This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
American Compass has a new article complaining about the decline of the Summer job:
The article notes one reason why:
This might lead you to wonder if maybe you should learn something from the wealthiest racial group in America. But no, the author doesn't suggest that. Send your kid to work at McDonald's, good for them, builds character. Who cares if Asians take 25% of Ivy League seats and conservatives find themselves increasingly locked out of the American elite?
This is the same kind of error Leftists make when they see that kids whose parents took them to art museums have higher incomes than kids whose parents didn't and conclude that it means we need to subsidize art museums. In both cases, genetic confounding is ignored. But while the left fetishizes education and high-class culture, the right fetishizes hauling boxes and cleaning pools.
None of this is to say that summer jobs are necessarily bad. If your teen is rotting his brain with electronics 16 hours a day, kicking him out and telling him to get a McJob is probably gonna be good for him. But if he's well adjusted, does well in school, and has lots of friends, there's no reason to make him work manual labor because someone conservative writer who attended a third-rate university told you it's an "American folkway." It isn't, by the way. John Adams said, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." It wasn't "I must study politics and way so my sons can work a cash register and be in touch with the working-class."
From the same article:
Statistically speaking, the households in the middle to upper-middle class are more likely to have teen summer jobs than poor households. Maybe there is something to learn from the wealthiest group in America. Asian kids growing up in households where they have to study all day would probably benefit from having a summer job in a customer facing role since they would learn to interact with larger segments of the population, which would improve social and communication skills. Elite-tier colleges often reject Asian applicants with high academic scores due to a lack of "soft skills". In the case that this is true, perhaps those Asian teenagers would have been better served building skills in a summer job than studying to get 50 more points on the SAT.
The reason conservatives are not dominating top tier colleges is not because their kids worked a summer job.
There is a significant reason for the drop in teenager summer jobs that the article does not address or mention, which is the increase in the minimum wage. It's simply more expensive to hire people now than in 1950. Wealthy neighborhoods are less impacted because businesses there have more money to be able to afford to hire temporary work. Meanwhile, most businesses in low income neighborhoods are operating on razor-thin margins. They might have been able to afford teenagers to work for $5 an hour, but at $15 or higher they simply cannot afford to anymore. Cheap labor is one of the main reasons to hire a teenager over any other demographic; make all labor more expensive and there is less of a reason to hire teenagers.
Factor in immigration, which increases the supply of labor, and it's obvious why teen summer jobs are on the decline. If you're a restaurant, why would you take the risk of hiring and training someone for only 2-3 months of labor, individuals that could be lazy or awkward or fickle or more risk oriented on account of them being teenagers, when you can hire older immigrants instead? It's not Maine and Vermont that's responsible for the drop in the nation-wide teenager employment rate.
Something tells me high school Asians working on their “soft skills” more will do little for their college admissions plight, and be negative for their plight if it comes at the opportunity cost of grade-, test-, or extracurricular-grinding.
At least in the case of Harvard, the supposed awful soft skills and personalities of Asian applicants were telepathically diagnosed by members of the admissions committee from afar, sight unseen, and somehow overlooked by the wrong-thinking alumni interviewers who met and interacted with said applicants in person.
Depending on the summer job it could be considered as one of the extracurriculars in your college application.
The competition Asian applicants have for top-tier colleges are other Asian applicants. If all they have are high academics, their chances of getting in are low. If they had all the extracurriculars on top of academics, well they likely didn't need the summer job to stand out and have likely built their soft skills in stuff like sports/debate/etc. When you consider the students that only have their academic scores to stand on, it is likely their soft skills are not as developed as peers that have more than the academic scores. It's this group that could potentially benefit.
A lot of colleges claim their goal is to create a diverse student body group. Whether or not you agree with this, it's true that a lot of colleges and universities after reaching a certain number of the "smart Asian student" archetype will stop accepting more Asian students. Hence, why colleges that didn't have affirmative action like UCLA have significantly higher Asian student populations. There are probably smart, well-spoken Asian students that got rejected from colleges because there are Asians. But there are also smart, awkward Asians who got rejected because they didn't look the interviewer in the eye and stumbled over their words. Yes, Asians have a higher hurdle to enter the top level colleges. Some people would call it bullshit, but your goal should be to minimize the potential checks that could weed you out.
I don't have any stats at the moment so I'll speak from personal experience. I'm Asian and I had a lot of Asian friends, and literally none of us spent the entire summer studying. Sure, some of did stuff like SAT prep school, but that didn't exactly take up the whole summer... it was like a once or twice a week thing. Basically a few hours a week. If you have to spend the entire summer studying just to keep up to the point you don't have the time to hold down a summer job then you'll probably struggle in college relative to your peers that just fucked around and got similar scores to you. Of all of us that got 1500 or higher on the SAT, the ones that got into the top tier schools like Harvard/Stanford/CalTech also just happened to be the most social and well-spoken of the bunch. Personality might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to objectively measure, but it's not like it doesn't matter either.
That being said, my experience might be less and less relevant. From I last remember Harvard lost the case on affirmative action and checking the class of 2028 numbers it seems the number of accepted Asian students have gone up (37% same as previous year, but class of 2026 says 27% which is a significant jump). https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/09/harvard-releases-race-data-for-class-of-2028/
I wasn't able to find the percentage of Asian applicants that got admitted, only the percentage of accepted applicants that were Asian. It's possible more Asians are applying to Harvard after the supreme court decision.
Also found this chart which is pretty interesting:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/01/15/does-harvard-discriminate-against-asian-americans-in-college-admissions/
It's a graph of the "personal" rating applicants to Harvard received, split between Harvard Staff members versus Harvard Alumni.
And in the article linked: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/andrew-gelman-sharad-goel-daniel-e-ho-affirmative-action-isnt-problem/
Like you said, Harvard staff members were harsher on Asians relative to how alumni did the scoring, but across the board both groups rated a lower percentage of Asians top scores for personal relative to other races. Harvard staff was also harsher on all races across the board relative to alumni scoring. There probably is bias, but there is probably also some truth to the personal rating, at least based on my personal experiences of academically gifted Asians. There were Asians that got top scores on personal and Asians that didn't - what was the difference maker? I don't think luck on who interviewed them is the full answer. Even if it was true Asians would have to do better to get the same "personal" score, it's not as if there is absolutely nothing you can do to become a better speaker or to be more charismatic.
Also interesting to note that the students that did the best academically also tend to do the best on personality. The bottom 25th percentile score at Harvard is 1500, so these are all top 1% students from the country. I'm curious if the people rating the personal score had any idea about the person's actual academic scores, but it's all speculation at this point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link