Author Topic: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone  (Read 1886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« on: July 25, 2020, 05:33:59 am »
In years past, when we have discussions about education in this forum, I have said a lot of good things about JHU-CTY (Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth) on this forum years past.  I have recommended CTY to fellow forum members here with young kids.

I am disowning those statements I made on this forum then for present day.


CTY today is not the same organization of which I made those very complimentary remarks,.  Further more, it is no longer something I would recommend fellow forum members to look into for your kid.

When I made those recommendations, entrance requirement was high, but merit based.  Anyone with good enough SAT score can get in and you are surrounded with other successful students and can mutually inspire each other.  Present day, that is no longer the case.

By the way, I wonder what happens to CTY Internationally.  They use to have their international award ceremony in Hong Kong -- I recalled from their awardee list (around 2013-2015 time frame) Hong Kongers were the majority of the international CTY kids receiving their performance awards.  Now that they are easier score-wise (from what I can recall with scores), but are accepting only those "from traditionally underrepresented student group in higher education", that should pretty much take Hong Kong out of the running...

Another era gone by...
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3723
  • Country: de
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2020, 09:32:09 am »
Hmm, where did you find out about these changes? The JHU website seems to describe merit-based testing only, e.g. here: https://cty.jhu.edu/talent/testing/

Maybe there is a specific program for under-represented groups too, to complement the merit-based ones? I didn't see any during a quick check though.
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg Robinson, tooki

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2020, 07:55:15 pm »
Hmm, where did you find out about these changes? The JHU website seems to describe merit-based testing only, e.g. here: https://cty.jhu.edu/talent/testing/

Maybe there is a specific program for under-represented groups too, to complement the merit-based ones? I didn't see any during a quick check though.

The quote is from their site's "CTY Scholarship Application" page.   I have issues with most of the bullet points there, but the third one is the one I referenced in the OP.

Once an achievement oriented organization moved off pure merit base, I am no longer assured that their best is the best.  Rather, is it merely the best of a subset.  That really took away what was a meaningful thing to say "I am a CTY scholar."

I felt embarrassed after having recommend it to my barber.  With lock-down over, I had my very much needed hair cut.  I followed up and ask him if he did that for his daughter - only to get a very funny look back.  A very good reminder-lesson of "what was" does not always equal "what is".

Quote below, link to quote at the bottom.
----------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Requirements
Successful CTY Scholars candidates must:
•   Earn qualifying scores on the SAT, ACT or Advanced SCAT that qualify for CTY summer and online programs
•   Be in the 8th grade and attend a public or charter school
•   Be from a traditionally underrepresented student group in higher education
•   Have a combined family income of $75,000 or less
•   Meet current geographic area of available scholarship

----------------------------------------------------------

To preserve the context of the reply if they changed in the future, I am attaching a Chrome-Print PDF of the linked page.

Link here:
https://cty.jhu.edu/scholarships/cty_scholars/application.html
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #3 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg Robinson

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2020, 09:07:02 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.

I know that that was a scholarship requirement - but CTY was very achievement oriented.  Just look at the name of the organization - Center for Talented Youth, that screams achievement.

Even after you got in, signing up for courses is based on your score instead of first-come-first-serve.  I knew a young lady (classmate of my daughter) who qualified for CTY Discovery-level (on-line courses only), who took SAT 3 times at grade 7 just so she get the score to get her into the level to have in-person courses.

CTY always had cave-outs for a subgroup.  700 club was for those who got 700 in their SAT at 12 years of age.  That is fair, that is achievement.  They have another one above that still.  For an achievement oriented organization to focus on anything else but achievement took that away.  That "judgement based solely on achievement" is gone.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4256
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #5 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?
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg Robinson

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2020, 10:34:07 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.

I know that that was a scholarship requirement - but CTY was very achievement oriented.  Just look at the name of the organization - Center for Talented Youth, that screams achievement.

Even after you got in, signing up for courses is based on your score instead of first-come-first-serve.  I knew a young lady (classmate of my daughter) who qualified for CTY Discovery-level (on-line courses only), who took SAT 3 times at grade 7 just so she get the score to get her into the level to have in-person courses.

CTY always had cave-outs for a subgroup.  700 club was for those who got 700 in their SAT at 12 years of age.  That is fair, that is achievement.  They have another one above that still.  For an achievement oriented organization to focus on anything else but achievement took that away.  That "judgement based solely on achievement" is gone.
Dude, are you being deliberately dense? You are confusing the eligibility for a financial aid program with eligibility for the CTY program itself. They. Are. Separate. Things.

