Asian-American admissions at Harvard(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Asian-American admissions at Harvard
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/06/asian-american-admissions-harvard.html
121 comments
I wonder why this posting is not getting as much upvotes when there evidently is so much discussion.
Tyler Cowan’s commentary adds value.
The linked report (exhibit A) is interesting to read:
http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...
It would seem at first that Harvard wants to help poor students and race just happens to be a proxy for socioeconomic status, but it turns out that's not what they are doing:
> Harvard’s preferential treatment of African-American and Hispanic applicants is not the result of efforts to achieve socioeconomic diversity. Rather, preferences for African Americans and Hispanics are significantly smaller if the applicant is economically disadvantaged.
It seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to appear diverse based on physical features. So if someone takes a picture of the class and publishes it everyone would say "Look how diverse they are". But they also don't want poor students because they want donations to keep streaming in.
http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...
It would seem at first that Harvard wants to help poor students and race just happens to be a proxy for socioeconomic status, but it turns out that's not what they are doing:
> Harvard’s preferential treatment of African-American and Hispanic applicants is not the result of efforts to achieve socioeconomic diversity. Rather, preferences for African Americans and Hispanics are significantly smaller if the applicant is economically disadvantaged.
It seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to appear diverse based on physical features. So if someone takes a picture of the class and publishes it everyone would say "Look how diverse they are". But they also don't want poor students because they want donations to keep streaming in.
Yep. Affirmative action has biases of its own, should be blinded to prevent it. Let it be based on family income only.
In Australia university admissions are based pretty much solely on one number [1] that represents your high school results (unless you didn't go to high school in Australia), plus bonus points if you are disadvantaged (for which race is not relevant unless you are an indigenous Australian or Torres Strait islander).
No interviews, no essays, just high school results plus some data on disadvantage. And handled by a separate organisation, not by the university.
It seems like a pretty good system. Loads of disadvantaged people coming through my university all the time (...I've been here far too long).
Perhaps hard to implement in the US since there is no national high school curriculum and the country is large and diverse making implementing one difficult.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Tertiary_Admission_...
In Australia university admissions are based pretty much solely on one number [1] that represents your high school results (unless you didn't go to high school in Australia), plus bonus points if you are disadvantaged (for which race is not relevant unless you are an indigenous Australian or Torres Strait islander).
No interviews, no essays, just high school results plus some data on disadvantage. And handled by a separate organisation, not by the university.
It seems like a pretty good system. Loads of disadvantaged people coming through my university all the time (...I've been here far too long).
Perhaps hard to implement in the US since there is no national high school curriculum and the country is large and diverse making implementing one difficult.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Tertiary_Admission_...
> race is not relevant unless you are an indigenous Australian or Torres Strait islander
So... race is relevant, then? I mean, that's a pretty big "unless".
So... race is relevant, then? I mean, that's a pretty big "unless".
I imagine there’d be a lot less opposition to affirmative action in the US if it only applied to descendants of Native Americans and Black people whose ancestors had been held in slavery in the US. Affirmative action as reparations plays a lot better than a spoils system which is what they have now.
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders make up only 3% of the Australian population, so it's not that big.
Well, sure. Which sort of reduces to "Australia doesn't have a problem with affirmative action because it very racially uniform". It's not like[1] the US can adopt these policies by deporting it's minority population in services to it's approaching-mere-plurality-status white cohort.
[1] No matter how hard the current administration seems intent on trying.
[1] No matter how hard the current administration seems intent on trying.
same deal in canada although for doctors and lawyers the bamboo ceiling is real...
The Australian National University, headed by the Nobel Prize winning Brian Schmidt is going to change their admissions policy to be more like the US.
http://theconversation.com/anus-new-entrance-criteria-wont-d...
Amongst Australian academics there is a push to change ATAR allegedly because it reflects socio-economic status (SES) too much.
https://theconversation.com/should-we-scrap-the-atar-what-ar...
Andrew Norton, a researcher on academic policy points out however, that ATAR is a very good predictor for success at University.
https://andrewnorton.net.au/2018/06/14/does-atar-measure-mor...
FWIW having been through the Australian university system and having worked at US universities it seems that the Australian system actually rates pretty well. We don't have researchers of the quality of institutions that pay a huge amount but there is far less grade inflation (really compression) than in US universities because you're graded on a curve in the end. In other words, only 5% or whatever of a subject are expected to get HDs (As in US terms).
http://theconversation.com/anus-new-entrance-criteria-wont-d...
Amongst Australian academics there is a push to change ATAR allegedly because it reflects socio-economic status (SES) too much.
https://theconversation.com/should-we-scrap-the-atar-what-ar...
Andrew Norton, a researcher on academic policy points out however, that ATAR is a very good predictor for success at University.
https://andrewnorton.net.au/2018/06/14/does-atar-measure-mor...
FWIW having been through the Australian university system and having worked at US universities it seems that the Australian system actually rates pretty well. We don't have researchers of the quality of institutions that pay a huge amount but there is far less grade inflation (really compression) than in US universities because you're graded on a curve in the end. In other words, only 5% or whatever of a subject are expected to get HDs (As in US terms).
Replacing ATAR with more holistic admissions is like the campaign to get rid of the GRE in graduate admissions, a combination of the ignorant and venal. The well connected, rich and prestigious will get ahead just fine in a system where academic merit is not the one and only measure.
Amusing that ANU is changing to keep out Asians the same way the Ivy League did to keep out Jews.
Amusing that ANU is changing to keep out Asians the same way the Ivy League did to keep out Jews.
The ATAR isn't broken as such, the process of getting one is.
For a NSW student a good ATAR means you can ace a test after 2 years of study, where as Canberra/ACT focuses a lot more on project work and has much more flexibility in subjects.
The difference of experience between Canberra/ACT high school leavers and NSW school leavers is staggering, especially when it comes to project work.
The Canberra secondary school system is incredible, and the rest of Australia could learn a lot from it. Happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.
For a NSW student a good ATAR means you can ace a test after 2 years of study, where as Canberra/ACT focuses a lot more on project work and has much more flexibility in subjects.
The difference of experience between Canberra/ACT high school leavers and NSW school leavers is staggering, especially when it comes to project work.
The Canberra secondary school system is incredible, and the rest of Australia could learn a lot from it. Happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.
Is grading to a curve the norm at Australian Universities?
They don't seem to do that at UNSW except in special circumstances.
It's quite strange coming from the Canberra secondary school system where everything was scaled to a consistent mean and stdev.
I think Canberra's secondary school system (years 11 & 12, 2 years before Uni) is light years ahead of other Australian states. It's great how you can focus on individually driven project work rather than studying state-wide standardized tests.
They don't seem to do that at UNSW except in special circumstances.
It's quite strange coming from the Canberra secondary school system where everything was scaled to a consistent mean and stdev.
I think Canberra's secondary school system (years 11 & 12, 2 years before Uni) is light years ahead of other Australian states. It's great how you can focus on individually driven project work rather than studying state-wide standardized tests.
