Who needs peer review? Plan offers easier grants to schools that agree to limits.
See full article...
See full article...
Trump offers universities a choice: Comply for preferential funding
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That ship has sailed. Right now the Constitution is whatever they say it is, but for any Democrat it's very, very strict, they'd probably just rather not do the tough, boring work and just go lawless without acknowledging they did a coup.
Last edited:
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Hard to say. While the fascists are behind nearly all of the egregious disruptions of societal norms and common decency many of the FELON'S voters are die hard fans and are only there for him and on an issue by issue basis. I think the cabal falls apart if and when he dies. Unless, QuantumGod forbid, he lives long enough to really cement the underpinnings of the 4th reich. (Help me Obi-Wan, you're my only hope!)
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #203
So the government just wants to control:
Admissions
Tuition
Hiring
Course content
Grading
Research
Seems reasonable. The university itself still gets to control what color to paint the offices and how often to cut the grass. So, it isn’t a takeover, no matter what the left (who are terrorists, by the way) say.
Admissions
Tuition
Hiring
Course content
Grading
Research
Seems reasonable. The university itself still gets to control what color to paint the offices and how often to cut the grass. So, it isn’t a takeover, no matter what the left (who are terrorists, by the way) say.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
TheWerewolf
Ars Scholae Palatinae
This is the main reason having more than two actual represented parties is a good thing.
From an non-US perspective, the US has two parties: the Democrats who are center-right and the Republicans who are middle to far-right. Worse, the Democrats are less an actual party as it is a loosely bound coalition of single-issue politicians who can't really get their act together and have no real leadership. You don't have any real left wing parties at all (compared to say the Canadian NDP which we consider leftish).
So really the US has for some time been more a one and a half party government mainly all on the right of center with a few exceptions like Bernie Sanders who I remind everyone is NOT a Democrat, but an independent.
That's another almost uniquely US thing - lumping everyone elected who isn't one of the two main parties into "independents" and then just gluing them into one of the two main parties. In Canada, if your party gets twelve or more seats, you're an official party with all the same rights and privileges of any other party. Six for Senate.
A simple change to the House and Senate rules could fix this (the US Constitution never mentions political parties and so doesn't have anything to say about this).
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I've said for a long time sports are ruining education and society as a whole in the U.S. Athletes should be paid, and they shouldn't have to go to class, and if the University needs to suck that teat they should just license their IP to a local team and let the students do what they're there for instead of all this extraneous bullshit.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
So that's why Florida decided to let the
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
A few things to kind of hold in the air when thinking about the SATs. I'm slightly younger than you, but I was given the informal role of institutional policy historian when I started working by the people who had opened my institution and the last of whom were retiring out, and I carried that institutional knowledge forward until I retired.
Just before us, things that the Civil Rights Act and Title IX addressed in the 60s and 70s were that SAT scores were released with gender comparisons. There were different test baselines for men and women and way in the back out of view were different baselines for black students. Women test scores were understood to be lower than mens. Also when my institution was opened in the 1960s, we had a set of course restrictions by gender. You might think PE or mens vs women's choir but the main use at that time was engineering. At many universities in the US up until the 1960s, women were not allowed to study engineering or take engineering courses. This was to protect the career prospects of the breadwinning men, from having women take up an opportunity that would go to waste. There was a lot of that back then and the set of policies that my institution inherited included that. It was never implemented, but it sat there as a bit of a warning and reminder.
Women's performance on the SAT have closed up with men - they're within the margin of error on any recent study I've seen. So either they got genetically smarter over that time, or there was an environmental or cultural cause for that gap to close. More notably, the unweighted GPA differential between men and women is large, in favor of women. Average GPA for women is substantially higher than for men, on the order of the difference between the average GPA for admission to a UC vs a CSU. It's also worth noting that the average high school GPA has increased substantially over time. This is not a grade inflation issue as other standardized tests have seen similar results. SATs even got recalibrated when too many students were getting top scores to provide a higher ceiling on the test. This is increased competition for college seats pushing students to work harder. But also, women have made a larger contribution to that rise than men have. That is, women have better recognized the increased competition and responded to it.