The additional requirements for the scholarship are simply to keep the scholarship money from going to advantaged kids who aren’t as reliant on such assistance.

You know that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of financial aid programs for university students out there which are specifically for specific minorities, all depending on who the benefactor wants to give money to. And that’s all independent of university admissions. This is the same kind of situation.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Someone, Greg Robinson, newbrain

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2020, 02:58:16 am »
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.

I know that that was a scholarship requirement - but CTY was very achievement oriented.  Just look at the name of the organization - Center for Talented Youth, that screams achievement.

Even after you got in, signing up for courses is based on your score instead of first-come-first-serve.  I knew a young lady (classmate of my daughter) who qualified for CTY Discovery-level (on-line courses only), who took SAT 3 times at grade 7 just so she get the score to get her into the level to have in-person courses.

CTY always had cave-outs for a subgroup.  700 club was for those who got 700 in their SAT at 12 years of age.  That is fair, that is achievement.  They have another one above that still.  For an achievement oriented organization to focus on anything else but achievement took that away.  That "judgement based solely on achievement" is gone.
Dude, are you being deliberately dense? You are confusing the eligibility for a financial aid program with eligibility for the CTY program itself. They. Are. Separate. Things.

The additional requirements for the scholarship are simply to keep the scholarship money from going to advantaged kids who aren’t as reliant on such assistance.

You know that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of financial aid programs for university students out there which are specifically for specific minorities, all depending on who the benefactor wants to give money to. And that’s all independent of university admissions. This is the same kind of situation.

I have perhaps failed to adequately express my sentiments, but confused I am not.  So, with my initial expression failing me, allow me to be direct in re-expressing myself:

Yeah, I do know that plenty of scholarships out there directed to minorities or other groups.  That is what makes this CTY Scholarship thing counter-product pasturing, and perhaps even insidious.

I doubt many old-CTY mid-level participants would have a scholarship shortage.  With the dropping standard, many universities feverishly recruit students of good academic standing to hold up the university own academic standing.  A kid whom at 7th grade already exceeded college bound senior's SAT would not be having a shortage of scholarship offers.

So this change was not a needed change.  It was needless pasturing.  With (in your words) "hundred if not thousands" already available, it is too plentiful to be necessary.

When I first found out about CTY, it was such a refreshing rarity that they were pure merit based - from what class you get into, to what courses you can access, pure merit based.  I enthusiastically recommend it to others.  Plenty of other "academic honors" with requirements like "working as volunteers to collect trash in your community," but not CTY, it was purely academic merit only.

May be they never were purely merit based!  Who knows, I could be wrong and just idealized them in my own mind.  Either way, my enthusiasm for them no longer exist for today.

In their needless pasturing, they diluted their own image.  They made being a "CTY Scholar" mean less.  So, rather than confused, it was disdain that inhibited me from capably expressive -- my disdain for an institution that once only merit matters in every decisions they made, now diluted itself.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2020, 11:11:06 am »
You haven’t even proved it’s a change at all. It could very well be that they’ve had the scholarship for years and years and you just didn’t know about it, since it’s not actually the same thing as the CTY program you used to like so much.

Nor is there any evidence that entrance requirements for the CTY program have been lowered.

I think you’re just inventing outrage in yourself based on not understanding it.

P.S. I think you mean “posturing”. Pasturing means putting animals (e.g. cows) out to graze.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2020, 04:42:19 am »
You haven’t even proved it’s a change at all. It could very well be that they’ve had the scholarship for years and years and you just didn’t know about it, since it’s not actually the same thing as the CTY program you used to like so much.
...
I think we are on different frequencies and not connecting.  One last try...

(1) The quoted recent page is a scholarship not purely based on merit, right?
(2) I have been saying: what I admired them for was their "pure merit based", right?

Now I can see that "purity" is not there.  May be it was a change, or not; it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't alter that the fact that they are not "pure" today.  So my admiration for them is gone -- today.

If it was indeed not a change or not a recent change, it merely means my admiration was misplaced or I was late in changing my mind.  Either way, my admiration for them is gone, finish, done.

With the last try done...  And now for something completely different!
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2020, 08:59:12 pm »
What you're saying makes sense in isolation, but your original post, with its references to Hong Kong and all, clearly indicated that you thought the scholarship's hardship requirements applied to all applicants to the CTY program in lieu of the actual CTY admission requirements, and conversely, that admission requirements to the CTY program included hardship. But that's not true.