This is largely true, but not entirely. UNSW definitely had a program for accepting engineering students who didn't get the appropriate UAI, based on other criteria. I don't remember what it was called, but I definitely applied for it because I spent a good chunk of school fucking around and wasn't sure how badly I had messed up my grades.
Might be Faculty of Engineering Admissions Scheme (FEAS)?
Though I believe there are also bonus ATAR points for students from regional schools.
https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/study-with-us/feas
Though I believe there are also bonus ATAR points for students from regional schools.
https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/study-with-us/feas
> In Australia university admissions are based pretty much solely on one number [1] that represents your high school results (unless you didn't go to high school in Australia), plus bonus points if you are disadvantaged
How does this work with universities that have different focuses?
From the information at [1] and at your Wikipedia link, my understanding is that the way this number works is as follows.
• There is a large list [2] of standard courses offered by high schools that can count toward your ATAR score. Each course is either 1 or 2 "units". These include courses in English, foreign languages, science, math, history, business, arts, and others.
• This list is divided into two sections. The second, smaller section is courses that are lighter academic rigor and less demanding. The courses in the first section are called Category A course, and those in the second section are Category B courses.
• Your ATAR is calculated from your best 2 units in English, and your best 8 units from the rest, which can include no more than 2 units of Category B courses.
Suppose you have three students, all with the same ATAR number.
Student #1's score came from English, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics.
Student #2's score came from English, Dance, Drama, Music 1, Music 2, and Visual Arts.
Student #3's score came from English, Ancient History, Latin, Greek, and Modern History.
Do the universities these students apply to just see the ATAR number, or do they also see which courses went into its calculation?
If they all applied to whatever Australian school best corresponds to MIT or Caltech, for example, would the school be able to see that student #1 is probably the one they want from these three? If they all applied to Australia's most Julliard-like school, would it be able to see that student #2 is the one they want?
[1] https://www.uac.edu.au/
[2] https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar/atar-courses
How does this work with universities that have different focuses?
From the information at [1] and at your Wikipedia link, my understanding is that the way this number works is as follows.
• There is a large list [2] of standard courses offered by high schools that can count toward your ATAR score. Each course is either 1 or 2 "units". These include courses in English, foreign languages, science, math, history, business, arts, and others.
• This list is divided into two sections. The second, smaller section is courses that are lighter academic rigor and less demanding. The courses in the first section are called Category A course, and those in the second section are Category B courses.
• Your ATAR is calculated from your best 2 units in English, and your best 8 units from the rest, which can include no more than 2 units of Category B courses.
Suppose you have three students, all with the same ATAR number.
Student #1's score came from English, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics.
Student #2's score came from English, Dance, Drama, Music 1, Music 2, and Visual Arts.
Student #3's score came from English, Ancient History, Latin, Greek, and Modern History.
Do the universities these students apply to just see the ATAR number, or do they also see which courses went into its calculation?
If they all applied to whatever Australian school best corresponds to MIT or Caltech, for example, would the school be able to see that student #1 is probably the one they want from these three? If they all applied to Australia's most Julliard-like school, would it be able to see that student #2 is the one they want?
[1] https://www.uac.edu.au/
[2] https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar/atar-courses
Specific university courses will have additional requirements, for example my science course required an ATAR of 95, but also required a minimum score in a maths unit, and required that you completed some number of science units (I don't exactly remember). So based on the requirements, you couldn't ace English and then enrol in a science degree, for example.
In practice the minimum scores required in specific units are more easily achievable than the ATAR, so the ATAR ends up being the limiting factor most of the time.
Here is an example:
https://www.monash.edu/study/courses/find-a-course/2018/scie...
You can see the scores required in individual units are all 30. 30 is the mean by definition, whereas an ATAR of 95 means you're in the 95th percentile, so obviously if you're in the 95th percentile it's pretty likely you were above the mean in the relevant units.
> Do the universities these students apply to just see the ATAR number, or do they also see which courses went into its calculation?
I've been told by an administrative person in my department that there is in fact no system in place to verify that the students have completed the prerequisite high school courses or their scores. This is surprising to me but there you go.
My memory is unreliable so this might not be quite right but I think I heard from the head a department that they just get ATARs and whether the applicant is from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background. So if that's the case and is true for other universities, then the advertised subject requirements etc mostly have the effect of encouraging students to self-select. Presumably after the fact, the university could ask a failing student to provide their high school transcripts, but basically they're not enforcing it up-front automatically.
But I also get the impression things are just not as competitive as in the US. Most people live in the major cities and just attend the best university that their score allows, out of the universities in their own city. They don't care enough about going to the best school to move cities for it. The differences between the top 8 universities are not great enough for it to be worth moving when there is likely one in your city already.
In practice the minimum scores required in specific units are more easily achievable than the ATAR, so the ATAR ends up being the limiting factor most of the time.
Here is an example:
https://www.monash.edu/study/courses/find-a-course/2018/scie...
You can see the scores required in individual units are all 30. 30 is the mean by definition, whereas an ATAR of 95 means you're in the 95th percentile, so obviously if you're in the 95th percentile it's pretty likely you were above the mean in the relevant units.
> Do the universities these students apply to just see the ATAR number, or do they also see which courses went into its calculation?
I've been told by an administrative person in my department that there is in fact no system in place to verify that the students have completed the prerequisite high school courses or their scores. This is surprising to me but there you go.
My memory is unreliable so this might not be quite right but I think I heard from the head a department that they just get ATARs and whether the applicant is from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background. So if that's the case and is true for other universities, then the advertised subject requirements etc mostly have the effect of encouraging students to self-select. Presumably after the fact, the university could ask a failing student to provide their high school transcripts, but basically they're not enforcing it up-front automatically.
But I also get the impression things are just not as competitive as in the US. Most people live in the major cities and just attend the best university that their score allows, out of the universities in their own city. They don't care enough about going to the best school to move cities for it. The differences between the top 8 universities are not great enough for it to be worth moving when there is likely one in your city already.
I always assumed there are racial disadvantage for an Asian male applicant, but it seems to be worse than I thought.
> Race plays a significant role in admissions decisions. Consider the example of an Asian-American applicant who is male, is not disadvantaged,3 and has other characteristics that result in a 25% chance of admission. Simply changing the race of this applicant to white—and leaving all his other characteristics the same—would increase his chance of admission to 36%. Changing his race to Hispanic (and leaving all other characteristics the same) would increase his chance of admission to 77%. Changing his race to African American (again, leaving all other characteristics the same) would increase his chance of admission to 95%.
> Race plays a significant role in admissions decisions. Consider the example of an Asian-American applicant who is male, is not disadvantaged,3 and has other characteristics that result in a 25% chance of admission. Simply changing the race of this applicant to white—and leaving all his other characteristics the same—would increase his chance of admission to 36%. Changing his race to Hispanic (and leaving all other characteristics the same) would increase his chance of admission to 77%. Changing his race to African American (again, leaving all other characteristics the same) would increase his chance of admission to 95%.
There could be a case that it is not just for photographs but it is actually the marketing pitch for the value proposition of Harvard over, as the Tyler Cowen mentions, UC Irvine.
