Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:33:59 am
content: In years past, when we have discussions about education in this forum, I have said a lot of good things about JHU-CTY (Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth) on this forum years past.I have recommended CTY to fellow forum members herewith young kids.I am disowning those statements I made on this forum then for present day.CTY today is not the same organization of which I made those very complimentary remarks,. Further more, it is no longer something I would recommend fellow forum members to look into for your kid.When I made those recommendations, entrance requirementwas high, but merit based. Anyone with good enough SAT score can get in and you are surrounded with other successful students and can mutually inspire each other. Present day, that is no longer the case.By the way, I wonder what happens to CTY Internationally. They use to have their international award ceremony in Hong Kong -- I recalled from their awardee list (around 2013-2015 time frame) Hong Kongers were the majority of the international CTY kids receiving their performance awards. Now that they are easier score-wise (from what I can recall with scores), but are acceptingonlythose "from traditionally underrepresented student group in higher education", that should pretty much take Hong Kong out of the running...Another era gone by...

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:32:09 am
content: Hmm, where did you find out about these changes? The JHU website seems to describe merit-based testing only, e.g. here:https://cty.jhu.edu/talent/testing/.Maybe there is a specific program for under-represented groups too, to complement the merit-based ones? I didn't see any during a quick check though.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 07:55:15 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 25, 2020, 09:32:09 amThe quote is from their site's "CTY Scholarship Application" page. I have issues with most of the bullet points there, but the third one is the one I referenced in the OP.Once anachievement oriented organizationmoved off pure merit base, I am no longer assured that their best is the best. Rather, is it merely the best of a subset. That really took away what was a meaningful thing to say "I am a CTY scholar."I felt embarrassed after having recommend it to my barber. With lock-down over, I had my very much needed hair cut. I followed up and ask him if he did that for his daughter - only to get a very funny look back. A very good reminder-lesson of "what was" does not always equal "what is".Quote below, link to quote at the bottom.----------------------------------------------------------Eligibility RequirementsSuccessful CTY Scholars candidates must:• Earn qualifying scores on the SAT, ACT or Advanced SCAT that qualify for CTY summer and online programs• Be in the 8th grade and attend a public or charter school• Be from a traditionally underrepresented student group in higher education• Have a combined family income of $75,000 or less• Meet current geographic area of available scholarship----------------------------------------------------------To preserve the context of the reply if they changed in the future, I am attaching a Chrome-Print PDF of the linked page.Link here:https://cty.jhu.edu/scholarships/cty_scholars/application.html

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:18:49 pm
content: Bruh...That’s not the eligibility requirements for the CTY program. It’s the eligibility requirements for thescholarship, i.e. for a particular kind of financial aid they grant.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:07:02 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 25, 2020, 08:18:49 pmI know that that was a scholarship requirement - but CTY was very achievement oriented. Just look at the name of the organization - Center for Talented Youth, that screams achievement.Even after you got in,signing up for courses is based on your score instead of first-come-first-serve. I knew a young lady (classmate of my daughter) who qualified for CTY Discovery-level (on-line courses only), who took SAT 3 times at grade 7 just so she get the score to get her into the level to have in-person courses.CTY always had cave-outs for a subgroup. 700 club was for those who got 700 in their SAT at 12 years of age. That is fair, that is achievement. They have another one above that still. For an achievement oriented organization to focus on anything else but achievement took that away.That "judgement based solely on achievement" is gone.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:18:32 pm
