If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Edit: I understand the reasoning for giving extra attention to persons from marginalized groups, but I don't think the answer lies in giving passes on subpar performances. People generally only give as much as they have to to get what they want. If you know you can get something with less effort because of something outside of your control, why put in the effort?

I understand that, and admit that it's a problem. But I don't think this criticism warrants ignoring the problem altogether, and I'm too consumed with other things to think of a different solution.

the non Euro bold was highlighted for asians, as they are victims of racism under your definition (time being fuzzy)

da fuq

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

As I've already said, there can be individual bigotry or prejudice. I define racism differently.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to play a language game,
It's not so hard, you see--
The meaning of a word's the same
As you want it to be!

Alas, but when I use a word
how do I guarantee
that what I said was what was heard
by you--but too, by me!

 

[rms]

da fuq

idk why you keep bringing up wypipo (did i do this right)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It does, but that's not actually what happens. Those numbers are statistical conversions derived from a broad number of considerations that go into admissions procedures, not actual "bonuses" applied to SAT scores.

http://thecommunicatedstereotype.com/no-minorities-do-not-earn-bonus-points-on-the-sat/

So, Asian Americans don't have 50 points deducted from their SAT scores, or whatever. Rather, the admissions procedures, on average, appear to disadvantage Asian Americans (again, on average--it doesn't affect every Asian American negatively) in a way that can be correlated to roughly -50 points on an SAT exam.

Basically an argument of semantics. The difference between giving someone +200 points on their SAT on some document, and the difference between treating them as if they had received 200 more points than they really did, is meaningless.

Extracurriculars shouldn't have any part in a university admissions process.

Don't agree with this at all tbh. A GPA or test score is a nice indicator of ability, but it isn't much beyond a filter and bragging piece. An 80th percentile GPA/SAT student that maybe neglects certain areas of study but does something amazing in their free time, e.g. perhaps a music genius that composes a concerto over summer break but neglects their history and biology classes, would be more deserving of entry to a great college than one of the 30k valedictorians produced every year.

 

[Einherjar86]

Basically an argument of semantics. The difference between giving someone +200 points on their SAT on some document, and the difference between treating them as if they had received 200 more points than they really did, is meaningless.

Au contraire! It's fascinating to me that you guys see this as meaningless (more or less). And I really do mean fascinating. I'm fascinated.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Au contraire! It's fascinating to me that you guys see this as meaningless (more or less). And I really do mean fascinating. I'm fascinated.

Explain the significance then. For starters, do you accept all of the following?

1. SAT scores are reported one part of a college application
2. Race is reported as another part of a college application
3. Many colleges practice affirmative action (which I'll define here as the intentional selection of under-represented races during an admissions process)
4. SAT scores and a race checkbox provide easy metrics by which to measure an applicant's worthiness for admission
5. SAT scores, being the easiest measure of scholastic performance, are the easiest way to enforce affirmative action

 

[Dak]

Don't agree with this at all tbh. A GPA or test score is a nice indicator of ability, but it isn't much beyond a filter and bragging piece. An 80th percentile GPA/SAT student that maybe neglects certain areas of study but does something amazing in their free time, e.g. perhaps a music genius that composes a concerto over summer break but neglects their history and biology classes, would be more deserving of entry to a great college than one of the 30k valedictorians produced every year.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...st-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.
3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.
5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.
6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

The most consistent predictor of academic success in the four years of undergraduate is the academic success during the preceding four years of high school (including SAT scores). If a person can compose a concerto on their own but fares poorly in school, let them pursue success outside of college, where they are better suited.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Any figures on the correlation between high school and undergraduate success? I'm sure it exists but there are a lot of things that have to be considered. For example, a 4.0 from a top magnet high school is not worth the same as a 4.0 from an inner city school where many students graduate only borderline-literate. A quick Google is telling me that at least one study finds that the ACT scores of dropouts and graduates are highly similar. High school and college aren't that similar and many different factors are at play that may make a person excel at one and be shit at another.

 

[Dak]

Any figures on the correlation between high school and undergraduate success? I'm sure it exists but there are a lot of things that have to be considered. For example, a 4.0 from a top magnet high school is not worth the same as a 4.0 from an inner city school where many students graduate only borderline-literate. A quick Google is telling me that at least one study finds that the ACT scores of dropouts and graduates are highly similar. High school and college aren't that similar and many different factors are at play that may make a person excel at one and be shit at another.

ACT scores of HS dropouts/grads or college? Obviously you wouldn't use only that score, which is representative of some academic competency, but the GPA reflects the ability to consistently attend/put forth effort (although probably less and less with each passing year due to grade inflation). Sure, the extra structure from home life, existing peer groups, and mandatory attendance makes success in high school easier. Which is a further argument for assuming that if there's any change from HS to uni, it's going to be negative. Obviously tHeRe's ALwaYs ExcEPtioNS, but we don't make broad policy based on outliers. Where it makes sense to consider factors outside GPA/score history is non-traditional students, because the experiences had between 18-whenever they return to school render the metric I linked of much less usefulness.

