[Kabal]

(04-05-2013 05:19 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

This'll probably be an unpopular opinion here but I personally believe that whatever the motivation, at most colleges 'diversity' does improve the academic environment. Interaction with students of different perspectives and backgrounds is a legitimate and valuable part of the experience.

Ultimately I think white people make way too big of a deal about affirmative action. There are hundreds of colleges in this country and anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit. With few exceptions nobody needs to attend their top-choice Ivy League school.

Are people of the same races of monolithic perspectives and backgrounds? I was of the impression skin color != character.

Affirmative action involves more than white people and black people. There are Asians and latinos in the mix, too.

Let's say top STEM programs started discriminating against men in favor of women to the degree of 280 old-scale SAT points (the black-Asian disparity as of 2005). Men would now have to get a 1600 to be equivalent to a woman's 1320.

Imagine if a feminist said "Ultimately I think men make way too big of a deal about affirmative action. There are hundreds of STEM programs in this country and anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit. With few exceptions nobody needs to attend their top-choice STEM program."

Would you still feel so indifferent?

[RussianRootCanal]

http://www.bet.com/news/music/2013/04/04...-show.html

Speaking of Harvard, some girl there started a protest against rapper Tyga headlining their concert due to anti feminist lyrics.

[megatron]

(04-07-2013 08:20 PM)RussianRootCanal Wrote:  

http://www.bet.com/news/music/2013/04/04...-show.html

Speaking of Harvard, some girl there started a protest against rapper Tyga headlining their concert due to anti feminist lyrics.

Misogynistic or anti-feminist? Like was he spitting some MRA, red pill shit?

[A War You Cannot Win]

*goes to club, twerks ass to song that is a variation of the popular bitches and hoes variety*

then goes to college, protests same song


What a creature, the hamster is.

[Aliblahba]

I hope she sues, wins, and shuts all these organizations down. It's not like their producing anyone productive anymore. Except feminist.

[Suits]

Isn't it obvious that these schools only accept a certain number of students each year? Sure, 97 percentile on the SAT is impressive, but Ivy League schools get their pick of the litter. Probably plenty of 98-100 percentile test takers in the mix. Even that 98-100 is high, with the sheer number of students taking the SAT, there are going to be tens of thousands who did better than her.

[Tuthmosis]

(04-07-2013 10:08 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

I hope she sues, wins, and shuts all these organizations down. It's not like their producing anyone productive anymore. Except feminist.

They're producing Athlone.

[Blaster]

(04-05-2013 09:49 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Are people of the same races of monolithic perspectives and backgrounds? I was of the impression skin color != character.

Affirmative action involves more than white people and black people. There are Asians and latinos in the mix, too.

And when I'm talking about diversity being a good thing for a college experience, I'm not just talking about skin color. But the truth is there's remarkably little diversity among typical white kids in the US, and the most significant minority populations are Black, Latino, and Asian (though asians famously don't need or get the help).

Quote:

Let's say top STEM programs started discriminating against men in favor of women to the degree of 280 old-scale SAT points (the black-Asian disparity as of 2005). Men would now have to get a 1600 to be equivalent to a woman's 1320.

This is different for several reasons. Women are not a minority population. STEM subjects don't benefit as much from diversity as softer subjects and the 4-year degree in general. Finally, as a total population, women are not 280 points less qualified than males.

The first means that any adjustments made to favor women have a high chance of backfiring and flooding classrooms with unqualified students.

The second is about asking why you diversity is desirable. Although much of the Aaron Clarey-style criticism about the economic value of college degrees is quite valid, there is still something to be said for the individual value of the "college experience." The opportunity to socialize with other people your age with different ideas and different backgrounds improves your perspective as a person. This is the time in the dining hall, in the library, on the intramural fields, at concerts, sporting events, or parties. Humanities fields may also benefit from diversity but in a differential equations class, it doesn't matter.

To the extent that diversity in STEM even matters at all, the last means that a far more attractive method would involve get the already qualified women to actually pursue and complete those degrees. Women don't need admissions bonuses to get into STEM programs. They can already if they want to, they're choosing other majors.

Quote:

Imagine if a feminist said "Ultimately I think men make way too big of a deal about affirmative action. There are hundreds of STEM programs in this country and anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit. With few exceptions nobody needs to attend their top-choice STEM program."

Would you still feel so indifferent?

The problem is that when applying the sort of changes the extent that feminists desire them, the assertion "anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit" would no longer be true. For every man there would be a woman being given preference. The change is far more threatening to individuals and to STEM programs overall than the 15% affirmative action populations.

