MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Toni]

You seem to not be a fan of courses which are dense in reading and writing, and openly oppose public funding of such courses.

Why are you assuming this? I like reading, and I have no opposition to classes that include it. I don't even object to degrees in eastern yugoslavian literature being available. I just don't think that investments in them are the best use of public funds.

Less isn't none. Not free on someone else's dime isn't unavailable.

I get that not everyone is consciously a great fan of liberal arts. I also am more than a little aware of the fact that many math and science oriented people look down on liberal arts as being not very rigorous. Trust me liberal arts majors are well aware of being looked down on by people who prefer math and science.

Well, they aren't as rigorous. But they also don't need to be as rigorous. I don't look down on liberal arts at all. But liberal arts is a very, very big umbrella, and I simply don't think that all of them are as useful for society as a whole as some other degrees.

Did you miss where I said I'm not necessary? My degree is in math. It's nice and all, math is great and useful. But I don't think that degrees in math and physics should be as subsidized by the public as they are either. Basic math and sciences should be common prerequisites for a variety of degrees in engineering, computer science, data science, etc. But the reality of the world is that we need good engineers far more than we need mathematicians. We need enough mathematicians to have math teachers, and a small handful left over to be engaged in higher level academic work. But we have a much greater need as a society for engineers.

It doesn’t require a degree in writing. One dues not need to sit through a calculus course to learn calculus. Look at what Copernicus and Galeleo did withoutv

If it doesn't require a degree in writing... why should the public be expected to pay for degrees in writing?

Emily: we understand your position.

We do not agree with it.

For one thing, in my view, and in the view of many, education is a public good and a public necessity.

In my opinion, the government t has no business telling people what they can and what they cannot study at a university or college or any public school.

We do not exist to serve the government.

The government t exists to serve us.

Based on the red statement, you fundamentally don't understand my position. You're disagreeing with a strawman.

Well, yes they are or can be quite rigorous. They just aren’t your favorite brand of rigorous. I’m guessing by what you’ve says about your work that you focused almost entirely on math and science, in your post secondary education.

You keep writing over and over that the public should not fund degrees that you personally find unnecessary?

You did it just above in the response I’m quoting.

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Why is your opinion on which should be subsidized or backed by taxes better than anyone else's?

I haven't suggested that I know everything. I've already admitted a couple of times that I can only speak to a few items that I know are underrepresented.

Sure. But your "solution" entails the elimination of things you think are overrepresented.

It doesn't entail the elimination of anything.

It's zero-sum thinking, and you appear oblivious that you are even doing it.

Do you imagine that more people are going to magically appear out of thin air when the incentives change? Or that a bunch of people will cease to exist ala Thanos? In this particular case, it actually is zero-sum, and I'm quite aware of that. It's kind of fundamental to my argument that if you change the incentives, people will make different choices.

I know that we need more skilled trades - do you think I'm wrong about that and we have a glut of tradesmen?

No. But you are wrong to imply that we have a glut of artists, and even more wrong to imagine that making it harder to obtain degrees in the fields you denigrate would create more tradesmen.

I know that we need more primary care doctors and nurses - do you disagree and think we have too many?

Again, no. But the cause is not that we have too many fine art or literature graduates;

Are you actually taking my simplification literally here, rather than understanding the figurative simplification to fields on very different ends of the spectrum of social value?

A far more important cause is the very high barriers of gruelling hours and low income placed at the start of careers in medicine. Nurses never get past that stage; Doctors do, but they have to get through the medieval training regimen of junior doctors to get there - a regimen that was developed primarily to defend senior doctors from competition, thereby enhancing their incomes and prestige.

And not that I am not using the word 'medieval' figuratively here. Doctors (like lawyers) are literally still operating like the medieval guilds from which their professions arose.

But you somehow don't think that we should incentivize primary care doctors and nurses more than we incentivize other, less necessary fields of study?

It sounds to me like you are making the exact error that led to the planned economies of Eastern Europe in the C20th - you are deciding in advance how much of everything society must need, and refusing to supply anything else on the grounds that if it were necessary, you would have thought of it.

That did not end well last time out.

This is a misrepresentation of what I've said, and of things I've clarified repeatedly.

No, it really isn't. You appear unaware of this, but it is the root of all you are saying here.

At no point have I suggested that how many of each field should be decided in advanced and planned out. What I have suggested is that fields that we need more of should be incentivized, and fields that we need less of should not be incentivized. That's not at all the same thing as a planned economy, it's not a reasonable parallel at all.

Are you doing this on purpose with the intent of irritating me?
Do you think this wins you points with other posters somehow?
Do you think your false insinuation will make me feel ashamed or embarassed and that I'll change my mind in order to avoid your judgement based on things I've never said or implied?

