5 ms·

Did I Get into MIT Because I Was a Girl?

6 points by diamondcutter 11y ago

SCAQTony 11y ago
"...To get more women into their ranks, many orchestras use blind auditions where musicians perform behind a [curtain]..." http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b... This has helped orchestras in preventing gender/racial discrimination reasonably well. It's very fair and reasonable too because one either hits the note or they don't. Now, what if every student applicant to elite colleges and universities were given a randomized number and their acceptance therein was solely based upon academic achievement, psychological testing and a resume, is that the "fair" way to do it as well? I think it would be a fast curtain to "hive mind" creating less opportunities for the underprivileged no matter what their race, gender or otherwise.
- diamondcutter 11y ago
  Yeah, I don't think such a system would be at all ideal. For one thing, I think kids' essays actually are quite useful in getting a sense of what they care about (not clear what "psychological testing" could replace that), and some kids are going to mention their gender / race / socioeconomic background.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  There is no higher ideal than a pure meritocracy. We want to allocate the best educational resources to the people most able to put them to use benefiting all humanity. I'm not willing to compromise on this principle. Admitting the less qualified because of their ethnic groups or gonads is simply antithetical to the entire project of civilization and progress.
  - diamondcutter 11y ago
    Hm. So would you be okay with admitting someone who had grown up with less money and scored less high on math tests because he hadn't had access to the best teachers?
    - dudul 11y ago
      The end result is that he is not as good as someone who had money and good teacher. The author can try to rationalize the fact that she is the female token all she wants. The fact is 'potential' is worthless, what matters is realization.
      - diamondcutter 11y ago
        I doubt you really believe that. Eg, if I told you for sure that the kid with the good teacher was going to be less good than the kid with a bad teacher a year from now, surely you would choose the kid with the bad teacher. In the same way that you would choose the star athlete with an injured leg because he would be excellent once he had healed.
        drelnisj 11y ago
        How would you judge that, though? And how much 'potential' is actually realised by the place you go to - faculty and facilities influence outcome (access to supercomputers, for example) and maybe the only thing distinguishing a good student from stanford and someone from maryland is the bias in faculty: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005. In that case, most potential candidates are virtually similar, and some sort of affirmative action is required to balance out the gender pool.
    - rewqfdsa 11y ago
      Yes. You can't distinguish that case from a lack of innate ability, and history is full of examples of poor people doing well in academia and elevating themselves. Standardized testing, not affirmative action, is the great equalizer.
      - diamondcutter 11y ago
        Standardized testing is hugely influenced by unfair factors. Like the fact that if I'm rich, I can pay for my kids to get better tutoring which boosts scores by hundreds of points. Or the fact that stereotype threat may keep minorities from doing well on tests. Or that tests can be culturally biased against people from certain backgrounds.

6 points by diamondcutter 11y ago

"...To get more women into their ranks, many orchestras use blind auditions where musicians perform behind a [curtain]..." http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b... This has helped orchestras in preventing gender/racial discrimination reasonably well. It's very fair and reasonable too because one either hits the note or they don't. Now, what if every student applicant to elite colleges and universities were given a randomized number and their acceptance therein was solely based upon academic achievement, psychological testing and a resume, is that the "fair" way to do it as well? I think it would be a fast curtain to "hive mind" creating less opportunities for the underprivileged no matter what their race, gender or otherwise.

diamondcutter 11y ago
Yeah, I don't think such a system would be at all ideal. For one thing, I think kids' essays actually are quite useful in getting a sense of what they care about (not clear what "psychological testing" could replace that), and some kids are going to mention their gender / race / socioeconomic background.
rewqfdsa 11y ago
There is no higher ideal than a pure meritocracy. We want to allocate the best educational resources to the people most able to put them to use benefiting all humanity. I'm not willing to compromise on this principle. Admitting the less qualified because of their ethnic groups or gonads is simply antithetical to the entire project of civilization and progress.
- diamondcutter 11y ago
  Hm. So would you be okay with admitting someone who had grown up with less money and scored less high on math tests because he hadn't had access to the best teachers?
  - dudul 11y ago
    The end result is that he is not as good as someone who had money and good teacher. The author can try to rationalize the fact that she is the female token all she wants. The fact is 'potential' is worthless, what matters is realization.
    - diamondcutter 11y ago
      I doubt you really believe that. Eg, if I told you for sure that the kid with the good teacher was going to be less good than the kid with a bad teacher a year from now, surely you would choose the kid with the bad teacher. In the same way that you would choose the star athlete with an injured leg because he would be excellent once he had healed.
      - drelnisj 11y ago
        How would you judge that, though? And how much 'potential' is actually realised by the place you go to - faculty and facilities influence outcome (access to supercomputers, for example) and maybe the only thing distinguishing a good student from stanford and someone from maryland is the bias in faculty: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005. In that case, most potential candidates are virtually similar, and some sort of affirmative action is required to balance out the gender pool.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    Yes. You can't distinguish that case from a lack of innate ability, and history is full of examples of poor people doing well in academia and elevating themselves. Standardized testing, not affirmative action, is the great equalizer.
    - diamondcutter 11y ago
      Standardized testing is hugely influenced by unfair factors. Like the fact that if I'm rich, I can pay for my kids to get better tutoring which boosts scores by hundreds of points. Or the fact that stereotype threat may keep minorities from doing well on tests. Or that tests can be culturally biased against people from certain backgrounds.