Random Education News

[MJW]

Trade work is severely underrated. I started in healthcare automation in 2012 with zero experience. I’ve increased my salary by 18k since then ( and I get overtime!).

Hard work pays.

Amen. So does identifying a skill or trade that people. actually. need.

I've been trying to drill this into my kids. You see how many times we've needed a mechanic? An electrician? An HVAC guy? How about a nurse? So on and so forth. How often have we needed anyone with a liberal arts degree?

I hope and pray my kids learn trades. They can become "well rounded people" the other 100 hours of the week.

And I say this as someone with a liberal arts degree that I've never used but will be paying for until the year my son graduates High School.

[Buc2]

Trade work is severely underrated. I started in healthcare automation in 2012 with zero experience. I’ve increased my salary by 18k since then ( and I get overtime!).

Hard work pays.

Amen. So does identifying a skill or trade that people. actually. need.

I've been trying to drill this into my kids. You see how many times we've needed a mechanic? An electrician? An HVAC guy? How about a nurse? So on and so forth. How often have we needed anyone with a liberal arts degree?

I hope and pray my kids learn trades. They can become "well rounded people" the other 100 hours of the week.

And I say this as someone with a liberal arts degree that I've never used but will be paying for until the year my son graduates High School.

No wonder you drink.

[Zarniwoop]

I have read an incredible amount of stupid **** in academic journals. Personally I think about 90% of what is published in them is absolute rubbish....higher in some fields, much lower in others. But I can honestly say this study takes the cake. It was recently published in a peer reviewed academic journal -- Gender, Place and Culture.


Title: Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon

Abstract: This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality. Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender? It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces.




The journal isn't free so I don't want to paste the article, but this is in the introduction:

Because of my own situatedness as a human, rather than as a dog, I recognize my limitations in being able to determine when an incidence of dog humping qualifies as rape, ....In particular, from my own anthropocentric frame, it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain when canine sexual advances are un/wanted, or when they are rapes rather than performances of canine dominance, which introduces considerable unavoidable ambiguity in my interpretations of this variable.

While this research primarily involves applying theoretical considerations from feminist and queer theory, and draws inspiration from applications of Black criminology, to non-human animal observations collected over the course of a year in urban dog parks, the inherent relationship between human, dog, and dog parks brings the question into the realm of human (specifically feminist) geography.

Metaphorically, however, we are now better positioned to answer the question, "What specific and thematic lessons can be learned from dog parks that have the potential to further equity, diversity, inclusion, and peaceful coexistence and improve human-animal spaces?" The answer is that the lessons from this study can be taken as heuristics that contribute to different ways of conceptualizing and interrupting masculinist hegemonies

[Rocker]

The abstract itself is cringeworthy, at best. Yikes.

[The Outsider]

The abstract itself is cringeworthy, at best. Yikes.

All I needed to see was the title. That's such a ****ing ridiculous premise for any kind of study.

[Zarniwoop]

You guys better check your situatedness

[Buc2]

smdh

[Rocker]

I’m not woke enough for that; I suppose.

[bucfanclw]

I'd probably publish something like this too, but then again, I wrote the disaster recovery plan at my company for the event of zombie outbreak (Necrotic Homonid) to be snarky and that is still buried in the books with HR and legal since they never bothered to read it.

[Zarniwoop]

With the upcoming lawsuits by minority groups that are being discriminated against in college admissions, the Justice Department plans to roll back a pair of Obama-era affirmative action decrees that pushed colleges to consider race as a factor in admissions.

The new guidance, which discourages race-based admissions, will essentially reconstitute the approach the federal government took under George W. Bush. The Bush administration had sternly reminded schools that they could consider race in admissions only if they had absolutely no other method of achieving diverse classrooms. This was consistent with Supreme Court precedent that has permitted affirmative action but narrowly limited its use.

But Barack Obama's administration, in 2011 and 2016, issued recommendations that encouraged schools to think of diversity as a compelling state interest and to embrace race-based admissions as a tool to achieve it.



If you subscribe to the WSJ here is an article on it

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-admi ... 1530619273

[Mountaineer Buc]

SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that race CAN be a consideration in school admissions but that gets interpreted by some conservatives that it MUST be. So here we are with Mr. Cheeto.

The court literally decentralized the issue leaving it up to the individual schools, but that apparently isn't good enough because some brown kids couldn't possibly be smarter some white kids.

Leave it to the schools is a reasonable position. Keep it that way.

