Explaining Privilege: It may not be what you think.

[Trausti]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

It could also be just regular folk rejecting the current superstition that assumes any inequality must be because of this or that ism or other invisible power structure.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

It could also be just regular folk rejecting the current superstition that assumes any inequality must be because of this or that ism or other invisible power structure.

And changing the word would make it more or less of a superstition?

 

[Toni]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

It could also be just regular folk rejecting the current superstition that assumes any inequality must be because of this or that ism or other invisible power structure.

And changing the word would make it more or less of a superstition?

I think that, just like 'defunding the police,' talking about white privilege is a lot harder to swallow for a lot of working class and poor white people than talking about systemic racism.

And it is for me, too. When I hear white privilege applied to me and most of the white people I know, all I can think is that this is not privilege--this is how ALL people should be treated. Privilege is something that can and maybe should be removed. I'm not interested in being harassed by the police or worrying about my voting rights or not getting a mortgage, etc. I'm interested in NOBODY being harassed by the police, NOBODY worrying about voting rights, EVERYBODY being able to walk around a store unbothered by security, being treated fairly in job interviews, loan applications, etc. etc. etc. To me, that's not privilege. That's JUSTICE.

So yeah, when terminology is being used to promote a cause that I agree with but the terms rankle me, then I think that changing the word will help. Not with everybody. Like the poor, we will always have racists, bigots and assholes with us.

 

[Metaphor]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

I've been told that I benefit when other men sexually harass women. Not told by a single nutter on Twitter mind, but by multiple (seemingly) ordinary people on Facebook.

The problem may not be the word 'privilege'. The problem is the bundle of falsehoods and stated obligations that purveyors of the concept expect from 'the privileged.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The exact method is irrelevant--the point is it needs both the GPA and the school it came from to be useful information.

Which is what they did. It is pretty clear that you have
1) not read the article,
2) been pulling objections out of thin air,
3) no clue what you are talking about,

This entire subdiscussion arose because you made the claim that schools are dropping the use of the SAT or ACT because the use shows discrimination on their part. It is now clear you had (and still have ) no clue whatsoever.

I still want to know how I quoted an article I didn't read.

You're also still ignoring the point I'm making--they have to take the school into account. Please address the point rather than derailing.

 

[steve_bank]

I have been watching the old movies I watched as a kid, now through my experience.

The issue of misogynies is painfully clear.

In the old westerns and the Gumsmoke tv series a man slapping a woman was considered appropriate at times. A certain amount of spousal abuse was considered a male priviledged or right.The woman of course apologizes for being out of line and hugs and kisses the man as if nothing happened. Ugly stuff when viewed as an adult today.

 

[laughing dog]

The exact method is irrelevant--the point is it needs both the GPA and the school it came from to be useful information.

Which is what they did. It is pretty clear that you have
1) not read the article,
2) been pulling objections out of thin air,
3) no clue what you are talking about,

This entire subdiscussion arose because you made the claim that schools are dropping the use of the SAT or ACT because the use shows discrimination on their part. It is now clear you had (and still have ) no clue whatsoever.

I still want to know how I quoted an article I didn't read.

I would like to know how you can be so wrong about the contents of an article you did read. As far as I can tell, you quoted from the summary not the article.

[
You're also still ignoring the point I'm making--they have to take the school into account. Please address the point rather than derailing.

To recap.

In post 135 you claimed “It's not the SAT is giving bad data, it's that the SAT measures their discrimination.”

I responded With “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.”

You then started babbling about adjusting GPAs and then moved on to other misinterpretations of the linked study.

To date, you have not addressed the issue that there is growing research that neither the SAT or ACT is as a predictor of college success as achievements in high school. First you babbled about adjusted GPAs (that did not exist) and now babble about with having to take the school into account. My guess is you have no clue whether the authors are referring to the high school or the institution of higher learning or why taking it into account would somehow bias the result that HS GPA is a better predictor of collegiate success than the SAT or ACT.

Please address the actual issue instead Iof derailing the discussion with your persistent misinterpretations and red herrings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I still want to know how I quoted an article I didn't read.

I would like to know how you can be so wrong about the contents of an article you did read. As far as I can tell, you quoted from the summary not the article.

[
You're also still ignoring the point I'm making--they have to take the school into account. Please address the point rather than derailing.

To recap.

In post 135 you claimed “It's not the SAT is giving bad data, it's that the SAT measures their discrimination.”

I responded With “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.”

You then started babbling about adjusting GPAs and then moved on to other misinterpretations of the linked study.

To date, you have not addressed the issue that there is growing research that neither the SAT or ACT is as a predictor of college success as achievements in high school. First you babbled about adjusted GPAs (that did not exist) and now babble about with having to take the school into account. My guess is you have no clue whether the authors are referring to the high school or the institution of higher learning or why taking it into account would somehow bias the result that HS GPA is a better predictor of collegiate success than the SAT or ACT.

Please address the actual issue instead Iof derailing the discussion with your persistent misinterpretations and red herrings.

What happened during the pandemic isn't relevant--this is a long-standing issue. You're just throwing out red herrings.

And you are still refusing to address the point that your own article says GPA is a good predictor when you consider the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this part of it.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that a high GPA from a good high school is a good predictor of how they will fare in college. It measures both ability and how well they can apply that ability.

The reason this is an issue is that the universities are trying to come up with ways to discriminate without appearing to do so. Hence stuff like this--use GPA and conveniently ignore that you need to consider the school it came from. It's another variant on the top 10% tactic.

