How I Ended Up in Tech by Chance(thewell.jopwell.com)
thewell.jopwell.com
How I Ended Up in Tech by Chance
http://thewell.jopwell.com/posts/how-jopwell-cto-randy-brown-ended-up-in-tech-by-chance-paul-graham/
9 comments
"But these days, recruiters at tech companies are not turning people down due to their opinions about their race."
Not even github? They seemed to want to aggressively reduce the percentage of white males at their company, and bragged about their success in doing so.
Not even github? They seemed to want to aggressively reduce the percentage of white males at their company, and bragged about their success in doing so.
That doesn't contradict grandparent. They could be doing so by increasing recruitment and hiring of non-whites and non-males. I expect that most people in this thread believe that's exactly what they're doing.
Yes, they could be doing so in this way, and I believe that companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and such are doing so.
But as long as github retains staff members like Danilo Campos, I have absolutely no faith that github isn't taking a more draconian and explicitly racist approach.
But as long as github retains staff members like Danilo Campos, I have absolutely no faith that github isn't taking a more draconian and explicitly racist approach.
[deleted]
Yes, github sticking it to the most oppressed of minority groups: straight white dudes.
"Yes, github sticking it to the most oppressed of minority groups: straight white dudes."
Are they trying to reduce the percentage of straight people there as well? I thought that gay white males might be an unintended casualty of the racism and sexism at github.
There is an argument to be made that poor white males may indeed be one of the most disadvantaged groups, at least in the US. It depends on how you weight various criteria.
Are they trying to reduce the percentage of straight people there as well? I thought that gay white males might be an unintended casualty of the racism and sexism at github.
There is an argument to be made that poor white males may indeed be one of the most disadvantaged groups, at least in the US. It depends on how you weight various criteria.
[deleted]
Frustrated by the people who are claiming that this piece or the company is racist/unexceptional, or that this man's success is due to exclusively hard work. They are missing a greater point that hard work and circumstance are both needed and one is significantly less useful without the other, and that there are structural social challenges that should be addressed.
It's also very possible to praise this, and everyone else's, achievement without: comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train, discounting luck, or discounting other struggles.
Discussions like this remind me of this poignant comic on income inequality that is pretty much impossible to argue around: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
It's also very possible to praise this, and everyone else's, achievement without: comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train, discounting luck, or discounting other struggles.
Discussions like this remind me of this poignant comic on income inequality that is pretty much impossible to argue around: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
It's pretty easy to argue against that comic. Most of it is made-up anecdote. 2 of the 3 testable claims it makes are completely and nonsensically wrong, almost to the point of complete fabrication. The third testable claim I don't know how to google.
Poor Americans don't live in overcrowded homes. Only 3.3% of those homes have "severe physical problems" (what I'm interpreting the comic to mean), and they typically have 2 rooms/person.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
60% of poor children have parents who didn't work at all during the year. In contrast, 51% of Americans 18-64 whole did work full time year round.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...
I don't have stats on classes sizes - do you? I suspect the author of that comic didn't bother to google before writing it.
I'm not even going to try and refute the made-up anecdotes, e.g. dying father, parents who don't care about academics, and a boss who looks like a dog.
Poor Americans don't live in overcrowded homes. Only 3.3% of those homes have "severe physical problems" (what I'm interpreting the comic to mean), and they typically have 2 rooms/person.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
60% of poor children have parents who didn't work at all during the year. In contrast, 51% of Americans 18-64 whole did work full time year round.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...
I don't have stats on classes sizes - do you? I suspect the author of that comic didn't bother to google before writing it.
I'm not even going to try and refute the made-up anecdotes, e.g. dying father, parents who don't care about academics, and a boss who looks like a dog.
You seem like just the type of person I wanted to read that comic when I decided to put that in. You're fully missing the point (forest through the trees type of thing) with those stats; the unarguable part is that life circumstances often allow some people to snowball minor successes/advantages and prevent the same from happening to others.
Basically, that comic represents a very realistic, though maybe not statistically significant if it were to be taken literally, situation. It illustrates that results are not dictated by hard work and there is not equal opportunity. It is an attempt to help people empathize.
