| |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. From the wiki article you linked: >Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society. Equity proponents believe that some are at a larger disadvantage than others and aims to compensate for this to ensure that everyone can attain the same lifestyle. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Note: everyone can, not everyone will. That's opportunity, not a guarantee. Yes? | |
| ▲ | 9dev an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you hold a race, but some people start further behind others, they have a longer track to run. I think we can agree that to call it a fair race, we'd want to accommodate for the track length. | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but if some people are faster than others because they have longer legs or because they've trained more etc. then people without such advantages aren't given special accomodation. It actually runs in my family that we have very short legs in comparison to our torsos. For example I'm 6' tall but look like I'm 6' 4" or thereabouts when sitting down next to someone with more normal proportions. In spite of this disadvantage, one of my brothers did cross country in high school and still runs half-marathons every year or so. He doesn't demand to be given a head start or to have time subtracted to accommodate his inherent disadvantage, because that's the difference between equality and equity. | | |
| ▲ | 9dev 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And that's commendable, but what if your brother would not have had time for doing cross country in high school because he had to care for his siblings as your parents were poor and working double shifts? Or so heavily indebted due to a cancer therapy that he couldn't afford running shoes? > people without such advantages aren't given special accomodation They are not - but I'm specifically talking about the reverse case, where people start with extra disadvantages that cause them to start even further behind their peers. Curiously, everyone seems to understand the purpose of handicaps in Golf, but it's an outrageously leftist concept in social contexts. | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >And that's commendable, but what if your brother would not have had time for doing cross country in high school because he had to care for his siblings as your parents were poor and working double shifts? Or so heavily indebted due to a cancer therapy that he couldn't afford running shoes? That's awful and unfortunate, but he still shouldn't have an extra hour shaved from his half-marathon times over his competitors, because the half-marathon isn't measuring "How fast could you have run this in an alternate universe where you had no disadvantages". It's measuring "How fast can you run this, full stop." Poor Black kids who had uninvolved parents that didn't help them to learn math better aren't helped by affirmative action because you're just setting them up for failure in the actual college level math classes they end up in (and are woefully unprepared for). The SAT measures how capable you are at math because that's what matters for college, not how capable you might have been in a different reality. >Curiously, everyone seems to understand the purpose of handicaps in Golf, but it's an outrageously leftist concept in social contexts. If I try to join the PGA tour, they aren't going to consider my handicap. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Those are certainly shitty ways to ensure equity. Why are they what you jump to? What if we did a better job helping parents with childcare and healthcare? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elteto 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Following your analogy, what equity efforts turn in practice is to not only accommodate for track length for those that start behind, but also to cut one leg off of those perceived to be ahead. | | |
| ▲ | 9dev 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My point wasn't that every existing equity effort is justified and flawless, but that there is a clear reason why some kind of levelling is required if you want to live in a fair society - and I do believe most of us want that. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | valleyer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From your link: > Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-] | | Also from my link: > factors specific to one's personal conditions should not interfere with the potential of academic success | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but the reality is that such conditions do interfere with the potential of academic success, as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise. If I had a severe brain injury as a child, or my mom drank and did a ton of drugs while pregnant with me, or any number of other reasons, I will probably be far less academically successful than in the counterfactual reality where I didn't get a brick dropped on my head as a child. Equality proponents argue that brick-on-head and no-brick-on-head should be judged by the same standards. Equity proponents argue that brick-on-head should be given advantages over no-brick-on-head to make them obtain substantially similar educational outcomes. Once again, from your own link: >Equity recognizes this uneven playing field and aims to take extra measures by giving those in need more than those who are not. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes for groups, also called substantive equality. Equity aims to ensure that everyone's lifestyle is equal, even if that requires unequal distribution of access and goods. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. (And systemic efforts to prevent dropping bricks on childrens' heads in the first place.) | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. So you claim, but in reality proponents of equity instituted a system that gave Black students a roughly 450 point advantage over Asian students on the SAT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un... Note that the NYT, in their pure, non-partisan spirit of fairness and equity, somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students Make up your mind? If their having to score higher than Black students is unfair, how is "Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites" not also unfair? What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, wealth (translated to parenting time, tutoring access, better schools, etc.) can help do better on the SAT. How does one account for that? | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I didn't say it was fair, I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased (as per usual). Imagine at a school that Jenny gets 10 cookies from the teacher, Timmy gets 3, and Johnny gets two. Billy sees all this, but he has a crush on Jenny, so when he tells everyone on the playground about it he doesn't say "Jenny got way more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!" Instead he says "Timmy got more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!". That's the ridiculousness that I'm pointing out here. >What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? It was never intended to? >How does one account for that? It's impossible to account for everything. As much as the thinkers of the Enlightenment and their successors have attempted to quantify and measure everything, it's simply not possible in reality. If someone could devise a better means of measurement than current standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I would happily welcome them. But one thing is pretty clear and certain: the SAT is a far better measure of mathematical aptitude that high school grades, and until better measures can be found and implemented I fully support continuing to use it for college admissions and college math placement. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased But we apparently agree that "somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students" is actually accurate on their part? (The article also openly explains why, if you go past the headline a bit.) > It was never intended to? Then we shouldn't use it as such. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Sure, but the reality is that such conditions do interfere with the potential of academic success, as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise. This is a bizarre claim in the second clause. Proponents of equity do recognize that various conditions impact academic potential; otherwise, they wouldn’t attempt to ameliorate them. You even quoted, “Equity recognizes this uneven playing field. . .” so where did “. . . as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise,” even come from? | | |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The person I was replying to quoted the article saying "conditions should not interfere", my point was that they do interfere, and will continue to interfere, in spite of all the efforts and hands on the scale and discrimination that equity proponents try to implement. Equity fundamentally arises from a more or less "blank-slatist" view of humans, which is why it leads to such insane outcomes when it comes into contact with reality. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elteto 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That all sounds great in theory but in practice it devolves not into only giving extra help to those in need, but also to _take away_ from those perceived to have some sort of advantage. See for example NYC's idiotic plan to close gifted and talended kindergarten programs in public schools. The truth is that it is a hell of a lot easier to lower the bar for everyone than to raise it. I.e. it's a lot easier to make dumb kids than to make smart ones, so in the name of equity we shall have dumber ones. |
|
