American Universities will now be all white and Asian

[metalhead]

Easier to control, maybe, but less useful (or not useful at all) in many contexts. And frequently more useful when combined with subjective measures.

You recognize that measuring the "skills" one has is an area which does not lend itself to objective measurement. How then do you expect an objective admissions standard to adequately measure how well one might do at obtaining skills?

 

[Bamspeedy]

You want an effective measuring stick of how well one has done in college? How about actually finishing college? Considering 1/3 to 1/2 of those starting college do not finish might tell you something. (Yes, I know costs may be something that makes some drop out, but if that was the case maybe they would have been better off not even starting college than to take on the student loans and then not even obtain the degree).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You want an effective measuring stick of how well one has done in college? How about actually finishing college? Considering 1/3 to 1/2 of those starting college do not finish might tell you something. (Yes, I know costs may be something that makes some drop out, but if that was the case maybe they would have been better off not even starting college than to take on the student loans and then not even obtain the degree).

That's a useful measure too. What are predictive factors for graduating? That's probably more useful than even GPA during college, since low GPA resulting in failure/dropout will only be a fraction of all students who fail to complete their curriculum.

 

[metalhead]

That's a useful measure too. What are predictive factors for graduating? That's probably more useful than even GPA during college, since low GPA resulting in failure/dropout will only be a fraction of all students who fail to complete their curriculum.

Admissions offices routinely audit their admissions criteria to determine precisely this, is the other thing. They actually apply rigorous review processes to admissions, to improve each iteration of their standards to make the process more likely to produce students who will do well, both for themselves and for the school.

There is a bit of trial and error involved, I'm sure, but admissions officers aren't applying arbitrary criteria, they're applying criteria that have been adapted to do exactly what you say you want them to do. Which includes weighting how much GPA matters.

 

[stinkubus]

You want an effective measuring stick of how well one has done in college? How about actually finishing college? Considering 1/3 to 1/2 of those starting college do not finish might tell you something. (Yes, I know costs may be something that makes some drop out, but if that was the case maybe they would have been better off not even starting college than to take on the student loans and then not even obtain the degree).

No one is going to do anything about this because the colleges do it intentionally. Only the very top tier of undergraduate institutions retain a high percentage of their freshmen class. The rest are counting on massive attrition in year one. If by some miracle 100% of the freshman class at some random college were to return for their sophomore year most institutions would literally be incapable of accommodating them.

 

[Dachs]

Objective measures are easier to control.

and functionally useless for many university subjects and areas of employment

 

[Bamspeedy]

That's a useful measure too. What are predictive factors for graduating? That's probably more useful than even GPA during college, since low GPA resulting in failure/dropout will only be a fraction of all students who fail to complete their curriculum.

High school GPA is talked about in thousands of articles and studies.

Race is a factor in the chance of completing college after starting it.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...on-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds

Some schools are indeed tracking the data on it, trying to predict it.

http://time.com/3621228/college-data-tracking-graduation-rates/

 

[Hygro]

American universities are already white and Asian.

 

[Akka]

"continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race as one factor among many in college admissions"

Am I the only one finding this disturbing ?

 

[Hygro]

No, but to black and white that issue means the status quo is defended.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

and functionally useless for many university subjects and areas of employment

Which university subjects have curriculum set up in such a way that objective measures have literally zero predictive value for success in the program?

For employment it depends a lot on what the position entails.

No one is going to do anything about this because the colleges do it intentionally. Only the very top tier of undergraduate institutions retain a high percentage of their freshmen class. The rest are counting on massive attrition in year one. If by some miracle 100% of the freshman class at some random college were to return for their sophomore year most institutions would literally be incapable of accommodating them.

If the attrition isn't literally instant, then you could somewhat adjust by taking fewer students the following year.

It's true that during this discussion I haven't been considering the most obvious angle from the institution's perspective - which decisions make the most money? Graduation rate/student performance would have to be at least good enough that people aren't turned away, but it wouldn't surprise me if neither of those were top predictor of $$$ for institution. Pretty big oversight on my part...

Admissions offices routinely audit their admissions criteria to determine precisely this, is the other thing. They actually apply rigorous review processes to admissions, to improve each iteration of their standards to make the process more likely to produce students who will do well, both for themselves and for the school.

I'm actually interested in a little more detail on the processes, especially because they also have conflicting incentives.

 

[Synobun]

"continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race as one factor among many in college admissions"

Am I the only one finding this disturbing ?

Come up with a better alternative.

 

[Akka]

Come up with a better alternative.

Never ceases to amaze me how the most vocal self-proclaimed anti-racists are typically the ones supporting the concept of "let's treat people according to their race". The typical example of self-defeating ideologues missing the point of their own ideologies.

 

[Synobun]

Never ceases to amaze me how the most vocal self-proclaimed anti-racists are typically the ones supporting the concept of "let's treat people according to their race". The typical example of self-defeating ideologues missing the point of their own ideologies.

Come up with a better alternative.

As an aside, I'm not even an "anti-racist". I'd probably be considered a racist by the people I'm agreeing with in this thread.

 

[Ryika]

Come up with a better alternative.

That's easy, just increase the quality of education in impoverished areas to match that of wealthy areas.

 

[schlaufuchs]

That's easy, just increase the quality of education in impoverished areas to match that of wealthy areas.

"Solve racially disparate outcomes by reducing racially disparate outcomes." Right.

 

[Synobun]

That's easy, just increase the quality of education in impoverished areas to match that of wealthy areas.

Sounds more invasive than affirmative action. I'm on board.

 

[Ryika]

Sounds more invasive than affirmative action. I'm on board.

I think more importantly, it actually solves the problem, instead of just equalizing the outcome by trying to "reverse the discrimination" after it has already happened.

 

[Akka]

Come up with a better alternative.

About anything else is "better", because about anything else is actually not a fundamentally racist (real "racist", as in "treating people according to their race", not "it's only racist if it's from the other side" idiocy) policy.

As for something not just "better" but actually efficient, it just needs to ask the question "what IS the real problem ?", and fixing THAT.
The real problem is poverty, lack of social fluidity, lack of education and so on. The real problem is about lack of social welfare, depriving people from the low scales of the ladder of their opportunity. The problem of racism is that it keeps some "races" on the bottom, but the fundamental thing to fix is "being at the bottom" and the disparity between top and bottom.

Increase social welfare, increase public services, increase redistribution, reduce wealth gap. THOSE are actually real solutions to real problems.

As an aside, I'm not even an "anti-racist". I'd probably be considered a racist by the people I'm agreeing with in this thread.

Which kind of exemplify the whole point I was talking about.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Solve racially disparate outcomes by reducing racially disparate outcomes." Right.

It's not easy! But what that looks like as a thing is university admissions programs for students who don't meet standard criteria, but come from disadvantaged school districts and performed well compared to their HS peers. Such programs can include a more rigorous battery of introductory university courses with extra labs and instructors specifically available. The programs are never funded enough, so the loan burden is generally wretched, even relatively. Which is problematic, as students admitted under these programs have some of the lowest conferral rates of any students who start university. Money is tight, they're smart young adults and as such their families often lean heavily on them so their commitments are higher outside of school, and they generally have enormous culture shock going from the smartest in a poorly performing school to remedial in a significantly more indifferent university environment. But for all their problems, the programs do work. They generate college educations for people who would not have gotten them. For the south side of the city and for the south side of the state. The real question is if enough of those people with the degrees either return to or remit money back to communities they came from to offset the removal of high performing young adults from the locality and the resultant loan burdens for students who do and do not finish. Right?