Why Do Universities Want a Diverse Student Body?

[Bomb#20]

assuming educational facilities' goals are related to providing quality education, a diverse student body promotes diverse discussion. A classroom is not a one-way lecture most of the time... There are peer influences. Questions and comments inspired from differing cultures broadens the educational experience, and rounds graduates' overall knowledge and experience.

Beautiful theory. Same people who discriminate against conservatives in tenure decisions and instantly knuckle under to student cancel culture. Universities these days typically give the appearance of valuing diversity in everything that doesn't affect diverse discussion and in nothing that does.

I know why at least one university wants a more diverse student body: larger base of potential students, help traditionally marginalized groups, and frankly to help some white folk overcome some misperceptions.

Bingo -- a theory that matches observation.

 

[laughing dog]

assuming educational facilities' goals are related to providing quality education, a diverse student body promotes diverse discussion. A classroom is not a one-way lecture most of the time... There are peer influences. Questions and comments inspired from differing cultures broadens the educational experience, and rounds graduates' overall knowledge and experience.

Beautiful theory. Same people who discriminate against conservatives in tenure decisions and instantly knuckle under to student cancel culture.

One of the most important outcomes in my view is introducing students to other viewpoints and experiences than their own. The world could do more of that. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with tenure decisions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

assuming educational facilities' goals are related to providing quality education, a diverse student body promotes diverse discussion. A classroom is not a one-way lecture most of the time... There are peer influences. Questions and comments inspired from differing cultures broadens the educational experience, and rounds graduates' overall knowledge and experience.

Beautiful theory. Same people who discriminate against conservatives in tenure decisions and instantly knuckle under to student cancel culture. Universities these days typically give the appearance of valuing diversity in everything that doesn't affect diverse discussion and in nothing that does.

Does it now?

Please elaborate... specifically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll raise the bar, why would society not want a diverse collegiate class? Are we otherwise shooting for permanent under-classes?

The problem is that you are presenting it as a binary when it really is a trinary.

It's not favor diversity/oppose diversity, but favor diversity/ignore diversity/oppose diversity.

Simple illustration: Should universities go for alphabetic diversity (an equal number of students whose name starts with each letter)? Does opposing that mean you think universities should focus on students whose name begins with A?

While there are the racists that think universities should favor whites there are also those of us who favor a truly race-blind approach: hide the race from the people making the admission decisions. Any organization taking in people on a large scale should be working this way: one group distills applications into blinded data, another decides from that data. Blinding tends to become burdensome on a small scale so I wouldn't expect as much when companies are hiring only a few people.

 

[Rhea]

there are also those of us who favor a truly race-blind approach: hide the race from the people making the admission decisions.

But then you support a not-race-blind criteria: the SAT. So no, you don’t favor a race-blind approach. Just a blind-to-everything-not-white approach.

If you make yourself blind to race, you make yourself blind to the very differences that the campus seeks. You make yourself blind to the diverse voices and points of nview that are brought. You make yourself blind the different cultures, like the value of authenticity that the black culture holds versus the value of conformity that the white culture holds. You tell yourself that the student has NO VALUE outside of the classroom.

You also make yourself blind to the different struggles. Which doesn’t make the struggles go away, it just makes you ongoing blind to them. So you set a bar that favors those like you, because you set up a system that makes sense to the way you were raised. And you put a barrier in front of those not raised like you - and tell yourself you want to be blind to the barrier you just put up.

This is what the universities say they WANT from diversity. To **SEE** and understnd and include all race differences, not to be blind and pretend they don’t exist and everyone’s just white with an accent.

 

[laughing dog]

I'll raise the bar, why would society not want a diverse collegiate class? Are we otherwise shooting for permanent under-classes?

The problem is that you are presenting it as a binary when it really is a trinary.

It's not favor diversity/oppose diversity, but favor diversity/ignore diversity/oppose diversity.

Simple illustration: Should universities go for alphabetic diversity (an equal number of students whose name starts with each letter)? Does opposing that mean you think universities should focus on students whose name begins with A?

The only thing that example illustrates is ineptitude. There is no reason to think that the first letter of a different name caused discrimination.

While there are the racists that think universities should favor whites there are also those of us who favor a truly race-blind approach: hide the race from the people making the admission decisions. Any organization taking in people on a large scale should be working this way: one group distills applications into blinded data, another decides from that data. Blinding tends to become burdensome on a small scale so I wouldn't expect as much when companies are hiring only a few people.

If the world were race blind, you'd have a point. If the world had a reliable and fool-proof method to measure ability and aptitude, you'd have a point. But the world has neither, so you don't.

 

[RVonse]

I'm tired of intelligence being blindly denigrated.

Oh but it is the colleges who are blindly denigrating intelligence.

