Merit based school admission versus discrimination against Asians and Whites

You should also factor reputation of the school as well.
Look at the USC admissions scandal where all those rich hollywood people bribed millions to get their spoiled kids in.

 

You guys think this is bad? Wait till you see medical residency selection.

 

Merit based systems will never be perfect because there's no such thing as a level playing field but they are the least poisonous pill among a variety of bad choices.

The data shows that legacy advantages evaporate within 2 to 3 generations, so things tends to find their level sooner than later.

 

I haven't had the chance to read the article yet but I agree that I think the TX rule is a far better system than racial based admissions.

 

About this article...

I'll agree to ending private universities' tax exempt status. But more gov't subsidies for public universities? How is that going to solve the problem at hand? You throw money at it and it just gets resolved because that's how America does it?

The article couples together socio-economic status of the kids and their respective households to their "success" by acceptance into prestigious universities... But then it doesn't decouple the kids' abilities, skills from their socio-economic status either. Nor does it start discussing the problem of state-run education systems and how they're tied to district zoning, etc.

At this point the article relies more on credibility from the author than data.

 

A pretty good argument for it not to exist! Or at least to get rid of the elite finishing school part of it.

Mega elite hyper rich universities are weird creatures. They're basically giant hedge funds attached to weird 19th c institutions

I mean, I like the idea of a hedge fund that uses its profits to underwrite humanities, arts, sciences research and scholarship and education! But the cost of it is that it must also serve as a closed training school for the children of our ruling oligarchy....so they can grow up and perpetuate the same system and bequeath the same gifts on their children.

The whole thing just seems wacky.

 

I actually think there's a bunch of research into the whole general falsity of our nominal meritocracy across the spectrum of disciplines

But anyway, even of you don't have time to read all that, and I don't, it seems to me that a system of ever-decreasing economic mobility and increasing inequality - which is just a fact - is inherently not compatible with the fundamental premise of meritocracy as we currently define it or at least as most people understand it.

That alone is all you need to smash the myth, imo, the whole promise is false if merit only devolves upon those born rich, unless you believe we've reached some state of optimal, genetic merit equilibrium currently

 

Given how split up this nation is, I think we're better served with AA for poor families rather than an admissions process that can be gamed with money and preparation.

Admitting the child of a poor potato farmer likely as good or better a diversity plus than a black dude who lived with white people in the burbs.

 

A bigger problem beyond the admission process, is the sheer quantity of people with less productive degreesand skills that these colleges produce.

 

Who's to say that someone with the best test scores and grades but came from a perfect environment is more likely to succeed and contribute more to a student body than a student who had to overcome a lot more obstacles and adversity to get decent grades and test scores?

Which one is more meritorious?

The problem isn't having a merit based system or not, the problem is how we measure merit. Diversity is recognition that having schools filled with cookie cutter people isn't the way the world works. Because the companies that succeed and reach the greatest heights are diverse.

 

what they need to do is improve the reputation of the smaller colleges so that the majority of kids are not trying to get into a few large colleges.
It will naturally create diversity and improve the academic levels of the smaller colleges.

 

Only top 7% though......my oldest tried to transfer in with a 3.5 as a beginning Junior and was told "No".....my youngest has an auto in as he is near the top of his class - but it shouldn't be like that.

Too much pressure on young kids just looking to get an education and then you figure the $120k+ bill for 4 years....it is ridiculous....

My youngest has had full ride scholarships offered to play soccer but he wants to go to a TOP engineering school - and none of the places offering have good programs........ugh. I would like to tell him go play for 2 years and transfer in, but after the oldest, don't think it is worth the risk.

DD

 

There's definitely barriers to socio-economic mobility, but it's clearly not as bad as people make it seem.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-marriage

In that article, there's a quote:

The stat comes from a 2009 book by Haskins and Sawhill called Creating an Opportunity Society. Haskins and Sawhill analyzed income data from 2007 and broke down households based on whether the head of household followed three norms:

• They work full-time.
• They graduated high school.
• They waited until they were married and at least 21 to have a child.

They found that only 2 percent of persons in families that followed all three norms were poor, whereas 76 percent of persons in families that followed none were poor, and 73.8 percent of those who followed all three were at least middle-class.​

This isn't a high bar. Europeans and Asians love coming to this country because it's easy. Way easier than any other country to move to different socio-economic groups.

I'm not out here saying poverty is a choice, but I have to challenge ideas when it comes to centralizing monetary systems to solve micro-level problems.

People who take the approach of "This is a conservative view" are just baiting partisan politics. This isn't political at all -- it's about what is the best approach to educate the kids to prepare them on the work ethic level. It's an onus on the parents to establish expectations, and then provide them support so they can be setup to be successful in life.

 

Would you want the best doctor to operate on your heart or a diversity hire you have doubts about. I mean one situation gives us a known best who is proven the best while one might be the best but in this case we really don't know because the white and Asian candidates' resumes were thrown in the trash.

Also how is it not racist to choose someone for their race and not their ability. I'll wait.

Yeah... racist commie go home.

 

I'm sure it's a fine book, bit it's based on data on income mobility and incom inequalitye that's about 15 to 30 years old at this point. And it completely misses the aftermath of the great recession and subsequent digital oligopoly economy recovery which absolutely supercharged every single indicator they tracked.

If you want to look at stuff from brookings that's more recent, here you go

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...-opportunity-and-mobility-we-should-know/amp/

Note this

Europeans and Asians love coming to this country because it's easy. Way easier than any other country to move to different socio-economic groups.
​

Is no longer true, at least in terms of reality rather than perception. European economies do a much better job in most measures, and not coincidentally do a better job of preventing massive income inequality via taxation

 

What you suggest, regardless of some positive results, is tyrannical and goes against the 14th amendment and the very basic rights people have to not be discriminated against. Justify it how you want, it is wrong. Some of the worst actions are committed with good intentions.

 

The European comparison is a partisan argument that relies on a strong centralized economy, and generally very good economic trade partners situated right next door.

European comparison is a bad one to me as its not a simple economic model that changes, but entire forms of government, streamlining of a strong national identity, and a general lack of ethnic/cultural diversity.

There's also the part about birth rates that directly impacts social mobility, it plays a part in these countries... Birth rates are lower in the richer European nations, so they can afford to pay more per child than others, even without the high taxes they charge.

 

It's not a partisan argument it's an arithmetic one. If you redistribute dynastic concentrations of wealth downward it's going to tend towards more mobility and less stasis more often than not.

 

I think a better system is focusing priority based on CLASS instead of race. A poor kid, regardless of race, has the least opportunities compared to other kids with means.

 

It is less racist that way