General > General Technical Chat
Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
sokoloff:
--- Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 09:26:34 am ---For example, rather than arguing over who is disadvantaged enough to merit financial aid, you should design the system such that there’s no tuition.
--- End quote ---
Even a zero tuition policy doesn’t eliminate the need for financial aid. It’s already the case that for many state schools that room and board (housing and food) is more expensive than tuition for in-state residents. Eliminating a minority of costs is unlikely to eliminate the need for financial aid.
Every bit helps, of course, but given that living for four years is resource intensive, it’s not likely that will require financial aid beyond tuition relief.
sokoloff:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am ---Surely a monetary scholarship should be based on two things only:
1) Aptitude
2) Economic need.
(and other requirements like being a citizen or whatnot)
--- End quote ---
Depending on how broadly you intend the parenthetical, I’m not sure I agree. I think that private (non-governmental) scholarships should be able to have broad qualifications to support the donor’s wishes. If they want there to be a religious affiliation, intended field of study, actual high school attended, parental employer, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other criteria to be considered, I say “fine, have it; it’s private money; do what you like.”
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am ---What does "traditionally underrepresented student group" have to do with that?
So they have gone from having two requirements, to now three, and potentially disqualifying students (presumably that would be white people, and perhaps white males in particular) who previously would have had met the requirements?
EDIT: I see Rick doesn't have evidence that it's actually changed from two to three requirements.
--- End quote ---
like you, I’m a white male. I applied for and got a bunch of small ($500 here, $1000 there) scholarships and did Army ROTC to quilt together what I needed to attend college. I don’t have any regrets nor feel in any way unduly disadvantaged that some private entity has a scholarship that I don’t qualify for. Maybe it’s only for members of this church, or those studying music, or Pacific Islanders, or whatever. Why would I worry that someone else wants to spend their money a certain way and that way doesn’t include me?
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 08:59:31 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:23:29 am ---
--- Quote from: tooki on July 25, 2020, 08:18:49 pm ---Bruh... :palm:
That’s not the eligibility requirements for the CTY program. It’s the eligibility requirements for the scholarship, i.e. for a particular kind of financial aid they grant.
--- End quote ---
Is any of that money from the government? That makes a big difference.
--- End quote ---
I don’t actually know. Johns Hopkins is a private university, but I have no idea if the scholarship has any public funding, if it comes from JHU’s general budget, or from a private endowment (which commonly come earmarked for specific demographics).
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 09:18:32 pm ---As much as I disagree with the principle of picking people for a job based on non-achievement criteria (e.g. there aren't enough women in field X, let's hire more women instead of qualified candidates only), which can corrupt the performance of an organisation and lead to failure, I fail to see why these policies would be an issue for an *educational* institution.
Surely we want as *many people* as reasonable practicable to be educated, and selecting people who have historically lower achievement in a given field, is better than selecting more of the same candidates who could get into any other university?
--- End quote ---
Surely a monetary scholarship should be based on two things only:
1) Aptitude
2) Economic need.
(and other requirements like being a citizen or whatnot)
What does "traditionally underrepresented student group" have to do with that?
--- End quote ---
It has a ton to do with it, insofar as systemic discrimination in USA created a lot of the disadvantages that caused those demographics to be underrepresented, or even outright discriminated against. It’s not just those demographics’ lower incomes that pose barriers to education. For example, we know that just having a “black” name means a kid’s schoolwork is scored more harshly.* We know that black students are disciplined far more severely for the same infractions, which has its own domino effect of follow-on academic consequences.
Ultimately, remember that nobody worth listening to is actually advocating for equality of outcomes for everyone, divorced from merit, effort, etc. But what many of us, myself included, consider highly important is equality of opportunity.
--- End quote ---
Unless you are a while male, right?
Come on, you know what what they mean here.
If you want do that and it's not public money, fine, do that. But don't pretend it's equally of opportunity because it is not.
Example: Two kids in the same poor street, with the same income levels, went to the same school. got the same grades, both want it the same etc. But one is black, the other is white. By the sounds of it the white kid can't even apply for this scholarship.
Heck, the two kids in this example could even be from the same home.
Whatever this is, it's not equally of opportunity by definition, it is deliberately excluding "overrepresented groups".
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 am ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---I think you would find that you would get more under-represented groups if you did this - so there'd be more minorities and yes, poor white families too.
--- End quote ---
I'm pretty sure that if you are a poor white male, you don't meet the requirements of this scholarship. You don't even have a chance.
--- End quote ---
It could be. But since it seems there’s other financial aid types too (and that poor whites nonetheless do not share all the disadvantages that blacks and Native Americans have), I don’t think this is necessarily bad.
--- End quote ---
Yep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it's equality of opportunity?.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: sokoloff on July 28, 2020, 10:47:13 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am ---Surely a monetary scholarship should be based on two things only:
1) Aptitude
2) Economic need.
(and other requirements like being a citizen or whatnot)
--- End quote ---
Depending on how broadly you intend the parenthetical, I’m not sure I agree. I think that private (non-governmental) scholarships should be able to have broad qualifications to support the donor’s wishes. If they want there to be a religious affiliation, intended field of study, actual high school attended, parental employer, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other criteria to be considered, I say “fine, have it; it’s private money; do what you like.”
--- End quote ---
I agree, if it's private money and the donor has the wish to help some marginal group or attached some other stipulation, that's fine, end of discussion.
If it's public money, then we have a problem IMO.
tom66:
Hmm - so how do people on here feel about the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple when making a wedding cake? They might be religious and hold that belief very firmly that gay marriage is immoral.
Private enterprise - fair enough right? OK, but what if the couple was black? Is that OK to now discriminate against?
It's a slippery slope to have any form of discrimination IMO - now if it happens that the economic or social aims (improve education in underprivileged groups) happens to target one group more than others, then that is OK, because in principle anyone from a disadvantaged background can apply. You're not saying "only black applicants" or "only white applicants", you're saying "poorer applicants from a background that has little higher educational history".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version