It's not saying that the guy on the left is a shit (though maybe unaware of his blessings), but rather that the woman on the right (anecdotally representing marginalized society) may be trapped no matter how hard she works. Sure she can beat it, but look at everything else she has to overcome to do so.
Basically, that comic represents a very realistic, though maybe not statistically significant if it were to be taken literally, situation. It illustrates that results are not dictated by hard work and there is not equal opportunity. It is an attempt to help people empathize.
It's not saying that the guy on the left is a shit (though maybe unaware of his blessings), but rather that the woman on the right (anecdotally representing marginalized society) may be trapped no matter how hard she works. Sure she can beat it, but look at everything else she has to overcome to do so.
The point is that while circumstances like what are described in the comic are super rare. If we want to take into account ridiculously rare circumstances and call it "very realistic", why stop there?
Richard's parents sent him to personal trainer who taught him to be a track star. Paula had her legs chopped off by Islamic terrorists.
Richard's parents taught him to ground his electronics projects. Paula got struck by lightning 3 times.
Richard didn't like to go to the beach. Paula had her right hand eaten by a shark.
etc.
You can prove anything if you pretend wildly improbable freak situations are somehow representative of reality.
If you want to claim we don't have equal opportunity, I don't disagree. Some folks have advantages - e.g. the author of this blog post was born into the right race to get major bonus points in the educational system, had a mother who knew how to game that system, had US citizenship, etc. In contrast, all I had was US citizenship. Most folks don't even have the citizenship, and a large number of them are members of a race that's treated even worse than mine.
But if you want to talk about the practical significance of this - whether she's actually trapped or whether she just needs to work 10% harder - then you need to think about the details, which the comic gets wildly wrong.
Richard's parents sent him to personal trainer who taught him to be a track star. Paula had her legs chopped off by Islamic terrorists.
Richard's parents taught him to ground his electronics projects. Paula got struck by lightning 3 times.
Richard didn't like to go to the beach. Paula had her right hand eaten by a shark.
etc.
You can prove anything if you pretend wildly improbable freak situations are somehow representative of reality.
If you want to claim we don't have equal opportunity, I don't disagree. Some folks have advantages - e.g. the author of this blog post was born into the right race to get major bonus points in the educational system, had a mother who knew how to game that system, had US citizenship, etc. In contrast, all I had was US citizenship. Most folks don't even have the citizenship, and a large number of them are members of a race that's treated even worse than mine.
But if you want to talk about the practical significance of this - whether she's actually trapped or whether she just needs to work 10% harder - then you need to think about the details, which the comic gets wildly wrong.
"You can prove anything if you pretend wildly improbable freak situations are somehow representative of reality."
That's true, but what is represented in the comic is far from "wildly improbable" and in fact comes across as pretty realistic. That's why many people like it.
It can't be that hard to believe that there are many situations where a person has several small things, often not worth studying, wrong in their lives that compound over time. That's the point.
At the end of the day, I think that we both agree more than not and that you're more taking issue with the fact that I said "impossible to argue" than the larger point, which is totally fine because it was a melodramatic thing to say.
Details the comic got right (btw, comic depicts Australia I believe, but it's equally applicable to US so we'll go with that, it's also hard to attribute the later panels to one given, testable factor, as what's depicted is the result of all the small things in life):
Houses with extended family: "57 million Americans now live in some sort of multigenerational configuration. That number has doubled since 1980," including 36% of young adults [1]
Frequent illness: "The Connecticut Commission on Children reports that children who live in poverty experience more illness than children in more affluent homes." [2]
Parents working 2 jobs: "more than 7 million people in this country were holding 2 or more jobs. That’s 5% of the total workforce" [3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics number doesn't count jobs for cash etc.
low income=shitty schools. not even going to bother to search that one.
working while in school (less time to network, study etc.): "over 78% of undergraduate students work" DOE [4]
Anyways, I'm glad you read the comic.
A lot of that stuff seems really self evident to me, but here are just some sources from random googling. [1]: http://www.newsweek.com/why-multiple-generations-families-ch... [2] http://www.livestrong.com/article/229181-effects-of-low-fami... [3] https://toughnickel.com/finding-job/Working-2-or-More-Jobs (from Bureau of Labor Statistics) [4] http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
That's true, but what is represented in the comic is far from "wildly improbable" and in fact comes across as pretty realistic. That's why many people like it.
