Split SAT scores as a measure of your potential and college worthiness

[laughing dog]

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

That's not goodwill towards Loren. That's hate speech towards Loren.

Hate speech typically means speech that "expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

So you either need to show your work or apologize for the baseless accusation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My response was directed at the notion of the SAT and/or GPA as measure of potential medical school worthiness. Furthermore, if you paid attention to the actual words in my response, I explicitly said that it makes sense for the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician to design the selection protocols. Neither you nor I have that knowledge so I have no idea why you would ask.

So you don't actually have any evidence that there's a better approach.

SAT/ACT isn't good--but it's better than anything else that's been tested because it's harder to game.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the appearance of discrimination against Asians were really due to Harvard et al. discriminating against students who aren't involved in sports and extracurriculars, this fact would probably become known to Asians, and then the tiger moms would assign sports and clubs to their kids and ground them if they let getting straight A's impact the social stuff.

I left my Homework in the Hamptons -- not specifically about getting into elite schools but it comes up repeatedly and makes some interesting reading.

 

[laughing dog]

My response was directed at the notion of the SAT and/or GPA as measure of potential medical school worthiness. Furthermore, if you paid attention to the actual words in my response, I explicitly said that it makes sense for the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician to design the selection protocols. Neither you nor I have that knowledge so I have no idea why you would ask.

So you don't actually have any evidence that there's a better approach.

SAT/ACT isn't good--but it's better than anything else that's been tested because it's harder to game.

Unlike you, I don’t think I know all the answers.

As to gaming standardised tests, of course they can gamed- there are businesses that help people improve their pointless scores.

 

[Toni]

This is an interesting article about inequities in the SAT.

New SAT Data Highlights the Deep Inequality at the Heart of American Education

The differences in how rich and poor children are educated start very early.

www.nytimes.com

What they do not say---and I honestly do not understand why--is that elite schools --or those worthy of the name as anything other than a reflection of money--ought to be pursing students from modest and low socioeconomic status families with extreme vigor. Apparently, it IS much easier to achieve high scores if your parents went to Iveys. I wonder if income has anything to do with that?

In any case, students (like me, for instance) who come from much more modest income families and who achieve high SAT scores, like I did, especially coupled with high GPAs while taking the most rigorous college prep classes my school offered---must be highly, highly qualified indeed!

Unfortunately, it is often out of reach for such students to attend any school that is not a state school. Even with scholarships, it's very difficult to pay expenses, and students from more modest backgrounds often need to help their families. So, for those especially talented students, they would require a lot of financial and social/emotional support to make going to school some place 500 miles or more away from home feasible, no matter how driven and intelligent they are.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hate speech typically means speech that "expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

So you either need to show your work or apologize for the baseless accusation.

In the first place, you and your ideology don't own the term "hate speech". Trying to restrict it to your ingroup's outgroups is as self-serving as governments inserting "by a non-state actor" into their definitions of terrorism.

In the second place, trumped-up accusations of racism have sometimes led to violence against their targets, Pim Fortuyn for instance.

And in the third place, Toni said what she said about Loren because he blasphemes against her ideology and trumping up racism accusations is something her ideology teaches the people it infects to do to blasphemers. Her ideology satisfies my criteria for a religion. If it doesn't satisfy yours, please yourself, but not having gods isn't a good reason for an ideology's expressions of ideological hatred to be exempted from the hate speech category.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is it hate speech if it’s true? I believe that if Toni says something “seems” a certain way, she is being honest about how it seems to her.

And when the Westboro Baptist Church folks tell gays they're going to Hell because God hates them, they're being honest about how it seems to them.

 

[laughing dog]

Hate speech typically means speech that "expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

So you either need to show your work or apologize for the baseless accusation.

In the first place, you and your ideology don't own the term "hate speech". Trying to restrict it to your ingroup's outgroups is as self-serving as governments inserting "by a non-state actor" into their definitions of terror.

In the second place, trumped-up accusations of racism have sometimes led to violencer. against their targets, Pim Fortuyn for instance.