If you are trying to train and prepare a student to lead global teams, set global government policy, guide diverse groups toward a common solution, etc., you will need exposure to a diverse set of ideas and a diverse future network of fellow alumni to debate ideas with during your formative undergraduate years.
Otherwise, might as well save the $0.25 million in tuition and indeed go to UCI instead because otherwise it really is the same lectures, reading material and tests!
If you are trying to train and prepare a student to lead global teams, set global government policy, guide diverse groups toward a common solution, etc., you will need exposure to a diverse set of ideas and a diverse future network of fellow alumni to debate ideas with during your formative undergraduate years.
Otherwise, might as well save the $0.25 million in tuition and indeed go to UCI instead because otherwise it really is the same lectures, reading material and tests!
>If you are trying to train and prepare a student to lead global teams, set global government policy, guide diverse groups toward a common solution,
That's a pretty big if, people in power like to keep it in their network.
That's a pretty big if, people in power like to keep it in their network.
Ah - maybe a better way to phrase it is, if Harvard is pitching itself as a place a person can learn to lead global teams, set optimal global government policy, guide diverse groups toward a common solution, then the student body should probably not just be high test scorers pulled from high test affluent suburbs. It should be pulled from a variety of sources with a diverse set of socioeconomic, academic, artistic and cultural experiences.
I think that's actually a secret of Silicon Valley. If Apple needs to ask how a UI should be setup to handle the nuances from a certain country, they can go ask a person from that country. It'd be much harder trying to do that in Asia or even Europe.
I think that's actually a secret of Silicon Valley. If Apple needs to ask how a UI should be setup to handle the nuances from a certain country, they can go ask a person from that country. It'd be much harder trying to do that in Asia or even Europe.
Is that controlled for measures of merit? Or is that the accidental effect of correlation between ex. academic performance and socioeconomic status?
They build a succession of models each one in the sequence with more controls than the previous. As examples see tables B.6.1 and B.7.1. I think merit would fall under the 2nd model (SAT scores, academic index, GPA, ...).
There was just a story today in the news about the University of Chicago completely doing away with requiring SAT/ACT for admissions. It seems like we're bending over backwards to toss out any kind of test or criterion that could be perceived as discriminatory. With one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population.
But that is a flawed premise. Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does?
But that is a flawed premise. Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does?
To say nothing of the logical contortions required to argue that modern standardized tests discriminates based on ancestry or skin color.
That is not the argument.
Tests are written by people who talk a certain way, in a way that is easier to process for people who talk the same way. Different communities use different language, and this is reflected in how quickly different students process the problems on standardized tests. There's also the issue that standardized test scores are higher for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them - things which are scarce in poorer families where the student might have to work or help take care of younger siblings. Years of institutionalized racism (loans not given, redlining, denial of employment opportunities) have economically crippled some ethnic communities.
Tests are written by people who talk a certain way, in a way that is easier to process for people who talk the same way. Different communities use different language, and this is reflected in how quickly different students process the problems on standardized tests. There's also the issue that standardized test scores are higher for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them - things which are scarce in poorer families where the student might have to work or help take care of younger siblings. Years of institutionalized racism (loans not given, redlining, denial of employment opportunities) have economically crippled some ethnic communities.
The diversity thing is mostly a red-herring. Admissions offers are abandoning standardized tests because of Goodhart's Law.
> for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them
It's not just time and encouragement. SAT/ACT prep is serious industry. $100+/hr tutoring sessions. Owners of good SAT prep businesses can make six or seven figures in a few months.
And good prep courses really do work. Tests, like coding interviews, are a game you can hack with enough time and effort.
The signal is totally washed out; with enough money, you can learn how to take the test well enough.
> for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them
It's not just time and encouragement. SAT/ACT prep is serious industry. $100+/hr tutoring sessions. Owners of good SAT prep businesses can make six or seven figures in a few months.
And good prep courses really do work. Tests, like coding interviews, are a game you can hack with enough time and effort.
The signal is totally washed out; with enough money, you can learn how to take the test well enough.
The research suggests SAT test prep has an effect of about one seventh of a standard deviation – about 50 points out of 2400[1]. That's significant but not huge. Most of the perception of large gains comes from the fact that people do better as they get older with or without coaching.
(None of the research is great, but better than nothing.)
[1]: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size
(None of the research is great, but better than nothing.)
[1]: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size
The College Board released new results in 2017 showing a more than 50 point increase out of 1600 versus students who didn't practice.
This was with just 20 hours of practice. Many high achieving students practice for 5+ hours per week.
South Korean cram school style 2-3 hours per day is in a completely different league than a standard SAT prep course, but much of the research that shows no result counts them the same.
This was with just 20 hours of practice. Many high achieving students practice for 5+ hours per week.
South Korean cram school style 2-3 hours per day is in a completely different league than a standard SAT prep course, but much of the research that shows no result counts them the same.
This phenomenon is known as the practice effect. It has a ceiling in terms of IQ tests, just like it does in terms of physical tests. IQ tests are designed to be as close to ungameable as possible.
This is like pointing out that I can make large gains in my 100m sprint time by practicing for half an hour a day for a month and predicting that I can make the Olympic team if I put in a thousand hours practice. Novice gains are real and significant but they peter out pretty quickly.
This is like pointing out that I can make large gains in my 100m sprint time by practicing for half an hour a day for a month and predicting that I can make the Olympic team if I put in a thousand hours practice. Novice gains are real and significant but they peter out pretty quickly.
IQ tests are gameable to a degree. They are accurate across large populations largely because most people don't practice, not because they are actually ungameable.
SATs are different in 2 respects.
1. There is a large incentive to practice.
2. It isn't an IQ test, it only correlates fairly strongly with scores on IQ tests.
SATs are highly knowledge based--most of the math questions can be answered by memorizing algorithms, and the verbal section depends heavily on vocabulary.
>This is like pointing out that I can make large gains in my 100m sprint time by practicing for half an hour a day for a month and predicting that I can make the Olympic team if I put in a thousand hours practice. Novice gains are real and significant but they peter out pretty quickly.
It's unlikely you could become an Olympic sprinter, but with enough practice you could probably move into the top 1% of everyone in your age group because the vast majority aren't going to spend that much time practicing.
The SAT equivalent (for the 2018 test) would be somewhere in the 1500-1550 range.
SATs are different in 2 respects.
1. There is a large incentive to practice.
2. It isn't an IQ test, it only correlates fairly strongly with scores on IQ tests.
SATs are highly knowledge based--most of the math questions can be answered by memorizing algorithms, and the verbal section depends heavily on vocabulary.
>This is like pointing out that I can make large gains in my 100m sprint time by practicing for half an hour a day for a month and predicting that I can make the Olympic team if I put in a thousand hours practice. Novice gains are real and significant but they peter out pretty quickly.
It's unlikely you could become an Olympic sprinter, but with enough practice you could probably move into the top 1% of everyone in your age group because the vast majority aren't going to spend that much time practicing.
The SAT equivalent (for the 2018 test) would be somewhere in the 1500-1550 range.