It can't be that hard to believe that there are many situations where a person has several small things, often not worth studying, wrong in their lives that compound over time. That's the point.
At the end of the day, I think that we both agree more than not and that you're more taking issue with the fact that I said "impossible to argue" than the larger point, which is totally fine because it was a melodramatic thing to say.
Details the comic got right (btw, comic depicts Australia I believe, but it's equally applicable to US so we'll go with that, it's also hard to attribute the later panels to one given, testable factor, as what's depicted is the result of all the small things in life):
Houses with extended family: "57 million Americans now live in some sort of multigenerational configuration. That number has doubled since 1980," including 36% of young adults [1]
Frequent illness: "The Connecticut Commission on Children reports that children who live in poverty experience more illness than children in more affluent homes." [2]
Parents working 2 jobs: "more than 7 million people in this country were holding 2 or more jobs. That’s 5% of the total workforce" [3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics number doesn't count jobs for cash etc.
low income=shitty schools. not even going to bother to search that one.
working while in school (less time to network, study etc.): "over 78% of undergraduate students work" DOE [4]
Anyways, I'm glad you read the comic.
A lot of that stuff seems really self evident to me, but here are just some sources from random googling. [1]: http://www.newsweek.com/why-multiple-generations-families-ch... [2] http://www.livestrong.com/article/229181-effects-of-low-fami... [3] https://toughnickel.com/finding-job/Working-2-or-More-Jobs (from Bureau of Labor Statistics) [4] http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
Citing a bunch of statistics about non-poor people who work multiple jobs, and irrelevancies like multigenerational configuration, are not really supporting the comic.
It's quite true that people with lots of money (like Richard's parents) tend to work long hours. And 5% of the workforce - most of them non-poor - might work 2 jobs. That's almost exactly the opposite of what the comic portrays.
Similarly, attributing things like poor people getting sick more on things like a damp house (or otherwise lacking money) is simply wrong. We now have an actual randomized trial to demonstrate this. http://m.qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/2/687
Most likely some third hidden factor (for example low conscientiousness resulting in poor work habits and poor health habits) causes both poverty and poor health.
I'm not disputing the idea that some folks have a leg up on life. I'm simply disputing a comic that wildly misleads about the actual nature of that leg up.
Also, on the thing you are "not even going to bother to search", the question is not whether poor schools have bad outcomes. The question is whether those schools are significantly worse themselves - i.e., if we were to reduce class sizes, would outcomes improve? (Most studies suggest that small class sizes - like virtually every educational intervention - would barely change outcomes.)
It's quite true that people with lots of money (like Richard's parents) tend to work long hours. And 5% of the workforce - most of them non-poor - might work 2 jobs. That's almost exactly the opposite of what the comic portrays.
Similarly, attributing things like poor people getting sick more on things like a damp house (or otherwise lacking money) is simply wrong. We now have an actual randomized trial to demonstrate this. http://m.qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/2/687
Most likely some third hidden factor (for example low conscientiousness resulting in poor work habits and poor health habits) causes both poverty and poor health.
I'm not disputing the idea that some folks have a leg up on life. I'm simply disputing a comic that wildly misleads about the actual nature of that leg up.
Also, on the thing you are "not even going to bother to search", the question is not whether poor schools have bad outcomes. The question is whether those schools are significantly worse themselves - i.e., if we were to reduce class sizes, would outcomes improve? (Most studies suggest that small class sizes - like virtually every educational intervention - would barely change outcomes.)
I'm sorry what? Your interpretation of the comic is that it's claiming that poor Americans all live in the worst 3.3% of homes and have dying dads and bosses who look like dogs?
The comic is saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. That is testable, and widely accepted as true. Are you saying it's false?
The comic is saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. That is testable, and widely accepted as true. Are you saying it's false?
The comic explicitly claims:
Panel 2: Paulas house is full of people and not much else. It's damp and noisy and she keeps getting sick.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's house is overcrowded and has severe physical problems that make her sick. How do you interpret it?
Panel 3: That's why they're working two jobs.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's parents are working two jobs, and as a result cannot help her with homework. In contrast, Richard's parents in the left side are doing exactly that. How did you interpret it?
