| |
| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 42 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 37 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 30 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 26 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 10 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 a minute 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 25 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 18 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. |
|
|
|