The SAT is highly g loaded and it correlates with tests that are designed and marketed as IQ tests at levels sufficient that saying it isn’t one is quibbling. The lowest estimate I found for IQ SAT correlation was an r^2 of 0.76.
SATs are more knowledge based than a test designed to be culture fair, like Raven’s Progressive Matrices but they’re not meant to be culture fair either, they’re for testing educated English speaking Americans. The test population are in high school but there’s nothing on the test that you wouldn’t have known by the end of middle school.
As far as algorithms and vocabulary go, most people have limited ability to follow complex algorithms because that requires a lot of working memory, which correlates with... Intelligence!
SATs are more knowledge based than a test designed to be culture fair, like Raven’s Progressive Matrices but they’re not meant to be culture fair either, they’re for testing educated English speaking Americans. The test population are in high school but there’s nothing on the test that you wouldn’t have known by the end of middle school.
As far as algorithms and vocabulary go, most people have limited ability to follow complex algorithms because that requires a lot of working memory, which correlates with... Intelligence!
Vocabulary correlates with IQ about as strongly as SAT score, yet vocabulary can clearly be hugley improved with practice.
Even if correlation with IQ somehow proved score durability, a correlation of 0.76 or even .8 is low enough to allow for huge swings away from IQ in a very large percentage of the population.
A big chunk of students practicing and increasing their scores 200-300 points could easily be hiding in that 0.76 correlation.
>As far as algorithms and vocabulary go, most people have limited ability to follow complex algorithms because that requires a lot of working memory, which correlates with... Intelligence!
Most algorithms at that level are designed to be written out step by step explicitly to reduce working memory requirements.
Part of SAT prep is learning algorithms for solving word problems that reduce working memory load by memorizing patterns in the questions and writing down the components in a standardized form.
You said
>As far as algorithms and vocabulary go
And then never mentioned vocabulary.
It has nothing to do with working memory and most definitely can be improved dramatically with practice.
One more thing. The SAT was rewritten in 2016 to be far more content based, so the correlation with IQ will likely fall even further.
Even if correlation with IQ somehow proved score durability, a correlation of 0.76 or even .8 is low enough to allow for huge swings away from IQ in a very large percentage of the population.
A big chunk of students practicing and increasing their scores 200-300 points could easily be hiding in that 0.76 correlation.
>As far as algorithms and vocabulary go, most people have limited ability to follow complex algorithms because that requires a lot of working memory, which correlates with... Intelligence!
Most algorithms at that level are designed to be written out step by step explicitly to reduce working memory requirements.
Part of SAT prep is learning algorithms for solving word problems that reduce working memory load by memorizing patterns in the questions and writing down the components in a standardized form.
You said
>As far as algorithms and vocabulary go
And then never mentioned vocabulary.
It has nothing to do with working memory and most definitely can be improved dramatically with practice.
One more thing. The SAT was rewritten in 2016 to be far more content based, so the correlation with IQ will likely fall even further.
And good prep courses really do work. Tests, like coding interviews, are a game you can hack with enough time and effort.
Years ago I took the GMAT and scored very highly, 98th percentile, and GMAT-taking is definitely a learnable skill in and of itself. Then again, maybe the test is really a proxy for “willing to do prep work upfront”. Having said that obviously it filters for those who have the opportunity to do so, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say the latter is not it’s deliberate intent.
Years ago I took the GMAT and scored very highly, 98th percentile, and GMAT-taking is definitely a learnable skill in and of itself. Then again, maybe the test is really a proxy for “willing to do prep work upfront”. Having said that obviously it filters for those who have the opportunity to do so, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say the latter is not it’s deliberate intent.
There are SAT prep books in the thrift store for a dollar. Nobody is shut out because of poverty.
Why are people jumping through hoops trying to imagine possible reasons for differences in academic performance when the best predictor is IQ and that can be measured from just a few years of age - before they would have to spend time studying or taking care of younger siblings. We already know that east Asian children have higher IQs on average than whites. That explains their better test scores at school. We also know that blacks have lower IQs than whites which also explains their lower test scores. So if you're looking for a cause of the different outcomes, you should look for the cause of different IQs. Since that starts young, maybe black parents don't hug their kids as much as Asian parents (that affects IQ) or maybe it's genetic (that affects IQ). The popular Raven's matrices IQ test has no words, just abstract images so there's no language bias there. Researchers have studied this to death over and over again for 100 years and they keep successfully reproducing the same results. They try everything to eliminate bias, such as having the test administrators be the same race as the subjects and controlling for socioeconomic status and going to different countries and controlling for the economic status of the country and so on. It's a solved problem down to the IQ level. What's not solved is how to improve the IQ of a person after they're born. You can improve it before birth by choosing parents with high IQs.
> Tests are written by people who talk a certain way, in a way that is easier to process for people who talk the same way.
So have your test writers distributed in a way that matches the general population. Don't just blindly try and force the population of VLSI design engineers or whatever to mimic the city's demographics.
So have your test writers distributed in a way that matches the general population. Don't just blindly try and force the population of VLSI design engineers or whatever to mimic the city's demographics.
[deleted]
They clearly do. The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in.
But yet Asians perform the best on standardized tests, not whites who comes from England?
Do you have any data on white English immigrants who take the SAT? I sure don't.
The children of East Asian immigrants perform better than the children of white Americans. How does the language hypothesis you put forth account for that?
1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants.
2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
4. Language differences are a factor in performance but obviously not the only factor or the largest factor.
2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
4. Language differences are a factor in performance but obviously not the only factor or the largest factor.
> 1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants.
A quick glance at the first graph on this page will tell you that almost all Asian Americans are either first or second generation:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-ab...
Key stats: Asian American population in 2015 is slightly more than 20 million. In 1960 it is about 1 million and only about 2.5 million in 1980.
> 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
A quick glance at the first graph on this page will tell you that almost all Asian Americans are either first or second generation:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-ab...
Key stats: Asian American population in 2015 is slightly more than 20 million. In 1960 it is about 1 million and only about 2.5 million in 1980.
> 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
None of that shows the rate at which Asian Americans take the SAT, the birth rates of 2.5 million Asian Americans who were here in 1980, or the ages of the Asians who've immigrated since. So saying that we have an extra 17.5 million Asian Americans, and Asian Americans outperform whites on the SAT, therefore 2nd generation Asian Americans outperform whites isn't supported by the evidence presented so far.
However none of that really matters because you ignored my last point.
Other factors such as family income are larger factors that native language.
>Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
If it's easier is irrelevant because Asian Americans are more likely to speak the prestige dialect than Hispanics. But to answer your question, yes it is eaiser because Asians have much higher incomes, and they integrate with white communities faster--at least in part because Asian communities are smaller and more spread out.
However none of that really matters because you ignored my last point.
Other factors such as family income are larger factors that native language.
>Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
If it's easier is irrelevant because Asian Americans are more likely to speak the prestige dialect than Hispanics. But to answer your question, yes it is eaiser because Asians have much higher incomes, and they integrate with white communities faster--at least in part because Asian communities are smaller and more spread out.