And in the third place, Toni said what she said about Loren because he blasphemes against her ideology and trumping up racism accusations is something her ideology teaches the people it infects to do to blasphemers. Her ideology satisfies my criteria for a religion. If it doesn't satisfy yours, please yourself, but not having gods isn't a good reason for an ideology's expressions of ideological hatred to be exempted from the hate speech category.

I used the Merriam-Webster definition of hate speech . You use a deeply ideologically and idiosyncratic definition that underpins
your emotional diatribe. Once again, you feel you can read the minds of those with whom you disagree in order to erroneously attribute intent. I do applaud the rich irony in your pathetic apologia.

You do realise your rhetorical manure qualifies as “ hate speech “ using your “ reasoning “.

 

[Toni]

Hate speech typically means speech that "expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

So you either need to show your work or apologize for the baseless accusation.

In the first place, you and your ideology don't own the term "hate speech". Trying to restrict it to your ingroup's outgroups is as self-serving as governments inserting "by a non-state actor" into their definitions of terrorism.

In the second place, trumped-up accusations of racism have sometimes led to violence against their targets, Pim Fortuyn for instance.

And in the third place, Toni said what she said about Loren because he blasphemes against her ideology and trumping up racism accusations is something her ideology teaches the people it infects to do to blasphemers. Her ideology satisfies my criteria for a religion. If it doesn't satisfy yours, please yourself, but not having gods isn't a good reason for an ideology's expressions of ideological hatred to be exempted from the hate speech category.

Excuse me? I was unaware that you suffer delusions of having the power to read minds. Please let me assure you that whatever such powers of mind reading you believe you have, they are not working in this case.

I suggested what I thought might be causing Loren upset. He was and remains more than welcome to tell me I am incorrect about my perceptions.

My perception right now is that you are unable to defend Loren’s perceived ( by me) perception or whatever that would imply so you have decided to instead attack me and make some patently false accusations.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

That's not goodwill towards Loren. That's hate speech towards Loren.

That was an observation or question for Loren. I often disagree with Loren and sometimes agree with him but agree/disagree has nothing to do with any emotion at all, much less hate. I have a lot of respect for Loren.

That was no more an observation than "seems like a groomer" is an observation about a gay man. It was an ideologically-driven interpretation.

People who think tribally can rarely correctly understand the motivations of people who don't. Tribal thinkers tend to judge issues based on ingroup loyalty and they project their own weakness onto others. When people make principled judgments that don't favor a tribal thinker's own ingroup he will dismiss the principle as window dressing, look for an outgroup that the judgment favors, find one, and presume that the judgments were based on tribal loyalty to it.

You didn't accuse Loren of racism in a vacuum. You did it in a society where progressives who favor racial discrimination constantly accuse liberals of racism for opposing racial discrimination.

 

[Bomb#20]

Once again, you feel you can read the minds of those with whom you disagree in order to erroneously attribute intent.

Um, no, that's what Toni did to Loren.

You do realise your rhetorical manure qualifies as “ hate speech “ using your “ reasoning “.

If you say so. Whoop de do -- I'm not the one who claimed goodwill towards all is my basic belief. I do not feel a lot of goodwill towards people who make trumped-up racism accusations. It's a disgraceful way to behave.

 

[Elixir]

Is it hate speech if it’s true? I believe that if Toni says something “seems” a certain way, she is being honest about how it seems to her.

And when the Westboro Baptist Church folks tell gays they're going to Hell because God hates them, they're being honest about how it seems to them.

Yup.
Delusion and dishonesty may overlap somewhat, but IMO they are largely distinct.

 

[Toni]

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

That's not goodwill towards Loren. That's hate speech towards Loren.

That was an observation or question for Loren. I often disagree with Loren and sometimes agree with him but agree/disagree has nothing to do with any emotion at all, much less hate. I have a lot of respect for Loren.

That was no more an observation than "seems like a groomer" is an observation about a gay man. It was an ideologically-driven interpretation.