No, I am trying to point out the actual implications of your proposals.

You're pointing out the far end slippery slope of a proposal I haven't made.

What do you think you're accomplishing by not just distorting my view, but by radicalizing it to this extent? What's so hard about sticking with what I've actually said?

I am simply extrapolating what you ask for (a change in funding) to its inevitable consequences. That you can not see those consequences is my motive; That you do not intend them is one of your reasons for being annoyed by my pointing them out.

It is well known which road is paved by good intentions.

I fail to see how a change in funding to incentivize what we need more of and to disincentivize what we don't need more of results in soviet russia.

Do you think the concept of load balancing is communist?

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, yes they are or can be quite rigorous. They just aren’t your favorite brand of rigorous. I’m guessing by what you’ve says about your work that you focused almost entirely on math and science, in your post secondary education.

Please feel free to educate me on how creative writing is as rigorous as physics. Please also include a definition of rigorous that supports the way you're using it.

You keep writing over and over that the public should not fund degrees that you personally find unnecessary?

Genuine question here: If something catastrophic happens and we lose all advanced technology and are blasted back to pre-industrial times... do you think that farmers and actors are equally important for civilization to recover?

This isn't a case of me finding some degrees unnecessary. This is about the objective value of some fields of study in the functioning of society. It's about an understanding that maslow's hierarchy has some merit beyond just an individual's happiness, and that it correlates to the needs of society as well. It's about stepping back and making a reasoned decision about what fields we as a society must have in order to function, versus those that are nice to have.

You did it just above in the response I’m quoting.

How so?

 

[bilby]

Do you imagine that more people are going to magically appear out of thin air when the incentives change? Or that a bunch of people will cease to exist ala Thanos? In this particular case, it actually is zero-sum, and I'm quite aware of that.

If everyone got a degree, you would be right.

Not everyone gets a degree, or even undertakes tertiary education.

Therefore, you are wrong. It is NOT zero sum, and your unawareness of that is the deepest flaw in your position.

 

[bilby]

What I have suggested is that fields that we need more of should be incentivized, and fields that we need less of should not be incentivized.

Indeed.

That's not at all the same thing as a planned economy

Well, it is when "we need more of" is recognised as meaning "I, personally, think we need more of".

You don't know what "we" need. Not do I. Nor does anyone.

So a plan based on what "we need more of" suffers from the exact same basic flaw as a planned economy - it is being designed by people who are oblivious to the fact that they simply don't know enough to be useful.

 

[bilby]

I fail to see how a change in funding to incentivize what we need more of and to disincentivize what we don't need more of results in soviet russia.

Indeed you do.

 

[laughing dog]

There's a core concept (yes, Archer) here that is either being missed or being ignored. So let me change gears and try it another way.

Postulate: People having houses is good for society.

I am going to assume that all of you agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward and apparent to me, it seems rational.

Inference: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house.

I'm going to assume that most of you don't agree with that, but some will.

Conclusion: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house of their choosing.

I really hope that none of you agree with that conclusion. I hope that all of you see that the conclusion doesn't have a good outcome, despite the intention inherent in the postulate.

Challenge: do you see the parallel?

No.

 

[Toni]

There's a core concept (yes, Archer) here that is either being missed or being ignored. So let me change gears and try it another way.

Postulate: People having houses is good for society.

I am going to assume that all of you agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward and apparent to me, it seems rational.

Inference: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house.

I'm going to assume that most of you don't agree with that, but some will.

Conclusion: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house of their choosing.

I really hope that none of you agree with that conclusion. I hope that all of you see that the conclusion doesn't have a good outcome, despite the intention inherent in the postulate.

Challenge: do you see the parallel?

No.

That isn’t what anyone is saying. Education is a public good. It is also necessary for the functioning of a free and democratic society.

The most important aspect of education is that it teaches people to think. Not what to think but to think. Yes, education provides copious facts and figures and theories but so does a library ( also a public good, essential in any free society abd a tremendous aid to the public). Education teaches us how to look at ( things) from different perspectives, how to explore the why and how and even the essence of ( things).

A liberal arts education improves critical thinking and communications skills, the ability to work across fields and industries, intellectual depth and independent thinking, and a foundation for lifelong learning.

I get the machismo behind pursuing a degree and/or a career in hard sciences and mathematics. That’s what my siblings and I all chose to pursue and build our careers, plus we were pushed by parents to earn as much money as possible.

Do you realize that in the US, the government is of and by and FOR the people, right? That the government exists to provide that which makes our lives better.