content: As much as I disagree with the principle of picking people for a job based on non-achievement criteria (e.g. there aren't enough women in field X, let's hire more women instead of qualified candidates only), which can corrupt the performance of an organisation and lead to failure, I fail to see why these policies would be an issue for an *educational* institution.Surely we want as *many people* as reasonable practicable to be educated, and selecting people who have historically lower achievement in a given field, is better than selecting more of the same candidates who could get into any other university?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on July 25, 2020, 09:07:02 pmDude, are you beingdeliberatelydense? You are confusing the eligibility for a financial aid program with eligibility for the CTY program itself.They. Are. Separate. Things.The additional requirements for the scholarship are simply to keep the scholarship money from going to advantaged kids who aren’t as reliant on such assistance.You know that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of financial aid programs for university students out there which are specifically for specific minorities, all depending on who the benefactor wants to give money to. And that’s all independent of university admissions. This is the same kind of situation.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 02:58:16 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 25, 2020, 10:34:07 pmI have perhaps failed to adequately express my sentiments, but confused I am not.So, with my initial expression failing me, allow me to be direct in re-expressing myself:Yeah, I do know that plenty of scholarships out there directed to minorities or other groups. That is what makes this CTY Scholarship thing counter-product pasturing, and perhaps even insidious.I doubt many old-CTY mid-level participants would have a scholarship shortage. With the dropping standard, manyuniversities feverishly recruit students of good academic standingto hold up the university own academic standing. A kid whom at 7th grade already exceeded college bound senior's SAT would not be having a shortage of scholarship offers.So this change was not a needed change. It was needless pasturing. With (in your words) "hundred if not thousands" already available, it is too plentiful to be necessary.When I first found out about CTY, it was such arefreshing rarity that they were pure merit based- from what class you get into, to what courses you can access, pure merit based. I enthusiastically recommend it to others. Plenty of other "academic honors" with requirements like "working as volunteers to collect trash in your community," but not CTY, it was purely academic merit only.May be they never were purely merit based! Who knows, I could be wrong and just idealized them in my own mind. Either way, my enthusiasm for them no longer exist for today.In their needless pasturing, they diluted their own image. They made being a "CTY Scholar" mean less. So, rather than confused, it was disdain that inhibited me from capably expressive -- my disdain for an institution that onceonly merit matters in every decisionsthey made,now diluted itself.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:11:06 am
content: You haven’t even proved it’s a changeat all. It could very well be that they’ve had the scholarship for years and years and you just didn’t know about it, since it’s not actually the same thing as the CTY program you used to like so much.Nor is there any evidence that entrance requirements for the CTY program have been lowered.I think you’re just inventing outrage in yourself based on not understanding it.P.S. I think you mean “posturing”.Pasturingmeans putting animals (e.g. cows) out to graze.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:42:19 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 26, 2020, 11:11:06 amI think we are on different frequencies and not connecting. Onelast try...(1) The quoted recent page is a scholarship not purely based on merit, right?(2) I have been saying: what I admired them for was their "pure merit based", right?Now I can see that "purity" is not there. May be it was a change, or not; it really doesn't matter. It doesn't alter that the fact that they are not "pure" today. So my admiration for them is gone -- today.If it was indeed not a change or not a recent change, it merely means my admiration was misplaced or I was late in changing my mind. Either way, my admiration for them is gone, finish, done.With the last try done... And now for something completely different!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:59:12 pm
content: What you're saying makes sense in isolation, but your original post, with its references to Hong Kong and all, clearly indicated that you thought thescholarship'shardship requirements applied toallapplicants to the CTY program in lieu of the actual CTY admission requirements, and conversely, that admission requirements to the CTY program included hardship. But that's not true.The scholarship requirements apply only to a particular financial aid program, which not everyone needs.It's the classic equality-vs-equity thing:Ideally, programs like CTY would not cost anything for anyone (neither in tuition nor ancillary costs like travel), and thus scholastic merit alone would decide which kids can attend. But it's not, and many smart kids from disadvantaged situations have impediments to being able to go, be it the cost of tuition, travel, or things like parents whose minimum-wage jobs don't give them the flexibility to take time off to take the kid to the program, not to mention more complex circumstances like parents with addiction, or even being an orphan or in foster care. I think it's unethical for us tonotextend special help to those kids.And to be clear, since I am unsure whether this point has gotten through: those kidsstillhave to meet the CTY program requirements. It's not as though the disadvantaged background gives them priority over better-qualified-but-privileged kids!

