Fisher v. University of Texas: Predict the SCOTUS decision

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

“If there is no objective truth, it makes little sense for society to fund research universities that are trying to discover what does not exist.”</p>

<p>How come subjective truths (like pretty much everything in the humanities) don’t count? I don’t think you’ll find many professors of art, music, religion, or literature who think that they’re engaged in a search for objective truth.

</p>

<p>You know the answer, Hanna. According to Beliavsky, the only “real” academic subjects are math / science related. Art, music, religion, literature are all “soft” subjects that anyone can get an A in, so why bother. That plus the gruel-and-cinderblock settings that make for Real Scholarship!</p>

[salander]

<p>Maybe someone should start a new thread about this topic. It seems to me it bears no relation to the original topic (the SCOTUS case)</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>We’re just circling the airport, waiting for the real action. I just hope I can think “told you so,” when the decision comes out. ;)</p>

[cromette]

<p>@ Pizzagirl: LOL!!!</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

According to Beliavsky, the only “real” academic subjects are math / science related. Art, music, religion, literature are all “soft” subjects that anyone can get an A in, so why bother.

</p>

<p>From my limited read of his posts, I think it is worst than that, as he views excellence in the extremely narrow scope of “STEM” standardized and high school curriculum as sure evidence of high intelligence, and that such excellence should be the Sesame key to every uber-mensch entitled dream. </p>

<p>The antithesis of a holistic system that recognizes various types of intelligence, creativity, athletic aptitude, and perhaps unselfishness.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@xiggi

From my limited read of his posts, I think it is worst than that, as he views excellence in the extremely narrow scope of “STEM” standardized and high school curriculum as sure evidence of high intelligence, and that such excellence should be the Sesame key to every uber-mensch entitled dream. </p>

<p>The antithesis of a holistic system that recognizes various types of intelligence, creativity, athletic aptitude, and perhaps unselfishness.

</p>

<p>I expect liberal colleges to look at high school grades in all academic subjects (including English, history, and foreign languages) and to the SAT verbal and writing scores as well as the math scores, so I am not advocating that admission be solely about STEM accomplishment.</p>

<p>That caveat aside, yes I think college admissions should be primarily about academic potential and achievement, regardless of whether such criteria produce the ethnic or class mix some desire.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>I meant “liberal arts colleges”, not “liberal colleges”.</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>"… college admissions should be primarily about academic potential and achievement …"</p>

<p>Bel - ^ We’re going to have to “put a stake in the ground” on this. I’d suggest the place to drive that stake is “We want to make higher education available to those who would benefit from it.” (I know, kind of wishy-washy … but we need to start someplace broad before narrowing the criteria. Otherwise we end up insisting that people live their lives backward, as in “We insist you prove your value to society before we grant you a public resource to actually achieve that value.”) The problem with restricting admissions to the twin measures of “academic potential” and “achievement” is the difficulty of predicting those in 17-year-olds.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@NewHope33

“… college admissions should be primarily about academic potential and achievement …”</p>

<p>Bel - ^ We’re going to have to “put a stake in the ground” on this. I’d suggest the place to drive that stake is “We want to make higher education available to those who would benefit from it.”

</p>

<p>These ideas are consistent with each other, since people without sufficient scholastic aptitude cannot study at the college level and therefore do not benefit much from higher education.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

That caveat aside, yes I think college admissions should be primarily about academic potential and achievement, regardless of whether such criteria produce the ethnic or class mix some desire.

</p>

<p>STEM or not, it is pretty clear that the most selective schools in the country look way beyond “academic potential and achievement” as they also balance those achievements with elements such as excellence despite financial and social limitations, excellence in the arts, and excellence in athletics, especially excellence in group activities. </p>

<p>All in all, the most selective schools end up admitting and enrolling students from a number of admissions “pockets” and end up building classes with a semblance of balance. It appears that for some the “pure academic” pocket should be much larger, and perhaps exclusively so. The saddest part of such position is that it seems oblivious to the fact that the excellence is “pure academic” is much easier to obtain and demonstrate than excellence in the other fields, and especially easier than having to overcome adversity.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>"Do the black kids (and women) get recruited into STEM fields? Probably not at the same rate white and Asian males do, and Harvard certainly bears some responsibility if that is the case. "</p>

<p>We will get back to this if CPU the scientist declares her major to be African American Studies in an year. If not, I will be happy to be wrong.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>Oh, no, NewHope and xiggi-- in the past, Bel has mentioned a large component is potential for college gpa. Potential for achievement measured in college gpa. Perhaps, potential to stick with the major you chose in fall of hs senior year.
As if.
What happens after that?</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“We will get back to this if CPU the scientist declares her major to be African American Studies in an year. If not, I will be happy to be wrong.”</p>

<p>Recruitment affects folks who are on the fence or otherwise in doubt about their majors. People who go into college with a clear intended major and succeed in that field are usually not affected by it.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>^ As I said, we will wait and see. I don’t believe it seems to work as well for minorities irrespective of their intended majors at top colleges and I am going to use a sample of one, right or wrong.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

Just like no matter what training he goes through, a male OB/GYN has no experiences (and never will have) with anything his patient has or will be going through, a person will never have the experiences of the culture they’re teaching about if it’s different than their own.