Again, the qualifications for admission to these schools hasn't changed. The qualification to get into a UC is the same today as it was when I started working there in the 90s. It's the same GPA/SAT now as it was then (adjusting for the rebasing of the SAT scoring system over that time). What's changed is that in the 90s we admitted every student that met those qualification in order to fill our available enrollment. And when I retired, we denied around 60,000 students that met qualifications that we simply didn't have room for. And that wasn't just a competition-within-the-UCs problem - we did a study that disaggregated that across UCs and demand growth was outstripping enrollment by about a 2:1 margin, despite every UC growing and adding a new campus. What does SATs contribute to selection? Basically nothing when it's an exercise to decide which highly qualified students to deny, rather than which marginally qualified students to admit. An 800 SAT is as likely to flunk out as a 600. It has no utility at that level.
Culturally we hold onto the notion that selection for admission is materially connected to qualification, and for the top 100 or so universities in the US they have no relationship to one another. Your typical Cal State Fullerton admit would have little problem completing the curriculum at Harvard. It's not like there is a huge difference in how these programs work, in what topics are covered. Everyone teaches basically the same calculus in basically the same number of weeks whether you are MIT or your local community college. The expectations on the exam might differ a bit but you'd be shocked at the amount of a curve some elite engineering schools will tolerate.
And your anecdotal experience is dead on. There's a lot of studies that show what you saw - college success is not based on some measure of intelligence but hard work. Pretty much anyone can do it if they put the work in. We had much better success with students that had to work through high school to help support their families than students that had free time for activities. A lot of the 'admissions is biased in favor of asians' complaint, when you break it down and look at hours those students put into their studies, they aren't a correlation to race, but to time invested. A lot of first generation asian students get a work ethic absolutely pounded into them by their relatives. And it can also be quite destructive. A lot of our student suicides were kids whose parents would not relent on the pressure. Not unusual.
But another component of this that needs to be addressed is that college is not the clear value proposition it used to be, and a lot of people are recognizing that. It's still solid for STEM, etc. but a lot of the indirect college to career paths (jobs that don't directly build off of a program of study but where a college degree is necessary) don't pay well enough to make that cost of attendance a clearly beneficial investment. This is somewhat due to Baumols cost disease driving up university costs, but also due to ongoing dilution of wages in the US due to automaton, etc. If you are an IP generator (engineer, some scientists, etc.), it's a good pathway and if you're not, you're a commodity and that has steadily undercut the value of that bachelors degree - to the point that even teaching is not a reliably well paying enough profession to justify the cost of college. Things pick up a bit for advanced degrees here and there, but it's not great there either. The whole system is collapsing under an economy that disvalues labor over assets.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
You know, if half of Trump's people were qualified to be there things would be very different. Better if they're not evil people, worse if they are.Par for the course, it would be shocking otherwise.
So conservatives want more conservative diversity, more conservative inclusion, and more equitable treatment of conservatives... Hey two people that down vote everything that isn't pro-trump, explain why this dei is ok please
With our current Supreme Court though, you might not have to be smart enough to sneakily evade the law. Just stomp it with a giant boot, and break some dishes, the guards are busy decorating their RVs or caravans as they're known in the UK.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I wonder how much of this kind of male (way) overestimation of their own abilities contributes to the trend of young males (and males of all ages) being pro MAGA?i.e. "I obviously am awesome and deserve <x/y/z>, and if I didn't get it, then I was self-evidently cheated out of it by <female/wokism/minorities/immigrants/etc>! #wokeisbad #meritocracy #ideserveit"
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I agree with the observation in general but I do feel that the interpretation of the motivation is still very generous. This ideology revolves around holding onto and/or regaining historically held power and since historically, the power was distributed along the lines of "Whiteness", I don't think it actually makes a difference whether someone believes in racial superiority ideology or not. It's mostly about white power with varying degrees of tolerance for deviating in purity.
Upvote
10
(12
/
-2)
Yep the education secretary has never held a teaching degree (she possesed an unrenewed and never used teaching certificate) with a BA degree in French and is most known for being the CEO of a wrestling conglomerate. Trump's making all the toadies jump!
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Newsom announced any CA school that accepts this pact will lose all state funding.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
This is likely impossible at this point.
The next president will be JD Vance. Either because POTUS could die of old age while in office, or that he will backed in the push for the presidency.
And—assuming the next president is a democrat, it will take backing from the fed and the states to reverse all of the damage. The left doesn't get majority often and hasn't had the stones to actually join together to make sweeping changes.