I will wager a decent amount of money that I've read more college freshmen writing than you have and I can tell you for certain that most students who are admitted to state universities really don't write very well. In my experience, being able to write well is a good predictor of how well you understand a subject or an issue. And I've seen very intelligent, very competent adults held back in their professions because they did not have great writing skills. Although my career path did not predict that I would need to know how to write well, indeed I was asked to do a fair amount of writing in my job because I could write well: clearly, concisely, accurately. Which I get is a surprise to people reading my posts but hey, it's true.

I don't think many of us on this forum are unaware that a significant portion of our population does not read much and does not read well and does a piss poor job of being able to evaluate what is written or said for accuracy, much less fairness.

Do you not think that people today still have stories to write? Whether it is a novel or a letter to the editor or a post on an internet forum, people do try to communicate with each other. Being able to read well and to write well certainly are useful skills in those endeavors.

And yeah, not every college grad is good at writing novels, as I've had the occasion to learn when an old friend asked me to read his (self published on Amazon) novel. It was not good but it had the kernels of some very good writing and very good storytelling.

I don't disagree with you about the importance of reading and writing. My disagreement is around whether college degrees in reading and writing are a plausible solution to the dearth of skills among college freshmen. And I fail to see how having more people with degrees in literature and writing will address that deficit.

Who do you suppose teaches those courses in literature, composition, writing?

 

[Toni]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Why is your opinion on which should be subsidized or backed by taxes better than anyone else's?

I haven't suggested that I know everything. I've already admitted a couple of times that I can only speak to a few items that I know are underrepresented.

Sure. But your "solution" entails the elimination of things you think are overrepresented.

It doesn't entail the elimination of anything.

It's zero-sum thinking, and you appear oblivious that you are even doing it.

Do you imagine that more people are going to magically appear out of thin air when the incentives change? Or that a bunch of people will cease to exist ala Thanos? In this particular case, it actually is zero-sum, and I'm quite aware of that. It's kind of fundamental to my argument that if you change the incentives, people will make different choices.

I know that we need more skilled trades - do you think I'm wrong about that and we have a glut of tradesmen?

No. But you are wrong to imply that we have a glut of artists, and even more wrong to imagine that making it harder to obtain degrees in the fields you denigrate would create more tradesmen.

I know that we need more primary care doctors and nurses - do you disagree and think we have too many?

Again, no. But the cause is not that we have too many fine art or literature graduates;

Are you actually taking my simplification literally here, rather than understanding the figurative simplification to fields on very different ends of the spectrum of social value?

A far more important cause is the very high barriers of gruelling hours and low income placed at the start of careers in medicine. Nurses never get past that stage; Doctors do, but they have to get through the medieval training regimen of junior doctors to get there - a regimen that was developed primarily to defend senior doctors from competition, thereby enhancing their incomes and prestige.

And not that I am not using the word 'medieval' figuratively here. Doctors (like lawyers) are literally still operating like the medieval guilds from which their professions arose.

But you somehow don't think that we should incentivize primary care doctors and nurses more than we incentivize other, less necessary fields of study?

It sounds to me like you are making the exact error that led to the planned economies of Eastern Europe in the C20th - you are deciding in advance how much of everything society must need, and refusing to supply anything else on the grounds that if it were necessary, you would have thought of it.

That did not end well last time out.

This is a misrepresentation of what I've said, and of things I've clarified repeatedly.

No, it really isn't. You appear unaware of this, but it is the root of all you are saying here.

At no point have I suggested that how many of each field should be decided in advanced and planned out. What I have suggested is that fields that we need more of should be incentivized, and fields that we need less of should not be incentivized. That's not at all the same thing as a planned economy, it's not a reasonable parallel at all.

Are you doing this on purpose with the intent of irritating me?
Do you think this wins you points with other posters somehow?
Do you think your false insinuation will make me feel ashamed or embarassed and that I'll change my mind in order to avoid your judgement based on things I've never said or implied?

No, I am trying to point out the actual implications of your proposals.

You're pointing out the far end slippery slope of a proposal I haven't made.

What do you think you're accomplishing by not just distorting my view, but by radicalizing it to this extent? What's so hard about sticking with what I've actually said?

I am simply extrapolating what you ask for (a change in funding) to its inevitable consequences. That you can not see those consequences is my motive; That you do not intend them is one of your reasons for being annoyed by my pointing them out.

It is well known which road is paved by good intentions.

I fail to see how a change in funding to incentivize what we need more of and to disincentivize what we don't need more of results in soviet russia.

Do you think the concept of load balancing is communist?

Who determines the need?

O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars ​

Are in the poorest thing superfluous.​

Allow not nature more than nature needs,​

Man’s life is cheap as beast’s. ​

 

[bilby]

Postulate: People having houses is good for society.

Not in the same, or even a similar, sense that people having a broad and varied education is good for society.

The analogy is rendered valueless by this fact.