|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, if Schumer and Pelosi don't resign from leadership after the 2022 elections, and if the caucus isn't demanding it, I don't even know what the gently caress. I don't know about Schumer but Pelosi at least has an iron grip on the House(even the "progressives" can't stop fawning over her most of the time even though she treats them with open hostility), she's only leaving leadership when she wants to or dies of old age. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 17, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Harvard will no longer require SAT or ACT scores with applications for this year and the next four years (at least). They will just require a GPA, list of extracurricular activities, and personal essay. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1471684136452694018 I'm kind of mixed on this. On the one hand, there are definitely smart people who are just bad at the SATs and the SATs have issues. On the other hand, GPA at a high school has no standards and can mean anything. Someone with a 3.8 GPA at a school with low standards or a school that just gives everyone "Gentleman's Bs" as the equivalent of an F can have a very different experience than someone who takes harder classes at a school with higher standards. Some schools also only do Pass/Fail grades and some schools have different required classes than others, so it is going to be hard to account for all of those differences. Just using GPA, extracurriculars, and an essay seems like it opens up the selection committee to be way more influenced by personal biases and preferences. If Brayden's teachers all gave him As because he went to a private school that brags about how high their average GPA is and never gives anything below a B, but he gets a 700 on the SAT; then it is a lot easier to justify picking him over a talented kid from a less well off school who worked harder and has better SAT scores. Studies have also shown that this hurts Asian applicants and there have been quite a few small changes to admissions rules over the last 20 years that have disadvantaged Asian applicants (even though they weren't targeting them directly) that it does feel bad to be implementing another one. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:We should absolutely trust the goodwill of a former INS prosecutor. I mean, you aren't wrong, but it's not like she's gonna be itching to throw out the part of the bill with triple digit percentage increases in the fees they collect. The big systemic change was in the provision she already torched. Employers being able to drop five grand to let their applicant skip a line really isn't going to appeal to the same biases that someone like that might have against a person who has been here undocumented for ten years. These changes pertain to people who Follow The Rules. I have no idea what will happen, but even from a pretty cynical perspective there's reason to think we might see a different result for the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Harvard will no longer require SAT or ACT scores with applications for this year and the next four years (at least). A third of Harvard's admissions are legacies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:A third of Harvard's admissions are legacies. Yeah, that is why I am a little concerned about giving the Harvard admissions board more subjective discretion in who they select. Also, the issue is not just Harvard specifically. It's other schools. The article says that about half of schools have started doing it because of Covid, but they might start adopting it long-term. It feels kind of like having to choose a "bad or worse" situation between using something standardized (with all of its problems) like the SATs or allowing an admissions board (which is going to be a lot whiter, better educated, and wealthier than the general population - with all of the problems that come with that) a lot more discretion and subjectiveness in what they consider a "good fit" for the school. Especially since college education is the #1 single biggest factor in economic mobility in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Harvard is a hedge fund that functions as a club for rich white kids. There's a few actual Really Smart People who get in on their merits and also sometimes a poor person wins the lottery. I don't give a poo poo about their admissions because all the people in power who went there almost certainly didn't get in on merit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Do you mean to tell me that Ron Desantis might not be a genius
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Harvard will no longer require SAT or ACT scores with applications for this year and the next four years (at least). These institutions are inherently undemocratic and unequal. Trying to make them equitable is just window dressing. They have no place in a democratic society
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Harvard will no longer require SAT or ACT scores with applications for this year and the next four years (at least). There is mountains of evidence suggesting the ACT/SAT are more reliably indicators of class status and resources than college readiness/intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Harvard is a hedge fund that functions as a club for rich white kids. Harvard itself is less important than the other 40% of schools. Maybe admissions boards will do a better job on average with more discretion. The SATs have their problems too, so maybe the human bias element will turnout better results. Neither seem like great options, but I don't think there is a way to determine what the best method is. College is the single biggest definer of income and economic mobility in the U.S. (someone with a college degree, even a "useless" one still makes ~$1.2 million more over their entire lifetime than someone without one). So, it