Companies were quite correctly slapped down for this sort of thing back in the civil rights era--putting irrelevant requirements on a job to reduce the number of people who they didn't want to have to hire. (For example, a height requirement for a job that doesn't need reach or fitting into equipment. Set it right and you can exclude almost all women without excluding too many men.)

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to know how you can be so wrong about the contents of an article you did read. As far as I can tell, you quoted from the summary not the article.
To recap.

In post 135 you claimed “It's not the SAT is giving bad data, it's that the SAT measures their discrimination.”

I responded With “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.”

You then started babbling about adjusting GPAs and then moved on to other misinterpretations of the linked study.

To date, you have not addressed the issue that there is growing research that neither the SAT or ACT is as a predictor of college success as achievements in high school. First you babbled about adjusted GPAs (that did not exist) and now babble about with having to take the school into account. My guess is you have no clue whether the authors are referring to the high school or the institution of higher learning or why taking it into account would somehow bias the result that HS GPA is a better predictor of collegiate success than the SAT or ACT.

Please address the actual issue instead of derailing the discussion with your persistent misinterpretations and red herrings.

What happened during the pandemic isn't relevant--this is a long-standing issue.

No, it is not. Getting a standardized test (SAT or ACT) was not a long-standing issue before the pandemic. Prospective students could not get access to them because of shutdowns - they were not given. That is a fact.

And you are still refusing to address the point that your own article says GPA is a good predictor when you consider the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this part of it.

No, the article does says the GPA is a good predictor even after controlling for the school.

You have yet to post a response that indicates you have a clue about the topic of this discussion. Schools are moving away from using the SAT or ACT because there is growing research that HS GPA is a better predictor. It has nothing to do with hiding discrimination.

 

[steve_bank]

Washington State University is dropping ACT and SAT as a selection criteria.

 

[Trausti]

Washington State University is dropping ACT and SAT as a selection criteria.

Makes sense. It always played second fiddle to UW. Might as well be the community college everyone knew it was.

 

[fromderinside]

Washington State University is dropping ACT and SAT as a selection criteria.

Makes sense. It always played second fiddle to UW. Might as well be the community college everyone knew it was.

Hold on there. I qualified for UW using grades, recommendations, personal product, and SAT back in '60. Flunked out for playing basketball in second quarter. Maturity wasn't measured. Later, after maturing, I went onto earn a postdoc at Cal Tech and retired as a Principal Engineer at Boeing.

The point? Everybody knows the WSU is not located anywhere a community college would be built and if you aren't mature you would never go to WSU. All one can do there is study.

 

[steve_bank]

That nicely Segways into another area of privilege.

Status based on the school you went to starting with grade school if your family has money.

I believe GWB got into Harvard as a legacy.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

I think this is mostly true. I think there are a great many people for whom that feeling won't shift (exhibits provided in this thread). But I also think there's at least some people who have a visceral response to the term itself, which makes it very difficult to comprehend the concept itself. It's something I struggled with in the past

 

[Emily Lake]

I have been watching the old movies I watched as a kid, now through my experience.

The issue of misogynies is painfully clear.

In the old westerns and the Gumsmoke tv series a man slapping a woman was considered appropriate at times. A certain amount of spousal abuse was considered a male priviledged or right.The woman of course apologizes for being out of line and hugs and kisses the man as if nothing happened. Ugly stuff when viewed as an adult today.

I can't remember the name of the film, but there was a Clint Eastwood movie where he raped a woman... and that was pretty much okay as far as the film was concerned. Hell, even movies from my childhood have some pretty serious sexism in them. It's creepy.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have been watching the old movies I watched as a kid, now through my experience.

The issue of misogynies is painfully clear.

In the old westerns and the Gumsmoke tv series a man slapping a woman was considered appropriate at times. A certain amount of spousal abuse was considered a male priviledged or right.The woman of course apologizes for being out of line and hugs and kisses the man as if nothing happened. Ugly stuff when viewed as an adult today.

I can't remember the name of the film, but there was a Clint Eastwood movie where he raped a woman... and that was pretty much okay as far as the film was concerned. Hell, even movies from my childhood have some pretty serious sexism in them. It's creepy.

I remember that. I think it was Pale Rider.

 

[repoman]

Clint is the hero in Pale Rider and prevents a rape.

No, it is High Plains Drifter where is a total antihero in all ways:

 

[laughing dog]

I have been watching the old movies I watched as a kid, now through my experience.

The issue of misogynies is painfully clear.

In the old westerns and the Gumsmoke tv series a man slapping a woman was considered appropriate at times. A certain amount of spousal abuse was considered a male priviledged or right.The woman of course apologizes for being out of line and hugs and kisses the man as if nothing happened. Ugly stuff when viewed as an adult today.

I can't remember the name of the film, but there was a Clint Eastwood movie where he raped a woman... and that was pretty much okay as far as the film was concerned. Hell, even movies from my childhood have some pretty serious sexism in them. It's creepy.

I believe it was High Plains Drifter.

 

[Emily Lake]

Clint is the hero in Pale Rider and prevents a rape.

No, it is High Plains Drifter where is a total antihero in all ways:

Yes, that's the one.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.

Couldn't agree more. Once is the maximum number of times needed to explain this position and what privilege refers to in this context. If the response to that explanation is "no, you're not saying 'X', you're actually saying 'Y'" then 0 is the number of times you need to repeat yourself. Because the problem isn't with the message or how it's conveyed. The problem is that this particular message is something that your audience cannot and will not hear.

It's not like it's being referred to as 'Adolf Hitler Syndrome' or something.

aa