Author Topic: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone  (Read 6603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39025
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2020, 11:20:09 am »
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?

Offering a paid service at a general store front to the public is quite different from giving money away, and having a say in who it goes to.
I think it would be wrong to try and conflate the two issues.

 

Offline sokoloff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1799
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2020, 11:53:43 am »
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".
I think if you play that out, you'll find it becomes pretty close to a contest to figure out how to describe "only black applicants" or "only white applicants" without actually saying it.

"This scholarship is available to people who are within 7 generations of a blood family relative who was owned as a slave in the Southern United States prior to 1865." That doesn't technically exclude whites, because anyone from that disadvantaged background can apply, but who are we really kidding when we write that?
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2020, 12:35:46 pm »
Well yes - that's why it should be just for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The media don't like to play it up, but if you remove race from the equation, and just consider socioeconomic status (how rich you are, where you live, and how rich your parents were), in the US:
- poor white and black kids are both about as likely to go to prison or be shot by a police officer
- educational attainments are, in general, similarly poor (in fact white males from a working class background do a lot worse; this is particularly noticeable in the UK too.)
- life expectancy is similar

This isn't black vs white, this is being lucky to be born into a wealthy (or even middle class family) or growing up into a poor family. With many poor families being single parent, lacking a good male role model.

Why are so many black people in this category? It is a reasonable question, but in the USA at least, it is because that is where the slave plantations were, so of course the populations are dominant in those areas.  More connection to family and after slavery was abolished many went to work on the same farms for pay.   These are historically poorer areas: more working class work, less technical.

Whereas white Europeans represent most of white America's history - from educated and wealthy backgrounds in many cases.  Add in a bit of Jim Crow and segregation and we can see why we have ended up in this situation.

I'm not a fan of reparations, because today's white person did nothing to today's black person (generally speaking), it's very much historical.  But helping out people in poorer groups will probably bias more towards certain demographics, that's just life.  That isn't racist or wrong.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 12:41:55 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline Rick LawTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2020, 07:11:55 pm »
...
EDIT: I see Rick doesn't have evidence that it's actually changed from two to three requirements.

Yeah, I do have no evidence, just my recollection from some years ago.  I had no reason to keep evidence of that nature.

My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents.  My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit.  So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind.  Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted.  I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).

I know I recommended CTY to fellow members here on this forum.  I know I recommended it an awful lot to other parents, particularly when I was volunteering (some years ago) at a "parent operated" weekend school (not as replacement but as addition to their regular schools).  I volunteered there for over 6 years, every Saturday during regular school year, I interact with many fellow parents and I must have made that recommendation multiple-dozens of times.  I just hope that by now, any of them would have kids beyond youth-age and thus done with CTY by now.  Now, at the school where I volunteered, while many of them would have no problem showing they are financially needed (family income below $75000), almost all were from an "over-represented" group.  A fair number of them were from Hong Kong.

Even at the local public school, when I got into conversation with fellow parents, and whenever they show their disdain to "everything else but merit", I would recommend CTY.  Cheap to part of it (SAT test cost), pure merit based, and good name recognition.  Heck, I even recommended it to my barber...  I think these organizations have no idea how much parents are hungry for pure merit based judgements for academics, and they wonder why they are loosing support.
 

Offline sokoloff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1799
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2020, 07:22:25 pm »
I was in CTY and SMPY cohort 3.

I can heartily recommend CTY as I think it was instrumental in harnessing, directing, and deepening my abilities and interest in math/computer science and kept me from being dreadfully bored in those subjects in school. I will very likely have my kids test for participation in the program as well. (They seem to have some natural inclinations in this direction, but having a science PhD mom and an engineer/enginerd dad raise them undoubtedly contributes to that.)

It seems to me like the kerfuffle in this thread is entirely around an adjunct financial aid scholarship aspect to the program, having nothing to do with the core program itself.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2020, 07:30:20 pm »
My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents.  My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit.  So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind.  Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted.  I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).

I still don't get what problem you see with this.

Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria for scholarships (i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far as admission to their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is based only on merit.

So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline DrG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1199
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2020, 07:41:06 pm »
Beyond, "where did the money come from?", I think that they (whomever they are) can offer a scholarship for any legal reason. Now, if some of that money was mine, I want some say at least at some level. If not, what business is it of mine?