</p>

<p>So if you ever get a brain tumor, will you eliminate all doctors who have not had a brain tumor, since they would never have the experiences you will have as someone with a brain tumor?</p>

<p>

I’m not knocking male OB/GYNs or **people of other ethnicities teaching classes about ethnicities different than their own. **

</p>

<p>Well, let’s be honest. It does indeed sound as though you are knocking people of one ethnicity teaching about other ethnicities. You aren’t simply saying you prefer to be taught by “one of your own,” you are saying they are unqualified.</p>

<p>

All the research in the world doesn’t make up for actual experiences. Subjectivity is important. I’ve had lots of white teachers teach “this is how AAs/Hispanics live/act and this is their history”. They make sweeping, incorrect generalizations about something they know nothing about, with little repercussions for them. A Hispanic or AA teacher will be a lot more connected to the material and wouldn’t make such generalizations because they know what it’s like to be generalized, stigmatized, and discriminated against.

</p>

[CPUscientist3000]

<p>Because I’m not following this, I’m making a general statement (after responding to a comment that I happened to see before hitting Reply). </p>

<p>No, I would not reject a surgeon doing brain surgery on me because they’ve never had brain surgery. I’m not a simplistic idiot. Anyone has the potential to have a brain tumor. Not everyone has the potential to be born the opposite sex or another ethnicity once they’re already alive, and therefore wouldn’t have the same experiences. You don’t NEED to have ever had a menstrual cycle or tumor or been another ethnicity to teach about it or do work in that field. Clearly no one read my posts because I shared MY opinions, just as you all are sharing yours. Opinions are not facts. I don’t need a lecture from any of you.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@texaspg

What ends up happening is that influential professors decide that they need more people majoring in their area and try to convince a majority of a race to major in studies in their own race.

</p>

<p>Does this actually happen in real life?</p>

<p>(Yes, of course faculty want to recruit students to major in the subject that they are teaching, but are ethnic studies so much more successful than any other department in this respect, at least with respect to students of that ethnicity, that a majority of students of that ethnicity major in that ethnic studies?)</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Beliavsky

That caveat aside, yes I think college admissions should be primarily about academic potential and achievement, regardless of whether such criteria produce the ethnic or class mix some desire.

</p>

<p>Then would it be correct if you favored strong consideration for overcoming adversity, since someone who made a given level of academic achievement from a disadvantaged starting point likely has more academic potential for further achievement than someone who made a similar level of academic achievement from an advantaged starting point?</p>

<p>In other words, there is a strong merit-seeking motive (as opposed to crafting the demographic characteristics of the class motive) in considering the overcoming of adversity.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

Opinions are not facts. I don’t need a lecture from any of you.

</p>

<p>You have received no “lectures.” :rolleyes:</p>

<p>You are posting on a message board that is based on the concept of feedback. If you can not tolerate feedback on your posts, then DON’T post here. Not everyone is seeing the logic of your posts, and you can agree or disagree, or set someone straight, but forbidding input on your statements is not okay.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@ucbalumnus

Then would it be correct if you favored strong consideration for overcoming adversity, since someone who made a given level of academic achievement from a disadvantaged starting point likely has more academic potential for further achievement than someone who made a similar level of academic achievement from an advantaged starting point?

</p>

<p>The SAT, either alone or in conjunction with high school grades, does not underpredict the college grades of low-SES students. For example, Table 9 “Average Overprediction (-) and Underprediction (+) of FYGPA for SAT Scores and HSGPA” of the College Board report [Validity</a> of the SAT for Predicting First-Year Grades: 2010 SAT Validity Sample](<a href=“http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/4/statisticalreport-2013-2-validity-sat-1st-yr-gpa-2010-sample.pdf]Validity”>http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/4/statisticalreport-2013-2-validity-sat-1st-yr-gpa-2010-sample.pdf) shows that a composite of the SAT and high school grades slightly overpredicts the grades of low-income students and first generation college students.</p>

<p>That is one reason I don’t favor a strong consideration for overcoming adversity.</p>