Hacker News Reader

Comment by choeger | Hacker News Reader

How dare they to demand students to actually do some studying!

Honestly, it is refreshing to see someone from an elite university to face the same issues that we at the lower universities complained about for decades. Admitting everyone and their cat to universities destroys them. But I think this is a lost cause. Popular culture has completely lost the idea that you have to work (hard) to improve yourself. Everything nowadays is about "equal this" and "equal that", no one recognizes that opportunities do not automatically lead to outcome.

View on HN

The real problem is that society is more and more treating universities like companies that sell a product instead of educational institutions. The idea that "I paid for this, so I deserve it" is toxic.

Well, universities act like companies, particularly resorts.

It's not just an idea they keep in their heads. I've had students tell me that to my face.

They don't get it from nowhere, though.

The public transit in my city is plastered with advertisements that have headlines reading, "Get a career in X!" These campaigns are being run by every one of the local universities, and quite a few ones that are further afield, too. It seems like the only ones still advertising an education rather than an income boost are the city colleges.

Like it or not, incoming students' perception of the nature of their college education is going to be driven by the admissions office's hijinks. Faculty don't get to talk to them until later.

Well, on the other hand many employers value degree more than actual skills, thus converting universities from learning institutions into work permission dispensers.

Yes, when universities started marketing themselves as an "investment" is it any wonder their investors want a return. Almost no one holds this attitude about community colleges, where tuition is a few hundred dollars a semester. But somehow universities feel they are different. They charge many thousands of dollars in tuition and yet are unconcerned with the outcome. As a tuition paying student I'd be demanding a ton of shit too.

(Delet this)

Proof that they're willing to pick something and stick with it for 4-5 years.

It's insulting to compare students whose parents have committed criminal fraud in exchange for university admission to political movements for equal rights for groups that have seen even their most capable members discriminated against.

Don't think that this is a new thing.

A "Gentleman C" is a already a long-established concept among the so-called "elite" universities. Here's one quote, which I easily found via a Google Scholar search. In this case from 1992 (p146 of doi:10.1177/0002716292523001013 ):

> It is charged that, at elite colleges, mediocre minority students are patronized and suffer anxiety and self-doubt they would not feel at less selective colleges and that lowered standards stigmatize able minority students who do not require them.

> Advocates of affirmative admissions respond that they prefer favorable to unfavorable discrimination. There have been special admission standards for the children of alumni, faculty, donors, politicians, celebrities, athletes, and local residents, and easy degrees for students who buy term papers, cheat on exams, and take a gentleman's C with little study and much beer. Why not for blacks and Hispanics?

Things haven't changed much in 30 years, no? And I bet I could find similar comments from 30 years before that if I tried.

> Everything nowadays is about "equal this" and "equal that", no one recognizes that opportunities do not automatically lead to outcome.

You seem to suggest that the fight for equal opportunity and individual responsibility are at odds of each other, or maybe that equal opportunity is not a valid concern, but if you had to bet on either of two identical humans with exceptional work ethic, with the only variable being access to education, you'd go with the one that has more access.

I think if educators had the resources to teach students who are not top performers this could get a lot better. I resent the idea that education is something you earn by being a good child, there is no way right now to judge children that wouldn't give families with means all the advantages.

> "equal this" and "equal that"

Uh, I'm going to need some clarification on what this means? Because one interpretation could be, "letting minorities into university has ruined it." And that way, there be dragons.

"equal outcome" vs "equal opportunity".

Some people believe that we're all equal and therefore should expect equal outcomes (regardless of how hard you work). Eg, they expect that everyone gets paid the same, without necessarily putting the work in.

Others believe that we're all equal in the sense that we should be given the same opportunities, but what you do with them, is up to you. If you get the same opportunities to me, but you work on and capitalise on them and gain some beneficial outcome from it, but I don't capitalise on them, don't put the work in etc, then I can't complain that I didn't get the same things you did.

I think GP is talking about that and not at all about letting minorities into university.

Although, I've also heard stories of discrimination due to not being under-represented, that is, not getting a place despite having excellent grades in order to make space for minorities. That's not fair either. Its a difficult thing to solve fairly, someone will always be unfairly rejected when places are contended. (I do think the minority-person should get the place in this case, since the other person likely has other options that the minority may not). I think most reasonable people would agree that giving minorities more opportunities is a good thing.

I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes, versus equality of opportunity, and I don't believe we're "all equal" in the sense you make it look like. This is a strawman. I believe we should distribute ressources depending on each people's needs, and not "merit", for instance. But that's not on the basis of the idea that "we're all equal". Btw in a world in which opportunities are bound to be dependant on ressources and social/cultural capital, reaching an actual equality of opportunity would require everyone to have "equal" social/cutlural/material capital in the begining smh. And if you let people accumulate said capitals, then the next generation... won't have equal opportunity once again.

> I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes...

Whenever someone says this, I become very leary of what they say next...to achieve "equal outcomes" you're gonna have to meddle in somebody's personal business at some point to achieve the desired "leveling"...this is bad news

Letting minorities into universities and thinking "case closed" has ruined them. The current (leftist) propaganda is in the form of "if you build it, they will come". Its proponents focus solely on some measurable metrics (grades, degrees, salaries) without noticing that it originally was, at least to some degree, about capabilities. It's much easier to demand better grades/more degrees/higher salaries for minorities instead of actually making sure that they gain the same professional capabilities. Hence many people simply game the system by lowering the requirements. In consequence, achieving academic success through hard work becomes a liability for your personal career plan and then capabilities are simply lost.

Exhibit a: how many CS graduates over the last 20years could explain how a OS context switch works.

Exhibit b: how many graduates of med school know how to integrate a simple polynomial.

> opportunities do not automatically lead to outcome

Beautifully said. Favourited!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com