Explaining Privilege: It may not be what you think.

[Trausti]

There is a recent move to eliminate reliance on SATs (maybe also ACTs???) in admissions. There is a plethora of articles about changing admissions processes to be found on your search engine of choice.

Yeah, don't measure the problem and you make it disappear. Standard cover-up tactics.

It's not the SAT is giving bad data, it's that the SAT measures their discrimination.

You are mistaken.

First, scheduling to take the SAT or ACT during the pandemic was iffy. Second, there is growing research that neither the SAT or the ACT is as good a predictor of college success as achievement in highs school.

Nah.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a6fb/859a6838040dbc2f17b4f53be77b3422c55e.pdf

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Here's an example of privilege: If you're a Black mother with a child, and there are cameras nearby, you're exempted from the shoplifting laws and are free to steal whatever you need from the store and can fit into your bag, and police will be punished if they try to enforce the law.

But others are not exempted and are prohibited from stealing items from the store and are subject to law enforcement.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's an example of privilege: If you're a Black mother with a child, and there are cameras nearby, you're exempted from the shoplifting laws and are free to steal whatever you need from the store and can fit into your bag, and police will be punished if they try to enforce the law.

But others are not exempted and are prohibited from stealing items from the store and are subject to law enforcement.

This is why you don't get pretty jewels.

 

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken.

First, scheduling to take the SAT or ACT during the pandemic was iffy. Second, there is growing research that neither the SAT or the ACT is as good a predictor of college success as achievement in highs school.

Nah.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a6fb/859a6838040dbc2f17b4f53be77b3422c55e.pdf

First, presenting an article from over 11 years ago does not logically rebut the claim that there is growing evidence the neither the SAT or the ACT is a good a predictor of academic success as high school performance.
Second, your 11 year old study does not study the effect of high school GPA on college performance, so it is not relevant.
Third, this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...that-predict-college-success/?sh=7480b80a32bd
reports on the results of https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110
where

High school GPAs were found to be five times stronger than ACT scores at predicting graduation rates, and that the effect of GPAs was consistent across schools, unlike ACT scores.

Now, while you do not have to accept those results or the basic idea that high school GPAs are better predictors, it is abundantly clear that many institutions of higher learning do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, presenting an article from over 11 years ago does not logically rebut the claim that there is growing evidence the neither the SAT or the ACT is a good a predictor of academic success as high school performance.
Second, your 11 year old study does not study the effect of high school GPA on college performance, so it is not relevant.
Third, this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmo...that-predict-college-success/?sh=7480b80a32bd
reports on the results of https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110
where

High school GPAs were found to be five times stronger than ACT scores at predicting graduation rates, and that the effect of GPAs was consistent across schools, unlike ACT scores.

Now, while you do not have to accept those results or the basic idea that high school GPAs are better predictors, it is abundantly clear that many institutions of higher learning do.

A damning bit from your study:

Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[laughing dog]

A damning bit from your study:

Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

I have no idea what you think I think it says. But since it does not mention SAT scores, it certainly does not address what anything I wrote.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Disagree. SAT scores are not a meaningful way to tell who will succeed at school. They need to be done away with and I'm glad that quite a few schools are no longer using them as part of the criteria for acceptance to school.

Still, most anyone can attend a community college for two years and then with good grades move up to a four year college. I also think that schools that are supposed to be the best are vastly over rated. Look at the idiots like Cruz and Hawley who have degrees from Harvard or Stanford for an example. What the fuck did they learn in school, other than how to be effective assholes?

I agree that many things can be taken into consideration when deciding who is a good candidate for any school.

I would like to offer this caveat about doing your first two years at a community college and then going to a 4 year school.