Yeah, and my original point was that these tests don’t discriminate based on skin color or ancestry. What you’re saying is that different races have different aggregate outcomes, but that that is due to different aggregate income levels. That doesn’t really sound like you disagree with my original point.
No. I'm saying that income plays a larger role than dialect. Dialect still plays a role. If dialect differences were accounted for, speakers of non-standard dialects would have greater aggregate scores.
But you’re saying that dialect is caused by income!
>The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in.
What kind of absurd "argument" is this? If you're testing for a university in America, the expectation is that not only will the test be in English, but the vast bulk of your university courses. And Asian Americans, despite a large number coming from families of non-English speakers, still do disproportionately well. But if the local language is something you struggle with, that local university isn't for you, unless we're also going to argue that degree awarding requires lower standards.
In which case, just throw university in the dump because it's worthless.
If we're at a point where having a majority language and doing important business in that language is bordering on discrimination, this society is lost.
What kind of absurd "argument" is this? If you're testing for a university in America, the expectation is that not only will the test be in English, but the vast bulk of your university courses. And Asian Americans, despite a large number coming from families of non-English speakers, still do disproportionately well. But if the local language is something you struggle with, that local university isn't for you, unless we're also going to argue that degree awarding requires lower standards.
In which case, just throw university in the dump because it's worthless.
If we're at a point where having a majority language and doing important business in that language is bordering on discrimination, this society is lost.
So you disagree with the assertion that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher than non-native speakers of that dialect--all else being equal?
Or did you just decide you'd rather argue with something I didn't write?
Or did you just decide you'd rather argue with something I didn't write?
Even if it is case that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher, it's not clear that the result is due to language barriers, and could be a correlation with socio-economic groups. That is the point of bringing up non-native speakers doing well, as the test is not even their native language, which is certainly a greater disadvantage than a different dialect.
So you don't think that there is an advantage gained by being a native speaker of a dialect a test is written in?
The academic consensus is that there is.
The clearest example is that vocabulary is a large part of most standardized tests and native speakers have larger vocabularies than proficient L2 speakers.
The academic consensus is that there is.
The clearest example is that vocabulary is a large part of most standardized tests and native speakers have larger vocabularies than proficient L2 speakers.
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it's not clear that the advantage is so much as to be a relevant factor. I grew up in a very poor minority neighborhood and the language the teachers used in school was the same as the ones on the standardized test, so it's not like I wasn't prepared.
It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
How much of an impact it has is debatable, but the academic consensus is that it is relevant. If you trust your own experiences and opinions more than the current research, there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise.
>It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
Whether it's insulting is irrelevant to whether it's true.
>In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
I'd be interested to know what your basing this assertion on. Gaokao scores in Beijing are distorted by families who try to move there from other areas to take the test and migration in general.
Combined with with relative lack of reliable data, I'm not sure how you could confidently make this claim.
>It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
Whether it's insulting is irrelevant to whether it's true.
>In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
I'd be interested to know what your basing this assertion on. Gaokao scores in Beijing are distorted by families who try to move there from other areas to take the test and migration in general.
Combined with with relative lack of reliable data, I'm not sure how you could confidently make this claim.
Do you have a link to the study? I'm curious what "relevant" means in this case.
From the beginning I've not denied that dialect can have an effect, only that I believe it to overwhelmed by a sea of countless other factors that cause someone to succeed or fail at getting into college, and I haven't seen any data that shows that it is the prevailing factor and one that truly matters.
The subtext to my comments is that this a debatable point, and I interjected because others were throwing veiled insults and calls of racism at anyone who tries to discuss this, which is an unfair way to shut conversation down.
From the beginning I've not denied that dialect can have an effect, only that I believe it to overwhelmed by a sea of countless other factors that cause someone to succeed or fail at getting into college, and I haven't seen any data that shows that it is the prevailing factor and one that truly matters.
The subtext to my comments is that this a debatable point, and I interjected because others were throwing veiled insults and calls of racism at anyone who tries to discuss this, which is an unfair way to shut conversation down.
>only that I believe it to overwhelmed by a sea of countless other factors that cause someone to succeed or fail at getting into college
Yes it can be and is at an individual level.
If you removed 50 points from every Black student's SAT score just because they were Black, there would still be countless other factors that caused them to succeed for fail at getting into college. Their being Black wouldn't be the largest factor (family income still would be).
But across the entire population, you would see a significant drop in the number of Black students in college.
As to a link: Here's a link and a quote from the abstract of a relevant metastudy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26090843
"The results showed a negative and moderate relationship between dialect use and overall literacy performance (M effect size = -0.33) and for dialect and reading (M effect size = -0.32). For spelling and writing, the relationship was negative and small (M effect size = -0.22). Moderator analyses revealed that socioeconomic status and grade level were not significant predictors for relations among dialect use and literacy skills."
Yes it can be and is at an individual level.
If you removed 50 points from every Black student's SAT score just because they were Black, there would still be countless other factors that caused them to succeed for fail at getting into college. Their being Black wouldn't be the largest factor (family income still would be).
But across the entire population, you would see a significant drop in the number of Black students in college.
As to a link: Here's a link and a quote from the abstract of a relevant metastudy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26090843
"The results showed a negative and moderate relationship between dialect use and overall literacy performance (M effect size = -0.33) and for dialect and reading (M effect size = -0.32). For spelling and writing, the relationship was negative and small (M effect size = -0.22). Moderator analyses revealed that socioeconomic status and grade level were not significant predictors for relations among dialect use and literacy skills."
How about the math part? Besides, if I was on a college admissions board, I'd give consideration to an L2 speaker if his verbal scores were unusually below his math scores.
I'm less familiar with math testing in general, but as far as direct effects go (not something caused by language of instruction) my guess is that it would be limited to instructions and word problems.
jiminy_john(1)
All languages are going to have dialects. Trying to eliminate that "bias" is going to just result in removing language entirely from exams, unless we decide to make tests for every single test taker. But the point of standardization is to have a solid, uniform goal for all to work towards. And if you're applying to an American university and you have difficulty with what's considered standard American English, you will have far worse troubles in university.
And again, people from families of non-native speakers do well. Generally better than people who only have family who speak the native language and dialect.
That people think it's discrimination is quite clearly silly. :)
And again, people from families of non-native speakers do well. Generally better than people who only have family who speak the native language and dialect.
That people think it's discrimination is quite clearly silly. :)
It sounds like you really want to be arguing with something other than what I'm writing, so you've just decided to make that happen.
There is in all cultures a language of educated discourse. To take an extreme example, nobody ever natively spoke scholarly Mandarin and wrote eight-legged essays for fun. The SAT is less severe, but, yeah, it requires some effort and practice to be familiar with the language and the essay format. Not being able or willing to put in the effort to learn this very accessible information is not a good sign for being able to survive equally or moreso arbitrary environments in university.
What is it with this topic causing people to argue with straw men?
>Not being able or willing to put in the effort to learn
This has nothing to do with putting in effort. Across a population, people who grew up speaking a dialect will perform better on a test than people who learned to speak that dialect later.
This isn't a controversial statement.
If your goal is to ensure that speakers of other dialects have equal access to top tier higher education, you will need to account for that somehow.