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 02:45:35 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 27, 2020, 08:59:12 pmYes, the entrance requirements and other requirements (such as honor, etc.) were heavy in my mind. Once the "principle of merit only" wall is cracked, the rest will come tumbling down. I am expecting other requirements will in-time be watered down as well.Hong Kong just came to mind because it is in the news often these days, and they were dominating CTY-International for CTY Honor and High Honor awardees that one year I obtained their awardees list.I was profoundly disappointed because it wastheir "pure merit based" that lead me to enthusiastically recommend them to fellow parents seeking alternativesto "academic honor" organizations that focus on everything else but academic merit.I am not blind to what you are saying, yes, not everyone needs financial assistance and it is a good thing for them to have some if they are truly in need. But "reasonable place" is usually the best place to put the crowbar because it seem so reasonable. Once the wall is cracked...EDIT: Corrected misspelling of "crowbar"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 03:23:29 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 25, 2020, 08:18:49 pmIs any of that money from the government? That makes a big difference.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 09:18:32 pmSurely a monetary scholarship should be based on two things only:1) Aptitude2) Economic need.(and other requirements like being a citizen or whatnot)What does "traditionally underrepresented student group" have to do with that?So they have gone from having two requirements, to now three, and potentially disqualifying students (presumably that would be white people, and perhaps white males in particular) who previously would have had met the requirements?EDIT: I see Rick doesn't have evidence that it's actually changed from two to three requirements.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:14:07 am
content: Discriminating on race alone would be a bad factor, Dave. An example scholarship should look at family income, whether members of the family previously had held a professional job or degree, and aptitude, though I would argue the bar for aptitude should be *fairly* reduced to account for the poorer position someone is in when applying to that scholarship (e.g., it'll take someone with A/B grades, instead of A+) I think you would find that you would get more under-represented groups if you did this - so there'd be more minorities and yes, poor white families too. We have a crisis in the UK amongst working class boys, almost none of them go into higher education and in 2-3 decades this will become a disaster as automation picks up.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2020, 07:14:07 amYes, but that seems to be implied here.What else does "traditionally underrepresented student group" mean? We all know what it means to today's world - white males need not apply. Asian's too most likely.QuoteI wouldn't disagree with that. Personally I'd put a lot of value on a interview to see how keen they are. Some people just don't care about what they are doing and are just there because they can get it for free.QuoteI'm pretty sure that if you are a poor white male, you don't meet the requirements of this scholarship. You don't even have a chance.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:43:24 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 27, 2020, 08:59:12 pmI have seen that Picture quite a lot and I get why a lot of people post it, but when you think about it for longer than 1 minute you realize that equity in real life application always means you always will discriminate against certain people over another because it is impossible to factor in all the traits that could make a person considered disadvantaged (i.e who is more disadvantaged than another?), it is not just a fence and 3 people of different heigth, it is a gross oversimplification and it certainly makes it impossible to make things "fair" considering the amount of traits people have. In fact when you attempt to categorize People in that way often you end up more unfair than you started out.That is why I believe equality is better as the only place where equity truly exists is in Death, and mass-attempts at categorizing people by privilege have always resulted in literally just that - mass graves.Or in short: If your Organization is going to discriminate people by categories at least be honest about it and tell that to people in their face.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:59:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:23:29 amI don’t actually know. Johns Hopkins is a private university, but I have no idea if the scholarship has any public funding, if it comes from JHU’s general budget, or from a private endowment (which commonly come earmarked for specific demographics).Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 amIt has a ton to do with it, insofar as systemic discrimination in USAcreateda lot of the disadvantages that caused those demographics to be underrepresented, or even outright discriminated against. It’s not just those demographics’ lower incomes that pose barriers to education. For example, we know that just having a “black” name means a kid’s schoolwork is scored more harshly.* We know that black students are disciplinedfarmore severely for the same infractions, which has its own domino effect of follow-on academic consequences.Ultimately, remember that nobody worth listening to is actually advocating for equality of outcomes for everyone, divorced from merit, effort, etc. But what many of us, myself included, consider highly important is equality ofopportunity. JHU itself, despite being literally one of the world’s most renowned medical schools, is actually situated right next to some of the very worst neighborhoods in Baltimore. I think it’s got to be unusual for a university of that caliber to be literally on the front lines of the urban decay directly caused by systemic racism, and I would assume that this informed a lot of JHU’s focus when studying socioeconomic issues and public health, since it’s not just some far-away abstract problem. Meanwhile, one of the JHU hospital campuses is right in the middle of what could diplomatically be called “low income white” neighborhoods. So that, too, is very close to home. Upshot being that if there’s a university that I would trust to take a fair, respectful approach to race and whatnot in admissions, financial aid, etc., it’d be Hopkins.