[Kabal]

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

And when I'm talking about diversity being a good thing for a college experience, I'm not just talking about skin color. But the truth is there's remarkably little diversity among typical white kids in the US, and the most significant minority populations are Black, Latino, and Asian (though asians famously don't need or get the help).

Whites are not a monolith. There being little alleged diversity among white kids seems to be your prejudice more than anything. And that's right, as mentioned before, Asians get help to the tune of -50 points on the SATs.

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

This is different for several reasons. Women are not a minority population. STEM subjects don't benefit as much from diversity as softer subjects and the 4-year degree in general. Finally, as a total population, women are not 280 points less qualified than males.

The first means that any adjustments made to favor women have a high chance of backfiring and flooding classrooms with unqualified students.

The hypothetical situation I posed of women being preferred over men is a difference of degree, not kind, vis a vis the preference for blacks and latinos over whites and Asians. We already experience the situation you hypothesized... blacks transition to less rigorous majors due to harsh grading standards and have higher drop-out rates overall.

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

The opportunity to socialize with other people your age with different ideas and different backgrounds improves your perspective as a person.

Okay, and having more people of different races is not a harbinger of having different ideas and/or backgrounds. People of the same race can have different ideas and different backgrounds. A group of people of different races can be homogenous in ideas and backgrounds.

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

The problem is that when applying the sort of changes the extent that feminists desire them, the assertion "anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit" would no longer be true. For every man there would be a woman being given preference. The change is far more threatening to individuals and to STEM programs overall than the 15% affirmative action populations.

The problem with the assertion "anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit" is that it's the inverse of No True Scotsman--"Any True Scotsman should be able to find a good fit."

Espenshade and Chung estimated that in the absence of racial preferences, 4/5 of spots occupied by blacks would be taken by Asians. So there already is whole-scale discrimination. It's not quite 1 to 1, but it seems that for every five black persons at elite universities, four Asians got screwed over due to their race. It's not a phenomenon only at the margins, not that something being only at the margins makes it just. It's actually pretty eyebrow-raising how close to 1 to 1 it is.

I imagine you would find this 4/5 figure to be much more unpalatable if it were with regard to women and men.

[R Smoov]

I remember when I had applied for some Ivy League colleges. I had a 4.0 GPA, A average SAT score and pretty much minimal extracurriculars. So there was obvious reasons why my ass didn't get accepted. Was I mad? Yeah, but I applied to other alright colleges so it wasn't that big of a fucking deal.

Now check out what this Pokemon said:

"Then there was summer camp. I should've done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life. Because everyone knows that if you don't have anything difficult going on in your own life, you should just hop on a plane so you're able to talk about what other people have to deal with."

[Blaster]

(04-07-2013 10:56 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

And when I'm talking about diversity being a good thing for a college experience, I'm not just talking about skin color. But the truth is there's remarkably little diversity among typical white kids in the US, and the most significant minority populations are Black, Latino, and Asian (though asians famously don't need or get the help).

Whites are not a monolith. There being little alleged diversity among white kids seems to be your prejudice more than anything. And that's right, as mentioned before, Asians get help to the tune of -50 points on the SATs.

No, they are not. However, if you read carefully, nothing about what I'm saying suggests they are a monolith. That many college-bound whites have remarkably similar backgrounds and remarkably similar attitudes doesn't mean that there's no diversity there. This is especially true for the top schools who draw applicants nationally and internationally.

But that diversity is mostly accounted for, within the 51%-75% of the applicants at a given school that are white. For three sample categories of white kids who may get a pass on academic requirements: legacy admissions, low socio-economic status admissions, and local community admissions.

As for Asians-- I hesitate to stereotype but since what I am talking about is diversity, not simply the right mix of races and certainly not fairness, it's a legitimate question to ask how much variety there is among applicants, especially at the top schools. How many of high-scoring Asian applicants have math/science/violin/piano and not much else?

Quote:

The hypothetical situation I posed of women being preferred over men is a difference of degree, not kind, vis a vis the preference for blacks and latinos over whites and Asians.

We already experience the situation you hypothesized... blacks transition to less rigorous majors due to harsh grading standards and have higher drop-out rates overall.

Degree matters. With blood-alcohol content of 0.03 you'll experience a nice buzz, with a BAC of .3 you might die. 10% or less of a college's applicants being granted a bonus is much different than 50% or more of those applicants being granted a bonus.

