Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

"At the same time, schools have become more liberal about accepting applicants based on unorthodox qualifications, from athletic ability to nonacademic accomplishments, disadvantageous backgrounds, and demonstrated social "awareness.""

At this point I stopped reading the article. I'm concerned this author(a polisci/economics professor)'s definition of 'hard' is functionally equivalent to 'only for the wealthy whites' again, as the specific time period he cites as the beginning of college becoming too easy (1960s) coincides exactly with desegregation (board vs brown was mid 1950s) AND he specifically cites disadvantaged backgrounds as part of that reason. If I'm mistaken and the author later addresses this, let me know and I'll actually finish the piece.

I am in general in agreement that grade inflation is a problem, drop out rates should rapidly increase to help stem degree inflation in our populace, as this is associated currently with saddling our future with increasingly difficult hurdles, which will eventually bite us in the form of lagging social security, population shrinkage, and economic instability. However, the arguments being used are immediately suspect to me.

I honestly can't tell if:

a) you've failed to parse the prose you quote and think that it's complaining outright about universities allowing in applicants from "disadvantaged backgrounds", when in fact it is complaining about allowing in applicants specifically because they are from disadvantaged backgrounds who would not meet previous merit-based admissions criteria, or

b) you genuinely mean to imply that advocating for the ideal of meritocracy is not merely flawed but somehow equivalent to supporting a policy of explicit racial segregation and class-based admissions, or

c) something else entirely

I'm downvoting, primarily because the ambiguity about what you're trying to say makes this comment impossible to substantively engage with.

I was struggling to understand the GP as well. Thanks for articulating this question for me.

Curious - what does "GP" stand for in this context?

I'm arguing that it's suspicious to me that someone would say that things only started getting bad around the time where black people were allowed into white-only instutitions and had access to white-only environmnents, and before that time it was completely fair and should be returned to. That that was the point where I paused and decided maybe this person doesn't actually have much of merit to say and queried HN as to if the author has any actual, substantial points.

There were a lot of things going on in the world in the '60s. Whatever you think of TFA, it's simply arguing for more rigor in education. Unless you think racial minorities are less capable of rigorous study, there's no reason to assume the article is racially coded.

I didn't say that racial minorities were less capable of rigorous study, merely that the article did not actually functionally advocate for rigor with that statement, but instead is equating meritocracy with a time period that didn't have meritocracy because people were excluded based on race. Which is concerning.

The article isn't making any such equivalence. It doesn't so much as imply a pre-60s meritocracy. The fact that two things are contemporary doesn't suggest a causal relationship. Perhaps if the article mentioned desegregation, one could reasonably infer that the article was alluding to a causal relationship, but it doesn't even do that. The article (and indeed the specific sentences you referenced) is very explicit about the problem (decline of academic standards) and it offers an explanation (the rise in value of nonacademic standards).

If your subtext depends on ignoring everything about the original claims (fixating solely on a date), you're being libelous.

It also coincides with the generation just following those hit by the GI bill, where college suddenly became a thing every kid had to attend, and became a required part of getting any white-collar job.

If you didn’t have to go to college to get anything done, things like college desegration would have mattered less (mind, its still important, but college simply wouldn’t have been a significant target for it if it happened in say 1910).

That is, overwhelming demand naturally leads to grade inflation (and cost inflation), as the need to ensure graduation regardless of merit increases (because the university became additionally tasked as a trade school). Combined with ofc the private market’s increased reliance on using the university for training versus doing it themselves, internally.

But I’m making the case that grade inflation doesn’t need to stop, the dependency on higher education does. Grade inflation is a symptom, as is every other non-merit based operation of it.

"But I’m making the case that grade inflation doesn’t need to stop, the dependency on higher education does. Grade inflation is a symptom, as is every other non-merit based operation of it."

This is a good point and I agree with you. Thanks for your insight.

The time frame cited was the late 1960s. The article doesn't cite it, but the association between that and grade inflation had nothing to do with desegregation and everything to do with the fact that students who flunked out lost their Vietnam draft deferment. So sympathetic faculty and graduate students handed out good enough grades that they wouldn't flunk out. This reversed temporarily after the war ended, but then a long term trend began not long after.

See http://www.gradeinflation.com/ for more detail on that trend.

Ah, I hadn't considered the vietnam angle here (partially because specifying disadvantaged backgrounds read to me a red flag). I'll be reading that site. Thank you.

The fact thay asians get higher grades is counterpoint against the 'wealthy white' narrative

Reply on news.ycombinator.com