People who think tribally can rarely correctly understand the motivations of people who don't. Tribal thinkers tend to judge issues based on ingroup loyalty and they project their own weakness onto others. When people make principled judgments that don't favor a tribal thinker's own ingroup he will dismiss the principle as window dressing, look for an outgroup that the judgment favors, find one, and presume that the judgments were based on tribal loyalty to it.

You didn't accuse Loren of racism in a vacuum. You did it in a society where progressives who favor racial discrimination constantly accuse liberals of racism for opposing racial discrimination.

I didn’t accuse Loren of racism, period. I made an observation, which did not use the word racism.

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard. Indeed, he has castigated students for not attending ‘better’ schools without acknowledging that students have little choice about which schools they attend or who their parents are, much less where their parents attended school or university or whether they inherited a lot of material wealth. He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’. He has not yet demonstrated that a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability. All of this does not seem to apply to Asian students, whom Loren seems to regard as superior, and obviously deserving of all the slots in every incoming class of freshmen at Harvard and any other highly selective school.

Note I said: seems. I could be mistaken. I don’t know Loren IRL. He doesn’t go into detail about how he reaches his conclusions and rarely posts links to relevant articles nor does he seem to read any links or articles posted by others.

I am certain that Loren is an intelligent person with admirable knowledge and expertise relevant to his profession and his particular areas of interest, notably hiking in higher altitudes in western US. I have a great deal of respect for Loren who is a good enough person to serve as a mod ( a thankless job) and afaik, is impartial in his duties. Honestly, all the mods do a great job, even when I disagree with them.

Loren is free to tell me my perceptions are wrong with regards to whether or not he has a problem with students from certain demographics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you don't actually have any evidence that there's a better approach.

SAT/ACT isn't good--but it's better than anything else that's been tested because it's harder to game.

Unlike you, I don’t think I know all the answers.

As to gaming standardised tests, of course they can gamed- there are businesses that help people improve their pointless scores.

Once again, you do not address the point.

Note my words: "harder to game". That doesn't say they can't be gamed, it's actually an acknowledgement that they can be. The problem is you are treating "gamed" as a binary and it is not. The other metrics you want to substitute are more gameable than achievement tests.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Excuse me? I was unaware that you suffer delusions of having the power to read minds. Please let me assure you that whatever such powers of mind reading you believe you have, they are not working in this case.

I suggested what I thought might be causing Loren upset. He was and remains more than welcome to tell me I am incorrect about my perceptions.

My perception right now is that you are unable to defend Loren’s perceived ( by me) perception or whatever that would imply so you have decided to instead attack me and make some patently false accusations.

You continue to consider my position racist when I've made it clear that I want the system as race-blind as it reasonably can be made (and in the case of schools where they will never see or interact with the applicant a high degree of blinding would be easy to do.) I agree with Bomb that your position amounts to a religion--you're taking it on faith that disparate results are due to discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard. Indeed, he has castigated students for not attending ‘better’ schools without acknowledging that students have little choice about which schools they attend or who their parents are, much less where their parents attended school or university or whether they inherited a lot of material wealth. He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’. He has not yet demonstrated that a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability. All of this does not seem to apply to Asian students, whom Loren seems to regard as superior, and obviously deserving of all the slots in every incoming class of freshmen at Harvard and any other highly selective school.

The issue was whether they discriminated on race. The other possible sources of discrimination were not being discussed.

Legacy admissions: I'd like to see a study as to whether they raise enough money to more than cover their cost. If they do it's a net benefit to other students to have the legacy ones there. If not, they should be dropped.

Sports: I do not like the way we handle sports--they shouldn't be a pass on academics. This problem is far broader than the Ivys, though.

 

[laughing dog]

So you don't actually have any evidence that there's a better approach.

SAT/ACT isn't good--but it's better than anything else that's been tested because it's harder to game.

Unlike you, I don’t think I know all the answers.

As to gaming standardised tests, of course they can gamed- there are businesses that help people improve their pointless scores.

Once again, you do not address the point.