David Letterman still maintains a scholarship at his alma mater that explicitly does NOT consider GPA. Being a "C" student, he apparently recognizes the possibility of some level of creativity that may exist in the absence of top grades. https://www.bsu.edu/web/letterman/scholarship

« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 07:59:03 pm by DrG »
- Invest in science - it pays big dividends. -
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13156
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2020, 08:06:56 pm »

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
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.
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.
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.

Yep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it's equality of opportunity?.
Dave, with all due respect, when it comes to issues like this, you have a privileged, myopic view. You don’t know anywhere near enough about how systemic racism in USA plays out to be able to defend the strong positions you hold.

The fact that you think the hypothetical black and white kids of equal incomes, location, backgrounds, motivation, and academic qualifications have the same opportunities (they don’t!) proves that you don’t understand all the factors at play nor the scope of the problem.

Bear in mind, until I moved to Baltimore (where I spent my entire 20s), I actually held views very much like yours. But living there, I saw up close how modern systemic racism, over the decades, shaped the city and its black residents in every way imaginable. (Including literally shaping the geography.) So given that AFAIK you’ve never lived in USA (and were never a scholar of sociology, the only other way I would think one could learn about it from afar), it’s totally understandable that you haven’t been sensitized to the problem. But I think you’d be wise to approach it with humility and an open mind, rather than arrogance, rigidity, and dismissiveness. Because you don’t have the full picture.

(And just to preempt any “whataboutism” from the peanut gallery: I’m not black, and thus I never have and never will live the black American experience. Compared to them, my knowledge of these issues is superficial. But I listen to what they say, and really try to take it in, as well as to learn the history to see what the long term effects have been.)
 
The following users thanked this post: ajb, newbrain

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13156
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2020, 08:09:55 pm »
It seems to me like the kerfuffle in this thread is entirely around an adjunct financial aid scholarship aspect to the program, having nothing to do with the core program itself.
Precisely.


My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents.  My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit.  So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind.  Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted.  I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).

I still don't get what problem you see with this.

Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria for scholarships (i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far as admission to their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is based only on merit.

So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there.
Exactly. I don’t think he really grasps this distinction. (Nor why support for disadvantaged kids is a good thing.)
 

Offline Rick LawTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2020, 10:08:26 pm »
It seems to me like the kerfuffle in this thread is entirely around an adjunct financial aid scholarship aspect to the program, having nothing to do with the core program itself.
Precisely.


My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents.  My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit.  So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind.  Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted.  I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).

I still don't get what problem you see with this.

Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria for scholarships (i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far as admission to their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is based only on merit.

So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there.
Exactly. I don’t think he really grasps this distinction. (Nor why support for disadvantaged kids is a good thing.)

tooki

Perhaps it is because I am a minority.  I  keenly understand that whenever judgement is made using factors other than merit, it leaves room for it to be unfair.  What I like to see is: when only merit counts, than other factors by definition are excluded.

By the way, I wish you have lived in poor white neighborhood also.  You will find the same problems you found in Baltimore.  Drugs, single parent households, crime...  It did happen to poor black neighborhoods earlier than it did to poor white neighborhoods, so it is more ingrained.  I will grant you that.  But it hardly matters to those living in it now.  The hopelessness is the same.

ebastler

You probably missed my earlier replies.  I recommend CTY when I thought it was "pure merit based" to those seeking an alternative to the tons of other diluted-down similar academic club/society/etc.  So what kind of alternative would this be if it too is not "pure merit based."
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39025
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2020, 10:38:57 pm »

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
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.
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.
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.

Yep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it's equality of opportunity?.
Dave, with all due respect, when it comes to issues like this, you have a privileged, myopic view. You don’t know anywhere near enough about how systemic racism in USA plays out to be able to defend the strong positions you hold.

Your refusal to answer the question is duly noted.
It was rhetorical anyway, I know your answer. And I will not be baited. And you don't have a clue about my upbringing, and you are wrong that I don't understand. Don't bother replying, I'll ignore you, I know what you are like on this topic.