The colleges themselves are the ones who prefer being racist over intelligence measurements for student admission. The leadership of these colleges are ones blindly subscribing to religious affirmative dogma over meritocracy.

Furthermore, these college leaders do not even value their own intelligence. Displaying such utter and complete stupidity how watering down their own course curriculum's (in order to facilitate low quality admissions based on race) ultimately resulting in degrees meaning nothing to the economy. Indeed, their actions are the complete opposite of intelligence.

 

[RVonse]

This is what the universities say they WANT from diversity. To **SEE** and understnd and include all race differences, not to be blind and pretend they don’t exist and everyone’s just white with an accent.

The universities are not suppose to be there for a social betterment of race relations. They are supposed to educate people. The administrators have far too much time on their hands and think they need to practice religion because they have nothing else to do. Too many administrators.

 

[RVonse]

If the world were race blind, you'd have a point.

The world may not be race blind but the US is much closer than most. Because if the US was not race blind we would not have voted for a black president.

Affirmative action is extremely racist and may have had a place 40 years ago as a cure for other racism. But at this point needs to be retired.

And the retirement of affirmative action may be hard on minorities in the short run. But in the long run will be a huge strength for minorities. Because in the future, those same minorities will be respected for what they can do rather for what they were given.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the world were race blind, you'd have a point.

The world may not be race blind but the US is much closer than most. Because if the US was not race blind we would not have voted for a black president.

So if we continue your logic here, America is clearly misogynistic. Remember, your logic, not mine.

Affirmative action is extremely racist and may have had a place 40 years ago as a cure for other racism.

No, racism is an attempt to hold back a particular race. AA was never put forth to hold back or marginalize white people. You'll need another word to describe it.

And the retirement of affirmative action may be hard on minorities in the short run. But in the long run will be a huge strength for minorities. Because in the future, those same minorities will be respected for what they can do rather for what they were given.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[RVonse]

You tell yourself that the student has NO VALUE outside of the classroom.

All students have no value inside or outside the classroom. It is only after they are educated that they bring value to society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm tired of intelligence being blindly denigrated.

Oh but it is the colleges who are blindly denigrating intelligence.

The colleges themselves are the ones who prefer being racist over intelligence measurements for student admission.

That is so unbelievably false and baseless, I can barely even believe you actually believe that is true.

Let's look at an example. My Uncle was a teacher who worked a lot with the robotics group at his high school (mainly white student population). As he and staff got more experience, the program got better, and they began progressing further and further nationally. That was inertia, experience, and history. The kids early in the program didn't advance far into nationals because they weren't as bright as the later kids. The program was stronger. Better application of resources, a better FAQ, history to build off. Of course, on the college resume, later kids got to say 'National Finalists - Robotics' while the earlier kids only got to say 'State Finalists - Robotics'. Is the measuring stick particularly fair here in comparing the aptitude of the applicants?

Meanwhile, in an adjacent school not far away (predominantly black and poor), we have kids who lack the resources and history the other school built up. Some kid manages to breakthrough there isn't going as far because of fewer resources, lesser staff experience, certainly less money, probably less time to work, Those kids are running against the kids at the wealthier schools to get into college.

A student's aptitude and ability and potential are not just measured by a test score.

 

[RVonse]

A student's aptitude and ability and potential are not just measured by a test score.

When it comes to educating a difficult subject....yes it is. The world is competitive whether we like it or not. And if the US does not compete with China and the rest of the world by educating quality people they will leave us in the dust. That is not to say the poor should not be given every opportunity to take the same tests. But in the end admissions need to be based solely on merit and NOT race. Take affirmative religion out of the schools.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A student's aptitude and ability and potential are not just measured by a test score.

When it comes to educating a difficult subject....yes it is. The world is competitive whether we like it or not. And if the US does not compete with China and the rest of the world by educating quality people they will leave us in the dust. That is not to say the poor should not be given every opportunity to take the same tests. But in the end admissions need to be based solely on merit and NOT race. Take affirmative religion out of the schools.

Saying that admissions are solely based on race is just ... well... fucking stupid. Admissions were never based solely on race.

Perhaps India might be more your style with the class based structure.

 

[laughing dog]

This is what the universities say they WANT from diversity. To **SEE** and understnd and include all race differences, not to be blind and pretend they don’t exist and everyone’s just white with an accent.

The universities are not suppose to be there for a social betterment of race relations. They are supposed to educate people. The administrators have far too much time on their hands and think they need to practice religion because they have nothing else to do. Too many administrators.

Education is more than learning a skill or a concept - it is about improving oneself. Going to college for mist teenage students is also a maturing process. Becoming a better person has social and civic benefits which includes better race and other forms of social relations.