[Zarniwoop]

It’s not the white kids filing lawsuits these days, it’s other minority groups


And in no way does the decree say race still can’t be used. It merely discusses the emphasis schools can place on it

[Mountaineer Buc]

It’s not the white kids filing lawsuits these days, it’s other minority groups


And in no way does the decree say race still can’t be used. It merely discusses the emphasis schools can place on it

In a top down way.

If schools are making every reasonable effort to have both the best available students and as diverse a student body as possible, it doesn't matter who sues.

[Zarniwoop]

I see the Harvard case making it to the SCOTUS

I personally hope it does. Everything I have read seems to suggest they are essentially applying a quota system which is strictly forbidden

It’s a shame they are discriminating against minority groups like they are

[Ken Carson]

SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that race CAN be a consideration in school admissions but that gets interpreted by some conservatives that it MUST be. So here we are with Mr. Cheeto.

The court literally decentralized the issue leaving it up to the individual schools, but that apparently isn't good enough because some brown kids couldn't possibly be smarter some white kids.

Leave it to the schools is a reasonable position. Keep it that way.

The problem was that race was being used exclusively, at least that is what the lawsuit alleges. Using race instead of all factors equally sees an Asian kid from South Central LA raised by a single mother below the poverty line as more privileged than the Obama kids.

Honestly, after reading the story, I don’t see anything particularly controversial. I’m totally fine with race being a factor when all else is relatively equal, in pursuit of diversity. I’m less OK with a 200 point SAT gap difference in admission requirements based on race.

[MJW]

Asian students create a lot of problems for the affirmative action movement in general. If SOME minorities can excel without consideration for race..ruh roh.

[Mountaineer Buc]

SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that race CAN be a consideration in school admissions but that gets interpreted by some conservatives that it MUST be. So here we are with Mr. Cheeto.

The court literally decentralized the issue leaving it up to the individual schools, but that apparently isn't good enough because some brown kids couldn't possibly be smarter some white kids.

Leave it to the schools is a reasonable position. Keep it that way.

The problem was that race was being used exclusively, at least that is what the lawsuit alleges. Using race instead of all factors equally sees an Asian kid from South Central LA raised by a single mother below the poverty line as more privileged than the Obama kids.

Honestly, after reading the story, I don’t see anything particularly controversial. I’m totally fine with race being a factor when all else is relatively equal, in pursuit of diversity. I’m less OK with a 200 point SAT gap difference in admission requirements based on race.

I don't think anyone is okay with a lesser qualified student getting selected solely on the basis of race. But there's nothing I've seen outside of athletic scholarships that suggests that is the case.

[Zarniwoop]

There is ZERO question lesser qualified students are being accepted .... otherwise there would be absolutely no need for affirmative action. As Ken said, in the Harvard case Asian students need SAT scores 200 points higher than other groups to have the same chance of getting in


Now you can claim the groups AA helps are still qualified but in no world can you claim they aren’t lesser qualified.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Zarni, as the sole guy in higher ed here maybe you should explain to us what goes on at the admissions office.

My understanding is that most of the students who meet the qualifications that don't get in are the ones who are trying to cram into the more popular programs and that is where they have to make these decisions.

10,000 kids apply for 5,000 seats in the school of business so half get rejected for one reason or another but 300 students apply for 500 seats at the school of fine arts so they all get in.

[Mountaineer Buc]

There is ZERO question lesser qualified students are being accepted .... otherwise there would be absolutely no need for affirmative action. As Ken said, in the Harvard case Asian students need SAT scores 200 points higher than other groups to have the same chance of getting in


Now you can claim the groups AA helps are still qualified but in no world can you claim they aren’t lesser qualified.

You're right. I just got out of bed so bear with me. I'll make the point I was trying to make in a minute.

[Mountaineer Buc]

SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that race CAN be a consideration in school admissions but that gets interpreted by some conservatives that it MUST be. So here we are with Mr. Cheeto.

The court literally decentralized the issue leaving it up to the individual schools, but that apparently isn't good enough because some brown kids couldn't possibly be smarter some white kids.

Leave it to the schools is a reasonable position. Keep it that way.

The problem was that race was being used exclusively, at least that is what the lawsuit alleges. Using race instead of all factors equally sees an Asian kid from South Central LA raised by a single mother below the poverty line as more privileged than the Obama kids.

Honestly, after reading the story, I don’t see anything particularly controversial. I’m totally fine with race being a factor when all else is relatively equal, in pursuit of diversity. I’m less OK with a 200 point SAT gap difference in admission requirements based on race.

I'm gonna try again because I fumbled it.