Based upon my own observations when I last went to university and was in class and even partnered up in a lab class with students who had done the community college first route AND additionally, what I've heard from my spouse and other profs is that at least in our state, community colleges do not actually provide the same level of education/preparation for upper division courses as similarly named courses at a 4 year university. My former lab partner struggled mightily and was extremely confused because she had aced all of her community college classes---and was entirely unable to keep up with a light load of upper division classes at a 4 year university. Similar thing with other students who had done their first two years in community college. It is actually as big a step up as it is to go from high school to 4 year college. It can really throw off students who think they are much better prepared than they really are.

My spouse and his colleagues have to deal with students who *think* they have taken intro to (insert whatever course you'd like) and are ready for the upper division level because the course names are the same, but even where the same books are used in courses, community college teachers typically cover less than half of what a 4 year university professor covers in the same course and in less depth. But universities in my state are expected to accept as full credits say, intro to accounting I and II at a community college as intro into accounting I and II at a 4 year university although the community Intro to accounting I & II combined comprises less than half a semester of Intro to Accounting I at the university.

This is not a big deal if you are taking some general education classes that you MUST take to graduate but are not related to your major and that you don't particularly care about anyway. But it's a bad place to take intro classes or foundation classes for your major or a potential major. You could well find yourself way behind and that's a terrible place to be.

Again: caveat that this is all anecdotal based upon my observations and what I hear from professors at the local university. Mileage may vary.

I can provide a little more anecdotal evidence, but it's contrary to yours. I probably have a slightly broader experience because I was a math/physics/chemistry tutor as I worked my way through college, so I got to see and meet a broad range of students from both the community college level and the traditional university level.

I suspect, though, that it's highly dependent on the local CC and universities than anything else. In AZ, we have a fantastic, well funded CC system (in the three biggest counties, at least that I am familiar with). In general, students at the traditional age of who went the CC --> Uni route had better foundations and were better prepared for later courses (I put myself in this category as well, so there may be a bit of bias).

The flip side is that older students who went back to school then transferred to Uni were less likely (I wish I still had access to the statistics they gave all us transfer students) to complete university. The various exit polls tended to them being disillusioned with the Uni environment rather than not being able to 'cut it'. Statistically, students that did the CC --> route that were in the same age range as Uni only had a graduation rate (in AZ) of only a few percentage points different (I think lower, but I don't actually remember). Older, non-traditional students, on the other hand, had an abysmal graduation rate in the single digit range (6-8%, from memory).

 

[Worldtraveller]

Past, yes, discrimination certainly held people back.

Today, the problem is cultural. Once you control for socioeconomic factors you see the same success rate.

Interesting. Do you have that study at hand?

Repeatedly asking for it doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed multiple times before.

Then it should be easy for you to come up with a link.

Unless, of course, you're just making stuff up again.

 

[Toni]

Toni, you say you don't see [insert your examples here] as privilege because they shouldn't be, then later say you recognize that's how it is for you. You do see it, you just desire others to be on equal terms (as seen in your closing statement). It's like you get it but somehow don't at the same time.

I think all that Toni is saying is that the word, "privilege" may be the problem, not that some people aren't treated as equals by others. I totally understand the concept of privilege as it's being used, but I also understand how the word itself has caused a lot of misunderstandings, due to that word's more traditional meaning. I think it would have been better to simply point out that there are a lot of people who aren't being given the basic human rights that we all should be entitled to in a free society, instead of equating those rights as some type of a privilege.

Still, I don't think this is going to change until people live and work together and begin to accept each other as equals. My neighborhood was once all white, but it's becoming a lot more racially diverse as more homes have been sold over the past year, or two, due to the older folks down sizing, dying or moving in with family members. There are a large number of mixed race marriages and relationships here. I applaud that because when we stop looking at each other based on our race or ethnicity and simply see each other as members of the human race, things will gradually get better. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but negativity never helps move us forward. So, I do my best to interact with and befriend people who may not be just like me, when it comes to a multitude of things.

This is always a difficult subject to discuss without a lot of misunderstandings.

Again, my problems are twofold:

On a practical level, casting ‘white mode’ as privilege will/does absolutely alienate a lot of white people who grew up with a lot of struggles and who still struggle mightily with feeling less than.

