I would think a school wants more future billionaires and Nobel prize winners instead of cherry picking 10 whites 10 asians 10 hispanics 10 blacks majoring in Art History and Divinity.
This is certainly the image that Harvard et al. are cultivating.
This is certainly the image that Harvard et al. are cultivating.
I'm proud to have graduated with a different outlook. The diversity of background, opportunity, and thought created by these policies is worth it. Sure, they're not perfect. Asians should not be penalized and, for that matter, we should probably just look at income rather than skin color. Nonetheless, the answer is not to eliminate "soft factors" from the process. I cherish time spent with my housemates and girlfriends who did not have the same opportunities I did in high school. They're off doing wonderful things now and will succeed by the traditional metrics.
Turns out that making billions and winning the Nobel prize isn't what education is really about.
There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit.
I'm only looking at it through the lens you presented, which was maximizing the number of billionaires and Nobel winners. If I'm looking at it wrong, it's your logic that is at fault.
There is a difference between simply selecting only white males and and simply selecting based on academic merit.
You need to reassess the idea that selecting the most academically talented students will result in the most successful graduating class.
Edit
This comment was at +4, but people are now downvoting it for looking like a non sequitur because tsally removed his racist comment.
There are more male billionaires and Nobel winners than any other demographic in the world. If I wanted to maximize my output of these types of alumni in the short term, my class would overwhelmingly be male.
---
It's a subtle point, but this statement is far from racist. You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future.
EDIT: I'm going to change my statements to males in general, so you can't play the race card and obnoxiously ignore my point. Let the record show my original contention was white male, which I still stand by.
So "billionaire" is a good statistical predictor for being male. That does not imply that "male" is a good predictor for being a billionaire.
It is certainly not perfect, but its still better than nothing, which is why it is usually supplemented with SATs and interviews.
Suppose 1% of males are billionaires and 0.1% of females are billionaires. (Then if the total population is half male, this means 89% of billionaires are male.) Eliminating females from your sample will increase your "billionaire rate" from .55% to 1%.
Now suppose that 10% of billionaires are children of billionaires; half of those are male and half female. Let's say 1% of both males and females are children of billionaires. Suppose your college has two applicants, a male child of a billionaire, a female child of a billionaire, and a male child of non-billionaires. Which has a better chance of being a billionaire?
In this (totally contrived) example, "child of a billionaire" is a better predictor for "billionaire" than "male" is (even though "billionaire" a predictor for "male" than for "child of a billionaire"). The college that wants to maximize billionaire alumni should not select only males. Instead, it should choose children of billionaires over all others. Then the rate increases to 5.5%.
That is short sighted.
1. Old money does not last as frequent revolutions and redistribution of wealth have shown throughout history. By gradually enrolling minorities as they come into power, Universities hedge against their current positions.
2. The color of your skin is a worse predictor of Nobel prize winning capability than your academic performance.
> You should exercise more care throwing around such a serious term in the future.
And you should exercise more caution in down voting and throwing out 1 line knee-jerk comments and then totally rediting both your comments after being downvoted yourself.
Let's get back to the original point. You claimed that Universities should be more concerned with making billionaires and Nobel prize winners than having diversity. It's an incorrect claim and I tried to show you how silly a class meant to maximize that potential would look.
You also were an idiot and called me a racist, because you seem incapable of addressing the complexities that go along with a discussion about race, gender, success, and the works. I took race out of it, and maybe you wont be able to avoid what's actually being said.
How can this claim be incorrect? You might not share his goal, but does that make it "incorrect"?
If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far better to find less talented students that will attend and pay tuition.
If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group. Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education? If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority. Minorities do not have the support structure that the majority does. They are less likely to have both parents around, less likely to have parents with degrees, and less likely to have parents with money and connections.
That depends. Isn't it possible that you'd get more money by investing in attracting the highly talented students and reaping the later benefits, like large alumni donations?
> If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group.
I hear this very often and it sounds like wishful thinking, not fact. Usually it's heard in the context of justifying race-based admissions.
> Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education.
Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal?
> If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority.
How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false.
If you want money and the numbers say that, than obviously you should do that. I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating.
Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal?
Than in my mind they are not a University whose mission is education. Anything else is a business University, whether their commodity is money or publications.
How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false.
I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it.
Agreed, but I'd think you'd have to be sure to say it was incorrect.
> I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it.
There is no data that proves your statement. There are millions of unknowns hidden in your inequality, any one of which could reverse the sign completely.
Then stop passing it off as fact and saying that I am an "idiot" or wrong.
Underprivileged minorities don't need to go to the best school in order to lift themselves out of poverty. There are plenty of other schools capable of giving them the education they want without displacing smarter individuals.
And here you contradict yourself. By your own reasoning, minorities are statistically poorer, likely to require more financial aid, and less likely to end up less rich than their white counterparts. So in order to enroll less talented students that will attend in pay tuition, you are suggesting a white monoculture again.
> If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority.
Does this have an impact on the minorities? Yep. Does it necessarily have a greater impact than if it went to a white or asian? Doubtful.
Great teachers are usually paired with great students to great effect. A world-class professor teaching preschool in Harlem is not optimal.
You don't seem to be following the conversation correctly. johnnybgoode and I are talking about whether having a class aimed towards billionaires and Nobel winners is a valid goal or not.
How is this not following the conversation correctly?
You did not acknowledge your change until I mentioned it.
Google cache proves I acknowledged it long before you mentioned it: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycom...
It bothers me how you do not assume good faith on this site.
"That's dumb, you are suggesting college accepting only white males."
Which you then deleted after people started downvoting you, so you replaced it with that longer 4 line comment that had no trace of the original line.
I think its you who is being needless inflammatory by calling me an "idiot" and down voting every comment here that even remotely opposed your views.
There is an easy way to see whether you're part of the target market the school is selling to. Just look at how much financial aid they are willing to give you. If they are willing to give you generous financial aid, then you're part of the product being sold, not the target market. According to Harvard's current financial aid packages, if your parents make under $60,000, you're part of the product. If they make up to $120,000, you get steep discounts.
If you're honest, there is an even easier way to judge. When I was at Dartmouth College the figure I heard was that they got more in donations each year than tuition. If your family is able to make those donations, then you are really in their target market.