(Well, JHU and the university I went to, whose president has become nationally recognized for producing a far above average graduation rate for black students. Lots of universities have no trouble getting black students to enroll, but actually making sure they graduate can be more challenging, often due to issues at home. So this is a big deal. And that’s a university known primarily for hard sciences and engineering, rigorous academics, and for letting students get hands-on lab and research experience far beyond what’s typical. So definitely not by looking the other way and letting them slide by.)*here in Switzerland, the same effect was observed towards ex-Yugoslav names. They did some kind of experiment where the same schoolwork was graded, sometimes under a Western European student name, sometimes with a Yugoslav sounding name, and the latter was graded appreciably lower on average. Similarly, they found that for any given level of academic success, kids with “-ic” names were more likely to be steered towards less-academic trades than equivalent performers with more Western European names. I find this interesting because the ex-Yugoslavs are just as white as Western Europeans (and whiter than Southern Europeans!), so skin color isn’t even the issue. Heck, if many people can discriminate even within their race, then many are definitely going to do it to people outside their race...Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 amFrom reading the website, it sounds as though there are multiple financial aid solutions available (they say they don’t want money to be a barrier to participation for any qualified child). So if this one specific one doesn’t work, another one should.Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 amAbsolutely. Given how prestigious JHU is, i suspect that they have tons of qualified applicants far in excess of available slots, so they can be selective, and would incorporate an interview.Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 amIt could be. But since it seems there’s other financial aid types too (and that poor whites nonetheless do not share all the disadvantages that blacks and Native Americans have), I don’t think this is necessarily bad.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 09:26:34 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on July 28, 2020, 08:43:24 amOf course it’s a simplification. But it’s a good visualization of why we need to strive for equity. If you look at the picture I posted, which is an expanded version with an extra panel compared to the original, you’ll notice the right panel is one of actually removing the barriers, instead of the much more problematic compensation by providing individual assistance.For example, rather than arguing over who is disadvantaged enough to merit financial aid, you should design the system such that there’s no tuition. Rather than attempting to compensate for the disadvantages caused by systemic racism, you should actively eliminate the systemic racism itself. (For example, rather than attempting to compensate for racist discrimination in hiring by employing affirmative action, you’d try to design away the opportunities for discrimination in the hiring process. You might start by anonymizing applications so that you don’t allow the applicant’s name to bias you either way.) Kinda like how in electronics, you strive to design a circuit that doesn’t rely on tight component tolerance, rather than designing a circuit with trimpots everywhere and lots of expensive 0.1% parts.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:10:03 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 09:26:34 amNo, it is a bad Visualization because it implies that you could resolve the infinite amount of traits people have that could result in disadvantage is as easily resolved as changing "a fence". That is not true, in fact is a terrible mistake to believe that and trying to fix it on that basis will result in more divide as is currently observable in the country you come from (or countries like Germany, Sweden etc.) where Intersectionalist have been pushing this BS over equality and diversity for decades now. Instead of a fence I think a more appropriate thing to picture is a whack-a-mole.And this has been observable historically in Communist, Ethno-nationalist and Religious Fundamentalist countries in the past and currently as well.They all strive for some bastardized form of equity based on categorization of people by trait. They all have ended in Catastrophe striving for Utopia.(Class, Race, Faith - currently it is Privilege which weirdly attempts to mix all of them)I also do not think you understand what systemic racism means - Apartheid would be such thing, openly discriminatory laws written based on certain traits. We do not have that in (most as far as I know) Western countries, no matter how you spin it. (Or give me some actual written laws to disprove that and we can talk in changing THOSE).What people currently call systemic racism is all based on anecdotes and personal feeling, there is absolutely no evidence to support it.Racism in itself, no doubt about that - that is a rather Human trait.Regarding your Swiss example of Yugos, I have no doubt that such discrimination exists - I also have no doubt that if we look at raw numbers in crime, Behaviour etc. averages the Integration of many Yugos into Swiss culture "failed" thus being part of cause of the latter and viceversa.Both statements say nothing about the Individual, should not be used to judge a person and are, for me, yet another reason why society overall (and you) needs to stop with the equity over equality thing and maybe stop fighting against windmills and tackle real solvable issues.There is no way our lives can improve by going from that angle.Edit: Id like to add to you other example of anonymized Curriculums: Some Jobs are Image based - like acting - and aren't credentials some form of discrimination anyways as some can get better access to it than others? Do we just put down Candidate XYZ on the paper.Absurd. Sorry - also nothing new.