←back to thread

376 points undefined1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.317s | source
Show context
umvi ◴[] No.22974956[source]
This is obviously a controversial topic, and I have mixed feelings.

The bottom line (for me) is that diversity at universities and other organizations is either good, neutral, or bad. We've (mostly?) collectively agreed diversity is good as diversity in sex/age/race bring diversity in thought, which presumably results in more innovation/competition/challenging of status quo/etc. The only way to increase diversity is to practice negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on minorities...

Either that or universities need to dedicate a large amount of funding marketing to minorities so that they get more competitive applicants from said group. However, discrimination is easier and cheaper to implement.

replies(6): >>22974967 #>>22974995 #>>22975014 #>>22975040 #>>22975116 #>>22975133 #
skybrian ◴[] No.22974967[source]
I think Harvard should be 10x bigger than it is. Why can't we have that? This needn't be zero-sum.
replies(5): >>22974985 #>>22975008 #>>22975012 #>>22975013 #>>22975787 #
MiroF ◴[] No.22974985[source]
Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that way in practice, but 10x would entail lowering admission standards.
replies(2): >>22975006 #>>22975019 #
littleweep ◴[] No.22975006[source]
Or allowing people who are equally as qualified get in? My understanding is the issue is capacity and not quality.
replies(1): >>22975015 #
1. MiroF ◴[] No.22975015[source]
Qualification is a continuum, there is no such thing as "equally as qualified." Regardless, if Harvard accepted 50% of applicants rather than 5%, the student body would not be equally as qualified.