If you dont care about equal access to speakers of other dialects, then you don't have to do anything.
>Not being able or willing to put in the effort to learn
This has nothing to do with putting in effort. Across a population, people who grew up speaking a dialect will perform better on a test than people who learned to speak that dialect later.
This isn't a controversial statement.
If your goal is to ensure that speakers of other dialects have equal access to top tier higher education, you will need to account for that somehow.
If you dont care about equal access to speakers of other dialects, then you don't have to do anything.
We don’t use any standardized testing in Canada and I don’t think it’s affected our higher education system at all.
Are there any proven advantages to standardized testing?
Are there any proven advantages to standardized testing?
That's true for getting into undergraduate programs, but when it comes to graduate programs, dentistry, medical, law schools etc, I believe we still do use the same standardized tests as in the USA.
I went to grad school in Canada and I didn't have to do any standardized testing.
People recommended doing your GRE but it wasn't required.
People recommended doing your GRE but it wasn't required.
For grad school, GRE and the other tests exist to filter out obviously unmotivated candidates.
So, a good GRE score can not get you in with any certainty, but a bad one can disqualify you.
I think it depends. When I wrote the GMAT (albeit in 1992), a good score would get you into most Canadian business schools even if you had mediocre marks.
My recollection of the GMAT's difficulty was that any high school grad with an A average could easily score higher than the 80 percentile on the test. While I was happy my result gave me the ability to choose which business school I wanted to go to (my marks, while not bad, were also nothing to brag about), I also think the GMAT was a useless selection criterion.
My recollection of the GMAT's difficulty was that any high school grad with an A average could easily score higher than the 80 percentile on the test. While I was happy my result gave me the ability to choose which business school I wanted to go to (my marks, while not bad, were also nothing to brag about), I also think the GMAT was a useless selection criterion.
I am not familiar with business school admissions, but it is very rare nowadays to get into non cash-cow grad school programs in STEM fields on the basis of the GRE score alone.
Obviously unmotivated?
Your thoughtless dismissal of those less intelligent is enraging. Do you think all the people who work harder than you to get worse results are less motivated?
There are tens of thousands of people who would love to get into top graduate programmes, who love the subject they study but who just aren’t as smart as other people and you’re shitting on them as unmotivated?
Conscientiousness and intelligence are negatively correlated.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30661143/Con...
Your thoughtless dismissal of those less intelligent is enraging. Do you think all the people who work harder than you to get worse results are less motivated?
There are tens of thousands of people who would love to get into top graduate programmes, who love the subject they study but who just aren’t as smart as other people and you’re shitting on them as unmotivated?
Conscientiousness and intelligence are negatively correlated.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30661143/Con...
The GRE is designed to reward hard workers as well as intelligent people, that's why it is a widely used metric. Grad schools need hard working people as much as (probably more than, to be fair) they need intelligent people.
I am joining a CS PhD program in an US university this fall. The GRE, especially the math part, is high school mathematics. If you are not good at math, you can ace it by studying hard for a month.
That is why a low GRE quant score reflects that you haven't really bothered.
I am joining a CS PhD program in an US university this fall. The GRE, especially the math part, is high school mathematics. If you are not good at math, you can ace it by studying hard for a month.
That is why a low GRE quant score reflects that you haven't really bothered.
There was a fairly long interview on NPR today with the Director of Admissions of University of Chicago on this today.
From the part I heard, a big reason given was that you can significantly improve your SAT/ACT scores by taking test prep courses, which reduces the reliability of the test. They believe that can get a better idea of an applicant's academic potential from their grades.
From the part I heard, a big reason given was that you can significantly improve your SAT/ACT scores by taking test prep courses, which reduces the reliability of the test. They believe that can get a better idea of an applicant's academic potential from their grades.
There is definitely a cultural divide. Among most of my white and Latino classmates, the SAT was treated like an IQ test: you just show up and see what happens. For better or worse, this is probably what colleges originally intended, for the SATs to be legal and non-controversial proxy for IQ. My Asian and Indian classmates treated it like any other test, something you can study for and improve at. They expected that they could boost their scores hundreds of points between their PSATs and SATs by taking classes and studying hard.
Studying hard certainly gives one an unfair advantage :-)
My high school graduating class (~15 of the ~250 were "Valedictorians" thanks to grade inflation and a lack of a weighting system; they all had 4.0s) says differently. This was in an inner city public school, mind you.
Admissions officers know individual high schools, and the different grading systems. They can separate the bullshit for the most part
In other words, if you're from a shitty high school (or even a "best in the county" high school, if it's a unexceptional county) you're shit out of luck - because now the admissions officers will just reject everyone from that school out of hand, no matter their grades.
Objective standards can really help people without the connections to succeed otherwise.
Objective standards can really help people without the connections to succeed otherwise.
That's the literal goal of the SAT. A standardized test across all schools.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As a non-American, I always found the GPA system a little strange. In high school, our marks were always scores out of 100.
As someone who's moved between states and cities all across America, GPA really should be dumped for system like that.
I've lived in schools where an A/4.00's average score was 90-100 and I lived in another school where it ranged from 95-100. 3.00 would be from 80-89 at the one school and 90-94 at the other.
From raw GPA data, students who had a 90% average would look great if they graduated from the first school, but just OK if they graduated from the latter school. And I've had friends that went to schools that had max possible GPAs of 5.0.
It's a mess.
I've lived in schools where an A/4.00's average score was 90-100 and I lived in another school where it ranged from 95-100. 3.00 would be from 80-89 at the one school and 90-94 at the other.
From raw GPA data, students who had a 90% average would look great if they graduated from the first school, but just OK if they graduated from the latter school. And I've had friends that went to schools that had max possible GPAs of 5.0.
It's a mess.
[deleted]
Your comment and questions are only related to the post as far as they both concern higher education. From your phrasing it's clear what you think the answer to your questions are.
> could be perceived as discriminatory
I believe "could be perceived" is incorrect; there is a large amount of evidence that it is discriminatory, and that therefore the most deserving students aren't getting opportunities and that the university is shortchanging itself on the quality of its student body.
> one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population
Who stated that? Also, it's not a bad guide given that talent is distributed relatively equally.
> Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does?
What do you think, and more importantly to fellow users, on what is it based? Shall we stand still until nobody raises another question?
> It seems like ...
Sentences that begin with those words can end in almost any way the author wishes, and in almost all cases we will have learned nothing.
I believe "could be perceived" is incorrect; there is a large amount of evidence that it is discriminatory, and that therefore the most deserving students aren't getting opportunities and that the university is shortchanging itself on the quality of its student body.
> one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population
Who stated that? Also, it's not a bad guide given that talent is distributed relatively equally.
> Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does?
What do you think, and more importantly to fellow users, on what is it based? Shall we stand still until nobody raises another question?
> It seems like ...
Sentences that begin with those words can end in almost any way the author wishes, and in almost all cases we will have learned nothing.
> It seems like we're bending over backwards to toss out any kind of test or criterion that could be perceived as discriminatory.