Panel 2: Paulas house is full of people and not much else. It's damp and noisy and she keeps getting sick.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's house is overcrowded and has severe physical problems that make her sick. How do you interpret it?
Panel 3: That's why they're working two jobs.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's parents are working two jobs, and as a result cannot help her with homework. In contrast, Richard's parents in the left side are doing exactly that. How did you interpret it?
Like I said in grandparent, I interpret it as saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. Which is testable and widely accepted as true.
The comic also explicitly claims that poor Americans are all named Paula, have been recommended Eazee Finance, and work as cater-waiters. Why didn't you take those literally? I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure at least one of those is also false. I think I met a poor person once who said she'd never heard of Eazee Finance. She might've misheard me, what with her poor hearing because the house she grew up in was so damp and noisy. Her name was Paula though, so anecdotally that checks out.
The comic also explicitly claims that poor Americans are all named Paula, have been recommended Eazee Finance, and work as cater-waiters. Why didn't you take those literally? I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure at least one of those is also false. I think I met a poor person once who said she'd never heard of Eazee Finance. She might've misheard me, what with her poor hearing because the house she grew up in was so damp and noisy. Her name was Paula though, so anecdotally that checks out.
With the name Paula, all I can think is that she became a really bad computer programmer[1][2], and was stuck waiting tables after the dot-com crash.
It's weird how name associations stick in your head.
[1]http://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Brillant_Paula_Bean
[2]http://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Brillant_Paula_Strikes_B...
It's weird how name associations stick in your head.
[1]http://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Brillant_Paula_Bean
[2]http://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Brillant_Paula_Strikes_B...
So we are now agreed that none of the factual matters described in the comic are remotely representative of poor Americans? And actually all these extreme examples are just somehow representative of some nebulous and vague "reduced access"?
Incidentally, "reduced access" is not a testable prediction - how would I test it? What does it even refer to?
Incidentally, "reduced access" is not a testable prediction - how would I test it? What does it even refer to?
You may be surprised to learn that none of the factual matters in the story of the hare and tortoise are remotely representative of real hares and tortoises. Not only have there been no recorded instances of hares or tortoises using human speech, scientists are fairly sure that they are physiologically incapable of human phonology.
I don't understand what you're saying. There is a consensus that poor Americans are at a disadvantage when it comes to school, business, and health. Are you challenging that that's the consensus, or do you acknowledge that that's the consensus but you're challenging whether it's true?
I don't understand what you're saying. There is a consensus that poor Americans are at a disadvantage when it comes to school, business, and health. Are you challenging that that's the consensus, or do you acknowledge that that's the consensus but you're challenging whether it's true?
big difference between a fable and an anecdote
It has to happen in real life to be an anecdote. Did the comic give the impression of being biographical accounts of two people who coincidentally end up interacting at an event where one of them is being congratulated?
The comic was subtitled "A Short Story"; Wikipedia defines a "short story" as "a piece of prose fiction...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story
It was clearly a fable.
The comic was subtitled "A Short Story"; Wikipedia defines a "short story" as "a piece of prose fiction...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story
It was clearly a fable.
That's a really good comic. I grew up very privileged and it's easy to give in to some of the thoughts that are displayed. I know far too many of my peers who probably wouldn't see the irony in it if you chopped off the right half.
"comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train"
This kind of thing is all too common among those who advocate for ideologies which they believe would make the world a better place. They lose the audience, and undermine their own claimed goals. As someone that cares about social justice, I think shining a light on this (and other unfortunate parts of 'the movement') is one of the most important things to do at this point.
This kind of thing is all too common among those who advocate for ideologies which they believe would make the world a better place. They lose the audience, and undermine their own claimed goals. As someone that cares about social justice, I think shining a light on this (and other unfortunate parts of 'the movement') is one of the most important things to do at this point.
You just proved the point. You're arguing socioeconomic cirumstance (which I think should be helped out) over race. If you're solidly middle/upper class, shouldn't matter what colour you are.
The title is wrong. The title should be "How I ended up successful in tech through the hard work and perseverance of my mother and myself, with a side dish of good fortune."