I don't think anyone is okay with a school admitting a minority student that does not meet the academic qualifications to study there sole because they are a minority. The only place I know of where this happens is in athletics.

If we all agree on that, we can get down to parsing through the 10,000 kids cramming into 5000 seats and how schools make that decision.

[Zarniwoop]

Zarni, as the sole guy in higher ed here maybe you should explain to us what goes on at the admissions office.

My understanding is that most of the students who meet the qualifications that don't get in are the ones who are trying to cram into the more popular programs and that is where they have to make these decisions.

10,000 kids apply for 5,000 seats in the school of business so half get rejected for one reason or another but 300 students apply for 500 seats at the school of fine arts so they all get in.

Every school is different on several levels. Let's start at the elite level -- schools like Harvard accept about 5% of their applicants. The vast majority of these students are qualified to go to almost any school in America. A good state school like U of Michigan accepts about 25% of their students. Good private schools (not Ivy league level) like Notre Dame can be around 20% to 25% as well. Small private schools and regional state schools will have acceptance rates over 50% - sometimes as high as 80%. If you are a small private school all you really care about is whether someone can pay and has a good chance at graduating. If they can, you have every incentive to take their money.

My particular school doesn't consider race at all and yet we still score in the 80th percentile or higher every year for diversity (mainly because of large Hispanic and Asian segments in Dallas).




As for balancing out programs - again it all depends on the school. Small private schools and regional state schools don't really care about that. They just want students. Most large state schools are like that too. For the most part the % of students who major in a field is relatively stable across time. Most schools are built around those long run averages. You might get relatively minor fields like Diversity Ethics or Gender Studies something like that that experience large percentage shifts from one year to the next depending on what is the flavor of the month in culture, but most of the traditional programs (sciences, business, engineering, etc) change very slowly over time.

Many schools in fact, don't even let you apply to a college until your sophomore year -- you just get into the general University. At Ohio State, which is a good, but not great, state school, when they accept a student it is just to the university. As a sophomore that student will apply to the College of Business, College of Engineering, etc. The lower GPA students who want to study those fields will get turned away because of semi-fixed capacity. If they want to stay at OSU they have to find another major or improve their GPA. But those students aren't turned away at the acceptance level when applying in high school.


The balancing that you are talking about only occurs at the very elite schools. Harvard will absolutely turn away a 3.9 GPA who wants to study Business for a 3.6 GPA who wants to study Mathematics if there aren't enough 3.9 GPA Math majors. But again, those schools are pretty few and far between.

[Mountaineer Buc]

I think Ohio State's program is pretty common.

Looking at UF and FSU fine arts programs students with a declared major have to build a portfolio in their lower level courses in order to advance to the upper levels of the college I assume to prevent someone from fingerpainting their way to a bachelor's. My daughter's only remaining question mark about FGCU is whether or not there's sufficient rigor there instead of 4 years of fingerpainting.

She thinks Jackson Pollack was a hack.

Back on topic. I see that Texas uses the 10% rule that grants acceptance to any in state student that graduates in the top 10% of their class. An imperfect policy, but it's a start.

[Zarniwoop]

Back on topic. I see that Texas uses the 10% rule that grants acceptance to any in state student that graduates in the top 10% of their class. An imperfect policy, but it's a start.

As you can probably guess, I absolutely hate the rule...its been taken to court many times and will eventually be overturned IMO. UT is even speaking out more and more against the rule as it allows them zero control over their student population.

Class rankings are already a factor in almost every school's decision....so someone that excels in a poorer school already gets "bonus points"...IMO that is good enough. The 10% rule basically makes class ranking the ONLY criteria.

If we had more supply at state schools in Texas, I could see more merits in the rule...but we don't. We are so short-supplied in Texas that the state often gives per student subsidies to private schools for every student they take from Texas -- can you imagine this? Taxpayers subsidizing religious education!!!! I would likewise be more open to the 10% rule if it simply guaranteed a student acceptance to at least one state university in Texas rather than every state university in Texas. UT-Austin is an elite public institution. They should have much more control over their admissions process then they currently do.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Back on topic. I see that Texas uses the 10% rule that grants acceptance to any in state student that graduates in the top 10% of their class. An imperfect policy, but it's a start.

As you can probably guess, I absolutely hate the rule...its been taken to court many times and will eventually be overturned IMO. UT is even speaking out more and more against the rule as it allows them zero control over their student population.

