Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ahtihn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ahtihn

> Poor White and Asian kids still beat out poor Black and Hispanic kids academically on average

Why is that the case?

For Asians, I don't see what systemic privilege they could have that would need to be compensated away?

View on HN

The 'systemic privilege' you're looking for is culture.

Unfortunately, the treatment is even more complicated than the diagnosis is simple.

Unpopular to hear, but it needs to be said more. While I believe that the US still has a ways to go to truly achieve equality of opportunity (and then equality of outcome really would be based on culture, I would think), culture is such an important factor in peoples' personalities and therefore an important factor in peoples' outcomes. I can't speak to other life forms, but culture (nurture) is a powerful force in humans that can rival genetic dispositions (nature).

Asians spend much more time than others on homework. [1]

1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101...

So hard work should be punished?

No of course not. We’ll just ban it to level the playing field.

Lot of schools no longer put emphasis on SAT/ACT scores. So yeah that’s basically what they did.

The ironic thing is that standardized tests are the most objective metric we have. Things like extracurriculars reflect more on the parents and community than the kids.

> So yeah that’s basically what they did.

You think you need to work hard to get a high SAT score?

I needed to work hard to get a very high SAT score because I'm a dummy. But I did it.

Some do for the SAT. Others work hard over years leading up to their SAT. Then there are others with financial reaources that can afford prep classes.

I definitely did not say that! I was just answering GP's question with a simple fact and link.

So, because they study more, and their family places more importance in studying, they should be brought down because they are not the right race?

They're not concerned with the angle used - any angle that works is acceptable - just that more successful groups are brought down, and they're concerned with the levers used to bring them down (as a matter of cultural control). The idea is to be able to dominate politically through manipulation. For some political machines that's viewed as a critical tool: intentionally segment people into conflict groups (forever subdividing as you go), spur endless conflict and cultural control through the conflict (hate speech controls = end of free speech, and so on).

I think it's more that admissions aren't actually optimizing for academic success. They're optimizing for career success. If you just look at academic signals you'll accept the most academically successful students but that's not the point. It's not unreasonable to punish applicants for spending more time studying because studying skews the metric they're using to predict career success.

> studying skews the metric they're using to predict career success

Which is what? Studying is hard, getting academic success is hard, and there is a positive correlation for both of those and career success, as academic success requires discipline, grit, and hard work, which are all useful for career success.

They've been using academic success to predict career success. I agree it's a good predictor. It's not foolproof though. The issue is that it can be skewed by devoting more resources to academic success instead of for example starting a business or political action or sports. Is someone less likely to have a successful career because they started a business instead of studying an extra hour every day? This is why the most elite schools switched to extracurricular and interview heavy admission criteria which ended up disfavoring asians who tend to spend more time on academic success.

The goal was to actually do a better job of finding the applicants with discipline and grit, not just the ones who have it in an academic context.

What kind of logic is this? So having wealthy and well-connected parents gives you a huge edge on career success, and you are saying admission should take that into account and favor that heavily?

I don't know about should, but they are taking it into account and I'm just saying why they are. Whether maximizing career success is the right choice is certainly up for debate.

Where did you see that in my comment? I don't think that at all.

Asian students be grinding three times harder on homework than black students. Can't blame them for crushing it academically!

It's a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as taking privilege "away" from Asian kids. If you increase the acceptance rate of some race, it has to be decreased from somewhere. There's literally nothing else that can be done.

I don't know what your definition of taking privilege away means, but in my definition giving preference to someone for limited resource means taking privilege away from others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com