Back to the topic at hand, for another school. I used to recommend UTS here in Sydney, now I do not since they lowered their entry requirements to engineering for women.
Even women didn't want it:
https://www.change.org/p/university-of-technology-sydney-female-equality-for-entry-into-engineering
But I do not wish to start the women in engineering discussion again, just wanted to point that out.
Anyone else have schools that they used to recommend but now do not?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 01:27:52 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline maginnovision

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1966
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2020, 11:19:29 pm »
I used to recommend the school of hard knocks before it became a lifestyle.  :-//
 

Offline SerieZ

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Country: ch
  • Zap!
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2020, 07:09:17 am »
To me the believe that someones suffering is more deserving of attention based on their skin tone is appalling. It becomes even worse when you then start to gaslight people in attempt to weasel out of confrontation.
How many Sociology classes does it take to become an actual racist?

My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents.  My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit.  So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind.  Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted.  I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).

I still don't get what problem you see with this.

Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria for scholarships (i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far as admission to their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is based only on merit.

So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there.

You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination.
As Dave pointed out it makes it exponentially worse if Government funding is involved because then you do not even get the choice in funding or not such a discriminatory Organization.
As easy as paint by number.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2020, 08:59:19 am »
You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination.

I don't think I jumped over the point. I acknowledged that the scholarship conditions can be cause for debate, but argue that this does not affect the quality of the CTY programs in any way: You still get the same bright kids, selected on merit only. And hence there is no reason to assume that the quality of the program has been watered down, or that the interaction between the kids might be less stimulating.

The only reason not to recommend CTY's programs anymore seems to be: "I hate their guts, since they give money to the wrong people." Which is a political view you are free to hold, of course, but has nothing to do with the quality or goals of their programs.
 

Offline SerieZ

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Country: ch
  • Zap!
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2020, 09:05:14 am »
You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination.

I don't think I jumped over the point. I acknowledged that the scholarship conditions can be cause for debate, but argue that this does not affect the quality of the CTY programs in any way: You still get the same bright kids, selected on merit only. And hence there is no reason to assume that the quality of the program has been watered down, or that the interaction between the kids might be less stimulating.

The only reason not to recommend CTY's programs anymore seems to be: "I hate their guts, since they give money to the wrong people." Which is a political view you are free to hold, of course, but has nothing to do with the quality or goals of their programs.

I think the lack of Integrity an Organization displays is definitely a hint on the Quality of the Program they offer.
If they thought about it to discriminate in such a way in the selection of scholarship, where else do they discriminate? And if they did not think about it, where else do they lack effort?
That is as I think the whole point of his Objection to that Organization and as I see it a 100% Valid one.
As easy as paint by number.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2020, 09:13:54 am »
I think the lack of Integrity an Organization displays is definitely a hint on the Quality of the Program they offer.
If they thought about it to discriminate in such a way in the selection of scholarship, where else do they discriminate? And if they did not think about it, where else do they lack effort?
That is as I think the whole point of his Objection to that Organization and as I see it a 100% Valid one.

You are essentially paraphrasing "I hate their guts", right?  ::)
I hear your argument, although I don't share your point of view.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, newbrain

Offline SerieZ

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Country: ch
  • Zap!
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2020, 09:16:37 am »
I think the lack of Integrity an Organization displays is definitely a hint on the Quality of the Program they offer.
If they thought about it to discriminate in such a way in the selection of scholarship, where else do they discriminate? And if they did not think about it, where else do they lack effort?
That is as I think the whole point of his Objection to that Organization and as I see it a 100% Valid one.

You are essentially paraphrasing "I hate their guts", right?  ::)
I hear your argument, although I don't share your point of view.

I never applied to that program and it is the first time I heard of it.
Maybe instead of attacking people and claiming they hate someone you should go after the argument you clearly do not understand or do not want to understand.
As easy as paint by number.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13156
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2020, 03:23:38 pm »

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
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.
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.
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.

Yep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it's equality of opportunity?.
Dave, with all due respect, when it comes to issues like this, you have a privileged, myopic view. You don’t know anywhere near enough about how systemic racism in USA plays out to be able to defend the strong positions you hold.

Your refusal to answer the question is duly noted.
It was rhetorical anyway, I know your answer. And I will not be baited. And you don't have a clue about my upbringing, and you are wrong that I don't understand. Don't bother replying, I'll ignore you, I know what you are like on this topic.

If you’d bothered to actually read my reply, you’d know that I did answer your question. So you were clearly ignoring me already.

But yeah, your ongoing rigid position tells me that you definitely don’t understand.

