Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, June 19. 2018

"Curating" college applicants

Curating is the new pretentious term for picking and choosing things you like or want. I was recently at a restaurant which offered a "Curated selection of organic teas." 


Well, highly-selective colleges now "curate" their admissions. Of course, they always have done so. 80 years ago they wanted to be preppy, WASPy clubs.  Not now.


The top-rated comment on a column titled "Harvard can’t have it all" (about the lawsuit charging discrimination against Asian-American applicants).


I very much doubt that Harvard, for example, is biased against Asians. Selective schools are not purely meritocratic, if grades and SATs are the only measures of merit. They are not, of course. They do want a mix of interesting and talented people who they think can contribute to, and thrive in, their environment, and who will be future successful ornaments to their alma mater They make a bet that you will be special. Plus necessary legacies and donors. And quarterbacks. And bassoonists.


In my view, as long as past performance and IQ (eg SAT) meet some standard, let them "curate" their Freshman classes at will.  Elite schools could fill their classes many times over with kids with perfect grades and perfect SATs, but that would make no sense at all.

Posted by The Barrister in Education at 13:18 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

But Barrister, they get federal funding and have tax privileged status. You would support preferring caucasians in restaurants, apartment rentals and clubs? It wouldn't be avoiding asians or blacks, just curating caucasians !!!

Harvard blocked Jews, and got away with it. Now they are blocking Asians, because according to Harvard, Asians aren't as well liked, or "courageous".

Shut off all their federal funding, remove their preferred tax status, and let them consume their formerly tax-free endowment if they want to continue the charade that Harvard is bias-free and social justice warriors against discrimination, er "curation".
#1 jaybird on 2018-06-19 13:36 (Reply)
Except for blacks, I do not think they curate by race. Disparate impact is not racism. And grades are just one measure of merit.

In my (Ivy) college class, we had some guys with terrible high school grades who were geniuses and found distinction and fame in their various careers. Somebody saw something special in them.
#1.1 the B on 2018-06-19 13:58 (Reply)
They are clearly "curating" by race. "Curating" is a phony word for discrimination, just as "diversity" is a phony word for discrimination. "Curating" is to racial discrimination as "diversity" is to racial discrimination. Asians aren't any less "respected" or diverse or "courageous" or capable than Jews, or blacks or Episcopalians. Look at the discrimination-against-Asians data in the case. It is truly remarkable.

Let harvard and other "curators" discriminate if they lose their federal funds and tax exempt status.
#1.1.1 jaybird on 2018-06-19 16:11 (Reply)
Except for blacks, I do not think they curate by race.

By "curating" blacks for their race, they are not admitting students of other races, while inventing- curating- reasons why those not admitted should not be admitted.

In my (Ivy) college class, we had some guys with terrible high school grades who were geniuses and found distinction and fame in their various careers. Somebody saw something special in them.
I can think of a hometown guy my brother's age who fits that description. His grades were horrible, as he preferred devoting himself to his own knowledge quests. From an early age his independent quests for knowledge- quests which foreshadowed his future career- showed that he had utilized his intellect. He has had a distinguished career- many would recognize his name. Ivy League admit- definitely not for his grades. But with a career resume any university would be proud to claim as an example of one of their "outstanding graduates."

OTOH, an Ivy League level school admitted a high school classmate of mine who had mediocre grades but was a Merit Finalist. His career has been more idiosyncratic than successful.
Win some, lose some. So goes the Game of Life.

When a university admits only 10% of applicants- characteristic of elite schools these days- those not admitted shouldn't take the rejections seriously. Admission committees could probably have achieved similar results by throwing darts.
#1.1.2 Gringo on 2018-06-19 16:44 (Reply)
B,

If you read closely you can see how they are explicitly "curating" out Asians--it's not disparate impact.

The key difference in Asian applications is their scores on personality, things like "kindness" and "courageous." But note that there is no difference in mean personality scores between Asians and whites in alumni interviews done off-site--the mean difference only appears later when the applications are processed on campus.