Note my words: "harder to game". That doesn't say they can't be gamed, it's actually an acknowledgement that they can be. The problem is you are treating "gamed" as a binary and it is not. The other metrics you want to substitute are more gameable than achievement tests.

Once again, you miss the point.

I addressed your point, You want to make it easier for people with resources to game the system.

Since I think the institutions know better what they are looking for and in a student so they should set their metrics, you have no basis to make any judgments about the ability to game those metrics.

 

[Toni]

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard. Indeed, he has castigated students for not attending ‘better’ schools without acknowledging that students have little choice about which schools they attend or who their parents are, much less where their parents attended school or university or whether they inherited a lot of material wealth. He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’. He has not yet demonstrated that a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability. All of this does not seem to apply to Asian students, whom Loren seems to regard as superior, and obviously deserving of all the slots in every incoming class of freshmen at Harvard and any other highly selective school.

The issue was whether they discriminated on race. The other possible sources of discrimination were not being discussed.

Legacy admissions: I'd like to see a study as to whether they raise enough money to more than cover their cost. If they do it's a net benefit to other students to have the legacy ones there. If not, they should be dropped.

Sports: I do not like the way we handle sports--they shouldn't be a pass on academics. This problem is far broader than the Ivys, though.

I used to believe the same way you do about sports but have since grown up and come to realize that sports gets some people into college who otherwise would not go. And that is a good thing.

You have never demonstrated that there is actually any significant difference in academic potential or college performance between someone who scores say, 1500 and someone who scores 1480. You understand what number is larger but you seem to have little understanding of how those scores translate into actual academic performance.

The fact that you are concerned about the admission of black and Hispanic students but express no such concern over other students who are admitted with less than perfect SAT scores is odd. So is the fact that you assume that black and Hispanic students do not score perfect SAT scores or graduate top of highly competitive schools.

 

[Toni]

Excuse me? I was unaware that you suffer delusions of having the power to read minds. Please let me assure you that whatever such powers of mind reading you believe you have, they are not working in this case.

I suggested what I thought might be causing Loren upset. He was and remains more than welcome to tell me I am incorrect about my perceptions.

My perception right now is that you are unable to defend Loren’s perceived ( by me) perception or whatever that would imply so you have decided to instead attack me and make some patently false accusations.

You continue to consider my position racist when I've made it clear that I want the system as race-blind as it reasonably can be made (and in the case of schools where they will never see or interact with the applicant a high degree of blinding would be easy to do.) I agree with Bomb that your position amounts to a religion--you're taking it on faith that disparate results are due to discrimination.

Absolutely you are wrong. You frequently accuse me of having a position based on 'faith' when you disagree with that position and are ineffective at presenting counter arguments. You are the one who seems to take it on faith that SAT scores are accurate reflections of academic potential and have no connection to the socioeconomic status of parents or to the parents' educational attainment. You continue to do this even when studies and articles written by actual admissions counselors for Harvard are brought to your attention. Of course, you don't actually read those articles or links. You take it on FAITH that your position is correct. Because there seems to be no authority you will not believe, however specious their claim to that authority.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you don't actually have any evidence that there's a better approach.

SAT/ACT isn't good--but it's better than anything else that's been tested because it's harder to game.

Unlike you, I don’t think I know all the answers.

As to gaming standardised tests, of course they can gamed- there are businesses that help people improve their pointless scores.

Once again, you do not address the point.

Note my words: "harder to game". That doesn't say they can't be gamed, it's actually an acknowledgement that they can be. The problem is you are treating "gamed" as a binary and it is not. The other metrics you want to substitute are more gameable than achievement tests.

Once again, you miss the point.

I addressed your point, You want to make it easier for people with resources to game the system.

Since I think the institutions know better what they are looking for and in a student so they should set their metrics, you have no basis to make any judgments about the ability to game those metrics.

Read my post again as you completely misunderstood.

SAT/ACT can be gamed to some degree.

All other metrics that have been tried can be gamed even more.

You have to compare them to each other, not to some perfection that doesn't exist.