Dana-Farberications at Harvard University

These policies exist and require a zero tolerance application because sexual harassment can be done in a very subtle manner, often purposely, that allows the harasser an escape hatch, but the effects are no less impactful. Further, power dynamics will also very quickly catalyze any personal or working relationship. Thus, as a person in power, it is even more important to not have even the appearance of improper relations.

I can understand how lawyers can be scum and manipulative, but he was the one who let the relationship start the investigation.

But the only value is to get more grants and funding, so they're just complicated beauty competitions.

It's definitely been superficially good for my social life, but I remain very sorry that the Uncommon App is no longer around. It played a nontrivial role in my decision to apply in the first place.

That’s hypothetical, but it’s a real trend. Costs go up based on the number of people you have to sift through to find someone eligible.

Things like viagra (10 years ago) or ozempic are still in the honeymoon period where inclusion/exclusion criteria are broad enough that you can enroll lots of people in any given place.

That’s an odd way to put “wealthy and privileged”

Fully support the observation that university meant something different in those days though, the standards were much higher. Although I'm not sure if that would apply at Harvard since their class sizes probably haven't changed by all that much.

We don't routinely teach Classics in high school, so it's not surprising that those sections would be beyond most students today.

The sections on that exam dealing with Mathematics seem appropriate or possibly slightly on the easy side; I would expect an equivalent exam today to include at least a bit of calculus, but over the past 150 years there has been a shift in pedagogy towards calculus and away from geometry so it's probably just a sign of the times.

Initially I thought it was all a rich kids game, but the later maths and geometry questions require you to know what you are doing. Of course thats easier with expensive tutors, but it’s entirely possible you’ll never grasp it.

Lots of blame levied at a strawman white culture. If only there’d be a concomitant critique of the problematic groups at hand. Alas, that’s verboten under the current regime.

Lowering expectations for those under their patronage only makes advantage easier for me and mine. Good luck to them and their token positions.

It is useful to define terms. Merriam-Webster has what I believe is a quite useful definition of racism: "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

That is a useful definition because it helps to separate a racist interpretation of test scores from a non-racist interpretation. The racist interpretation is to jump to a conclusion of fundamental inferiority in academics. The non-racist interpretation is to acknowledge and emphasize the environmental factors that can lead an historically oppressed/displaced/enslaved minority to underperform academically, to acknowledge that African-born immigrants do quite well on standardized testing, and also to understand that standardized tests are normed on academic success, which creates a causality issue when measuring groups that have historically not been allowed in academic institutions. Perhaps all of those arguments don't hold water: or at least the pitcher holding them has holes of its own. But it is quite erroneous to jump to a conclusion of racial biological determinism, and that is what the racist conclusion would be.

There is a particular kind of fallacy where a person can, seemingly unconsciously, take what are perfectly valid observations, like the test-taking disparities, and spin them into non-evidential overarching beliefs. This happens all too commonly when it comes to scientific (or at least metrical) observations and racism. People were all too eager to embrace phrenology, IQ testing, evolutionary biology, etc. when it confirmed their cultural preconception that their race was superior. All of those areas, even phrenology, had some scientific merit to them (and still do in the case of IQ testing and evolutionary biology), but that merit is lost when the conclusions get spun into non-evidential belief systems like racist ideology. Seemingly (I can't peer into their heads, really) skepticism is lost in a chase for the personal gratification of a belief of fundamental superiority.

Discussions around academic standards are a case in point. Academic standards change quite frequently. The Oregon requirement we're discussing was only instituted in the early 2010's. When race is not part of the discussion, it is entirely normal for educators to say that a new standardized test doesn't really have evidence it serves the population and to remove it. There is a very lively debate amongst educators about how excessive measurement, i.e. standardized test taking, can interfere with the normal give-and-take of teaching. But, if the evidence is that non-native-English speakers are underserved, or that African-Americans are underserved, suddenly it is 'racist' to remove a requirement or hurdle. What I saw in the two articles is that those in favor of removing the requirement saw a lack of evidence it was beneficial, and saw evidence that it was not beneficial; while those opposed had no evidence other than it would graduate 'dumber' students; ignoring the fact that presumably dumber students were being graduated before the 2010's when the program was instituted.

In short, it is often a smokescreen to say that observations about race are racist, because that makes it impossible to act against inequality, or sometimes even to act at all. Once again, racism is the belief of one race's inherent superiority over another.

There are many reasons for this to be the case [1] not just the classic "this race is inferior at test taking".

[1] Pre WWI, WWII Germany famously tested students for acedemic performance. During WWII and times of food scarcity from Allied blockades test performance dropped by greater than 10%. Same students, same race, different conditions.

Typically well fed, well exercised, unstressed, groups with sound economic security, home ownership, etc perform very well on tests.

To the real brass tacks incentives: yeah, it's "someone is angry on the internet" vs, "I will have to deal with a discipline process with documentation and meetings and maybe depositions and adversarial lawyers. That's not my bag, I'm a scientist. There will be volatile young people and bad feelings communicated in person, plus gossip among my close coworkers. Also undesirable. If this becomes a repeated pattern, learners might start avoiding my lab, and deans/my superiors might start asking very awkward questions." Yeah, stacked against that, angry person on the internet is a weak incentive. Even if they're right.

And the snark does matter. Because this guy writes like a YouTube comments section, and that's not how you talk to adults or solve problems in elite institutions. So the contrast in styles draws lines of "us" vs "them." And it's natural to care more about the opinions and esteem of your in-group (who talk like you) than the out-group (who deride you).

In the old days a single dodgy paper meant ostracism. Literally - no meeting invites, no more grants, no promotion, no moves to another department. Nothing. You sat where you were in shame until you retired. You had to do a lot of teaching and admin as well.

I do not think that this is the case now, and folks know it and are acting that way.