6 ms·

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

by 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%.
    - tsally 17y ago
      Your point is well taken. There are certainly far better predictors than gender. I chose to use male as my example because it is (1) Simple (2) Something the admissions committee has access to (they may not have access to the financials of the parent) and most importantly (3) It fits within the broader discussion of race and gender.
codexon 17y ago
> There are more white male billionaires than any other demographic in the world. If I wanted to maximize my output of billionaire alumni in the short term, my class would mostly be white males. Old money has proven to be the most effective route here. That is short sighted. 1. Old money does not last as frequent revolutions and redistribution of wealth have shown throughout history. By gradually enrolling minorities as they come into power, Universities hedge against their current positions. 2. The color of your skin is a worse predictor of Nobel prize winning capability than your academic performance. > You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future. And you should exercise more caution in down voting and throwing out 1 line knee-jerk comments and then totally rediting both your comments after being downvoted yourself.
- tsally 17y ago
  Anyone who's been in a conversation with me before knows I always edit my comments after I post them. Nothing wrong with it, and I clearly acknowledge my change. I hardly care about down votes. I care about being clear about my position. Let's get back to the original point. You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim and I tried to show you how silly a class meant to maximize that potential would look. You also were an idiot and called me a racist, because you seem incapable of addressing the complexities that go along with a discussion about race, gender, success, and the works. I took race out of it, and maybe you wont be able to avoid what's actually being said.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    > You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim How can this claim be incorrect? You might not share his goal, but does that make it "incorrect"?
    - tsally 17y ago
      Fair question. If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far better to find less talented students that will attend and pay tuition. If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group. Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education? If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority. Minorities do not have the support structure that the majority does. They are less likely to have both parents around, less likely to have parents with degrees, and less likely to have parents with money and connections.

by tsally 17y ago

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%.
  - tsally 17y ago
    Your point is well taken. There are certainly far better predictors than gender. I chose to use male as my example because it is (1) Simple (2) Something the admissions committee has access to (they may not have access to the financials of the parent) and most importantly (3) It fits within the broader discussion of race and gender.

codexon 17y ago

> There are more white male billionaires than any other demographic in the world. If I wanted to maximize my output of billionaire alumni in the short term, my class would mostly be white males. Old money has proven to be the most effective route here. That is short sighted. 1. Old money does not last as frequent revolutions and redistribution of wealth have shown throughout history. By gradually enrolling minorities as they come into power, Universities hedge against their current positions. 2. The color of your skin is a worse predictor of Nobel prize winning capability than your academic performance. > You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future. And you should exercise more caution in down voting and throwing out 1 line knee-jerk comments and then totally rediting both your comments after being downvoted yourself.

tsally 17y ago
Anyone who's been in a conversation with me before knows I always edit my comments after I post them. Nothing wrong with it, and I clearly acknowledge my change. I hardly care about down votes. I care about being clear about my position. Let's get back to the original point. You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim and I tried to show you how silly a class meant to maximize that potential would look. You also were an idiot and called me a racist, because you seem incapable of addressing the complexities that go along with a discussion about race, gender, success, and the works. I took race out of it, and maybe you wont be able to avoid what's actually being said.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim How can this claim be incorrect? You might not share his goal, but does that make it "incorrect"?
  - tsally 17y ago
    Fair question. If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far better to find less talented students that will attend and pay tuition. If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group. Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education? If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority. Minorities do not have the support structure that the majority does. They are less likely to have both parents around, less likely to have parents with degrees, and less likely to have parents with money and connections.