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:33:18 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 09:26:34 amEven a zero tuition policy doesn’t eliminate the need for financial aid. It’s already the case that for many state schools that room and board (housing and food) is more expensive than tuition for in-state residents. Eliminating a minority of costs is unlikely to eliminate the need for financial aid.Every bit helps, of course, but given that living for four years is resource intensive, it’s not likely that will require financial aid beyond tuition relief.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:47:13 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 amDepending on how broadly you intend the parenthetical, I’m not sure I agree. I think that private (non-governmental) scholarships should be able to have broad qualifications to support the donor’s wishes. If they want there to be a religious affiliation, intended field of study, actual high school attended, parental employer, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other criteria to be considered, I say “fine, have it; it’s private money; do what you like.”Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 amlike you, I’m a white male. I applied for and got a bunch of small ($500 here, $1000 there) scholarships and did Army ROTC to quilt together what I needed to attend college. I don’t have any regrets nor feel in any way unduly disadvantaged that some private entity has a scholarship that I don’t qualify for. Maybe it’s only for members of this church, or those studying music, or Pacific Islanders, or whatever. Why would I worry that someone else wants to spend their money a certain way and that way doesn’t include me?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:56:50 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 08:59:31 amUnless you are a while male, right?Come on, you know what what they mean here.If you want do that and it's not public money, fine, do that. But don't pretend it'sequally of opportunitybecause it is not.Example: Two kids in the same poor street, with the same income levels, went to the same school. got the same grades, both want it the same etc. But one is black, the other is white. By the sounds of it the white kidcan't even applyfor this scholarship.Heck, the two kids in this example could even be from the same home.Whatever this is, it's notequally of opportunityby definition, it is deliberately excluding "overrepresented groups".Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 amYep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it'sequality of opportunity?.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 11:09:41 am
content: Quote from: sokoloff on July 28, 2020, 10:47:13 amI agree, if it'sprivate moneyand the donor has the wish to help some marginal group or attached some other stipulation, that's fine, end of discussion.If it's public money, then we have a problem IMO.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 11:13:33 am
content: Hmm - so how do people on here feel about the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple when making a wedding cake? They might be religious and hold that belief very firmly that gay marriage is immoral.Private enterprise - fair enough right? OK, but what if the couple was black? Is that OK to now discriminate against?It's a slippery slope to have any form of discrimination IMO - now if it happens that the economic or social aims (improve education in underprivileged groups) happens to target one group more than others, then that is OK, because in principle anyone from a disadvantaged background can apply. You're not saying "only black applicants" or "only white applicants", you're saying "poorer applicants from a background that has little higher educational history".

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 11:20:09 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2020, 11:13:33 amOffering a paid service at a general store front to the public is quite different fromgiving money away, and having a say in who it goes to.I think it would be wrong to try and conflate the two issues.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 11:53:43 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2020, 11:13:33 amI think if you play that out, you'll find it becomes pretty close to a contest to figure out how to describe "only black applicants" or "only white applicants" without actually saying it."This scholarship is available to people who are within 7 generations of a blood family relative who was owned as a slave in the Southern United States prior to 1865." That doesn't technically exclude whites, because anyone from that disadvantaged background can apply, but who are we really kidding when we write that?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 12:35:46 pm
content: Well yes - that's why it should be just for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.The media don't like to play it up, but if you remove race from the equation, and just consider socioeconomic status (how rich you are, where you live, and how rich your parents were), in the US:- poor white and black kids are both about as likely to go to prison or be shot by a police officer- educational attainments are, in general, similarly poor (in fact white males from a working class background do a lot worse; this is particularly noticeable in the UK too.)