived) example, "child of a billionaire" is a better predictor for "billionaire" than "male" is (even though "billionaire" a predictor for "male" than for "child of a billionaire"). The college that wants to maximize billionaire alumni should not select only males. Instead, it should choose children of billionaires over all others. Then the rate increases to 5.5%.

by tsally 17y ago

codexon 17y ago

You are looking at it the wrong way. There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit.

tsally 17y ago
You are looking at it the wrong way. I'm only looking at it through the lens you presented, which was maximizing the number of billionaires and Nobel winners. If I'm looking at it wrong, it's your logic that is at fault. There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit. You need to reassess the idea that selecting the most academically talented students will result in the most successful graduating class.
- codexon 17y ago
  It is only by your own racist assumption that white males are the best for that. Edit This comment was at +4, but people are now downvoting it for looking like a non sequitur because tsally removed his racist comment.
  - tsally 17y ago
    It is only by your own racist assumption that white males are the best for that. There are more male billionaires and Nobel winners than any other demographic in the world. If I wanted to maximize my output of these types of alumni in the short term, my class would overwhelmingly be male. --- It's a subtle point, but this statement is far from racist. You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future. EDIT: I'm going to change my statements to males in general, so you can't play the race card and obnoxiously ignore my point. Let the record show my original contention was white male, which I still stand by.
    - mbrubeck 17y ago
      "There are more white male billionaires than any other demographic in the world." So "billionaire" is a good statistical predictor for being male. That does not imply that "male" is a good predictor for being a billionaire.
      - tsally 17y ago
        I'm not going to get into correlation does not imply causation bullshit with you. I understand statistics very well. Point is, admission committees don't care about statistical relevance, they care about simple measures. Since when was your GPA between the ages of 14 and 17 a predictor of success?
        codexon 17y ago
        I've talked to a few admissions staff and they want nothing more than to find a better predictor of success than GPA. It is certainly not perfect, but its still better than nothing, which is why it is usually supplemented with SATs and interviews.
        mbrubeck 17y ago
        I'm not talking about correlation vs. causation. Considering correlation alone, "most billionaires are male" does not mean that selecting only males will help maximize the number of billionaires you pick, especially since billionaires are a small group while males are a large one. Suppose 1% of males are billionaires and 0.1% of females are billionaires. (Then if the total population is half male, this means 89% of billionaires are male.) Eliminating females from your sample will increase your "billionaire rate" from .55% to 1%. Now suppose that 10% of billionaires are children of billionaires; half of those are male and half female. Let's say 1% of both males and females are children of billionaires. Suppose your college has two applicants, a male child of a billionaire, a female child of a billionaire, and a male child of non-billionaires. Which has a better chance of being a billionaire? In this (totally contrived) example, "child of a billionaire" is a better predictor for "billionaire" than "male" is (even though "billionaire" a predictor for "male" than for "child of a billionaire"). The college that wants to maximize billionaire alumni should not select only males. Instead, it should choose children of billionaires over all others. Then the rate increases to 5.5%.