 

[Dak]

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

Is that screeching I hear in the distance?

 

[Dak]

Wow, "the internet is losing its mind" about the trans ban being reinstated. Unfortunately I don't expect it to last. Joining the military isn't a civil right, and I have yet to see a proponent argument that understands this, and the comparisons to minorities serving or gays serving are completely disingenuous.

 

[rms]

oining the military isn't a civil right

does have that weird middle ground of not being a civil right but a public organization. I agree on the cost aspect and the fact that trans people likely are getting rather shit treatment, if they are combat arms, from their battle buddies. but banning all I am against too =/

 

[Dak]

does have that weird middle ground of not being a civil right but a public organization. I agree on the cost aspect and the fact that trans people likely are getting rather shit treatment, if they are combat arms, from their battle buddies. but banning all I am against too =/

The military already excludes (and medseps people) for a laundry list of reasons - chief among them medical issues requiring expensive treatment and/or ongoing maintenance. Why should transpersons get preferential/special treatment?

 

[rms]

if a trans person can pass a mental eval during entry I see no reason why they should be barred from joining

 

[Dak]

if a trans person can pass a mental eval during entry I see no reason why they should be barred from joining

Are they going to forego any medical treatments related to their transness? If so, that would answer my special treatment argument. However, one would then need to monitor, for some time, the performance effects of being trans while not having access to hormone therapy, etc. Another problem, which wasn't initially in mind but is related to another issue I have with the military, is the problem of differing physical fitness requirements for males and females. M2F trans are getting double preferential treatment if they both get medical treatment AND access to easier fitness standards - which increases chances for promotion (this differential fitness standard is an issue I've had with the military now for over a decade).

 

[rms]

Are they going to forego any medical treatments related to their transness?

I don't get mad at trans people for this, I get mad at this being a thing in the first place. Chicks getting boob jobs and other silly cosmetic things should not be publicly funded. Goofy ass ugly women with fake tits we all paid for in the service is ridiculous.

the performance effects of being trans while not having access to hormone therapy, etc

I think this is valid, but this wasn't what Trump emulated from whatever he may have heard from his generals. Saying there needs to be more studies about estrogen/test hormone treatment during basic/job training/officer training/other schools is a legitimate reason. Also, the effects these treatments have, if they are allowed during these periods, have in these super stressful environments.

is the problem of differing physical fitness requirements for males and females.

yeah, but from the outside looking in it seems to be shifting towards a more neutral test. But agreed, physical standards should be enforced by MOS, not gender.

And with the articles i've read about how a higher % of recruits, per year, are not physically fit to join is a problem. Hard to raise standards when the populace is already so lacking.

p.s. you still thinking of going back in? not sure im getting in to border patrol, might just try and comission and coast to 20+ years.

 

[Dak]

I don't get mad at trans people for this, I get mad at this being a thing in the first place. Chicks getting boob jobs and other silly cosmetic things should not be publicly funded. Goofy ass ugly women with fake tits we all paid for in the service is ridiculous.

I agree with you on this, but one poor policy shouldn't excuse another.

I think this is valid, but this wasn't what Trump emulated from whatever he may have heard from his generals. Saying there needs to be more studies about estrogen/test hormone treatment during basic/job training/officer training/other schools is a legitimate reason. Also, the effects these treatments have, if they are allowed during these periods, have in these super stressful environments.

yeah, but from the outside looking in it seems to be shifting towards a more neutral test. But agreed, physical standards should be enforced by MOS, not gender.

And with the articles i've read about how a higher % of recruits, per year, are not physically fit to join is a problem. Hard to raise standards when the populace is already so lacking.

I don't believe in differing standards per MOS outside of special forces (and I think the standards should be higher). Being fit is valuable no matter if you are in the infantry or filing papers.

p.s. you still thinking of going back in?

Yes, commissioning.

 

[rms]

I don't believe in differing standards per MOS outside of special forces (and I think the standards should be higher). Being fit is valuable no matter if you are in the infantry or filing papers.

fit yes, but fitness has different standards for certain jobs. Light units vs. heavy units require different fitness standards, for instance.


late edit

Yes, commissioning.

word, let's go together and be best friends forever


and this "cannot criticize the administration" -- fucking doofus

https://twitter.com/spookperson/status/890251331520286720

oh wow, more.

https://twitter.com/UncleChaps/status/890210593231208448

https://twitter.com/RenoMcGill/status/890252417190682628

 

[Dak]

"I am in no way stronger than most women". One wonders what sort of women he has been around to give him this misperception. There are many "average" persons in the military. The issue is that what constitutes "average" in the military is increasingly exceptional compared to the general population, and both tweeters ignore the fact that men do not have to be "strong" to be stronger than women on average. But what the fuck does that have to do with the trans ban?