- life expectancy is similarThis isn't black vs white, this is being lucky to be born into a wealthy (or even middle class family) or growing up into a poor family. With many poor families being single parent, lacking a good male role model.Why are so many black people in this category? It is a reasonable question, but in the USA at least, it is because that is where the slave plantations were, so of course the populations are dominant in those areas. More connection to family and after slavery was abolished many went to work on the same farms for pay. These are historically poorer areas: more working class work, less technical.Whereas white Europeans represent most of white America's history - from educated and wealthy backgrounds in many cases. Add in a bit of Jim Crow and segregation and we can see why we have ended up in this situation.I'm not a fan of reparations, because today's white person did nothing to today's black person (generally speaking), it's very much historical. But helping out people in poorer groups will probably bias more towards certain demographics, that's just life. That isn't racist or wrong.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:11:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 03:32:55 amYeah, I do have no evidence, just my recollection from some years ago. I had no reason to keep evidence of that nature.My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents. My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit. So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind. Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted. I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change).I know I recommended CTY to fellow members here on this forum. I know I recommended it an awful lot to other parents, particularly when I was volunteering (some years ago) at a "parent operated" weekend school (not as replacement but as addition to their regular schools). I volunteered there for over 6 years, every Saturday during regular school year, I interact with many fellow parents and I must have made that recommendation multiple-dozens of times. I just hope that by now, any of them would have kids beyond youth-age and thus done with CTY by now. Now, at the school where I volunteered, while many of them would have no problem showing they are financially needed (family income below $75000), almost all were from an "over-represented" group. A fair number of them were from Hong Kong.Even at the local public school, when I got into conversation with fellow parents, and whenever they show their disdain to "everything else but merit", I would recommend CTY. Cheap to part of it (SAT test cost), pure merit based, and good name recognition. Heck, I even recommended it to my barber... I think these organizations have no idea how much parents are hungry for pure merit based judgements for academics, and they wonder why they are loosing support.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:22:25 pm
content: I was in CTY and SMPY cohort 3.I can heartily recommend CTY as I think it was instrumental in harnessing, directing, and deepening my abilities and interest in math/computer science and kept me from being dreadfully bored in those subjects in school. I will very likely have my kids test for participation in the program as well. (They seem to have some natural inclinations in this direction, but having a science PhD mom and an engineer/enginerd dad raise them undoubtedly contributes to that.)It seems to me like the kerfuffle in this thread is entirely around an adjunct financial aid scholarship aspect to the program, having nothing to do with the core program itself.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:30:20 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on July 28, 2020, 07:11:55 pmI still don't get what problem you see with this.Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria forscholarships(i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far asadmissionto their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is basedonlyon merit.So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:41:06 pm
content: Beyond, "where did the money come from?", I think that they (whomever they are) can offer a scholarship for any legal reason. Now, if some of that money was mine, I want some say at least at some level. If not, what business is it of mine?David Letterman still maintains a scholarship at his alma mater that explicitly does NOT consider GPA. Being a "C" student, he apparently recognizes the possibility of some level of creativity that may exist in the absence of top grades.https://www.bsu.edu/web/letterman/scholarship

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:06:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 10:56:50 amDave, with all due respect, when it comes to issues like this, you have a privileged, myopic view. You don’t know anywhere near enough about how systemic racism in USA plays out to be able to defend the strong positions you hold.The fact that you think the hypothetical black and white kids of equal incomes, location, backgrounds, motivation, and academic qualifications have the same opportunities (they don’t!) proves that youdon’tunderstand all the factors at play nor the scope of the problem.Bear in mind, until I moved to Baltimore (where I spent my entire 20s), I actually held views very much like yours. But living there, I saw up close how modern systemic racism, over the decades, shaped the city and its black residents in every way imaginable. (Including literally shaping the geography.) So given that AFAIK you’ve never lived in USA (and were never a scholar of sociology, the only other way I would think one could learn about it from afar), it’s totally understandable that you haven’t been sensitized to the problem. But I think you’d be wise to approach it with humility and an open mind, rather than arrogance, rigidity, and dismissiveness. Because youdon’thave the full picture.(And just to preempt any “whataboutism” from the peanut gallery: I’m not black, and thus I never have and never will live the black American experience. Compared to them, my knowledge of these issues is superficial. But I listen to what they say, and really try to take it in, as well as to learn the history to see what the long term effects have been.)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:09:55 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on July 28, 2020, 07:22:25 pmPrecisely.Quote from: ebastler on July 28, 2020, 07:30:20 pmExactly. I don’t think he really grasps this distinction. (Nor why support for disadvantaged kids is a good thing.)