On another level, me being able to walk into stores or restaurants or drive my car anywhere, etc. and NOT even consider that I will be looked at funny much less followed around or denied service or told outright that I don’t belong or arrested or whatever is NOT privilege. It’s how EVERYONE should be treated. Not as a privilege but as a RIGHT. A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. Privileges are granted or denied. Rights belong to us simply because we exist. Every person, no matter their race or color or gender or sexuality or religion, etc. has the absolute right to be treated as a full human being, with dignity and respect.

The fact that some people’s basic human rights are not recognized is not due to privilege. It’s due to RACISM.

The same way that I never worried about my sons being sexually assaulted if they walked alone after dark or went on dates, etc. but I did worry about my daughter is not due to privilege, is due to SEXISM. Just as the barriers that women face in employment, etc. is due to sexism.

The fact that I do not have to worry about being assaulted, etc. because I am white may be considered privilege in the same sense that my husband did not have to worry about being sexually assaulted because he is male is privilege. Even though some men are sexually assaulted, even though some white people are treated brutally by police, it’s not nearly the same level of concern.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A damning bit from your study:

Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

I have no idea what you think I think it says. But since it does not mention SAT scores, it certainly does not address what anything I wrote.

Since you failed to note the problem I highlighted it for you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suspect, though, that it's highly dependent on the local CC and universities than anything else. In AZ, we have a fantastic, well funded CC system (in the three biggest counties, at least that I am familiar with). In general, students at the traditional age of who went the CC --> Uni route had better foundations and were better prepared for later courses (I put myself in this category as well, so there may be a bit of bias).

I have no basis for comparison, but I did the CC -> Uni route in AZ and didn't have any problem with being behind.

 

[Trausti]

I suspect, though, that it's highly dependent on the local CC and universities than anything else. In AZ, we have a fantastic, well funded CC system (in the three biggest counties, at least that I am familiar with). In general, students at the traditional age of who went the CC --> Uni route had better foundations and were better prepared for later courses (I put myself in this category as well, so there may be a bit of bias).

I have no basis for comparison, but I did the CC -> Uni route in AZ and didn't have any problem with being behind.

Would think that if you paid attention and studied CC should be fine.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no idea what you think I think it says. But since it does not mention SAT scores, it certainly does not address what anything I wrote.

Since you failed to note the problem I highlighted it for you.

I originally pointed out recent research indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT. Which is why many institutions are moving away from requiring either the SAT or the ACT. it has nothing to do with covering up anything (as you alleged).

I made no comments about anything else. The highlighted portion has jack shit to do with my comment.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you disagree?

Who, specifically, do you think doesn't have equal rights under the law?

Women don't have fully equal rights. Gay and Lesbian people don't have fully equal rights. Transgender people don't have fully equal rights, although that is a much more complicated topic. And while racial minorities, particularly black people, have equal rights on paper, they don't have effective equality in practice.

Ah, in practice. That'd be the important point. So why might one group have different rights in practice than what the law prescribes?

Lots of reasons, ranging from institutionalized practices to subconscious bias resulting from stereotypes.

What's the point of your questions here? What are you fishing for?

 

[Toni]

Disagree. SAT scores are not a meaningful way to tell who will succeed at school. They need to be done away with and I'm glad that quite a few schools are no longer using them as part of the criteria for acceptance to school.

Still, most anyone can attend a community college for two years and then with good grades move up to a four year college. I also think that schools that are supposed to be the best are vastly over rated. Look at the idiots like Cruz and Hawley who have degrees from Harvard or Stanford for an example. What the fuck did they learn in school, other than how to be effective assholes?

I agree that many things can be taken into consideration when deciding who is a good candidate for any school.

I would like to offer this caveat about doing your first two years at a community college and then going to a 4 year school.