The scholarship requirements apply only to a particular financial aid program, which not everyone needs.

It's the classic equality-vs-equity thing:
[attachimg=1]


Ideally, programs like CTY would not cost anything for anyone (neither in tuition nor ancillary costs like travel), and thus scholastic merit alone would decide which kids can attend. But it's not, and many smart kids from disadvantaged situations have impediments to being able to go, be it the cost of tuition, travel, or things like parents whose minimum-wage jobs don't give them the flexibility to take time off to take the kid to the program, not to mention more complex circumstances like parents with addiction, or even being an orphan or in foster care. I think it's unethical for us to not extend special help to those kids.

And to be clear, since I am unsure whether this point has gotten through: those kids still have to meet the CTY program requirements. It's not as though the disadvantaged background gives them priority over better-qualified-but-privileged kids!
 
The following users thanked this post: ajb, newbrain

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2964
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2020, 02:45:35 am »
What you're saying makes sense in isolation, but your original post, with its references to Hong Kong and all, clearly indicated that you thought the scholarship's hardship requirements applied to all applicants to the CTY program in lieu of the actual CTY admission requirements, and conversely, that admission requirements to the CTY program included hardship. But that's not true.
...
...

Yes, the entrance requirements and other requirements (such as honor, etc.) were heavy in my mind.  Once the "principle of merit only" wall is cracked, the rest will come tumbling down.  I am expecting other requirements will in-time be watered down as well.

Hong Kong just came to mind because it is in the news often these days, and they were dominating CTY-International for CTY Honor and High Honor awardees that one year I obtained their awardees list.

I was profoundly disappointed because it was their "pure merit based" that lead me to enthusiastically recommend them to fellow parents seeking alternatives to "academic honor" organizations that focus on everything else but academic merit.
 
I am not blind to what you are saying, yes, not everyone needs financial assistance and it is a good thing for them to have some if they are truly in need.  But "reasonable place" is usually the best place to put the crowbar because it seem so reasonable.  Once the wall is cracked...

EDIT: Corrected misspelling of "crowbar"
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 02:47:39 am by Rick Law »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2020, 03:23:29 am »
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.

Is any of that money from the government? That makes a big difference.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am »
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?

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?
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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 03:36:49 am by EEVblog »
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4256
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2020, 07:14:07 am »
Discriminating on race alone would be a bad factor, Dave.  An example scholarship should look at family income, whether members of the family previously had held a professional job or degree, and aptitude, though I would argue the bar for aptitude should be *fairly* reduced to account for the poorer position someone is in when applying to that scholarship (e.g., it'll take someone with A/B grades, instead of A+)  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.  We have a crisis in the UK amongst working class boys, almost none of them go into higher education and in 2-3 decades this will become a disaster as automation picks up.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 am »
Discriminating on race alone would be a bad factor, Dave.

Yes, but that seems to be implied here.
What else does "traditionally underrepresented student group" mean? We all know what it means to today's world - white males need not apply. Asian's too most likely.

Quote
An example scholarship should look at family income, whether members of the family previously had held a professional job or degree, and aptitude, though I would argue the bar for aptitude should be *fairly* reduced to account for the poorer position someone is in when applying to that scholarship (e.g., it'll take someone with A/B grades, instead of A+) 

I wouldn't disagree with that. Personally I'd put a lot of value on a interview to see how keen they are. Some people just don't care about what they are doing and are just there because they can get it for free.

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.
 

Offline SerieZ

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 205
  • Country: ch
  • Zap!
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2020, 08:43:24 am »
What you're saying makes sense in isolation, but your original post, with its references to Hong Kong and all, clearly indicated that you thought the scholarship's hardship requirements applied to all applicants to the CTY program in lieu of the actual CTY admission requirements, and conversely, that admission requirements to the CTY program included hardship. But that's not true.

The scholarship requirements apply only to a particular financial aid program, which not everyone needs.

It's the classic equality-vs-equity thing:
[attachimg=1]


Ideally, programs like CTY would not cost anything for anyone (neither in tuition nor ancillary costs like travel), and thus scholastic merit alone would decide which kids can attend. But it's not, and many smart kids from disadvantaged situations have impediments to being able to go, be it the cost of tuition, travel, or things like parents whose minimum-wage jobs don't give them the flexibility to take time off to take the kid to the program, not to mention more complex circumstances like parents with addiction, or even being an orphan or in foster care. I think it's unethical for us to not extend special help to those kids.