Even if the left does win, and gets majority, and reinstates the health, education, and everything else—in 4 years it can can swing back to republicans who will undo it all again. and again. and again.
the magas/gop people that I know have an deep mistrust of anything that isn't maga and will vote to dismantle anything that doesn't follow their party line.
the only thing that I imagine can work in the people's favor is for the maga/gop/nationalists/q-anons/conspiracy peoples to completely, utterly, obviously fail and to acknowledge that it was better before. But then I remember that Santa isn't real either.
Upvote
5
(10
/
-5)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
Good. These tactics only work so long as individual institutions stand alone rather than band together.
Sure, Republicans can continue to just blanket destroy education in the country, but if institutions don't give in to these kinds of demands and try to sweep them under the rug to preserve their reputation, then at least it's harder to ignore.
The entire Republican playbook, in a way, boils down to controlling the messaging. People need to stop making that easy for them.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
It's also a way to let any for-profit or right-wing associated private institutions know if they play Trump's game, they face losing access to all state funding--which may be non-trivial in California.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
So, I retired before we really got to that phenomenon, but my instinct is quite a lot.
i.e. "I obviously am awesome and deserve <x/y/z>, and if I didn't get it, then I was self-evidently cheated out of it by <female/wokism/minorities/immigrants/etc>! #wokeisbad #meritocracy #ideserveit"
I think the 'awesome and deserve' is a little inflammatory. It's easy to adopt the meritocratic/neoliberal viewpoint that access to higher education and to careers should be market-driven and competitive, even along variable that have no relationship to success (I did a short term gig at a small financial services firm that would only consider applicants with MBAs from USC and then complain bitterly after interviews how fucking stupid they were - their loyalty to their alma mater was stronger than their instinct to keep the business running - which failed a couple of years later). Instead, I think a fairer read on this is 'everyone deserves a reasonable pathway to a living wage and higher education, and the US should give each generation at least a little better shot at that than the previous one'. So when your dad attended UCLA with a 3.2 GPA and you with a 3.9 get told 'sorry, you're not competitive', that's a real kick in the groin of the American dream we pushed on you so hard for your entire life. That feels like a national failing at a time when we don't culturally acknowledge that national failing. So if it's not a national failing, what is it? It's discrimination, it's greed, it's unfairness, and so on.
I think it was Ian Danskin who observed that when young men run up against the national cultural narrative's promises not coming true they take it as a fork in the road - they can turn left and realize that the cultural narrative was a lie, or they can turn right and demand what was promised, pushing down whoever needs to be pushed down. And I think that aligns well with a whole host of other things we see happening - Trump's war on museums demanding they produce evidence that the cultural narrative isn't a lie, growing support for reversing women's suffrage, etc.
Women and people of color don't respond the same way because they've always known it was a lie to differing degrees. Women know they don't get the same access as men, and so when the standard for college access changes, they recognized the shifting goalpost and shifted with it. Men didn't. People of color did - part of their culture has always been the recognition that you have to work twice as hard to go half as far. They've never trusted those promises (listen to the recent Ezra Klein interview with Ta-Nehesi Coates for that to come up "I don't get to draw the line").
Why do male high school students ignore the personally tailored expectations setting tool that we give them? Because it runs counter to the cultural narrative's promises. Why do they not listen to their counselor? Same reason. White men are the only ones that predominantly believe the promise because it was written by white men for white men. Work hard and you'll be rewarded. Well, not so much any more. I worked twice as hard as my dad did and was denied the opportunity he was given. When you're 17 that's a really fucking hard punch in the face, and it's probably the first time they face that. Girls are probably a decade into learning that they're going to get shit on pretty regularly - objectified, harassed, discriminated against, and so on. I think they're a lot better calibrated by the time they hit voting age. Shit, a lot of 18 year old girls have already dealt with the 'if I reject this boy will he murder me' reality and 'if I get raped tonight, what really are my red lines regarding abortion'. These aren't abstract policy problems for other people. Men haven't really faced that since we had a draft.
Upvote
28
(30
/
-2)
So, the two biggest private universities in CA - Stanford and USC have rejected the states ban on legacy and donor admissions and given up CalGrant and other state funding access. As you work your way down the food chain, CalTech, Pepperdine, Loyola, etc that will bite harder, but my guess is that the current economic climate is going to favor a full split in the social contract with higher education with privates.