And I wasn’t baiting. That you consider a well considered challenge to your position as “baiting” just proves that you neither understand the issue nor care to understand it. I challenged you to be open minded and humble, but you’ve just dug in your heels, reinforcing that you are just totally oblivious to the issues.
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg Robinson, ajb, newbrain

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13156
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2020, 03:33:52 pm »

tooki

Perhaps it is because I am a minority.  I  keenly understand that whenever judgement is made using factors other than merit, it leaves room for it to be unfair.  What I like to see is: when only merit counts, than other factors by definition are excluded.
It’s not “judgment” to have eligibility requirements for a scholarship. You still haven’t grasped that there’s a massive difference between the eligibility requirements for the program and the eligibility requirements for the scholarship.

tooki
By the way, I wish you have lived in poor white neighborhood also.  You will find the same problems you found in Baltimore.  Drugs, single parent households, crime...  It did happen to poor black neighborhoods earlier than it did to poor white neighborhoods, so it is more ingrained.  I will grant you that.  But it hardly matters to those living in it now.  The hopelessness is the same.
I didn’t live in any poor black neighborhoods in Baltimore, I never claimed such. But that you think I think the problems you enumerate are what the problems are just shows that we aren’t talking about the same things. Those are some outcomes of the systemic racism. But they’re not the only ones, and above all, the systemic racism hasn’t gone away, so to repeat what I explained to Dave, a black kid and white kid whose circumstances are identical other than race still won’t have the same opportunities in the end.

So to indulge your whataboutism, yes, poor whites also face lots of challenges, and we need to address those, too. But the question here is about a scholarship restricted to “historically underrepresented” groups, not about all poor people.
 
The following users thanked this post: ajb, newbrain

Offline Rick LawTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2020, 08:24:02 pm »

tooki

Perhaps it is because I am a minority.  I  keenly understand that whenever judgement is made using factors other than merit, it leaves room for it to be unfair.  What I like to see is: when only merit counts, than other factors by definition are excluded.
It’s not “judgment” to have eligibility requirements for a scholarship. You still haven’t grasped that there’s a massive difference between the eligibility requirements for the program and the eligibility requirements for the scholarship.

tooki
By the way, I wish you have lived in poor white neighborhood also.  You will find the same problems you found in Baltimore.  Drugs, single parent households, crime...  It did happen to poor black neighborhoods earlier than it did to poor white neighborhoods, so it is more ingrained.  I will grant you that.  But it hardly matters to those living in it now.  The hopelessness is the same.
I didn’t live in any poor black neighborhoods in Baltimore, I never claimed such. But that you think I think the problems you enumerate are what the problems are just shows that we aren’t talking about the same things. Those are some outcomes of the systemic racism. But they’re not the only ones, and above all, the systemic racism hasn’t gone away, so to repeat what I explained to Dave, a black kid and white kid whose circumstances are identical other than race still won’t have the same opportunities in the end.

So to indulge your whataboutism, yes, poor whites also face lots of challenges, and we need to address those, too. But the question here is about a scholarship restricted to “historically underrepresented” groups, not about all poor people.

Well, Mr. Tooki, I respectfully decline to argue with you any further.  Because I think our experiences in life is just too different to share enough mutual understanding at this time.

I think it is good that our views differ.  I strong support diversity of views, but I do not support substituting that for a mere diversity of appearance.  Diversity of appearance ipso facto is superficial.

While I'll keep my view of "When it is pure merit base, all other factors are by definition excluded" is hugely beneficial to minorities and to all.  I understand you have a different view.

I like that you have a different view.  If everyone have the same view, the lack of diversity would make it a very boring world.
 

Offline ajb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2785
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2020, 09:12:58 pm »
I think it is good that our views differ.  I strong support diversity of views, but I do not support substituting that for a mere diversity of appearance.  Diversity of appearance ipso facto is superficial.
Appearance IS superficial, and yet the US is thoroughly plagued by disparities based on skin color.  You cannot solve entrenched systemic racial (or ethnic, or gender) disparities by ignoring them.  Underrepresentation is a stable condition, so to ignore it is to perpetuate it. 