And to be clear, since I am unsure whether this point has gotten through: those kids still have to meet the CTY program requirements. It's not as though the disadvantaged background gives them priority over better-qualified-but-privileged kids!

I have seen that Picture quite a lot and I get why a lot of people post it, but when you think about it for longer than 1 minute you realize that equity in real life application always means you always will discriminate against certain people over another because it is impossible to factor in all the traits that could make a person considered disadvantaged (i.e who is more disadvantaged than another?), it is not just a fence and 3 people of different heigth, it is a gross oversimplification and it certainly makes it impossible to make things "fair" considering the amount of traits people have. In fact when you attempt to categorize People in that way often you end up more unfair than you started out.
That is why I believe equality is better as the only place where equity truly exists is in Death, and mass-attempts at categorizing people by privilege have always resulted in literally just that - mass graves.

Or in short: If your Organization is going to discriminate people by categories at least be honest about it and tell that to people in their face.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 08:51:44 am by SerieZ »
As easy as paint by number.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2020, 08:59:31 am »
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.

Is any of that money from the government? That makes a big difference.
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).

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?

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?
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. JHU itself, despite being literally one of the world’s most renowned medical schools, is actually situated right next to some of the very worst neighborhoods in Baltimore. I think it’s got to be unusual for a university of that caliber to be literally on the front lines of the urban decay directly caused by systemic racism, and I would assume that this informed a lot of JHU’s focus when studying socioeconomic issues and public health, since it’s not just some far-away abstract problem. Meanwhile, one of the JHU hospital campuses is right in the middle of what could diplomatically be called “low income white” neighborhoods. So that, too, is very close to home. Upshot being that if there’s a university that I would trust to take a fair, respectful approach to race and whatnot in admissions, financial aid, etc., it’d be Hopkins.

(Well, JHU and the university I went to, whose president has become nationally recognized for producing a far above average graduation rate for black students. Lots of universities have no trouble getting black students to enroll, but actually making sure they graduate can be more challenging, often due to issues at home. So this is a big deal. And that’s a university known primarily for hard sciences and engineering, rigorous academics, and for letting students get hands-on lab and research experience far beyond what’s typical. So definitely not by looking the other way and letting them slide by.)

*here in Switzerland, the same effect was observed towards ex-Yugoslav names. They did some kind of experiment where the same schoolwork was graded, sometimes under a Western European student name, sometimes with a Yugoslav sounding name, and the latter was graded appreciably lower on average. Similarly, they found that for any given level of academic success, kids with “-ic” names were more likely to be steered towards less-academic trades than equivalent performers with more Western European names. I find this interesting because the ex-Yugoslavs are just as white as Western Europeans (and whiter than Southern Europeans!), so skin color isn’t even the issue. Heck, if many people can discriminate even within their race, then many are definitely going to do it to people outside their race... :(

Discriminating on race alone would be a bad factor, Dave.

Yes, but that seems to be implied here.
What else does "traditionally underrepresented student group" mean? We all know what it means to today's world - white males need not apply. Asian's too most likely.
From reading the website, it sounds as though there are multiple financial aid solutions available (they say they don’t want money to be a barrier to participation for any qualified child). So if this one specific one doesn’t work, another one should.


Quote
An example scholarship should look at family income, whether members of the family previously had held a professional job or degree, and aptitude, though I would argue the bar for aptitude should be *fairly* reduced to account for the poorer position someone is in when applying to that scholarship (e.g., it'll take someone with A/B grades, instead of A+) 

I wouldn't disagree with that. Personally I'd put a lot of value on a interview to see how keen they are. Some people just don't care about what they are doing and are just there because they can get it for free.

Absolutely. Given how prestigious JHU is, i suspect that they have tons of qualified applicants far in excess of available slots, so they can be selective, and would incorporate an interview.


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.
 
The following users thanked this post: ajb

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5829
  • Country: ch
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2020, 09:26:34 am »

I have seen that Picture quite a lot and I get why a lot of people post it, but when you think about it for longer than 1 minute you realize that equity in real life application always means you always will discriminate against certain people over another because it is impossible to factor in all the traits that could make a person considered disadvantaged (i.e who is more disadvantaged than another?), it is not just a fence and 3 people of different heigth, it is a gross oversimplification and it certainly makes it impossible to make things "fair" considering the amount of traits people have. In fact when you attempt to categorize People in that way often you end up more unfair than you started out.
That is why I believe equality is better as the only place where equity truly exists is in Death, and mass-attempts at categorizing people by privilege have always resulted in literally just that - mass graves.