seems like something that will have a big impact on a lot of people. https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1471916057292124161 One of the Jan 6th trials just finished. - Guy got 5 Years and 3 Months, the longest sentence so far. - He threw two fire extinguishers and a large plank at police and tried to stab someone else by using a flagpole as a makeshift spear. - He owned a chain of carpet cleaning franchises and was worth several million dollars. - He's 54 years old and from Largo, Florida (just outside of Tampa Bay) Zophar posted:There is mountains of evidence suggesting the ACT/SAT are more reliably indicators of class status and resources than college readiness/intelligence. This is absolutely true. We don't really have any data on what impact admissions boards getting more subjective decisions has on a wide scale. The SATs have their problems and are well-documented, so maybe admissions boards will actually turn out better results. Neither seem like great options, but we don't have any data one way or the other. I'm always a little nervous about relying on subjective human determinations of what a "good fit" will be, though. Especially when that group is demographically homogenous. A group that is older, whiter, richer, and better educated is also going to have biases. Some of them might be "good" biases, some of them "bad" biases, but it is likely to be different than using a test. The question is how different and in what ways. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
The problem with college admissions is that the university has only very basic knowledge of the applicant, and then has to try to predict academic success from this very low signal. Any system that they set up to do this is doomed to failure (because there's just not enough info) and prone to bias (because admissions is likely to pick a system which gives results that reinforce their ideas of who "should" go to college). I honestly think that universities would be better off setting a base bar of achievement that corresponds to "this person would probably be fine here" and then literally randomly decide who to accept from that pool of applicants. They could coordinate with each other to ensure everyone gets in somewhere, and maybe weigh the selection towards people's preferences, so applicants are more likely to get into their preferred colleges. Random selection probably works just as well as whatever tea leaves admissions is currently trying to read from the applications, and is free from bias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1471827518285967362 partisan source aside, this is just an outright farce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1471827518285967362 That's the same thing from back in August. It's a "pre-decisional/deliberative" memo, which means it was basically a lower level analyst and attorney laying out the arguments in favor and against to provide to a decision maker. The DOJ and DOE wouldn't have made a final decision at that point. It is basically step 2 out of 4 in the process and was redacted because it was an "internal deliberation" outside the scope of the FOIA request. But, given that they had a deliberative memo finished in April, it is almost certainly finished by now. Even in the very slow world of the public sector, I've never heard of anything taking more than 8 months from pre-decisional analysis to finished assessment. People should be asking Cardona and Garland to at least confirm whether each of their departments have finished their end and for Biden to authorize DOJ and DOE to release it. https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1471924566205345795 It turns out that Facebook/Instagram's algorithm isn't the only one that directs people to Nazis and eating disorders. Tiktok is at least smarter than Facebook in that they haven't commissioned internal studies and put together a bunch of internal documents creating a record of their discussions on how they can cover it up and silence people. Some of the charts in the WSJ article are bonkers. This should let you see them if the Twitter link is paywalled: https://archive.md/OJOMh quote:TikTok is flooding teen users with videos of rapid-weight-loss competitions and ways to purge food that health professionals say contribute to a wave of eating-disorder cases spreading across the country. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
AOC would rather a vote on BBB and make Manchin vote it down. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1471928978961219587
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:The problem with college admissions is that the university has only very basic knowledge of the applicant, and then has to try to predict academic success from this very low signal. Any system that they set up to do this is doomed to failure (because there's just not enough info) and prone to bias (because admissions is likely to pick a system which gives results that reinforce their ideas of who "should" go to college). A caveat -- harvard isn't selected based on your likelihood of doing well in college, highschool GPA is a good predictor of that. It's on your likelihood to be "future leader in your field"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:A caveat -- harvard isn't selected based on your likelihood of doing well in college, highschool GPA is a good predictor of that. It's on your likelihood to be "future leader in your field" Legitimate Question: Is high school GPA a strong predictor of anything? A high GPA in high school can mean so many different things, and even two different high schools in the same county can have very different standards for a 3.2 GPA. I haven't seen any research about high school GPA, but I haven't really looked for it and I'm not an expert in education policy stats. In my high school, the students with the top 5 GPA: - Went to Harvard, got into coke and comedy writing at the Lampoon, and took 5.5 years to graduate. - Went to a local community college, dropped out, and started their own power-washing business. - Went to Georgetown and Stanford. - Went to a state school, got hooked on heroin in the first 6 months, dropped out, moved into a trailer, did menial labor for at least 15 years, and probably still is doing menial labor and on heroin. - Didn't get into the three colleges they applied to and ended up getting hired to manage a Red Roof Inn franchise. No idea what happened after. Which, doesn't seem super predictive. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:AOC would rather a vote on BBB and make Manchin vote it down. Manchin needs to put up or shut up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Harvard will no longer require SAT or ACT scores with applications for this year and the next four years (at least). University of California's system went even further a couple months ago & banned the use of test scores as entrance criteria. The usual complaints among the privileged are that using top-grade criteria among students in schools with lower-income populations dilutes their standing, not that grade inflation happens more in private schools. Testing is an equity issue because of the coaching/tutoring/classes afforded to students who come from wealthy families, even leaving aside the actual material in the tests. You get an A+ for your framing, though, especially that bit about Asian students! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:AOC would rather a vote on BBB and make Manchin vote it down. Force...The...Vote? But I thought force the vote was a childish waste of time???
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:University of California's system went even further a couple months ago & banned the use of test scores as entrance criteria. I agree with you and said all of that. I just don't know if giving subjective opinions on who would be a "good fit" or "should be going to college" from predominantly older, whiter, better educated, and wealthier admissions boards members is going to produce better results. There isn't any data because it isn't a widespread practice and that is why it is interesting to talk about. Not sure what you mean by the framing or Asian students? That is literally from the article. Did you read it? quote:Harvard’s use of test scores has also been part of a lawsuit accusing it of discriminating against Asian American applicants by holding them to a higher standard than other prospective students. The lawsuit said that as a group, Asian American applicants scored higher than others on measures like standardized tests but were penalized by a subjective “personal” rating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:AOC would rather a vote on BBB and make Manchin vote it down. Yeah, gently caress it, she's right it's time to either put up or shut up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Legitimate Question: Is high school GPA a strong predictor of anything? A high GPA in high school can mean so many different things, and even two different high schools in the same county can have very different standards for a 3.2 GPA. I haven't seen any research about high school GPA, but I haven't really looked for it and I'm not an expert in education policy stats. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success It's more predictive than tests yes. As I said though, ivies dont care about, they want to know if you will be part of the elite
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Manchin will absolutely walk the walk and vote no. Biden and Pelosi only forced a vote on infrastructure when they knew the CPC was on board and it would pass. I don't expect Schumer to operate any differently. And I certainly don't think a day of "Manchin thwarts Biden Agenda" headlines is going to scare Manchin - in fact, I think he would love the gently caress out of it, considering his constituency. So vote, don't vote, whatever, who cares. BBB is dead, and was never actually alive in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:So vote, don't vote, whatever, who cares. BBB is dead, and was never actually alive in the first place. Don't focus just on the bad news. You also have to keep in mind the fact that they've done good things, like cut child poverty in half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success That basically seems to say what I assumed, though. That going to certain high schools made you more likely to be a better student (because of more rigorous academic standards, a school self-selecting for high-income students with parents and resources to help them get good grades, better schooling, etc.) and that GPA itself wasn't the sole factor. quote:In addition, Allensworth and Clark found that some students are more likely to graduate college if they come from certain high schools—differences that were not explained by GPAs or ACT scores. These school effects may be the result of more rigorous academic programs at some high schools than others, different non-academic supports for preparing students for college, or simply a tendency of families with more resources for college to send their students to particular high schools. They do say that GPA in general is more predictive of being successful in college than ACT score, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:42
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1471827518285967362 a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. b) it's a work product memo that's part of a broader release, of which signficant parts are not redacted, linked in the above. Think about why you are being targeted with misleading representations of information. Think about why you're redistributing them here.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
kinda tempted to go back and find the original posts when they split the two bills and quote the people who were saying 'now they have zero reason to ever pass this'