Yes. SAT/ACT scores are terrible signals because of Goodhart's law. Professional tutoring in wealthy suburbs starts at $100/hr. Many ambitious students opt for four-figure private prep courses.
SAT/ACT scores may have been good signals 20 years ago. But today, those scores discriminate against poor students and students aren't inculcated into the "elite institution rat race" from a young age.
That discrimination matters to U Chicago because they are interested in admitting brilliant, creative thinkers. Not perfectly groomed drones. If you don't require test scores, then there's a lot less back-and-forth about admitting that one kid who did publishable research as a high schooler but also happened to do only so-so on the associated SAT subject test.
Qualitative evaluations have many problems, but overly quantitative evaluations also have their failure modes. Especially when the candidate knows the quantitative function they're supposed to be optimizing.
Yes. SAT/ACT scores are terrible signals because of Goodhart's law. Professional tutoring in wealthy suburbs starts at $100/hr. Many ambitious students opt for four-figure private prep courses.
SAT/ACT scores may have been good signals 20 years ago. But today, those scores discriminate against poor students and students aren't inculcated into the "elite institution rat race" from a young age.
That discrimination matters to U Chicago because they are interested in admitting brilliant, creative thinkers. Not perfectly groomed drones. If you don't require test scores, then there's a lot less back-and-forth about admitting that one kid who did publishable research as a high schooler but also happened to do only so-so on the associated SAT subject test.
Qualitative evaluations have many problems, but overly quantitative evaluations also have their failure modes. Especially when the candidate knows the quantitative function they're supposed to be optimizing.
There's an article in the NYT about this story. Here are key quotes:
Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.
and then
At the end of the admissions process, the class of applicants is fine-tuned through a so-called “lop list,” which includes race. Almost the entire page in which the plaintiffs describe that fine-tuning has been blacked out. Mr. Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, said Friday that it was “disreputable” of Harvard to complain that information was being taken out of context while at the same time insisting on significant redactions of the evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.
and then
At the end of the admissions process, the class of applicants is fine-tuned through a so-called “lop list,” which includes race. Almost the entire page in which the plaintiffs describe that fine-tuning has been blacked out. Mr. Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, said Friday that it was “disreputable” of Harvard to complain that information was being taken out of context while at the same time insisting on significant redactions of the evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
"A group that claims Harvard puts quotas on Asian-American applicants contends the university scores them higher than students of other races on academics and extracurricular activities but ranks them lowest in a "personal" category covering such traits as likability and 'attractive to be with.' " - https://cnn.it/2ldoPd1
That last parameter - "attractive to be with" - is aggravating. What is this, a matchmaking institution or something? It's just bizarre that they would have the gall to feature engineer that..
That last parameter - "attractive to be with" - is aggravating. What is this, a matchmaking institution or something? It's just bizarre that they would have the gall to feature engineer that..
Yes, it is. At the higher end of the socioeconomic scale, your network becomes extremely important, and who you marry will certainly form a huge part of your network.
Many people don't realize, but that actually is a core purpose of selective higher education institutions. Biology and physics is the same at a community college versus Princeton, but you don't get the opportunity to meet the kids of diplomats and board members etc.
You also want to sprinkle some natural, hard working geniuses in there and you have a good recipe for a network that can take advantage. Usually for their own monetary gain.
Many people don't realize, but that actually is a core purpose of selective higher education institutions. Biology and physics is the same at a community college versus Princeton, but you don't get the opportunity to meet the kids of diplomats and board members etc.
You also want to sprinkle some natural, hard working geniuses in there and you have a good recipe for a network that can take advantage. Usually for their own monetary gain.
Let's be honest here; bias towards blacks and hispanics is intended to address larger societal inequities, and assumes a rough justice is to aim for representation of those groups at their proportion of the population. Bias against Asian admissions is aiming for the same outcome - maintaining white proportion in the student body at a similar level as the wider population, though without the aim of addressing societal ills, but instead simply to preserve white majority.
That's where "diversity" arguments lead you. The real argument for bias toward disadvantaged groups is that discrimination in society leads to members of advantaged groups looking better on paper than they really are, and following the results of a biased system blindly would both predictably lead to a lower quality of student and recursively contribute to the original bias.
Separately: minorities face material discrimination at every income and wealth level. I understand that it's tough for some white people to support anything positive that they're left out of, but racial bias in college admissions is meant to be a counterbalance to other, negative things that white people were also left out of, at every income and wealth level.
But Asians were also suppressed by force of US law, and by angry, murderous mobs. If anything, they should be favored instead of pushed out, regardless of their level of achievement.
That's where "diversity" arguments lead you. The real argument for bias toward disadvantaged groups is that discrimination in society leads to members of advantaged groups looking better on paper than they really are, and following the results of a biased system blindly would both predictably lead to a lower quality of student and recursively contribute to the original bias.
Separately: minorities face material discrimination at every income and wealth level. I understand that it's tough for some white people to support anything positive that they're left out of, but racial bias in college admissions is meant to be a counterbalance to other, negative things that white people were also left out of, at every income and wealth level.
But Asians were also suppressed by force of US law, and by angry, murderous mobs. If anything, they should be favored instead of pushed out, regardless of their level of achievement.
> Separately: minorities face material discrimination at every income and wealth level. I understand that it's tough for some white people to support anything positive that they're left out of, but racial bias in college admissions is meant to be a counterbalance to other, negative things that white people were also left out of, at every income and wealth level.
Thing is, it's just not sustainable. No matter how it is justified in the grand scope of things, for an individual that was rejected over someone on the basis of race (or any other trait they have no control over), it will feel unfair, and rightly so. In aggregate, this creates long-term resentment that is focused on the very traits you're trying to mitigate discrimination over. Eventually, you get pushback - and since the group pushing back is the majority, it can get really nasty (indeed, to some extent, we're already observing it).
Thing is, it's just not sustainable. No matter how it is justified in the grand scope of things, for an individual that was rejected over someone on the basis of race (or any other trait they have no control over), it will feel unfair, and rightly so. In aggregate, this creates long-term resentment that is focused on the very traits you're trying to mitigate discrimination over. Eventually, you get pushback - and since the group pushing back is the majority, it can get really nasty (indeed, to some extent, we're already observing it).
If Harvard admission criteria leave out the best applicants to other colleges, and they go on to create powerful companies like Google in large number, will Harvard’s prestige decrease despite continued support from the elites?
Doing very well in tech entrepreneurship needs intelligence more than great personality and political connections (they should be above a level but you don’t need a very high level of them).
Politics is still the most direct route to power but billionaires are also powerful and have longer influence. If next generation moguls are educated elsewhere, the colleges with more merit based criteria can emerge as more elite. By merit, the criteria may include other objectively useful metrics in addition to academics.
Doing very well in tech entrepreneurship needs intelligence more than great personality and political connections (they should be above a level but you don’t need a very high level of them).
Politics is still the most direct route to power but billionaires are also powerful and have longer influence. If next generation moguls are educated elsewhere, the colleges with more merit based criteria can emerge as more elite. By merit, the criteria may include other objectively useful metrics in addition to academics.