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:08:26 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 08:09:55 pmtookiPerhaps it is because I am a minority. I keenly understand that whenever judgement is made using factors other than merit, it leaves room for it to be unfair. What I like to see is: whenonly merit counts, than other factors by definition are excluded.By the way, I wish you have lived in poor white neighborhood also. You will find the same problems you found in Baltimore. Drugs, single parent households, crime... It did happen to poor black neighborhoods earlier than it did to poor white neighborhoods, so it is more ingrained. I will grant you that. But it hardly matters to those living in it now. The hopelessness is the same.ebastlerYou probably missed my earlier replies. I recommend CTY when I thought it was "pure merit based" to those seeking an alternative to the tons of other diluted-down similar academic club/society/etc. So what kind of alternative would this be if it too is not "pure merit based."

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 10:38:57 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 08:06:56 pmYour refusal to answer the question is duly noted.It was rhetorical anyway, I know your answer. And I will not be baited. And you don't have a clue about my upbringing, and you are wrong that I don't understand. Don't bother replying, I'll ignore you, I know what you are like on this topic.Back to the topic at hand, for another school. I used to recommend UTS here in Sydney, now I do not since they lowered their entry requirements to engineering for women.Even women didn't want it:https://www.change.org/p/university-of-technology-sydney-female-equality-for-entry-into-engineeringBut I do not wish to start the women in engineering discussion again, just wanted to point that out.Anyone else have schools that they used to recommend but now do not?

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 11:19:29 pm
content: I used to recommend the school of hard knocks before it became a lifestyle.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:09:17 am
content: To me the believe that someones suffering is more deserving of attention based on their skin tone is appalling. It becomes even worse when you then start to gaslight people in attempt to weasel out of confrontation.How many Sociology classes does it take to become an actual racist?Quote from: ebastler on July 28, 2020, 07:30:20 pmYou pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination.As Dave pointed out it makes it exponentially worse if Government funding is involved because then you do not even get the choice in funding or not such a discriminatory Organization.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 08:59:19 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on July 29, 2020, 07:09:17 amI don't think I jumped over the point. I acknowledged that thescholarshipconditions can be cause for debate, but argue that this does not affect the quality of the CTYprogramsin any way: You still get the same bright kids, selected on merit only. And hence there is no reason to assume that the quality of the program has been watered down, or that the interaction between the kids might be less stimulating.The only reason not to recommend CTY'sprogramsanymore seems to be: "I hate their guts, since they give money to the wrong people." Which is a political view you are free to hold, of course, but has nothing to do with the quality or goals of their programs.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 09:05:14 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 29, 2020, 08:59:19 amI think the lack of Integrity an Organization displays is definitely a hint on the Quality of the Program they offer.If they thought about it to discriminate in such a way in the selection of scholarship, where else do they discriminate? And if they did not think about it, where else do they lack effort?That is as I think the whole point of his Objection to that Organization and as I see it a 100% Valid one.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 09:13:54 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on July 29, 2020, 09:05:14 amYou are essentially paraphrasing "I hate their guts", right?I hear your argument, although I don't share your point of view.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 09:16:37 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 29, 2020, 09:13:54 amI never applied to that program and it is the first time I heard of it.Maybe instead of attacking people and claiming they hate someone you should go after the argument you clearly do not understand or do not want to understand.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 03:23:38 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 10:38:57 pmIf you’d bothered toactuallyread my reply, you’d know that I did answer your question. So you were clearly ignoring me already.But yeah, your ongoing rigid position tells me that you definitelydon’tunderstand.And I wasn’t baiting. That you consider a well considered challenge to your position as “baiting” just proves that you neither understand the issuenor care to understand it. I challenged you to be open minded and humble, but you’ve just dug in your heels, reinforcing that you are just totally oblivious to the issues.