Quote
While I'll keep my view of "When it is pure merit base, all other factors are by definition excluded" is hugely beneficial to minorities and to all.  I understand you have a different view.
If you truly care about success being based on merit, then you need to eliminate all of the existing disparities that are NOT based on merit, but based on wealth, family circumstances, race, gender, etc.  These disparities are well supported by evidence, by the way, and are not a matter of opinion.  If you insist on a "meritocracy" that does not first correct existing, non-merit-based disparities, then you are simply perpetuating those disparities, because those disparities have an impact on the "merit" you're measuring, whatever it is. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg Robinson, tooki, newbrain

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13156
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2020, 10:35:09 pm »
I think it is good that our views differ.  I strong support diversity of views, but I do not support substituting that for a mere diversity of appearance.  Diversity of appearance ipso facto is superficial.
Appearance IS superficial, and yet the US is thoroughly plagued by disparities based on skin color.  You cannot solve entrenched systemic racial (or ethnic, or gender) disparities by ignoring them.  Underrepresentation is a stable condition, so to ignore it is to perpetuate it. 

Quote
While I'll keep my view of "When it is pure merit base, all other factors are by definition excluded" is hugely beneficial to minorities and to all.  I understand you have a different view.
If you truly care about success being based on merit, then you need to eliminate all of the existing disparities that are NOT based on merit, but based on wealth, family circumstances, race, gender, etc.  These disparities are well supported by evidence, by the way, and are not a matter of opinion.  If you insist on a "meritocracy" that does not first correct existing, non-merit-based disparities, then you are simply perpetuating those disparities, because those disparities have an impact on the "merit" you're measuring, whatever it is.
Thank you! I think you verbalized some of the things that I felt but hadn’t fleshed out.

The other thing I’d add is that, given that this discussion took somewhat of a turn when I posted the equality vs equity cartoon, is that if that cartoon actually attempted to depict racism in USA, it would show people digging out the earth beneath the black kid. (And to be clear, I don’t mean that in the past tense, which would simply be a hole under him. This active undermining is going on right now.)
 

Offline Rick LawTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2020, 04:29:25 am »
I think it is good that our views differ.  I strong support diversity of views, but I do not support substituting that for a mere diversity of appearance.  Diversity of appearance ipso facto is superficial.
Appearance IS superficial, and yet the US is thoroughly plagued by disparities based on skin color.  You cannot solve entrenched systemic racial (or ethnic, or gender) disparities by ignoring them.  Underrepresentation is a stable condition, so to ignore it is to perpetuate it. 

Quote
While I'll keep my view of "When it is pure merit base, all other factors are by definition excluded" is hugely beneficial to minorities and to all.  I understand you have a different view.
If you truly care about success being based on merit, then you need to eliminate all of the existing disparities that are NOT based on merit, but based on wealth, family circumstances, race, gender, etc.  These disparities are well supported by evidence, by the way, and are not a matter of opinion.  If you insist on a "meritocracy" that does not first correct existing, non-merit-based disparities, then you are simply perpetuating those disparities, because those disparities have an impact on the "merit" you're measuring, whatever it is.

When there is a problem, it is not always productive to hang on to it and orbit it as if it is the center of the universe.  That is the so call "a chip on the shoulder".  It is far more productive to ignore it's particular nature, overcome it, and get the job done anyway.  And you can be damn sure that entrench or not, minorities are as capable as any others in overcoming the problem.

As long as a particular group received additional help to succeed, that particular group is not achieving like other groups, instead, "that particular group achieved like others when helped".  We need to get to "that particular group achieving like others."

I believe it is not a healthy point of view to think that minorities requires additional help to achieve the same goals others can do without help.  In fact, it is a fine line (and I am not accusing anyone here of crossing it, but I do think that is what some of the Hollywood types are doing).   It may make the "help giver" crowd feel better that they are heroes and eager to help, but the end result is holding those minority back by reinforcing the falsehood that they are less able to overcome than others.

As to so called systemic racism holding people back, I will let someone more eloquent do the talking.  Morgan Freeman (a different Hollywood type) addresses the issue on a CNN interview.   This is video is under 3 minutes, topic of interest starts at timemark 01:00 to 02:10.


Since videos are long, in a nut shell, I will transcript (as best I can) what he said: "(@1:00)... [to say that because of racism] you can't pull yourself up, that is bull, just stick you mind to what you want to do and go do it... ...[that believe] is like a religion to me, it is just an excuse... ...[racism] it exists, yeah, it is not like it exist but we refuse to talk about it, that would be a problem; but making it a bigger problem than it needs to be is the problem here."

EDIT: No change, added bold to some text only
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 04:32:08 am by Rick Law »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39025
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2020, 05:33:13 am »
Once people start posting race related Youtube videos, I think it's time to lock the thread.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf