Tuesday Highlights

Good, well, day.

  1. Help or harm?
  2. The other third who are ag’in it are college administrators and Democratic politicians, and journalists. Recall yesterday’s equal protection quotes from Mr Jackson.
  3. Perhaps confusing anesthesia with the agents blocking the formation of long term memory.
  4. The carbon-is-bad crowd is surely very excited about developments like this. If they aren’t they are very confused (or hypocrites).
  5. The important funding for healthcare is of course, the perks for the big wigs. Some things never change.
  6. Given that the “Hebrew OT” used in many modern translations was collected in the 9th century AD and the Greek OT (Septuagint) was tranlated in the 3rd century BC by 70 (many?) rabbis … the calls of which was more “genuine” get somewhat confused.
  7. Politicians lie. Constantly.
  8. Yikes.
  9. A really strong argument against the wisdom of ACA/Obamacare. (see #5 above and perks).

 

13 Responses to Tuesday Highlights

  1. 9.A really strong argument against the wisdom of ACA/Obamacare. (see #5 above and perks).

    Strong in the sense of ‘emotional’ as opposed to the sense of being logical, coherent, factual.

  2. 2.The other third who are ag’in it are college administrators and Democratic politicians, and journalists. Recall yesterday’s equal protection quotes from Mr Jackson.

    What’s missing here I think are two problems:

    1. Merit != scores. Most Americans do believe if the point is a score, then the highest should win regardless. Hence you almost never see any advocates of any type of affirmative action in sports. The Jamacian bob sled team had a lot of affectionate support, but no one thought they should get a few seconds shed from their time because it’s not really easy to practice bob sledding in Jamacia. But this presumes a setting where scores are a proper measure of merit. Few things are so easily measured. Using sports again, many who would never support anything like affirmative action in the actual games do support something very much like it when it comes to coaches, team owners and managers. Why? Well for one thing these are positions where scores are not irrelevant but are known to only provide part of the story at best.

    So asking a question like “should the college admit those with the top SAT scores regardless of whatever the racial make up will be?” presumes SAT scores are the ‘fair’ way to admit people to college just as points are the fair way to decide which team won the game. But people don’t buy that, ask the same people “*should* college admit based only on SAT scores” and the same people will overwhelmingly say no…in fact this country has a mini-revolt happening against standardized testing and other supposedly purely ‘objective’ measures of education happening right now.

    2. Merit is split between the individual and cohort: You’re casting for a new soap opera called ‘Sisters and Brothers’ about 3 familes each with a son and daughter in their 20’s. You’ve found 3 good 20-something actresses, at the next casting call you get 1 really good aspiring actress and 3 average actors who show up. You give the part to the average actors, even though the actress had more ‘merit’ than they did. Yet the fact is the merit is not simply acting skill but how the person fit the part….and if the parts are 3 brothers then an average male actor will fit better than an above average actress in most cases.

    Consider a college as if it’s ‘casting’ its class next year. It’s purpose is not to give awards to the best kids. It’s purpose is to build its reputation around the world, expand it’s alumni network and legacies, and so on. And of course it has internal needs too. It’s selling an experience to its students along the lines of “come here and meet people, cultures and ideas you have never encountered”. You’ve just stumbled upon the argument for diversity.

  3. Boonton,
    No. It’s strong in that if doesn’t work for them, why not for the rest us. Oh, wait, that’s because they get more perks and the limitations are too annoying for the rich and powerful. Microsoft had a policy for a while of “eating your own dogfood”, i.e., forcing their own employees to use their own products (and dev tools) at work. Apparently this notion doesn’t apply to the beltway. Congress critters and the White House should be subject to the same regulations and rules they put on the rest of us, maybe if they did that more they’d stop putting such regulatory crap out at us.

  4. Boonton,

    Merit != scores

    OK. remind me where scores = race?

    Merit is split between the individual and cohort:

    And this argument has nothing to do with school. You aren’t casting parts for Chemistry classes. It matters not one but whether the Biology or Physics or Geology classes are all girls, all asian or rubber glass wearing pencil necked geeks, or whatever. Learning is not a casting call filing parts for a play. If you can’t write, do maths, or cut the mustard at the required academic levels for your major, then you don’t belong in college.

    So, do you have actual argument? or just irrelevant asides.

  5. I’m unclear what ‘product’ you think Congress is skipping out on. There seems to be some type of block in your mind that says the details of Obamacare don’t actually matter, it’s simply important to only oppose it.

    You aren’t casting parts for Chemistry classes.

    You’re admitted to college, not to a chemistry class. If that’s all it is then why not simply admit everyone? Did movie theatre’s refuse to sell tickets for Tree of Life to stupid people on the grounds that they wouldn’t get the thing?

  6. Boonton,

    If that’s all it is then why not simply admit everyone? Did movie theatre’s refuse to sell tickets for Tree of Life to stupid people on the grounds that they wouldn’t get the thing?

    Everyone can’t all go to “Tree of Life”. Movie theaters, as you know, only sell the tickets for seats they have for any given shows. Likewise colleges of the non-virtual sort have limited resources to handle students. But you knew that.

    Why not let anyone fly airplanes? Why license anything. Do you think your driving safety and efficiency would be lessened if everyone who wanted to drive at any age was given a car and put on the road? Do you think your ability to learn in a history class would be lessened if pre-schoolers were asking lots of questions all the time?

    Obamacare unequivocally stated that lawmakers and their staffs (and presumably the White House and staff as well) would be forced by law to purchase their medical insurance on the exchanges. This was to insure the exchanges would be not steaming piles of whatever. They decided that English isn’t English because they don’t want to do that. But then, Democrat’s have long been confused by hermenuetics, e.g., “depends on what the meainging of ‘is’ is”.

  7. Everyone can’t all go to “Tree of Life”. Movie theaters, as you know, only sell the tickets for seats they have for any given shows. Likewise colleges of the non-virtual sort have limited resources to handle students. But you knew that.

    And we are suffering from a shortage of chairs? Seems like pretty basic technology to me.

    Why not let anyone fly airplanes? Why license anything

    This is a response to what exactly?

    Obamacare unequivocally stated that lawmakers and their staffs (and presumably the White House and staff as well) would be forced by law to purchase their medical insurance on the exchanges. This was to insure the exchanges would be not steaming piles of whatever.

    Obamacare lets you use the exchanges to buy insurance if your employer doesn’t offer coverage. I’m unaware of any bill passed before or since that said lawmakers and staff would no longer get coverage as part of their standard pay and benefits.

  8. And I feel you’ve dodged the question. Consider the analogy of casting 3 men and 3 women. Sure you only got 6 spots so you can’t hire a 7th actor or actress. That’s besides the point. The ‘merit’ of any particular person for the part depends not just on their own inate traits and abilities but also everyone else. (And you happen to pick the out of the norm example here. Most college classes are not like chemistry or mathematics, where aptitude is unusually related to more objective measures like performance on past classes, test scores etc.)

    College’s are not ‘casting’ for a ‘chemistry class’ which is so advanced only a very limited selection of people could handle. Colleges are ‘casting’ for an entire class which benefits the individual students but also benefits the college as a whole. You haven’t really confronted the diversity argument at all.

  9. Boonton,

    Most college classes are not like chemistry or mathematics, where aptitude is unusually related to more objective measures like performance on past classes, test scores etc.)

    Yah, the rest of those classes largely depend on your writing skills, which alas, can be measured too.

    You haven’t really confronted the diversity argument at all.

    There is no there there. At college you get skills and credentials. To give people the appropriate skill set, and if you need remedial level to get yourself to the appropriate stage to start at the collegiate level, then you need to be in a Jr college or actually pay attention in High School. Diversity doesn’t matter in STEM, it won’t help you pass the bar. At best it is to college life akin to a woman’s perfume or incense and largely irrelevant.

  10. Boonton,

    And I feel you’ve dodged the question

    The salient point is that there are actual measurable aptitude/ability tests which students which are very often admitted on diversity grounds do not pass. Your point that “unlike” chemistry and maths and so on other courses do not have measurable grounds which a student should pass is wrong. Just as students with crap grades and horrible test scores get admitted if they can bench over 400 and run a low 4 40 and so on, students are admitted who who can barely read and write but get admitted anyway because of some benighted casting standard for the “parts” needing to be filled for their college-life-as-a-play.

    I haven’t confronted the diversity question because you haven’t made a cogent diversity is good argument. There is nothing to rebut.

  11. Yah, the rest of those classes largely depend on your writing skills, which alas, can be measured too.

    Here you veer very much towards subjectivity. Sure you can measure whether someone is able to write a coherent essay, but there’s plenty of people who can do that. When you’re ‘casting’ for a limited number of slots in, say, a elite law grad. school you’re not going to narrow your selection enough by simply excluding incoherent writers. When you start getting into whether, say, Robert Bork is a better legal writer than Lawrence Tribe, you’re veering far away from something that can be objectively measured.

    At college you get skills and credentials. To give people the appropriate skill set, and if you need remedial level…

    You seem to be saying affirmative action or diversity can only exist by neglecting remedial skill requirements. Strictly speaking an affirmative action program could be something is simple as just targetting advertising in communities with a concentration of minorities.

    You also seem to miss another point. You seem to think colleges exist simply for the students. Do you think the McDonald’s near you exists simply because you like hamburgers every now and then? Or perhaps the guy who owns that has other agendas than existing solely to fill Mark’s hamburger desires? Students do get stuff from colleges but colleges also get stuff from students. And students get stuff from other students as well.

  12. Boonton,

    Sure you can measure whether someone is able to write a coherent essay, but there’s plenty of people who can do that.

    And there are plenty who can’t getting Aff action passes on admissions.

    When you’re ‘casting’ for a limited number of slots in, say, a elite law grad. school you’re not going to narrow your selection enough by simply excluding incoherent writers

    We’re not talking about Harvaard law school. We’re mostly talking about state schools. You know that school that Mr Martin former conversations wouldn’t be qualified to attend.

    Strictly speaking an affirmative action program could be something is simple as just targetting advertising in communities with a concentration of minorities.

    Yah. Try that on as a suggestion to your liberal buddies.

  13. And there are plenty who can’t getting Aff action passes on admissions.

    And there are colleges who accept people who can’t write coherently. Plenty of 3rd tier and community colleges do so. Are you saying Harvard is accepting people who can’t write for the sake of affirmative action? If it is it could certainly keep affirmative action while requiring coherent writing ability….unless you beleive the number of blacks who write coherently in the entire world is not greater than a few thousand, the number at Harvard at any given time.

    We’re not talking about Harvaard law school. We’re mostly talking about state schools.

    Most of the Aff. cases under discussion hae to do with elite schools like Harvard Law or post-graduate schools where there’s actual competition to enter (like upper tier law schools). A lot of state schools can accomodate students who need remedial classes while still accepting everyone who doesn’t and wants to apply.

    You know that school that Mr Martin former conversations wouldn’t be qualified to attend.

    Martin was a Jr. in HS so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you saying he was attending an elite high school that he got into based on Affirmative Action? While his HS was a magnet school (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Michael_M._Krop_High_School), it doesn’t strike me as all that elite or difficult to get in.

    Yah. Try that on as a suggestion to your liberal buddies.

    Irrelevant, you’re attempting to make an argument against affirmative action. Such an argument would have to apply against all forms, not simply the most extreme you can imagine (letting someone into U Penn who can’t read or write simply because he is black or hispanic for example). If you want to argue instead you’re OK with aff. action, just not the type liberals want then you have to scrap your macro-arguments and address actual programs telling us which you approve and which you disapprove and how that line should be drawn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>