Neither Sergey nor Larry went to Harvard for undergrad, but I’m not aware of any data that says they were rejected. Both went to their states flagship before Stanford.
Maybe we should make ladders of opportunity wider, and not just focus on HYPSM and Ivies? Just a guess.
Maybe we should make ladders of opportunity wider, and not just focus on HYPSM and Ivies? Just a guess.
> "It is incorrect to call it “racism,”
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For those interested in Harvard's point of view:
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2018/defending-divers...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/diverse-education
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2018/defending-divers...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/diverse-education
I like how Harvard sings praises of opportunity and diversity from ivory towers while literally discussing their will to hold up barriers to entry to education.
There's no good reason to hold education hostage. The goal should be to create as much opportunity as possible.
There's no good reason to hold education hostage. The goal should be to create as much opportunity as possible.
Harvard is one of the founding partners of edX and has a ton of high-quality courses there. It also has the Harvard Extension School, which offers high-quality degrees at a fraction of the cost of the other schools. Probably unfair to say that they hold educatio hostage.
I know, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole discussion is misguided and ridiculous.
The shame is that those "49%" of students who are, according to Harvard, fully qualified, are not given access. The whole discussion should be about how to give every qualified person--and in fact, every person: barriers to entry will always be deleterious to competitive results--access to their degree programs.
But that's not how the world works. Harvard sells prestige and privilege, and profits from limiting access to it. So we end up in these ridiculous discussions about who should get access to that prestige and privilege.
The shame is that those "49%" of students who are, according to Harvard, fully qualified, are not given access. The whole discussion should be about how to give every qualified person--and in fact, every person: barriers to entry will always be deleterious to competitive results--access to their degree programs.
But that's not how the world works. Harvard sells prestige and privilege, and profits from limiting access to it. So we end up in these ridiculous discussions about who should get access to that prestige and privilege.
There's a similar issue going on at the NYC elite public schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science. This guy discusses it in this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QixRuK68lk4
With computer based testing, we should be able to make a far better test than the SAT -- something where being able to master it would actually be solid evidence of both "g" and knowledge.
You mean something that throws out g completely?
No, something that has multiple parts -- "g" (i.e. not requiring demonstrating external domain knowledge already known before the test), tests of domain expertise in whatever common body of knowledge a university wants, and a section which demonstrates previous effort to study/prepare. All 3 of these are worth knowing independently -- for some degrees programs, IQ alone would likely be sufficient. For others, a moderate level of IQ and a high level of willingness to study. For short certificate type programs, showing extensive pre-existing knowledge could be a big factor.
And then one day they'll just create an asian university, full of high scoring asian students, flipping the finger to politically correct universities walking on their heads.
Or simply , with time, universities applying those kind of discrimination will fall behind the ones that don't in rankings.
Or simply , with time, universities applying those kind of discrimination will fall behind the ones that don't in rankings.
Harvard, along with most other private universities, use racism in their college admissions. It's very sad that we still have to deal with this, after history has showed favoritism towards certain races has never ended well.
why does america systematically discriminate minorities? ex. media emasculates/villifies minority men while fetishizing minority women.
Don’t lump minorities together under that single banner, it’s gross and shows ignorance.
The situation you’re talking about applies almost purely to Asian (south/east) Americans. It’s the complete reverse in regards to black folks, and nonexistent in Hispanic Americans (look up intermarriage statistics).
The situation you’re talking about applies almost purely to Asian (south/east) Americans. It’s the complete reverse in regards to black folks, and nonexistent in Hispanic Americans (look up intermarriage statistics).
how is it ignorant to suggest amerikkka has a racist past and it's still being pushed today as you've described casually.
So blacks and hispanics are not villified at all in your view? being grouped into economic apartheid that is repeatedly paraded on media as thugs, gangbangers and of low intellectual capacity?
For example, it is generally accepted in mainstream american culture that making fun of blacks, as a result of slavery, is very taboo but other minorities tend to get a pass. I've encountered this many times in the so called "liberal and mutlicultural society" powerhouse of the West. You are either Black or White in America I've been told. People in between don't matter.
So blacks and hispanics are not villified at all in your view? being grouped into economic apartheid that is repeatedly paraded on media as thugs, gangbangers and of low intellectual capacity?
For example, it is generally accepted in mainstream american culture that making fun of blacks, as a result of slavery, is very taboo but other minorities tend to get a pass. I've encountered this many times in the so called "liberal and mutlicultural society" powerhouse of the West. You are either Black or White in America I've been told. People in between don't matter.
I’m addressing:
media emasculates/villifies minority men while fetishizing minority women.
Black men face issues of fetishization and hyper masculine caricatures, while black women are villified and systemically unwanted by other races, intermarrying at lower rates of any other group save Asian men. It is quite literally the opposite of what you’ve stated.
Hispanic men and women don’t have any significant differences in intermarriage, and at that have the highest rates of intermarriage (because >50% are white probably).
I do hope you’ll note the absurdity of preaching Amerikkka while lacking a basic understanding of the racial dynamics within it. It’s reminiscent of JS only devs decrying strong typing, and carries about as much weight!
media emasculates/villifies minority men while fetishizing minority women.
Black men face issues of fetishization and hyper masculine caricatures, while black women are villified and systemically unwanted by other races, intermarrying at lower rates of any other group save Asian men. It is quite literally the opposite of what you’ve stated.
Hispanic men and women don’t have any significant differences in intermarriage, and at that have the highest rates of intermarriage (because >50% are white probably).
I do hope you’ll note the absurdity of preaching Amerikkka while lacking a basic understanding of the racial dynamics within it. It’s reminiscent of JS only devs decrying strong typing, and carries about as much weight!
Almost all discussion of racism is not about the facts of discrimination, it's about politics of the 'culture war', including here on HN:
1. Consider whether you can predict with high accuracy a person's attitude toward a racial discrimination issue, while being blind to that issue's facts, based solely on the political beliefs of the person and on the race of the alleged victim. (You can do the same with politicians and, very sadly, with U.S. Supreme Court justices.) For example, I had no doubt what the parent article's position would be based on the publication's politics and the race of the alleged victims.
2. In the U.S., by far the most prevalent amount of discrimination historically and currently has been against African-Americans. Yet I can't remember the last time such an issue was on the front page. To a degree, that could be for lack of novelty, but that doesn't nearly explain the vast omission.
1. Consider whether you can predict with high accuracy a person's attitude toward a racial discrimination issue, while being blind to that issue's facts, based solely on the political beliefs of the person and on the race of the alleged victim. (You can do the same with politicians and, very sadly, with U.S. Supreme Court justices.) For example, I had no doubt what the parent article's position would be based on the publication's politics and the race of the alleged victims.
2. In the U.S., by far the most prevalent amount of discrimination historically and currently has been against African-Americans. Yet I can't remember the last time such an issue was on the front page. To a degree, that could be for lack of novelty, but that doesn't nearly explain the vast omission.
Because the white people who take issue with actually verifiable discrimination against Asians, purely on the basis of their race, have so much to personally gain from speaking out against it. Your world view is so unbelievably flawed.
[0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17320360