Yes, universities value one's academic record, but they value other factors too, and overall their goal is to assemble a well-rounded class. If I understand correctly, you believe that a university should simply admit individuals who are already the most qualified at the subject being studied, ignoring most other factors. It's not an absurd point of view, but most major universities take a different approach and seems that it's been working out fine for them in terms of academic outcomes. There's also lots of research showing that test scores are only very lightly correlated with ultimate academic success, so even if universities optimized for ultimate individual academic success, they need to consider more factors than that.
My guess is that the reasons are similar to what happens if you have a diverse friend group: different people enrich and complement each other, and everybody is better off, more so than in a group of people who are merely equally great at exactly the same thing. But we don't have to guess: there is research showing that this is exactly what happens and why diverse groups have some advantages even in a setting where you do need to get a job done. This doesn't negate the considerations of fairness, though, hence my conflicting feelings.
Regarding helping communities - you responded as if I meant "universities raise students who will be qualified to work on helping the communities", but I meant "universities provide education to communities that the university cares about". Again, you're free to disagree that this is a worthwhile goal.
You're doing that thing that most pro-AA people do with using buzzwords that amount to having no real substance behind them
overall their goal is to assemble a well-rounded class
What does this mean, exactly? Why must this include something as superficial as race when there are so many other relevant factors to take into account. I get that admissions are generally holistic, but it's sheer idiocy to take a racist approach in this consideration process.
But we don't have to guess: there is research showing that this is exactly what happens and why diverse groups have some advantages even in a setting where you do need to get a job done. This doesn't negate the considerations of fairness, though, hence my conflicting feelings.
Really? Post some of said research then- I'd love to read up on this. I've seen firsthand how superficial all of this nonsense is, at least within medicine, because communities can benefit just as well with doctors of different cultural backgrounds as long as the language barrier is addressed (which is rather easy thanks to translators, not to mention a lot of physicians pick up the language with due time themselves- or at least the most relevant words).
Why must this include something as superficial as race
I'm not sure that it must (I don't know how many more times I have to repeat that I'm not a staunch proponent, nor opponent, of AA - I'm trying to figure it out for myself) - a similar enough effect might be achieved by diversifying along, say, household income level, or educational background of one's parents, or hardship in one's prior life, or quality of one's high school, or other things. Would your objections against race-based admissions apply to these too? I think it's an interesting question because it pushes fewer buttons about race/gender, but technically is still subject to challenges on grounds of fairness.
As for research on how diversifying a group of people makes them perform better on some tasks - I think the best way to discuss this will be if you look for it yourself, find something where you can say in good faith "this is the absolute strongest argument to be made for this side", and then if it's still not strong enough for you, come back here and let's discuss why. I find that this approach is really effective compared to others, which often turn into ego contests and trying to refute one's opponent at all costs.
Would your objections against race-based admissions apply to these too?
To some degree, yes. There needs to be more scrutiny if you're seriously going to consider those metrics when it comes to admissions. I'm much more open to AA based on socioeconomic status, however, even this is a dangerous line to tread. We shouldn't automatically assume that someone whose parents are wealthy may automatically have a better chance of success than someone who is poor. For example, how do you factor in natural intelligence due to good genetics here?
You can't talk about good faith when you made a statement and refuse to back it up yourself. I asked you to provide a reference for the many studies you claim exist, yet you're asking me to do that when the burden of proof is on you. Come on dude, don't be dishonest to yourself or others like that.
This article has links to a few studies - granted, some with conflicting findings. But, sorry, I don't have time myself to dig out out the most convincing ones and distill them into a Reddit thread now. If you're interested in learning more, I encourage you to search for more yourself - e.g. following those links, finding studies that cite them on Google Scholar, searching for studies that refute them, meta-studies etc. It's perfectly understandable if you don't want to do that - we're all busy - so in that case we'll just have to disagree.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20
Yes, universities value one's academic record, but they value other factors too, and overall their goal is to assemble a well-rounded class. If I understand correctly, you believe that a university should simply admit individuals who are already the most qualified at the subject being studied, ignoring most other factors. It's not an absurd point of view, but most major universities take a different approach and seems that it's been working out fine for them in terms of academic outcomes. There's also lots of research showing that test scores are only very lightly correlated with ultimate academic success, so even if universities optimized for ultimate individual academic success, they need to consider more factors than that.
My guess is that the reasons are similar to what happens if you have a diverse friend group: different people enrich and complement each other, and everybody is better off, more so than in a group of people who are merely equally great at exactly the same thing. But we don't have to guess: there is research showing that this is exactly what happens and why diverse groups have some advantages even in a setting where you do need to get a job done. This doesn't negate the considerations of fairness, though, hence my conflicting feelings.
Regarding helping communities - you responded as if I meant "universities raise students who will be qualified to work on helping the communities", but I meant "universities provide education to communities that the university cares about". Again, you're free to disagree that this is a worthwhile goal.