For a while a lead a state-wide working group on higher education and if I was still leading it we'd be having a vote right now to disassociate the privates that took that path from participating. We had discussions regarding whether for-profits should participate (we rejected the for-profits) and this would be the next obvious line to draw. Rejecting Stanford from a statewide working group would have been unthinkable then, but I think it would be necessary now. Implications would be limiting transfer access from these schools to publics, grant collaboration, things like that.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
going off topic…
The MAGA world has a ridiculous messaging infrastructure. I was reading over the weekend the plan lead by Don Jr. to go after the WNBA. They had all their tweets, politicians & meme farms ready to go then Caitlin Clark got hurt and destroyed their narrative.
Seriously, Don Jr has meme farms at his disposal. Dems have words like oligarchs.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
I'm not saying it applies universally, just that Democrats might benefit by not assuming the worst when engaging in this argument, which seems to be the norm. A lot of the post civil-rights politics movement was creating proxies for whiteness which you could substitute (see Lee Atwater's deathbed confessional) but that was over two generations ago. Even Gen X which I am inherited that legacy and often don't recognize it as proxy - they've steeped in the meritocracy is good, wealth is a marker for intelligence, war on crime, and every other bullshit substitute that was advanced during that period as see those as foundational viewpoints. Sometimes we gotta get smacked pretty hard to see they're just a proxy for racism - which is something BLM legitimately helped to do. And millennials got all of that laundered one time more, and zoomers get it laundered more yet. To quote Atwater:
"By 1968, you can't say "n****r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing."
If you jump into the argument with the assumption that the central ask is that white be at the top of the hierarchy, a lot of voters you're trying to get to stop voting for guys like Trump are going to be offended you calling them a racist when they really did anchor instead on one of the laundered things. Sure, we can say 'you're an adult, you had time to think that one through', but people don't. Believing vaccines cause autism is easier than trying to navigate through the countless studies that identify the contributing factors to this thing that you just want to go away. We almost always take the easier path than the correct one. And it helps to be generous and recognize that the person on the easier path probably wants to be on the correct one, and need a guide rather than someone berating them for being on the wrong path.
Ultimately this is a question of the best way to distribute resources, which is a VERY old question with a lot of competing solutions, many of which get wrapped up in all kinds of other bullshit. Just meet people where they are, figure out if they're willing to go down the correct path and then help them get there. Some won't - and yeah, they're the white supremacists, and most of us have to write them off (some are able to get even them on the right path) but don't assume they are from the get-go. Most aren't.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
No, it does not.
It's almost like they care about having well-rounded students. Plus, when you're doing a job? That's for money, and you have other jobs to point to for your experience. You don't have that in college.
Yeah, no. You not understanding things does not make it a "social club". But yes, admissions have interest in having a diverse student body.
This is how I know you're not someone to take seriously.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
The main thing that would need to be changed is a change to First Past the Post voting. And really, that's entirely within the purview of the states, outside of Presidential elections.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Very thought-provoking and well thought out. Thank you, sir.
I also see similar behaviour (men tend to overestimate themselves vs women) in other Western and non-Western countries, but all of them may suffer essentially the same problem - most of the explicit & implicit rules were written by straight men that can explicitly or implicitly favor them over others in varying degrees.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I'm ambivalent on the question of rejecting consideration of legacy status as a factor. The law itself leaves wiggle room on how family is defined, and its end result is punitive to the student, rather than a well-funded, highly demanded university.
The CA law doesn't take effect until 2027; we'll see how it plays out in light of Trump's demands.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Let me explain this, because most people don't really understand it. 56% indirect cost sounds outrageous and 15% sound more reasonable.
You have to think in terms of fixed vs marginal costs to do research. We want to think that the grant is entirely marginal cost - that every dollar of the grant goes to all of the new stuff that is going to get done. But increasingly you can't do that without some infrastructure. So my institution had a research nuclear reactor, we had an extremely powerful microscope of which there are only two in the US, MRI equipment, clean rooms, anechoic testing chambers, and so on. Let's look just at the microscope. That was a $20M project, partially funded by grants and partially by the university. With it, a mountain of new research topics could be explored allowing us to apply for grants that we previously could not. So you have this economic dependency on your research to that bit of infrastructure existing. And that infrastructure needs to get paid for. Grants helped to get it built, but it requires extremely specialized technicians, maintenance, and so on. Overhead is what pays for that stuff. When you apply for a grant we estimate that will require some amount of access to that equipment and we add in a certain amount of institutional overhead cost for operating that facility. That's on top of the basics, electricity, HVAC, and so on.
