> Which is absurd, considering it's involved in college admission process.
Your SAT score is just about the only bit of the admission process you have access to. You don't get the admissions officers' opinions on your essay, what they thought of your extracurriculars, how they perceive the reputation of your high school, what their alumni interviewers said, etc.
(Chances are you can make a pretty good guess at what the adversity score is going to be, too.)
And all that secrecy should go burn in a fire. Colleges have more impact than many government institutions, and they certainly take in a lot more government funding than many government institutions. They should be as transparent as government institutions if not more (What's the rationale against? National security?).
I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. The United States has a system of de jure discrimination against white and asian men. Moreover, there is a great deal of de facto discretization against them as well. Many people seem to think that it is "fair" and appropriate for this to be the case, but I don't think its debatable that this is the fact of the matter. I think those who support this policy should defend it honestly instead of lying about it and claiming its not the policy, when it plainly is.
An example is the federal contracting rules that specifically require that some contracts be awarded to companies that are not run by white males.
This of course is gamed. The common case for a small contractor is that a woman is officially running the business but her husband is really doing it. Large contractors subcontract out to these small contractors for no reason other than to fill quotas. It is often make-work nonsense, paying them even though there is no reason other than the quota to have them working on the project. In other words, it is government waste.
There are people who make a career out of filling these quotas.
Consider how things work if nobody games the system. Each contractor is really being operated by the claimed owner/CEO/president. If the best contractors for a government agency's needs all happen to be run by white males but other less-good contractors exist, some of those better choices need to be rejected. The people running them are hurt by not getting the contracts. The government agency is also hurt by not getting to use the best contractors, and of course this hurts the general public due to government waste.
Ah yes, the system of discrimination that nevertheless has white and asian men disproportionately over-represented in silicon valley, tech companies, and government.
It's worth noting that all of hiring is some form of discrimination. An employer is activilly discriminating against anyone one they do not hire by any number of criteria.
This is fine. Generally accepted criteria such as fitness of duty, education, relevant experience, references and criminal background are all forms of discrimination that are generally accepted forms of discrimination.
But, unacceptable forms of discrimination include race, sex, religion and sexual orientation. If you, as an employer, engage in discrimination against better qualified employees to make a quota of an arbitrary percent of these protected classes against another based upon their class status, you are, in my opinion engaged in unlawful discrimination. It is still targetted discrimination even if it's against a majority class member such as race or gender, if that's the reason for the decision.
Promoting or accepting an underqualified minority over a more qualified minority under "affirmative action" or "diversity" is systematic, institutionalized racism/sexism.
Instead, how about we stop asking or considering "what" we are and consider what we can offer beyond our race/sex/sexual orientation?
> Ah yes, the system of discrimination that nevertheless has white and asian men disproportionately over-represented in silicon valley, tech companies, and government.
Asian immigrants, many of us who grew up in poverty and other difficult circumstances, are "privileged" now?
One of these days, progressives on HN are going to wake up to find the many, many Asians in technology on the opposite side of them. We ain't "woke" and we ain't your "allies", largely because of treatment like this.
It occurs in most non-merit based social settings. 95% of all churches are 95% homogeneous. Racial groups self segregate at lunch tables. 85% of millennials don't have a single friend outside their own racial group.
In merit based settings like employement, the employer is going to be selecting for IQ so the racial demographic of the employees is irrelevant, only their productivity.
I hate to be that person, but could you maybe cite those statistics? I was willing to give a pass on 95% of churches being 95% racially homogeneous, but I'm deeply skeptical the 85% figure is true for all millennials.
So, controversial question here. Is there a racial divide by IQ then?
I'm not talking about the cause of this, whether genetic, cultural or others. But right now in the United States, is there a sizable IQ distribution difference across the various racial groups?