 

[Elixir]

All students have no value inside or outside the classroom.

Speaking for yourself of course. Students normally have value to other students, to their teachers and often, to society at large.
Just yesterday, a high schooler helped me inestimably. Yet, somehow I have no problem believing that what you say is true - about yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

A student's aptitude and ability and potential are not just measured by a test score.

When it comes to educating a difficult subject....yes it is. The world is competitive whether we like it or not. And if the US does not compete with China and the rest of the world by educating quality people they will leave us in the dust. That is not to say the poor should not be given every opportunity to take the same tests. But in the end admissions need to be based solely on merit and NOT race. Take affirmative religion out of the schools.

You are misinformed. The miore difficult the subject, the more different and frequent assessment tools are needed. Despite whatever you believe, the world tries to send its students here to university. If the US relaxed its visa student visa requirements, I suspect many universities and colleges would sufficiently bolster the enrolments.

Those who appear to hold your view have a narrow view of what “ merit” means.

 

[bilby]

ultimately resulting in degrees meaning nothing to the economy.

Since when has education been intended solely for the benefit of "the economy", rather than "the people" or "society"?

I suspect that the problem here is that you are wrongly assuming a goal that actual colleges don't generally have.

The post-1980s fad for economic rationalism, and the resulting elevation of money above people, is a bizarre right wing cult, not a law of nature.

Colleges have traditionally taken a much longer and broader view of their role than the churning out of economic components able to be more productive when they leave than they were when they arrived; That's always been a secondary effect of education, not its primary purpose.

They even have a name for it - vocational education - that the administrators of major universities and colleges can't utter without a sneer, because they (IMO correctly) consider it to be a rather vulgar imposition on their actual role of advancing human knowledge and building human achievement.

The economy is a necessary, but rather mundane, backdrop to education. Focusing on it in universities and colleges is like going to see the Mona Lisa to study the kind of canvas da Vinci used; It's a valid thing to look at, but if it's all you care about, you are badly missing the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

there are also those of us who favor a truly race-blind approach: hide the race from the people making the admission decisions.

But then you support a not-race-blind criteria: the SAT. So no, you don’t favor a race-blind approach. Just a blind-to-everything-not-white approach.

Once again, you continue with your faith that disparate outcomes = discrimination.

The SAT is race-blind. It's just that doesn't produce the results you want.

If you make yourself blind to race, you make yourself blind to the very differences that the campus seeks. You make yourself blind to the diverse voices and points of nview that are brought. You make yourself blind the different cultures, like the value of authenticity that the black culture holds versus the value of conformity that the white culture holds. You tell yourself that the student has NO VALUE outside of the classroom.

If you want a disparity of viewpoints you would be better served by selecting a group that is as diverse as possible in culture of origin. Skin color doesn't create a diversity of viewpoints!

You also make yourself blind to the different struggles. Which doesn’t make the struggles go away, it just makes you ongoing blind to them. So you set a bar that favors those like you, because you set up a system that makes sense to the way you were raised. And you put a barrier in front of those not raised like you - and tell yourself you want to be blind to the barrier you just put up.

This is what the universities say they WANT from diversity. To **SEE** and understnd and include all race differences, not to be blind and pretend they don’t exist and everyone’s just white with an accent.

The problem is that you aren't reaching the group you are trying to help. Those minority slots go to the kids of immigrants, not to the disadvantaged.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll raise the bar, why would society not want a diverse collegiate class? Are we otherwise shooting for permanent under-classes?

The problem is that you are presenting it as a binary when it really is a trinary.

It's not favor diversity/oppose diversity, but favor diversity/ignore diversity/oppose diversity.

Simple illustration: Should universities go for alphabetic diversity (an equal number of students whose name starts with each letter)? Does opposing that mean you think universities should focus on students whose name begins with A?

The only thing that example illustrates is ineptitude. There is no reason to think that the first letter of a different name caused discrimination.

You utterly ignored the point that you can oppose anti-discrimination efforts without being for discrimination. We obviously agree that there's no point in worrying about what letter their names start with--thus you just showed you're against an anti-discrimination effort.

While there are the racists that think universities should favor whites there are also those of us who favor a truly race-blind approach: hide the race from the people making the admission decisions. Any organization taking in people on a large scale should be working this way: one group distills applications into blinded data, another decides from that data. Blinding tends to become burdensome on a small scale so I wouldn't expect as much when companies are hiring only a few people.

If the world were race blind, you'd have a point. If the world had a reliable and fool-proof method to measure ability and aptitude, you'd have a point. But the world has neither, so you don't.

Removing race/gender/sexuality/religion from the picture will make it fairer than if they were allowed to influence the decision. We should use the most reliable techniques we have--but you want to use skin color which has no predictive value whatsoever.