The only thing the article you linked is saying that when you put a slice of cheese on a turkey sandwich, the cheese doesn't magically become turkey like some were hoping. The article does not say that the turkey sandwich becomes a cheese sandwich, which is what I am saying would happen if you tried to favor a population that was not a minority and did not need any help.

Quote:

(04-07-2013 10:13 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

The opportunity to socialize with other people your age with different ideas and different backgrounds improves your perspective as a person.

Okay, and having more people of different races is not a harbinger of having different ideas and/or backgrounds. People of the same race can have different ideas and different backgrounds. A group of people of different races can be homogenous in ideas and backgrounds.

This is true but doesn't contradict anything I've written. Just because there can be heterogeneous populations doesn't mean there are. I'm also not saying race-based bonuses are the right strategy-- but then given the history against race-based quotas, by this point admissions offices have built in plausible deniability. In many cases where Black or Latino students get a bonus, they probably have non-race-based explanations for why that particular student was admitted.

Regardless, the fact is that in the US, it's very common for Blacks, Latinos, and Whites to have significantly different backgrounds.

Quote:

The problem with the assertion "anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit" is that it's the inverse of No True Scotsman--"Any True Scotsman should be able to find a good fit."

Espenshade and Chung estimated that in the absence of racial preferences, 4/5 of spots occupied by blacks would be taken by Asians. So there already is whole-scale discrimination. It's not quite 1 to 1, but it seems that for every five black persons at elite universities, four Asians got screwed over due to their race. It's not a phenomenon only at the margins, not that something being only at the margins makes it just. It's actually pretty eyebrow-raising how close to 1 to 1 it is.

Minorities competing with minorities is almost the definition of a marginal problem. And I'm not saying this is fair and not discrimination-- certainly with regards to Asians. But I am not trying to make a true Scotsman argument so much as I am making reference to the extent to which bachelor degrees from elite institutions are over-valued.

Quote:

I imagine you would find this 4/5 figure to be much more unpalatable if it were with regard to women and men.

This isn't really about what I find palatable, it's about (a) what's best for the college institution and (b) realistically, what works best for the students.

[Bad Hussar]

(04-05-2013 01:40 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

All of the above is essentially accurate, and the bit about the athletes is especially illuminating and often overlooked. Sports like Crew, Lacrosse, Sailing, and Equestrian are built for the elite. Those are the only folks who closely follow them and they tend to be the bulk of the actual competitors as well.

These parents know that if their kids gets good enough to be a recruited athlete in any of these sports, he/she will have a much easier path into an elite university/college. Only Ivies and a select few others compete at a high level in most of these sports, so they truly are pipelines to the top.

Athlone:
Can you comment on the status of Rugby at the Ivy League? Elite? Mid Range? Low Class?

Also, I thought the Ivies had agreed among themselves not to offer sports scholarships to students. I guess they find a way to get around that, or perhaps they don't offer a scholarship, they're just are more likely to accept students who excel at certain sports.

[Excelsior]

(04-08-2013 10:33 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Athlone:
Can you comment on the status of Rugby at the Ivy League? Elite? Mid Range? Low Class?

Rugby is not an officially sanctioned NCAA sport like football, baseball, lacrosse, soccer and others. It is a "club" sport here, and is funded by private donations. That being said, the size of these donations ensures that it receives more funding than a lot of school sanctioned "official" sports. This large amount of funding is in large part a function of the demographic that participates in the game here-they've got money to burn.

At my school, the game is generally played by fairly athletic guys who either weren't inclined or weren't able to excel at one of the more popular sports, as well as by guys who have exhausted eligibility in one of those other sports and/or left the team and decided to take it up (ex: football players after their final football season in their senior fall sometimes take to rugby during their senior spring).

The rugby team on my campus is one of the more fully elite/upper-class sports teams at the school. The roster is almost uniformly occupied by graduates of the most elite private and public schools in the USA, more so in my observation than the football, basketball, soccer or baseball rosters (this is saying something, because all of the teams are relatively socioeconomically "elite" here, for reasons I'll explain below). Rugby guys are, in this way, sort of similar to Lacrosse guys.

Quote:

Also, I thought the Ivies had agreed among themselves not to offer sports scholarships to students.

Correct, there are no athletic scholarships in the Ivy League.

Quote:

I guess they find a way to get around that, or perhaps they don't offer a scholarship, they're just are more likely to accept students who excel at certain sports.