When the feds set a 15% ceiling on overhead, it just pretended that none of that stuff existed or needed to be paid for. With overhead funding cost what will happen with the nuclear reactor now that we can't afford staff to run it, etc? For a lot of medical research overhead requires operating a hospital or clinic where that research can be conducted. For other kinds of research there may not be much overhead - mathematics tends to have none above the basics for instance. Engineering and medicine tends to have mountains. I can tell you that with a 15% cap on overhead, there's whole disciplines of research in the US that will simply vanish, because they are so infrastructure dependent, and it's not like the feds are going to give you a grant to just run that facility. My guess is that our microscopy center will collapse as will the other one in the US if this policy remains. There was always some fee-for-service business with industry around these facilities, but never enough to keep them running. This is going to rip a lot of the US research infrastructure out by the roots if it goes on for too long.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
This assumes we even provide these resources.
My own experience was that I had, I think, 1 meeting lasting maybe 15 minutes. It was so utterly pointless I don't even remember what was said. This was in one of the best public STEM high schools in the country.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
ANY school that agrees to this should lose their accreditation once sanity comes back.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
So, I'll address these. My institution was in California which banned affirmative action in the 90s (I know, it doesn't track with the stereotype about CA). The ethnicity is on the application due to federal data tracking. The feds can't measure if institutions are discriminating without knowing who applied. One of the things we did after selection was go back and look at race and gender to see if what we did was fair. The feds also want to know if there are broader trends that have societal impacts. You'll note employers do similar things when you apply for jobs for the same reason. That's literally what E-Verify is.
Why do we care about extracurriculars? Because not every university discipline has relevant course equivalents in K-12. Most notably arts. There are whole tracts of the US that have no art instruction any longer - killed off by the global financial crisis. For a lot of students, particularly students in less well funded districts, they get at least some of their qualification from extracurriculars. You wouldn't recruit a student to the football team that didn't play footfall in high school, right? Well, students studying drama often have to demonstrate their interest and ability in those extracurriculars. That also holds for a lot of agricultural programs, often for nursing programs, and so on. If you have an abundance of seats you won't use that, and if you don't you need some way to rank that hierarchy, and the students that have done community theater will rank better than the ones who haven't. That's just meritocracy, am I right?
But it also factors into what I said in my first post where we have driven scarcity of access to such high levels that you need other factors to select against. If I have 5,000 students all with the exact same GPA, how do I differentiate among them? And we had that. Sometimes it's the extracurriculars that break those ties. And sometimes you use them to find exceptional students. I had an aerospace engineering applicant that was kind of marginal but had been the youngest person to ever fly across the US, and their extracurriculars were loaded with that. This was a 17 year old that built their own kit plane, that could tear apart an aircraft engine. Fuck yeah we're going to admit that student to the aerospace program because the students are probably going to learn almost as much from them as they will from their professors (they went on establish our human powered aircraft project). So yeah, this stuff is quite often very relevant, as it quite often is in people's careers. You've never been asked if you spoke any other languages? I had a civil engineering student get a massive job as a coordinator on a project between a US design company, a Japanese contractor for a Norwegian oil company, and they needed a civil engineer fluent in English, Japanese, and Norwegian, and he was the only one they could find. He grew up in Norway and studied Japanese on the side because it was an interest of his. Most of our computer science applicants learned how to code as an extracurricular. My son learned digital electronics as an extracurricular. Most people now learn 3D printing (and by association, solid modeling) as an extracurricular. Our engineering program favored students with any hands-on experience from sewing to helping rebuild a car engine because high school shop classes no longer exist, and it's really fucking hard to operate an experiential engineering program when none of your students know a philips from a flat head screwdriver. Having students that are confident making things (literally anything) was really important.