In other words, by Harvard Admissions' own instrument, Asians are equal in personality, but Admissions office personnel lower their score post-interview. That's not disparate impact of an objective standard, that's straight-up racist discrimination.

See page 14 on this document.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/43-sffa-memo-for-summary-judgement/1a7a4880cb6a662b3b51/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
#2 Rubashov on 2018-06-19 17:57 (Reply)
>> But note that there is no difference in mean personality scores between Asians and whites in alumni interviews done off-site--the mean difference only appears later when the applications are processed on campus.

>> In other words, by Harvard Admissions' own instrument, Asians are equal in personality, but Admissions office personnel lower their score post-interview. That's not disparate impact of an objective standard, that's straight-up racist discrimination.

Anyone with wit can game a personality test: "What would John Smith say answering this question?" Not nearly as easily done in-person.
However, I wonder what the outcomes would be if the interviewer were of the same background & ethnicity?
#2.1 Riick on 2018-06-19 22:05 (Reply)
"Curating" is another word forever ruined by hipsters and academics.
#3 LS (Link) on 2018-06-19 21:11 (Reply)
Christian bakers need to start "curating" their customers.
#4 Richard Cohn on 2018-06-19 22:45 (Reply)
Wait! That's what Governor George Wallace was; a curator!
#5 OneGuy on 2018-06-19 22:46 (Reply)
This systemic discrimination has had the effect of driving high-performing Asian students into the UC schools, especially Berkeley and UCLA. Proposition 209 prohibited racial classification in admissions in the UC system.
#6 Jim on 2018-06-20 02:59 (Reply)
We're a nation of laws, and we should expect laws to apply equally to everyone. If the law bans discrimination based on race, then every corporation needs to comply equally-- including socially powerful ones, like Harvard. If McDonald's can't "curate" their workforce or clientele, then neither can Harvard "curate" theirs. Period.

I should add... "curating" means picking out and arranging what other people get to see, while hiding the bulk of it out of sight.
#7 Janet on 2018-06-20 09:00 (Reply)
The word "curate" of course means that schools enjoy a freedom of choice that other organizations don't have. That's illegal.

With that said, I can tell you that I live in San Francisco, and the number of Asian students at Berkeley is astonishing. The whole area around the school looks like Chinatown. In my view, American schools are for American students. All Ivy league universities should be at least 90% Anglo Saxon, and at least 70% male.

Before you complain, consider what will happen if present trends continue: White men will no longer occupy positions of authority. Those positions will be held by minorities who are, for the most part, dedicated to the ideals of communism. The welfare state will continue to expand until America becomes identical to the Soviet Union.

To stop this, we will need to do a complete reset. That means shutting down all universities for a period of three to five years; and de-communizing the campuses, the same way that we de-nazified Germany after World War Two.
#8 Ron Liebermann (Link) on 2018-06-20 09:32 (Reply)
In my opinion, Berkeley is HIGHLY improved over where it was when I was a graduate student there in the Seventies.

Kids are once again there to study and get degrees, not to demonstrate and burn things down. The whole campus has a much better feel to it than it used to. You still can't do much about all the opinionated progressive idiots (who all think they are geniuses) and burned out druggies that live in the surrounding city, but at least the campus is improving.

It's pleasant walking around the campus now, kids are well-behaved and you don't have the smell of dope lingering over everything. A lot are gung-ho about "Cal." My Dad would smile--he went there in the Forties after the war. It's always been a very pretty campus (much prettier than Stanford in my opinion), but now the caliber of the students is improving too. It would be nice to see the university go back to where it was before it was destroyed by the anarchy of the Sixties.

Oh, and most of these kids are Asian-Americans, primarily children of Asian immigrants. Although I don't mind the kids who are also going there directly from Asian countries, a lot of them are among the smartest kids in their countries and will be leaders there one day.

Remember that Berkeley has been the most "international" of the major U.S. universities, going back to the 1930s when "I-House" (International House) was established there by John D. Rockefeller. I think that international focus is an asset, not a liability.
#8.1 Jim on 2018-06-20 15:20 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.