Post by NYC XYZPost by r***@hotmail.comWhen it comes to attendance, obviously it depends on the
course/university. In some you only need to attend 2/3 of the
tutorials, in others attendance is not required.
Whoa, hang on: we're not talking about "tutorials" here, we're talking
about the classese themselves, the lectures and/or labs. These are
actual "instructors" I'm talking about, not just "tutors."
OK, see your point. Good luck. The lecturers (profs) are usually
better, although there are a few exceptions: one never knows how to say
'calculate', and so she always says 'compute this, compute that'.
Another one says 'orgasm' for 'organism'. One says 'take out a shit of
paper'.
Post by NYC XYZPost by r***@hotmail.comIn those where
attendance is not required, I note that class size in the tutorials
shrunk by 80% by the end of the term. I find many of the tutorials
useless, for they inevitably are rate-limited by the lowest common
denominator. I am not faulting people for accents, but that in some
cases, some tutors actually muddle the issue more than they clarify. It
is possible that you come out of it more confused than before you went
in.
Indeed, I find tutorials work only as "vitamin supplements," and not
"meals" themselves.
Yep.
Post by NYC XYZPost by r***@hotmail.comIn my case, if they followed my suggestion, roughly 1/2 of the
department would be fired. The survey is anonymous anyway so I didn't
direct it personally to the tutor. Again I'm not talking about accents,
but rather a very serious problem with communication. It does not help,
for example, if you have to ask a simple question 4 times and then have
to spit out each word because he does not know what you're talking
about. It's really that bad.
Yes, it's true. Quite a divide, the left-right hemisphere! The
professor himself -- and not the instructor -- for one of these courses
drones on and on and doesn't realize he's boring folks to death.
Actual case in point: after droning on and on, he said, "okay, next
chapter, Climate Change" and looked up at some commotion in the
audience...and then said, "Am I going too fast for you?" There was
laughter all-around, and somewhat mystified, he added, "Wow, you guys
need to read faster!"
Post by r***@hotmail.comAs for that bizarre question - I suspect that it's a prelude to
affirmative action.
The Physics Dep't.????
I know there's a general effort to get more females and minorities
(non-Asian, of course -- LOL!) into the sciences, but I'm surprised at
the rigor of the pursuit suggested....
It is really quite astonishing. A while back I posted a thread on
affirmative action and learnt quite a bit about this. I'll repost it
here. If you have time, it is really worth while to read the entire
paper. It samples only 3 universities, but a casual search indicates to
me that this is a systemic thing. To add insult to injury, people lie
through their teeth and say that diversity equals merit!!
As you can see, we're not talking about giving a nod when credentials
are roughly equal; we're talking a complete obliteration of standards.
The pursuit of equality has taken on a religious quality. Again, see
below. It's probably worth saving onto the harddrive for reference.
------------------------------------
http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/VAS%20Report.pdf (you need Adobe Reader to
view it)
"The odds ratio for blacks compared to whites at NCS is 13 to 1, but at
UVA it is 106 to 1 and at William &Mary 267 to 1. In other words, at
UVA the odds of a black student being admitted is more than 100 times
the odds of admission of a white student with the same qualifications.
The odds of admitting a black applicant at William & Mary is more than
250 times the odds of admitting an equally-qualified white applicant.
The odds ratios for Asians at all three schools are less than one,
meaning that Asians are less likely to be admitted than
equally-qualified whites (the odds ratio for Asians at UVA is not
statistically significant). The odds ratios for Hispanics are 2.8 and
1.9 at UVA and NCS, respectively, but less than one at W&M. This means
that Hispanics are somewhat more likely than whites to be admitted at
UVA and NCS but less likely than whites to be admitted at W&M Law (but
this is not statistically significant)."
University of Virginia (UVA) undergraduates, North Carolina State (NCS)
undergraduates, and William and Mary Law (W&M Law) School.
-----
Discussion:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_frm/thread/ec...