OT - The jopwell page seems to not be rendering properly on Mac / Firefox. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/8m01gRN
Everybody ended up in tech by chance. Everyone ended up alive by chance.
That's a great negative viewpoint. Thanks for sharing it.
I think you missed the larger point - that we can be doing a better job as evangelists of the industry, and broadening it's reach.
I think you missed the larger point - that we can be doing a better job as evangelists of the industry, and broadening it's reach.
actually, i would say yours is the narrow point, and it's also a POV whose reach you are looking to broaden. The negative aspect of your POV is that some of us get tired of hearing it over and over (and I'm not picking on you, just explaining the different attitude) Labelling our worldview negative is also a negativity.
My goal in reading hacker news is not helping contribute blasts of cold air in order to preserve every little snowflake; but every little snowflake is welcome, nay, invited even, to read sober analysis of what processes are really going on. That's real math, science, and engineering.
I had to laugh the other day when I saw an effort to promote STEAM. STEAM? It's STEM, but including the Arts! OMG. Did we leave anybody out?
My goal in reading hacker news is not helping contribute blasts of cold air in order to preserve every little snowflake; but every little snowflake is welcome, nay, invited even, to read sober analysis of what processes are really going on. That's real math, science, and engineering.
I had to laugh the other day when I saw an effort to promote STEAM. STEAM? It's STEM, but including the Arts! OMG. Did we leave anybody out?
No, I got that point and indeed I do agree with it. In truth, I was just commenting on the title with the point that most everything is by chance - most importantly our very existence as individuals. No negativity was intended.
Just think how lucky that sperm was that made it into the egg, vs all the other millions.
That is indeed where the luck begins.
> I think you missed the larger point - that we can be doing a better job as evangelists of the industry, and broadening it's reach.
Humour me, why do we care to do this? The more people that think programming is magic and stay away, the more money we make.
Humour me, why do we care to do this? The more people that think programming is magic and stay away, the more money we make.
Because a lot of outreach is really about saying, "you know, people who are just like me are pretty great."
Because "we" want to raise the standard of programming so "our" experience is actually valued? Depending how driven you are, you can "max out" a programmer career in 5-15 years today.
AMEN.
How is that a "negative" viewpoint? I see absolutely no negativity in that person's post. Is it possible you might be projecting something?
He was privileged to be a black man since this drastically improved his odds of getting into Princeton. It's not anywhere near as much of an achievement as you are making it out to be.
As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
So with high probability, it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton.
It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian.
(If anyone has more current numbers I'd love to see them. I've seen more recent numbers on state schools, which suggest 23% of blacks are only there due to race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when... But nothing at the ivy level.)
As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
So with high probability, it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton.
It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian.
(If anyone has more current numbers I'd love to see them. I've seen more recent numbers on state schools, which suggest 23% of blacks are only there due to race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when... But nothing at the ivy level.)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904014 and marked it off-topic.
I don't think we need another litigation of Ivy admissions (and affirmative action), posted as commentary on a particular person's story. When you make statements like "it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton" and "It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian", you're inevitably putting that person down, and that's not right. Your unspoken assumption—that all other things are equal and history began the day they applied to Princeton—is facile to begin with, but particularly uncharitable when applied to someone's life.
I don't think we need another litigation of Ivy admissions (and affirmative action), posted as commentary on a particular person's story. When you make statements like "it wasn't that much of an achievement to get into Princeton" and "It's certainly far less of an achievement than it would have been if he were Asian", you're inevitably putting that person down, and that's not right. Your unspoken assumption—that all other things are equal and history began the day they applied to Princeton—is facile to begin with, but particularly uncharitable when applied to someone's life.
Dang, the guy who wrote the article characterizes his success as luck. I'm agreeing with him and pointing out the fallaciousness of a claim that he's wrong. How is that off-topic?
Imagine someone cited the fact that I've worked for American companies as evidence of my skill and accomplishment. Under some circumstances, this very easily could be evidence of that. To work for American companies, some people need to bust their ass hard until 12th standard to get into IIT, get top marks at IIT, demonstrate kickass skills to companies 12,000 miles away and get one of them to sponsor the visa. That surely is an accomplishment.
But actually I just happened to be born on the right side of an arbitrary border.