Class rankings are already a factor in almost every school's decision....so someone that excels in a poorer school already gets "bonus points"...IMO that is good enough. The 10% rule basically makes class ranking the ONLY criteria.

If we had more supply at state schools in Texas, I could see more merits in the rule...but we don't. We are so short-supplied in Texas that the state often gives per student subsidies to private schools for every student they take from Texas -- can you imagine this? Taxpayers subsidizing religious education!!!! I would likewise be more open to the 10% rule if it simply guaranteed a student acceptance to at least one state university in Texas rather than every state university in Texas. UT-Austin is an elite public institution. They should have much more control over their admissions process then they currently do.

So you're saying if there were more seats available at Texas colleges, the rule would be okay?

[Zarniwoop]

I would never support the rule as its a single criterion for admission. It’s detrimental effect would be less if we had more open seats (that’s why I would be more OK with it...but ahain, I’d never support it).

The rule not only is a single criterion (class rank) it uses only 1 measure within that criteria — namely GPA.

While HS rank is certainly a statistically significant predictor of college success, it’s R-squared is much lower then other predictors

And you can easily make an argument it hurts those that it tries to help. For example, the poorest kids in any school probably have to take part time jobs while in high school right? By definition those kids will have fewer available study hours. Often resulting in much lower grades then one dimensional kids who do not have to take jobs. But the rule helps the one dimensional kids because it doesn’t let schools look at work history.

[Mountaineer Buc]

I would never support the rule as its a single criterion for admission. It’s detrimental effect would be less if we had more open seats (that’s why I would be more OK with it...but ahain, I’d never support it).

The rule not only is a single criterion (class rank) it uses only 1 measure within that criteria — namely GPA.

While HS rank is certainly a statistically significant predictor of college success, it’s R-squared is much lower then other predictors

And you can easily make an argument it hurts those that it tries to help. For example, the poorest kids in any school probably have to take part time jobs while in high school right? By definition those kids will have fewer available study hours. Often resulting in much lower grades then one dimensional kids who do not have to take jobs. But the rule helps the one dimensional kids because it doesn’t let schools look at work history.

But isn't the goal here to let academic performance be the driver of admissions?

If we're shooting for meritocracy, how is being in the top 10% of your class counterintuitive?

[Mountaineer Buc]

Sociologially speaking, you have a national average of about 80% of kids graduating HS every year.

Of those, roughly 30% get a bachelor's. The issue is that of that 30% only 15% are black or latino. It's not reflective of the racial breakdown of the country. Plenty of factors come into play as to how we got here, but AA is an attempt to correct this disparity.

So the conundrum is how to correct the disparity while still admitting on the basis of merit.

[Zarniwoop]

But isn't the goal here to let academic performance be the driver of admissions?

If we're shooting for meritocracy, how is being in the top 10% of your class counterintuitive?

Because there are many schools where the kid ranked in the 25th percentile is more highly qualified than a kid at another school in the 5th percentile -- on every criteria imaginable -- GPA, AP hours, school activities, SAT/ACT scores, etc.

I'll bet the kid in the 25th percentile at the best high school in Texas is actually often more qualified then valedictorians in both inner city schools and rural schools. For example the local really good public school by me is Southlake Carroll...the average school on the Texas State test which is standardized is 115...which is about 2 standard deviations above the state mean. The average test score at any Dallas Independent School district high school won't even be 90. So a kid at Southlake to be in the top 10% of his class needs a test score of probably 130 or higher. A kid at the Dallas school needs a test score of 100 or so. Same would hold true for the rural schools whose test scores are often very low.

There is nothing meritocratic about that.

[Zarniwoop]

So the conundrum is how to correct the disparity while still admitting on the basis of merit.

You simply can't do both. To do better in AA automatically makes you reject more qualified kids. And as we are seeing with Asians, it disproportionately hurts unprotected minority groups who are excelling...and I don't know how anyone in their right mind can support that.


And for the record, the academic performance of Hispanic kids is rising fast...just like it did for Asians in the 70's and 80s. Again, it comes down to culture, not color of skin. I know you don't buy that argument but I do. Asians were horrifically discriminated against in the 40's, 50's and 60's. After the civil rights acts, they flourished for many reasons...and none of them are cause they had rich parents. They had 2 parents instead of 1 and their parents emphasized education. Same is holding true for the Latino population now. They are scoring significantly higher than Native Americans and African Americans...and you can't say its because their parents are better off or white people like them more...the two parent rate in Latino families is so vastly higher than in African American households. Kids in two parent households do better than kids in one parent households across every single race...it's clear. And I say that as a single father.