Schools can still prefer recruited athletes, they simply will not be able to hand them scholarships tied explicitly for sports. This makes Ivy League recruiting a bit of a unique animal: it seeks to compete at a high level (division one NCAA), but has to deal with unique limitations (academic and financial) in order to do so.

Ivies generally have large endowments, so many athletes do receive financial aid instead if they qualify. Most recruits who have the grades to get it won't meet that low financial bar. For these recruits, the price tag can be a major deterrent. It is not uncommon for a solid recruit to have to turn down an Ivy offer in a sport like football or basketball in favor of an actual athletic scholarship from a less academically prestigious school due to the cost.

Schools like Villanova, William and Mary, and schools in the Patriot League (ex: Fordham) often recruit guys like this. The military academies (Army, Navy, Air Force) also get a decent number of these guys.

Most of the athletes you see in the Ivies (particularly those with smaller endowments and less lay prestige i.e. not Harvard) are one percenters or close to it, for this very reason. They tend to be the kids whose families can handle that extra financial cost of attending Ivies. They are also the students who (as I outlined earlier in this thread) will yield larger family and alumni donor contributions during and after their time at the school, so they are the most prized.

This is why your standard Ivy League athlete is still a white, upper middle/upper class male, even in sports like basketball or football where minorities have a much larger nationwide presence.

[Bad Hussar]

^^^Athlone

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I guess the nature of the athletics programs at Ivy Schools as you described explains why they aren't nationally competitive in the big sports like Football and Basketball. It makes sense for them to concentrate on Lacrosse, Crew and similar sports.

As you may know Rugby 7's will be at the next Olympics in Rio. How competitive do you think the US will be in this?

[Excelsior]

(04-10-2013 11:31 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

As you may know Rugby 7's will be at the next Olympics in Rio. How competitive do you think the US will be in this?

No clue, really. I don't really follow the game.

[RouteBackwards]

(04-04-2013 11:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 10:36 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

2120 might be impressive to laymen, but that's really not all that impressive when you're applying to HYPSW (or even non-Wharton Penn). The average scores there are something like low-to-mid 1400s on the old scale, so 2120 is pretty average.

Average SAT for my class (at an Ivy) was a 2170. 2120 is standout for a minority (black or hispanic), but less remarkable otherwise.

Quote:

She is ultimately right, however, about the diversity--which is what drives the PC crowd up a wall. If she were black or latino she would be a shoe-in.

If she were black, her SAT score would be in the 99.9th percentile for her group. The number of blacks who score at that level (north of 2000 on the new SAT scale) is very, very small, much smaller than the number of whites and Asians who manage the same (and that is true even after you account for disparities in population size).

Affirmative Action is most useful for the top .1% of blacks and hispanics. If she were black and among this group (read: able to outdo 99.9% of other blacks), she'd be fine. Anything less and she'd be in exactly the same position barring some sort of other hook (athletics, legacy, etc).

Quote:

As discussed in the 2005 Espenshade and Chung paper: Being white is the equivalent of a 230 point penalty on the SATs vs. being black when it comes to admissions at top schools, a 185 point penalty vs. being latino, and a 50 point bonus vs. being Asian. This was on the old scale too. The gaps have only widened since then, according to follow-up work by Espenshade.

I suppose that's a simple way of framing it. The core of it all comes down to supply and demand, which is where the "bonuses" come from. Admissions directors have a rough idea of the kind of classes they want, and admit accordingly. The supply of high-scoring individuals varies by group, which forces the admins to dig deeper into some pools than others in order to create the ethnic "image" they want. That is what creates the "bonus" scenario outlined above.

Why are they so concerned with creating that image?

Politics and money, with a little bit of ideology thrown in. The motives are actually not as charitable as many think.

(04-04-2013 10:53 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  

just looked this shit up.

2120 is just slightly above 90th percentile i guess

97th.

(04-04-2013 10:45 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  

If she was that smart she would start a website and learn email marketing. College is obsolete.

The truth of this statement varies by individual, field of study, and the institution granting the degree.

(04-04-2013 11:08 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  

I will reserve my judgement until I see what she looks like.

Hot = I'm with her.

Fat = she can shut the hell up.

She's a plain Jane. Not unattractive, but not particularly hot either. Like nearly all of the females in her (almost certainly upper-middle/upper class) segment of society, she's in decent shape. The description I gave there is actually quite typical for the kinds of schools she was shooting for, save perhaps for Vanderbilt. She'd have blended right in where I'm at.

She could still get some of Route Backward's potential-children-juice splattered onto her face.