And if someone were to cite my work for American companies as accomplishment, where I claimed it was merely luck, it would be perfectly valid to point out my US citizenship and how that helps me.
I feel like you are simply objecting to my mood affiliation, and perhaps trying to make HN seem more welcoming to people who wish we didn't point out true facts like this.
Imagine someone cited the fact that I've worked for American companies as evidence of my skill and accomplishment. Under some circumstances, this very easily could be evidence of that. To work for American companies, some people need to bust their ass hard until 12th standard to get into IIT, get top marks at IIT, demonstrate kickass skills to companies 12,000 miles away and get one of them to sponsor the visa. That surely is an accomplishment.
But actually I just happened to be born on the right side of an arbitrary border.
And if someone were to cite my work for American companies as accomplishment, where I claimed it was merely luck, it would be perfectly valid to point out my US citizenship and how that helps me.
I feel like you are simply objecting to my mood affiliation, and perhaps trying to make HN seem more welcoming to people who wish we didn't point out true facts like this.
> He was privileged to be a black man since this drastically improved his odds of getting into Princeton.
His guidance counselor pretty much knew this and the article spelled it out...
> She thought that my math and science scores made me a good candidate, as did the fact that I was an African American male — something which we all know the engineering world is lacking.
> The strategy worked.
His guidance counselor pretty much knew this and the article spelled it out...
> She thought that my math and science scores made me a good candidate, as did the fact that I was an African American male — something which we all know the engineering world is lacking.
> The strategy worked.
>As of 2006, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students in the top 25 schools are there only due to race.
Thats a pretty bold claim that assumes
1. Any minority at Princeton falls neatly into that trend, and isn't simply an outlier.
2. Princeton & Ivies weigh SAT scores significantly as part of the admissions process.
3. Princeton & Ivies use raw objective performance as the primary basis for acceptance.
If 2 & 3 were true, you wouldn't see as much pressure for students to play 3 sports, 9 instruments, and have 300 other extra-currics to remain competitive for those spots. Anyone who believes that they just rank applicants by SAT scores and take the top N is a little bit delusional.
Thats a pretty bold claim that assumes
1. Any minority at Princeton falls neatly into that trend, and isn't simply an outlier.
2. Princeton & Ivies weigh SAT scores significantly as part of the admissions process.
3. Princeton & Ivies use raw objective performance as the primary basis for acceptance.
If 2 & 3 were true, you wouldn't see as much pressure for students to play 3 sports, 9 instruments, and have 300 other extra-currics to remain competitive for those spots. Anyone who believes that they just rank applicants by SAT scores and take the top N is a little bit delusional.
So 2/3-5/6 of black students at the top 25 schools are outliers? Or black students are wildly disproportionately likely to play 3 sports, 9 instruments and have 300 extra-currics?
I'd love to see data supporting this claim.
That sure goes against stereotypes, which suggest it's mainly Asian students who do that.
I'd love to see data supporting this claim.
That sure goes against stereotypes, which suggest it's mainly Asian students who do that.
>So 2/3-5/6 of black students at the top 25 schools are outliers?
Princeton's total undergrad class size is about 2000 of which 7% identified as African-America (2000 * 7% * 25=3500). BLS says that was from a pool of 2.2MM students. (Assuming even population distribution of 13% African-American=286000).
So of the potential 286000 African American students every year, 3500 are going to top 25 schools - which is 1.2%. Is it far fetched to assume that the top 1% of Black students are outliers (to your "study")?
Keep in mind Asians are 5% of the American population, but make up 22% of Princeton's undergrad class. To me - it just looks like you are grasping at straws to make this conclusion. Basic statistics overwhelmingly backs up your "stereotype". To imply the admissions officers are giving minorities a whopping 80% preference to minorities, based of the data, shows that admissions officers are either incredibly incompetent at giving preferential treatment to minorities, or you are just talking out of your ass.
Princeton's total undergrad class size is about 2000 of which 7% identified as African-America (2000 * 7% * 25=3500). BLS says that was from a pool of 2.2MM students. (Assuming even population distribution of 13% African-American=286000).
So of the potential 286000 African American students every year, 3500 are going to top 25 schools - which is 1.2%. Is it far fetched to assume that the top 1% of Black students are outliers (to your "study")?