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I agree with you and said all of that. No, I didn't read the article, bc once again you provided a link to a paywalled piece, & I can't be arsed to run it thru archive.org (and .com. doesn't work with my browser). And I meant your entire framing of the story, from "the objection to grade inflation is because of private schools!" to "Asians hurting Asians, wow!" while failing to note that test coaching/tutoring is the main objection on equity grounds, or that grade dilution among lower-income students is the main objection to using GPA. If that's how the NYT framed it, then I'll throw them an A+ too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No, I didn't read the article, bc once again you provided a link to a paywalled piece, & I can't be arsed to run it thru archive.org (and .com. doesn't work with my browser). It seems like if you are discussing the article, then you should read it first, no? That way you can avoid making incorrect assumptions and posting smiles that look kind of silly in context. Discendo Vox posted:a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. Those are both true, but it's been 8 months since the initial pre-decisional memo was submitted. They are almost certainly done by now and the general sentiment of being angry that they are holding on to it - or at least not updating the public on the status of the assessment - is totally valid. The memo is going to come out, the memo is in regards to potential executive action, so the ability to act isn't going to change if Republicans control congress. There isn't really a reason to slow walk the memo. Biden is the one who came up with the order to DOE and DOJ to assess his legal options, so it wasn't like anyone forced him to. He could have just never done it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You also have to keep in mind the fact that they've done good things, like cut child poverty in half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
I thought the child poverty halved claim was from a study that paired it with a federal minimum wage increase, and maybe a few other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It seems like if you are discussing the article, then you should read it first, no? That way you can avoid making incorrect assumptions and posting smiles that look kind of silly in context. I was discussing your framing of the paywalled story. If you want to point to the story as backing up your framing, as you did only once you were called out for your framing, you should provide a non-paywalled link, or at least quotes from the story, instead of trying to offload your opinions as those from the story, inside of from inside your head, no? That way you can avoid making lame attempts at backtracking & looking kind of silly. eta: 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:I thought the child poverty halved claim was from a study that paired it with a federal minimum wage increase, and maybe a few other things. It was. But, because the minimum wage was phased in and only ~2% of people make the actual minimum wage, it didn't change the projections much. They did overestimate the impact, though. After 3 months, child poverty was down 42% instead of 51%. That's why all the official talking points switched from "cut child poverty I'm half" to "cut child poverty nearly in half."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No, I didn't read the article, bc once again you provided a link to a paywalled piece, & I can't be arsed to run it thru archive.org (and .com. doesn't work with my browser). Just press the "stop loading" button before the site has finished loading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:kinda tempted to go back and find the original posts when they split the two bills and quote the people who were saying 'now they have zero reason to ever pass this' Why? Are they actually passing it yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Just press the "stop loading" button before the site has finished loading. It didn't work, but thanks. (I don't think it's too much to ask for people posting paywalled poo poo to either provide non-paywalled versions or quotes supporting their spin or hot takes, rather than making everyone reading the post try to find workarounds.) vvv Once more for the peanut gallery now weighing in: I was talking about Leon's framing of the story, not the actual story itself. He could've quoted from the story rather than issuing his own spin on the story if that's what it was saying. It's well-known that the NYT has been paywalled for years now, and you're being disingenuous in framing it as moonspeak to ask for a nonpaywalled version or its text. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I was discussing your framing of the paywalled story. Or you could just ask for a non-paywall link or the story to be pasted ITT? No one can read your mind about what sites you can/cannot see and you didn't state anything about not reading the story when you decided to make a reply to a comment about the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No, I didn't read the article, bc once again you provided a link to a paywalled piece, & I can't be arsed to run it thru archive.org You don't have time to paste the link but you have time to fire off 3 posts in 30 minutes about what you assume is in the article that you would have seen was wrong by reading the second paragraph? I think reading the article isn't too high of a bar to clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. the why is that he doesn't support it, never has and never will. sometimes things get repeated for emphasis!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. Ah ok, it looks like that when taken in the appropriate context, that tweet is fake news from a lying media outlet. Like you said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 23:11
|
|