Based upon my own observations when I last went to university and was in class and even partnered up in a lab class with students who had done the community college first route AND additionally, what I've heard from my spouse and other profs is that at least in our state, community colleges do not actually provide the same level of education/preparation for upper division courses as similarly named courses at a 4 year university. My former lab partner struggled mightily and was extremely confused because she had aced all of her community college classes---and was entirely unable to keep up with a light load of upper division classes at a 4 year university. Similar thing with other students who had done their first two years in community college. It is actually as big a step up as it is to go from high school to 4 year college. It can really throw off students who think they are much better prepared than they really are.

My spouse and his colleagues have to deal with students who *think* they have taken intro to (insert whatever course you'd like) and are ready for the upper division level because the course names are the same, but even where the same books are used in courses, community college teachers typically cover less than half of what a 4 year university professor covers in the same course and in less depth. But universities in my state are expected to accept as full credits say, intro to accounting I and II at a community college as intro into accounting I and II at a 4 year university although the community Intro to accounting I & II combined comprises less than half a semester of Intro to Accounting I at the university.

This is not a big deal if you are taking some general education classes that you MUST take to graduate but are not related to your major and that you don't particularly care about anyway. But it's a bad place to take intro classes or foundation classes for your major or a potential major. You could well find yourself way behind and that's a terrible place to be.

Again: caveat that this is all anecdotal based upon my observations and what I hear from professors at the local university. Mileage may vary.

I can provide a little more anecdotal evidence, but it's contrary to yours. I probably have a slightly broader experience because I was a math/physics/chemistry tutor as I worked my way through college, so I got to see and meet a broad range of students from both the community college level and the traditional university level.

I suspect, though, that it's highly dependent on the local CC and universities than anything else. In AZ, we have a fantastic, well funded CC system (in the three biggest counties, at least that I am familiar with). In general, students at the traditional age of who went the CC --> Uni route had better foundations and were better prepared for later courses (I put myself in this category as well, so there may be a bit of bias).

The flip side is that older students who went back to school then transferred to Uni were less likely (I wish I still had access to the statistics they gave all us transfer students) to complete university. The various exit polls tended to them being disillusioned with the Uni environment rather than not being able to 'cut it'. Statistically, students that did the CC --> route that were in the same age range as Uni only had a graduation rate (in AZ) of only a few percentage points different (I think lower, but I don't actually remember). Older, non-traditional students, on the other hand, had an abysmal graduation rate in the single digit range (6-8%, from memory).

My degree is in cell and molecular biology with a minor in chemistry. My husband teaches a different discipline altogether but there’s a strong need for a decent math background.

It is quite true that I offered only anecdotal ‘evidence.’ Mileage may vary, as I stated not only between students, community schools, disciplines. In my region, generally speaking, the strongest students academically almost always start at 4 year universities. I absolutely agree with you that older students often have a significant advantage in maturity and motivation over younger students.

 

[Emily Lake]

I expect male genital mutilation is a reference to circumcision which is a much less invasive and injurious procedure than female genital mutilation. Which may be the reason for the difference for the treatment in legal systems.

Some types of FGM are less invasive and injurious than MGM (I would judge Type I and some kinds of Type IV in WHO's taxonomy).

Part of the reason for the difference in treatment is that a greater number of parents have a religion that requires the genital mutilation of boys but not of girls.

Another part of the reason for the difference are the unethical actions of pediatric and medical associations continuing to recommend the procedure for decades, though some of those have seen the error of their ways and now recommend against routine male genital mutilation. WHO, however, continues to approve of infant male genital mutilation.

Another part of the difference is that male genital mutilation has been euphemised with the term 'circumcision', a term which I no longer use to describe infant male genital mutilation.

Are you genuinely suggesting that removing the clitoris is less invasive and injurious than circumcision? I know you're gay, Met, but I'd expect you to at least understand that the clitoris is pretty much the source of orgasm and sexual pleasure for most females. It's also not an external body part, and removal is quite invasive.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you genuinely suggesting that removing the clitoris is less invasive and injurious than circumcision?

I'm genuinely suggesting that some types of FGM are less injurious than MGM.

