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 -
They only adjust for test scores. Higher income means you can afford expensive unpaid internships/experiences, have the connections for such things, can start businesses at a young age, more likely to pick up unique and interesting skills at a young age, etc. This study is really silly and pointless if not adjusting for this whole category of experience which makes an applicant more desirable. Are you telling me that a kid who spent three summers working with a noble prize winning scientist is less likely to be a good scientist? Doubt. Think of all the invisible habits and motivations learned from such experiences. Well, such things cost money. I know a family that sent three kids to Hotchkiss and then to Ivy League schools. That’s 50k a year. For Hotchkiss, in their “colleges listed in order of total number of matriculants”, Ivys are 5 of the top 8.
I guess “colleges are more likely to pick good applicants and good applicants cost money” is less interesting. The consequences of ignoring expensive experiences in accepting students is that wealthy parents will stop spending money on these experiences. Who does that help? I would at least prefer my rulers to have a lot of unique experiences.
They spent three summers working with a Nobel prize winning scientist and that didn't translate into them acing their SAT?
Nobel prize winning scientists can't exactly imbue intelligence, which SATs generally measure, nor was he likely taking the time to instill test-taking skills. I don't see why it would.
Well I can't really argue against the idea that the skills and habits learned are invisible and impossible to test. They're invisible after all!
This is like "other ways of knowing" for the wealthy.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean they're surely testable, just not via the SAT. Give each student a research task and compare results and I'm sure you'll see a difference.
Going by SAT scores is like asking why a student's reading skills didn't improve by spending a summer with Usain Bolt. That's just, not really what they'd be focused on.
They should still learn something. The issue is that there is no correlation. It's not like they aren't learning things adjacent to what the SAT tests. Vocabulary and general knowledge for one thing, which are the most g loaded of sub-tests.
Habit, mindset, and motivation are crucial skills that are not measured by standardized testing. I think it was June Huh who was picked up and mentored by a math genius simply because of these non-tested skills. And IIRC Scott has some article that mentions how the number 1 predictor of scientific output in the 19th century was whether they had met with another scientist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link