| |
| ▲ | tock a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > potentially more intelligent than the poorest group It's easy to think this but its not true. There is just a ton of privilege involved in life. There are groups in India who purely tutor slum kids to the top IITs(the JEE exams in India are very hard). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_30 | | |
| ▲ | Noumenon72 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They said "on average". Selecting 30 of the most talented from the poorest group does not contradict that. | | |
| ▲ | tock a day ago | parent [-] | | On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society? And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted. | | |
| ▲ | tock a day ago | parent [-] | | > Where do unintelligent people exist in your society? Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households. > For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted. Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition. I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | Which premise do you disagree with? 1. Financial and career success are correlated with good test skills. 2. Good test skills are strongly influenced by genetics or early childhood. If you agree with both then you expect some correlation between wealth and test performance. | | |
| ▲ | tock a day ago | parent [-] | | I disagree that being born to rich parents == you have better genetics. It's mostly privilege. And just being born in America is one of the biggest privileges wrt career and wealth. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well I’ll be charitable and interpret == as correlation as we are talking about averages. From your conclusion you’re telling me wealth is completely random or the capabilities of children is completely random. Neither of those holds up to any scrutiny. I don’t know what being born in the US has to do with the conversation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sorry I’m not familiar with Indian culture and power structures. |
| |
| ▲ | tovej a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | better educated I get, but more intelligent? That doesn't track. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, very unintelligent people tend to not do well financially. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar a day ago | parent [-] | | The problem seems to be that intelligence is not entirely heritable; that just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation? > just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate. Correct, my statement is about expectation of averages. Not a claim that we should exclude an individual because of who their parents are. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar a day ago | parent [-] | | > Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation? My understanding is that there is some genetic correlation but it's not a certainty; smart/rich parents can have dumbass kids and vice versa. It's hard to quantify because a direct "IQ" measurement is fraught with issues and trying to measure by "success" has its own issues. If you've not met a lawyer/doctor/PhD that you'd put in the "dumbass" category, you probably haven't met many. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. All children of smart people are not smart. All financially successful people are not smart. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | samultio a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah it'd be very slight, but things like stress and nutrition can affect your memory in the long term which is a part of intelligence. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | Assuming that’s true, wouldn’t that mean you are less capable? | | |
| ▲ | bombcar a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes. There as difference between unfair and unreal; someone who is malnourished when growing up will forever likely be weaker than someone who received a proper sequence of meals. We should perhaps recognize that and try to compensate for it, and it's not a value judgement on the person so afflicted, but pretending it doesn't exist just confuses matters. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-] | | If the difference is real I don’t think the test is the place to compensate as its function is to select people who will succeed in that area. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar a day ago | parent [-] | | That's been the entire fight over the last 20+ years, does the test identify anything real and if so, what should be done with it (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity, e.g.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | alistairSH a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The university will argue that a well-rounded student body improves the experience for everybody. IE, a college that's 100% "nerds" won't be as good as college that's 80% "nerds", 10% "smart jocks", and 10% "band geeks" (or whatever other categories you want). I probably agree with that, but also acknowledge there's no good way to make that completely objective. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In Europe, university is treated as education for adults, not your entire life. Most universities are not campus resorts like in the US, but just buildings in the city itself, students live a normal life in the city, they rent a apartment or live in a dorm, take public transit to get to places, do sport at a sport place independent of the university, etc. You can live a well rounded life that way. The university is there so you learn your specialization. Of course people make friends there, but it doesn't have to be your entire life, and the university administrators job is not to meddle with people's social lives to make them "interesting", but to allow learning. | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH a day ago | parent [-] | | Our oldest unis are generally "downtown" or similar - Harvard, Princeton, UVA (sort of - Charlottesville is a really small city), etc. Though most do still have their own dormitory housing, at least for underclassmen. The large campus-style uni is fairly recent creation - many came out of the land grant system during/after the Civil War. And even as newer unis have been created, they've followed that general design (even though they aren't land grant institutions). | | |
| ▲ | jimbokun 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | All of those universities you mention still immerse students in the university setting round the clock, though. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mgfist a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I probably agree with that, but also acknowledge there's no good way to make that completely objective. Even worse, rich kids have far more means to engage in extracurriculars than poor kids. | |
| ▲ | jimbokun 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This just means US universities are for networking and partying as much as they are for learning. |
| |
| ▲ | keiferski a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Universities in the US and other countries are not the same, and comparing them is not really fruitful. US universities do care about extracurriculars and GPA and other things because they aren’t optimizing for raw academic performance, they’re optimizing for various other things like an interesting student body (that attracts donors, professors, and future students), real-world networks, and so on. | | |
| ▲ | jimbokun 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | In other words an extra four years of day care before those students have to function independently as adults. | | |
| ▲ | keiferski 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, that’s not even remotely close to what I wrote, at any level. In fact, it’s closer to the opposite, because selecting purely based on an abstract exam has nothing to do with being a real-world adult, whereas extracurriculars, internships, etc. do to some level. | | |
| ▲ | jimbokun 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Camus life is not good preparation for post campus life, unless Google and Facebook are still modeling their work environments to imitate campus life. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Ekaros a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pure lottery for all slots? Seems that it would be fairest possible alternative. Anything else being less fair. | |
| ▲ | nyeah a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One important thing is whether the tutoring is making better students, or just gaming the test. | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | next [-] | | And after graduation they can grind leetcode, and after that they can practice social cues to get in the management class. It's gamed tests all the way down. | | |
| ▲ | nyeah a day ago | parent [-] | | For people who choose that career path. Still, somewhere somebody is doing some work. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jimbokun 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are those independent? |
| |
| ▲ | poulpy123 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Good schools for everyone |
|