It's difficult to draw parallels because, well, male anatomy is male and female anatomy is female. But I have read that removal of the clitoral glans is 'equivalent' to the cutting and removal of the male foreskin.

I know you're gay, Met, but I'd expect you to at least understand that the clitoris is pretty much the source of orgasm and sexual pleasure for most females.

Well, yes. I am gay. And I've sucked enough dicks to know the real difference in sexual response between a mutilated one and an unmutilated one.

It's also not an external body part, and removal is quite invasive.

I'm not sure what you mean by calling it "not external". It is definitionally one of the female external sexual organs.

Removal of the clitoris on infants for no medical reason is mutilation and should be outlawed everywhere.

Removal of the foreskin on infants for no medical reason is mutilation and should be outlawed everywhere.

 

[Rhea]

Circumcision is a lively discussion. But the details of it are not related to a discussion of privilege.

If you want to explore the nuanced differences between male and female ciurcumcisions, please know that new threads are free. Go ahead and start one, no charge.

And if you would like mods to add these comments to your new thread, just use the “report” function and thy will be done.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, in practice. That'd be the important point. So why might one group have different rights in practice than what the law prescribes?

Lots of reasons, ranging from institutionalized practices to subconscious bias resulting from stereotypes.

What's the point of your questions here? What are you fishing for?

I think positive privilege has to be considered, and seriously. It's not just about what is taken away from minority groups, there are, unquestionably, serious advantages given to people who are born into certain demographic groups. Sometimes, yes, privilege consists of merely not needing a handicap ramp that is inconsistently present and diificult to use when there. But here are other cases in which "special people" straight up have their own entrance to the building that no one else can use. And if you grow up as one of those people, then sure, you likely think of that as a normal state of affairs and may be offended and say "but what I want is for everyone to be able to use the special door not just me". But fundamentally, it may not be possible for everyone to use the special door at once. A deficit-only portrait of how privilege works fundamentally ignores the fact that the disproportionate amount of capital concentrated in the privileged classes may not actually be fairly redistributable without reduction. If that is the case, nominatively equal rights under the law are great, but cannot, on their own, actually create social equity where there is none.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, in practice. That'd be the important point. So why might one group have different rights in practice than what the law prescribes?

Lots of reasons, ranging from institutionalized practices to subconscious bias resulting from stereotypes.

What's the point of your questions here? What are you fishing for?

I think positive privilege has to be considered, and seriously. It's not just about what is taken away from minority groups, there are, unquestionably, serious advantages given to people who are born into certain demographic groups. Sometimes, yes, privilege consists of merely not needing a handicap ramp that is inconsistently present and diificult to use when there. But here are other cases in which "special people" straight up have their own entrance to the building that no one else can use. And if you grow up as one of those people, then sure, you likely think of that as a normal state of affairs and may be offended and say "but what I want is for everyone to be able to use the special door not just me". But fundamentally, it may not be possible for everyone to use the special door at once. A deficit-only portrait of how privilege works fundamentally ignores the fact that the disproportionate amount of capital concentrated in the privileged classes may not actually be fairly redistributable without reduction. If that is the case, nominatively equal rights under the law are great, but cannot, on their own, actually create social equity where there is none.

I feel like you're arguing at me, as if you somehow think you and I are in disagreement? Am I inferring wrongly, or are you approaching me as an opponent in this discussion, Poli?

In regard to the rest... if you're talking about wealth, sure, maybe reduction is necessary if redistribution is your aim. But aside from an extremely few set of cases of "special doors", the vast majority of social privileges are NOT zero-sum. Most of the privileges are based on social biases and stereotypes, the expectation of behaviors and tendencies, lots of subconscious things. There's no reason that white people have to be treated worse by the cops in order for black people to be treated fairly. There's no reason that white people should face more suspicion while shopping in order for black people to face less. It's not like there's a fixed suspicion quota that has to be met .

I genuinely don't know why you're lecturing at me.