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 -
Wait, 15 years? Was there a sea change after the recession, or something?
Anyway. I was putting together a response about supply vs. demand shocks, and how the change in student population really doesn’t have to represent a change in the overall one. Then I read the recommendations section of the actual report.
Guess what year UCSD dropped their SAT/ACT requirements?
If you throw out the single best metric you’ve got to measure math ability, you are going to get more variance. Doesn’t matter if the population got worse or even better, you are giving up your ability to find them. You’ll have to use proxies like (inflated!) grades and made-up clubs. The workgroup was quite unsatisfied with their options.
This is rather frustrating. The SAT and ACT genuinely do have a host of systemic problems thanks to their effective duopoly on standardized testing. Apparently Goodhart’s law wasn’t one of them. But it’s not for lack of trying—you can’t drive a block in my town without hitting a Karen Dillard. Too many suburban strivers racing to the bottom. That whole ecosystem is only going to be boosted by all the dissident rightists looking to score points against DEI. Big win for credentialism.
More options
Context Copy link