Harvard being sued for discriminating against Asian students

[javacontour]

Man of the Year doesn't mean the winner is good.

I believe MotY is more about being the biggest figure in news, good or bad.

It says nothing to the morality of the "winner."

Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: newbe46
I am wondering if this will extend to Nobel Prize. If diversification comes before objective measurable achievement, really what is the point of having something like SAT score?


It already has. One recent president received the Nobel Peace Prize before any accomplishments in office other than being the first member of his race to achieve that office.


And he did nothing for "peace'....but his skin color was the main factor.


Well, Adolf Hitler was named TIME magazine's "person of the year" (I'm pretty sure it was called "Man of the Year then, but maybe not) in the late 1930's. Anybody can win a subjective criteria award like a Nobel Peace Prize. It's a mistake to read too much into such an award (especially the Peace Prize, which has had many true warmongers as it's winner).

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad

That College graduation is not an indication of intelligence is a simple fact; not an opinion. In Canada more than 50% of the adult over-25 population has a post-secondary diploma or degree; I don't think you are suggesting that 54% (2016 Census) represents "above average" intelligence, or that Canadians somehow are some kind of super-race. I certainly don't see much evidence to support it.

Opinions can be challenged by other opinions, facts must be disproved. That does not mean intelligent people cannot graduate college or that intelligent people are not part of the set of graduates versus the general population. I see no diminishing of achievement in any of that. A College degree *IS* an achievement by definition.


Both can be true.

The average college graduate can be more intelligent than the average non-graduate AND you have more than 50% of the population with a degree.

Not everyone gets a hard science or similarly academically rigorous degree. I won't go into some of the more dubious degree programs, but I imagine many can fill in the blanks.

A population as a whole can be more intelligent than another population and still have members who are less intelligent than the lower intelligence population.


Well, I don't want to belabour this much more, but the definition of "Average IQ" (I know, maybe moving the goalposts a bit there, but humour me) is when the mean = 100. So even if one population is smarter than another (by IQ score, should they take the same test, which actually rarely happens) the majority will still be "average". Obviously some will score higher and lower.

Of the 54% with post-secondary graduation I mentioned earlier, only 3.1% were some form below Bachelors, while the numbers with Bachelor's versus Masters or higher were roughly evenly split.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: newbe46
I am wondering if this will extend to Nobel Prize. If diversification comes before objective measurable achievement, really what is the point of having something like SAT score?


It already has. One recent president received the Nobel Peace Prize before any accomplishments in office other than being the first member of his race to achieve that office.


And he did nothing for "peace'....but his skin color was the main factor.


Thought this post would get the Wilson Lock Time Award …

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad

That College graduation is not an indication of intelligence is a simple fact; not an opinion. In Canada more than 50% of the adult over-25 population has a post-secondary diploma or degree; I don't think you are suggesting that 54% (2016 Census) represents "above average" intelligence, or that Canadians somehow are some kind of super-race. I certainly don't see much evidence to support it.

Opinions can be challenged by other opinions, facts must be disproved. That does not mean intelligent people cannot graduate college or that intelligent people are not part of the set of graduates versus the general population. I see no diminishing of achievement in any of that. A College degree *IS* an achievement by definition.


Both can be true.

The average college graduate can be more intelligent than the average non-graduate AND you have more than 50% of the population with a degree.

Not everyone gets a hard science or similarly academically rigorous degree. I won't go into some of the more dubious degree programs, but I imagine many can fill in the blanks.

A population as a whole can be more intelligent than another population and still have members who are less intelligent than the lower intelligence population.


Well, I don't want to belabour this much more, but the definition of "Average IQ" (I know, maybe moving the goalposts a bit there, but humour me) is when the mean = 100. So even if one population is smarter than another (by IQ score, should they take the same test, which actually rarely happens) the majority will still be "average". Obviously some will score higher and lower.

Of the 54% with post-secondary graduation I mentioned earlier, only 3.1% were some form below Bachelors, while the numbers with Bachelor's versus Masters or higher were roughly evenly split.


Sure, the entire population, taking the same test will be average, 100. But you can break out sub populations and have an average that is lower or higher.

We see those results when they do tests and then give averages for ethnic groups, genders, people from geographic regions, etc.

Degreed and non-degreed individuals are subsets of the the overall population. It doesn't shock me that the degreed sub-population (and I should have made that distinction) would score higher.

It also doesn't shock me that there will be members of the non-degreed sub-population that would score higher than some if not ALL of the degreed population.

What is my IQ for making up the word degreed

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Sure, the entire population, taking the same test will be average, 100. But you can break out sub populations and have an average that is lower or higher.

We see those results when they do tests and then give averages for ethnic groups, genders, people from geographic regions, etc.

Degreed and non-degreed individuals are subsets of the the overall population. It doesn't shock me that the degreed sub-population (and I should have made that distinction) would score higher.

It also doesn't shock me that there will be members of the non-degreed sub-population that would score higher than some if not ALL of the degreed population.

What is my IQ for making up the word degreed

Forget the IQ, here's your Nobel Peace Prize

It's the old "it's just a piece of paper" argument that I've heard from those who stayed at home to manage the Blockbuster instead of going to college like their successful friends did. It's so much more than that, if you are young, have financial and strategic support and are not an idiot, it is a good place to develop between 18-23.

The problem is I have never seen as many idiots congregated in one place as I did when I attended university. There are a lot of people in uni right now who should be in a trade school, no argument from me on that one. Even worse I became a school board caretaker after uni and all of dummies from uni were there but were 20 years older.

 

[BrocLuno]

Good for the plaintiffs

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: cashmoney
School acceptance criteria based on any type of ethnicity, religion, or skin color needs to be 100% outlawed and banned in the US. A student's ability to be accepted into a selective school should be 100% about your achievements, leadership, and grades/test scores and not your racial or ethnic background or income level, or religion (or lack thereof).


Yep.


Nope, that's buying into their holier than thou attitude. All schools except public ones, should be just like any other business. If I can pay, I can go. You teach me. I pay you. No other criteria.

Them selecting the paying customers is about as crazy as it gets in a Capitalist Republic ...

 

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted By: raytseng
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Originally Posted By: raytseng
If someone is smart enough, they can just use the internet and watch recorded lectures and read books.


I can't begin to say how wrong that is...and I'm afraid that in many ways the "Google U" degree is going to be the downfall of our society.


Now you're conflating two different things and a logically different statement with what I said.

People who only get a degree from the Internet is not the same as college (I agree, that's the whole point).

But
If you are arguing you cannot access to the same materials and knowledge except by being a matriculated student in a name brand university like Harvard, or that material can only be provided to paying students by attending Universities such as Harvard; that's the point I disagree with.

That's my whole point too that college is something else more than just the knowledge.
If you are granting admittance by just measuring aptitude for maximizing knowledge, you don't need to go to college.



You are the one who made a general statement that anyone could learn what they needed to by viewing online lectures, etc and that an education wasn't "necessary."

I have a masters degree in chemistry and I work full time for a major research university. I am not a faculty member, but my staff position is heavily involved in both teaching and research, and that includes at times teaching courses.

I can honestly say that if you think you can learn a hard science competently without the hands-on experience that comes with a real degree and really being enrolled in a course(including the hands-on time in lab) you're deluding yourself. Aside from actually learning the material, too, one of our goals is to teach you how to think critically and independently as a scientist/

There are things that are virtually impossible to learn outside formal training in a traditional environment.

 

[JHZR2]

Much here to cause a lock. Not sure why anyone would think that posting such a topic would be a good idea on here.