Let's recap. From the paper, and with numbers you provided assuming a
freshman class of 1000:
At UVA, white median is 1350 and a whopping 360 whites scored above and
below this threshold
Black median is 1026 and only 60 blacks scored above and below this
threshold
If you pick a black at random, 50% of the time he will score below
1026. This is exceedingly low in the white distribution -- recall that
very few whites who score between 1050-1150 get admitted in the first
place. Half of black students are at the very very bottom. This
contributes significantly to 'stereotyping' on college campus at UVA I
suspect. But this 'stereotyping' is based on some element truth as we
just saw - they really have low scores. The distributions of blacks and
whites in college are not identical and in fact differ profoundly and
astonishingly. Black median is lower than the white median by more than
300 SAT points. Are you suggesting that this is not a huge difference?
We've also seen that blacks and whites are held to very different
criteria during the admission process. The odds ratio for admission for
blacks compared to whites (with SAT/LSAT scores, gpa, and residence
controlled for) at UVA is 106 to 1. The corresponding odds ratio of
admit at William &Mary law school is 267 to 1. In other words, at UVA
the odds of a black student being admitted is more than 100 times the
odds of admission of a white student with the same qualifications. The
odds of admitting a black applicant at William & Mary is more than 250
times the odds of admitting an equally-qualified white applicant.
That's all in the paper - I didn't make this up!
In the stats you provided you implied perhaps that even if we admit ALL
blacks, i.e. 100% blacks, i.e. *any black who applies gets in* without
regard to merit, GPAs, SATs etc - the cost to the total would only be
slightly over 11% (backtrack a few posts if you don't remember this),
since they are only a small percentage of applicants. I think most
people will have concerns about this even if overall cost is 11% -
what, blacks get 100% admit rate regardless of merit?? Anyone who
applies gets in??? In that case, what do you think people will say
when they see black students on the campus?
Now, when the percentage of blacks who apply increases, so does the
corresponding social cost. Should people stay away from colleges with a
huge black applicant population as they will be treated as second-class
applicants? Well? That's one interpretation of the data.
Of course, the difference between the above scenario and in real life
is only a matter of degree. It does not differ in fundamentals. As we
have seen, standards have already been thrown out the window with an
over 300 median SAT point difference in the freshman class.
The pertinent question therefore is whether people should be held to
the same standard, or whether people should be held to such a
drastically different standard in the UVA admit process. I'm inclined
to say no, in part because this contributes (albeit not totally) to
huge median SAT (and likely LSAT) differentials between favored
(blacks) and nonfavored groups (all others), with visible ramifications
in campus life and dropout rates. The more important indictment,
however, is such a practice deeply conflicts with principles of
equality and fairness that we cherish.
And with this I close our discussion. Nice chatting with you,
sincerely,
---
addendum: Your little thought experiment - were you suggesting that
some may benefit from majority or all black schools or universities?
Howard University, the "black Harvard" as some call it, cites a mean
SAT of only 1019. A quarter of students score under 820. Was it you who
said that UVA was a "crappy" school? ;)
-------------------------
Post by NYC XYZPost by r***@hotmail.comI suspect the department wants to square the circle
because of the fact that there is a serious female underrepresentation
in math/hard sciences. So if the survey shows that many people think
that the lack of female tutelage is a bad thing, then they may have a
basis to change to a policy where merit is not the only criteria for
hiring.
I think it's a fact widely recognized; doubt they needed a survey of
students to clarify such matters.
But if someone challenges them, then they have a good, documented,
hardcopy reason of a good 'utility value', I guess. That's what I think
anyway. Yes, it is astonishing that it takes place in math or physics
departments, not just in the humanities. It's a desperate way to
equalize outcomes when everything else fails. I often think these
slower students are great because they shift the entire curve leftwards
making things easier for everyone -- as long as they don't drop out in
large numbers which really neutralizes the situation - and as long as
you're 'in'. Still, you'll never know what happens in your next app!!
:) Again see that paper above.