And I hear you on accounting for the factors leading to the decision. The hard truth is that they are by and large random, or might as well be. I noted how predictability of accepting the offer was the most important characteristic because the economic stability of the institution relies on it, and at the end of the day with no real commitment from government to help institutions weather an admission miss, you have to eliminate the possibility of an admissions miss. Most of us in admissions have LONG advocated for setting qualification and simply admitting students by lottery. There's no such thing as being more qualified for something. Either you are, or aren't, and if you are you get an equal shot at the seat. If that system feels bad, then support expanding opportunities so everyone who is qualified can get in. But we really like our scarcity and exclusivity. Harvard sells more sweatshirts than they have students and parents - by a lot. We don't want everyone to have a Harvard education, we want to be special.
But if we were up front about it being a lottery, at least people would understand why they got in or not. Right now we give the illusion of control - that if you work harder you'll get in. That's not how it works. Often, it's the opposite of how it works.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
No, that would destroy accreditation. Accreditation exists to ensure that a set of minimum standards are being met, and that's it and that's really all it should be.
In some cases it will impact their accreditation because in some cases diversity is one of those minimum standards. This is especially important to understand around why DEI was created and adopted in the first place. It wasn't a program to create opportunities for workers, etc. It was created to make businesses more competitive - it really came together out of Harvard Business School who recognized that a lot of even really large businesses had market blind spots because they had monocultures. Case studies included businesses like Target who really grew a big part of their business around black consumers by better understanding the needs of black consumers. Black people buy different products, makeup, haircare, apparel etc. than white people do and you need people that understand that market inside the company to reach that market. Apple was another pointing to the disability community being a strong early adopter of iPhone in part because it had surprisingly good support for that community, which came out of the efforts of engineers at Apple who were themselves disabled and saw the opportunities the device presented. iPhone may have seemed expensive to Nokia owners but it was the cheapest screen reader you could buy and that community helped jumpstart the product. I doubt iPhone would have failed without that community, but that community certainly helped a lot in the early days.
But this is increasingly showing up in medical and engineering accreditation where there is a focus on ensuring that products you design, treatments, drugs, etc. are safe across a diverse set of customers. The historical lack of testing of everything from airbags to medication on women, for instance. The famous example of the motion sensor that couldn't detect black skin. And it's a lot easier to demonstrate that you are factoring in the full range of who your product or drug or device or whatever might impact if those groups are represented among the team that produced it. See my comment above about women being systematically excluded from engineering study in many parts of the US up through the 1960s.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I think the spot of Witch King is spoken for.
Not what they want at all. They want exclusion of non-"conservative" people.Par for the course, it would be shocking otherwise.
So conservatives want more conservative diversity, more conservative inclusion, and more equitable treatment of conservatives... Hey two people that down vote everything that isn't pro-trump, explain why this dei is ok please
---
OK this is a lot. If you didn't read the original response, @johnsonwax is worth reading here. Do that.
So maybe the right thing for universities to do is set minimum standards that align to that threshold where they're unlikely to succeed without further preparation and then put the rest of the applicants in a lottery. I mean that seems like a pretty logical conclusion once you've established that there are more people you could admit than you can admit and there isn't a good way of predicting among those which are more likely to succeed.
And succeed should be taken to mean, "Benefit from an education here." Including intangibles.
(skipped some for brevity)
That's a take I hadn't heard before. I can see why that's actually super important for the reasons you stated and I'm not going to quote here. People should read your post. I think it's even a problem for the little schools and the not that exclusive. You need to fill seats on the one end. You need to get not overwhelmed on the other. Different schools have different mixes of those risks.
skipping more for brevity
Here I think @johnsonwax reveals the main reason why schools have gotten imbalanced in their male/female ratios. If you don't take gender into account, women and their more realistic estimates of their chances and not applying to too many schools they wouldn't get into end up being selected by the process disproportionately.
I think we'll have affirmative action for white men soon enough though.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
To be fair, the only time I ever spoke to my high school counselor was when I brought his daughter home late from a date.
My daughters had ample opportunity to sign up for counseling sessions but chose not to bother. They handled the application process by themselves (well, I wrote the checks for the app fees), as I had, and did just fine.
We'll see what this generation's process is like in a few years with my son...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
What you propose is that people will change their minds, we just need to do more of what David Graeber described as "interpretive labor". I think this idea is dead; killed by the disinformation machine.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
4 years will go by and everyone will say "I just don't feel like anything changed".
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
I should probably add that what I got was pretty much all they offered. They just didn't have the resources to do more than that one ~15 minute session.
I did fine. There was way too much room to slip through the cracks, though.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)