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 03:33:52 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on July 28, 2020, 10:08:26 pmIt’s not “judgment” to have eligibility requirements for a scholarship. You still haven’t grasped that there’s a massive difference between the eligibility requirements for theprogramand the eligibility requirements for thescholarship.Quote from: Rick Law on July 28, 2020, 10:08:26 pmI didn’t live in any poor black neighborhoods in Baltimore, I never claimed such. But that you thinkIthink the problems you enumerate are what the problems are just shows that wearen’ttalking about the same things. Those are someoutcomesof the systemic racism. But they’re not the only ones, and above all, the systemic racism hasn’t gone away, so to repeat what I explained to Dave, a black kid and white kid whose circumstances areidenticalother than racestillwon’t have the same opportunities in the end.So to indulge your whataboutism, yes, poor whites also face lots of challenges, and we need to address those, too. But the question here is about a scholarship restricted to “historically underrepresented” groups, not about all poor people.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 08:24:02 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 29, 2020, 03:33:52 pmWell, Mr. Tooki, I respectfully decline to argue with you any further. Because I think our experiences in life is just too different to share enough mutual understanding at this time.I think it is good that our views differ. I strong support diversity of views, but I do not support substituting that for a mere diversity of appearance. Diversity of appearance ipso facto is superficial.While I'll keep my view of "When it is pure merit base, all other factors are by definition excluded" is hugely beneficial to minorities and to all. I understand you have a different view.I like that you have a different view. If everyone have the same view, the lack of diversity would make it a very boring world.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 09:12:58 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on July 29, 2020, 08:24:02 pmAppearance IS superficial, and yet the US is thoroughly plagued by disparities based on skin color. You cannot solve entrenched systemic racial (or ethnic, or gender) disparities by ignoring them. Underrepresentation is a stable condition, so to ignore it is to perpetuate it.QuoteIf you truly care about success being based on merit, then you need to eliminate all of the existing disparities that are NOT based on merit, but based on wealth, family circumstances, race, gender, etc. These disparities are well supported by evidence, by the way, and are not a matter of opinion. If you insist on a "meritocracy" that does not first correct existing, non-merit-based disparities, then you are simply perpetuating those disparities, because those disparities have an impact on the "merit" you're measuring, whatever it is.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 10:35:09 pm
content: Quote from: ajb on July 29, 2020, 09:12:58 pmThank you! I think you verbalized some of the things that I felt but hadn’t fleshed out.The other thing I’d add is that, given that this discussion took somewhat of a turn when I posted the equality vs equity cartoon, is that if that cartoon actually attempted to depict racism in USA, it would show people digging out the earth beneath the black kid. (And to be clear, I don’t mean that in the past tense, which would simply be a hole under him. This active undermining is going on right now.)

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 04:29:25 am
content: Quote from: ajb on July 29, 2020, 09:12:58 pmWhen there is a problem, it is not always productive to hang on to it and orbit it as if it is the center of the universe. That is the so call "a chip on the shoulder". It is far more productive to ignore it's particular nature, overcome it, and get the job done anyway.And you can be damn sure that entrench or not, minorities are as capable as any others in overcoming the problem.As long as a particular group received additional help to succeed, that particular group is not achieving like other groups, instead, "that particular group achieved like otherswhen helped". We need to get to "that particular group achieving like others."I believe it is not a healthy point of view to think that minorities requires additional help to achieve the same goals others can do without help. In fact, it is a fine line (and I am not accusing anyone here of crossing it, but I do think that is what some of the Hollywood types are doing).It may make the "help giver" crowd feel better that they are heroes and eager to help, but the end result is holding those minority back by reinforcing the falsehood that they are less able to overcome than others.As to so called systemic racism holding people back, I will let someone more eloquent do the talking. Morgan Freeman (a different Hollywood type) addresses the issue on a CNN interview. This is video is under 3 minutes, topic of interest starts at timemark 01:00 to 02:10.Since videos are long, in a nut shell, I will transcript (as best I can) what he said: "(@1:00)... [to say that because of racism] you can't pull yourself up, that is bull, just stick you mind to what you want to do and go do it... ...[that believe] is like a religion to me, it is just an excuse... ... it exists, yeah, it is not like it exist but we refuse to talk about it, that would be a problem; butmaking it a bigger problem than it needs to be is the problem here."EDIT: No change, added bold to some text only

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 05:33:13 am
content: Once people start posting race related Youtube videos, I think it's time to lock the thread.