Keep in mind Asians are 5% of the American population, but make up 22% of Princeton's undergrad class. To me - it just looks like you are grasping at straws to make this conclusion. Basic statistics overwhelmingly backs up your "stereotype". To imply the admissions officers are giving minorities a whopping 80% preference to minorities, based of the data, shows that admissions officers are either incredibly incompetent at giving preferential treatment to minorities, or you are just talking out of your ass.
Lets go with your 3500 number. In 2006, 976 blacks scored above 700 in SAT math, and 1117 scored above 700 in SAT verbal.
1117 is a lot smaller than 3500. (Or the 3000 number the study uses.)
(Note: 1400 SAT, or whatever that translates to on the current 2400 pt test, is table stakes for getting into a top 25 school.)
I don't know why you put "study" in quotes - do you consider the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education to somehow be an "illegitimate" source?
To imply the admissions officers are giving minorities a whopping 80% preference to minorities, based of the data, shows that admissions officers are either incredibly incompetent at giving preferential treatment to minorities, or you are just talking out of your ass.
I don't understand. If you take 1200 qualified black students and turn them into 3000 enrollees, how is that not a highly successful preferential treatment program?
Similarly, the relevant comparison when looking at Asians is not what percentage of the American population they make up. A more relevant comparison would be what percentage of the top students are Asian. I can't find top scores, but a quick google search suggests Asians do in fact outperform everyone else on average.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
1117 is a lot smaller than 3500. (Or the 3000 number the study uses.)
(Note: 1400 SAT, or whatever that translates to on the current 2400 pt test, is table stakes for getting into a top 25 school.)
I don't know why you put "study" in quotes - do you consider the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education to somehow be an "illegitimate" source?
To imply the admissions officers are giving minorities a whopping 80% preference to minorities, based of the data, shows that admissions officers are either incredibly incompetent at giving preferential treatment to minorities, or you are just talking out of your ass.
I don't understand. If you take 1200 qualified black students and turn them into 3000 enrollees, how is that not a highly successful preferential treatment program?
Similarly, the relevant comparison when looking at Asians is not what percentage of the American population they make up. A more relevant comparison would be what percentage of the top students are Asian. I can't find top scores, but a quick google search suggests Asians do in fact outperform everyone else on average.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
At the Ivies, you've got piles of white and Asian kids with perfect scores on the SAT, 4.0+ GPAs, etc. So you've got to do something to separate yourself from that herd in some way or another that catches the eye of somebody in the admissions office or otherwise ticks enough boxes on whatever rubric they are using this week.
Competition for some of these places is completely insane. I remember the campus newspaper publishing admissions statistics and it was something like 8-9% of applications were accepted, at one of the smaller and less well-known ones. Of those, you have a few dozen with the same last names as buildings on campus, a couple hundred international students paying every dime, and maybe another hundred recruited athletes. They could admit an entire class of high school valedictorians and salutatorians if they felt like it.
Competition for some of these places is completely insane. I remember the campus newspaper publishing admissions statistics and it was something like 8-9% of applications were accepted, at one of the smaller and less well-known ones. Of those, you have a few dozen with the same last names as buildings on campus, a couple hundred international students paying every dime, and maybe another hundred recruited athletes. They could admit an entire class of high school valedictorians and salutatorians if they felt like it.
Is your implication that he was at Princeton only due to his race? Can you prove that?
Otherwise, this seems gratuitously negative and irrelevant.
Otherwise, this seems gratuitously negative and irrelevant.
Obviously if I'm claiming a 66-83% chance of something, I'm not claiming to have "proof". I'm simply claiming that it's more likely than not.
rjeli(3)
jimmywanger(2)
[deleted]
Regardless, diversity is an issue that the tech industry certainly does needs to tackle, and things like this are one way of going about it; I just feel like it's the wrong way. Denying opportunities to people based on race might achieve the goal, but it does it in a way that's only going to breed contempt. It also ignores that poverty, while vastly more common among the specified races, still does exist for some whites and asians.
I believe the metric we should be using for programs like these should be total family income, not the color of your parents skin. Is systematic racism a problem? Probably in some industries. But these days, recruiters at tech companies are not turning people down due to their opinions about their race.