Or in short: If your Organization is going to discriminate people by categories at least be honest about it and tell that to people in their face.
Of course it’s a simplification. But it’s a good visualization of why we need to strive for equity. If you look at the picture I posted, which is an expanded version with an extra panel compared to the original, you’ll notice the right panel is one of actually removing the barriers, instead of the much more problematic compensation by providing individual assistance.

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. Rather than attempting to compensate for the disadvantages caused by systemic racism, you should actively eliminate the systemic racism itself. (For example, rather than attempting to compensate for racist discrimination in hiring by employing affirmative action, you’d try to design away the opportunities for discrimination in the hiring process. You might start by anonymizing applications so that you don’t allow the applicant’s name to bias you either way.) Kinda like how in electronics, you strive to design a circuit that doesn’t rely on tight component tolerance, rather than designing a circuit with trimpots everywhere and lots of expensive 0.1% parts.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, ajb, newbrain

Offline SerieZ

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 205
  • Country: ch
  • Zap!
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2020, 10:10:03 am »
Of course it’s a simplification. But it’s a good visualization of why we need to strive for equity. If you look at the picture I posted, which is an expanded version with an extra panel compared to the original, you’ll notice the right panel is one of actually removing the barriers, instead of the much more problematic compensation by providing individual assistance.

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. Rather than attempting to compensate for the disadvantages caused by systemic racism, you should actively eliminate the systemic racism itself. (For example, rather than attempting to compensate for racist discrimination in hiring by employing affirmative action, you’d try to design away the opportunities for discrimination in the hiring process. You might start by anonymizing applications so that you don’t allow the applicant’s name to bias you either way.) Kinda like how in electronics, you strive to design a circuit that doesn’t rely on tight component tolerance, rather than designing a circuit with trimpots everywhere and lots of expensive 0.1% parts.

No, it is a bad Visualization because it implies that you could resolve the infinite amount of traits people have that could result in disadvantage is as easily resolved as changing "a fence". That is not true, in fact is a terrible mistake to believe that and trying to fix it on that basis will result in more divide as is currently observable in the country you come from (or countries like Germany, Sweden etc.) where Intersectionalist have been pushing this BS over equality and diversity for decades now. Instead of a fence I think a more appropriate thing to picture is a whack-a-mole.

And this has been observable historically in Communist, Ethno-nationalist and Religious Fundamentalist countries in the past and currently as well.
They all strive for some bastardized form of equity based on categorization of people by trait. They all have ended in Catastrophe striving for Utopia.
(Class, Race, Faith - currently it is Privilege which weirdly attempts to mix all of them)

I also do not think you understand what systemic racism means - Apartheid would be such thing, openly discriminatory laws written based on certain traits. We do not have that in (most as far as I know) Western countries, no matter how you spin it. (Or give me some actual written laws to disprove that and we can talk in changing THOSE).
What people currently call systemic racism is all based on anecdotes and personal feeling, there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
Racism in itself, no doubt about that - that is a rather Human trait.

Regarding your Swiss example of Yugos, I have no doubt that such discrimination exists - I also have no doubt that if we look at raw numbers in crime, Behaviour etc. averages the Integration of many Yugos into Swiss culture "failed" thus being part of cause of the latter and viceversa.
Both statements say nothing about the Individual, should not be used to judge a person and are, for me, yet another reason why society overall (and you) needs to stop with the equity over equality thing and maybe stop fighting against windmills and tackle real solvable issues.

There is no way our lives can improve by going from that angle.

Edit: Id like to add to you other example of anonymized Curriculums: Some Jobs are Image based - like acting - and aren't credentials some form of discrimination anyways as some can get better access to it than others? Do we just put down Candidate XYZ on the paper.

Absurd. Sorry - also nothing new.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 10:19:23 am by SerieZ »
As easy as paint by number.
 

Offline sokoloff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1472
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2020, 10:33:18 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.
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.
 

Offline sokoloff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1472
  • Country: us
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2020, 10:47:13 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)
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.”
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.
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?
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2020, 10:56:50 am »
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.

Is any of that money from the government? That makes a big difference.
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).

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?

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?
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.

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?.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 11:06:52 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32339
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2020, 11:09:41 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)
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.”

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.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 11:11:49 am by EEVblog »
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4256
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2020, 11:13:33 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?

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".
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf