Standard Tests And Bias

[Trausti]

I would not call a country of 50 million 'small'.

Mostly homogeneous and without the heavy emphasis we place on the individual over the group.

But it’s still an individual test.

 

[laughing dog]

That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.

The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.

In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.

And using both GPA and SAT is an even better predictor. Why limit yourself to just one when both work together to add relevant information to help determine likelihood of successful completion of a program?

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measures-are-better-than-one/

Since I am not in admissions I don't know why these schools are moving to using only HS GPA. My point was that it is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT so the dropping of its requirement is not necessarily due to nefarious motives. I do know there was trouble for HS students to take the ACT or SAT since many of the usual test taking sites were shut down. I don't know if that is still true. I would think if the HS GPA is sufficient enough as a predictor, then why ask potential students to spend the money and the effort to take a superfluous test?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.

The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.

In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.

I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.

 

[laughing dog]

That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.

The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.

In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.

I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.

Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't remember the name. In the 90s a school did a decades long study correlating success to background.Metrics were things like probabil;ity of completing college once admitted, earnings, and general accomplishments.

To make a long story short those coming from average families and average schools with average high school performance did the best statistically.

If you graduate high school and can't do algebra odds are you can not get through engineering and science. There is no bias to that. I'd say the same if you do poorly on the SAT.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am also now remembering the DLAB test, which I took when I joined the army and hit inprocessing. There was a part of it, a listening section, where there was heavy part-of-speech vocabulary usage. Like "what is the participle in this sentence", which I couldn't even begin to answer on the basis of not knowing what the fuck a "participle" was. Of course if you asked me "which action word is being used to describe a thing rather than being used to describe an action?" I would have gotten it just fine. The test was for seeing how fast someone can "solve" a language, and I can guarantee you, the kid who learned four languages growing up in a diverse backstreet neighborhood will be much more likely to fail that part of the DLAB than a white kid who has a decent education on part-of-speech vocabulary.

I suspect those who know the proper terms fare better at learning a new language.

Ok let me rephrase. The reading section (IIRC) had some materials centered on history. It also tended to use words myself and my homies would never use in our entire lives as well as I've never heard any white people use. This was somewhere between the late 90's early 2000's and based purely on my memory doused with irish whiskey. I'll take my exit.

Shit, it had words and such that I had to figure out as if they were part of a math problem. I remember that myself from 2001. Like some kind of twisted word problem with no actual numbers in it.

What pissed me off is none of those damned words was taught to me in english class. So when they appear in the SAT where said word is crucial to understanding the context I was pissed. Got escorted out of the test area because I simply asked "why yall using new words?".

The vast majority of words are not learned in English class.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.

Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.

Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.

 

[laughing dog]

I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.

Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.

Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.

You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.

 

[laughing dog]

I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.

Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.

Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.

If you had read the article you'd know your response is dead wrong:
From the article

This study used data from the Chicago Public Schools, a large public school district that contains schools with varying academic composition—extremely high-achieving selective schools that get ranked among the top high schools in the country, heterogeneous schools, and schools with very low average test scores. We included for analysis all students who graduated from neighborhood, magnet, selective, and vocational high schools between the years of 2006 and 2009; enrolled in a 4-year college immediately following graduation

(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110). So any student who went enrolled on college, regardless of the quality of the school, is in the sample.

Of course, students who do not go to college are not included in a sample for study about success in college. It is moronic to claim that they ought to be included, regardless of the quality of the high school.

Perhaps if you read the article (or better yet, have someone read it to you and explain the parts you don't understand) we could avoid these bonehead misinterpretations.

Whether or not you accept their results is immaterial to the point that there are institutions of higher learning that understand there is growing research that HS GPA is a better predictor of college success than standardized tests. If their experience is that HS GPA is a sufficient predictor in their experience, it makes sense for them to drop it as a requirement since it reduces the expense and effort for potential students to apply for admission.

 

[DBT]

South Korea has standardized tests for its competitive universities. Racial bias? Obviously.

SK is largely mono culture and small.

Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.

Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.

It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families

''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families

The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard

Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich

Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers

Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''

 

[bilby]

Consider the word "ottoman," for example. I am not claiming the word is on the test or has been, but kids that have families who own furniture sets have a greater chance to be exposed to such things. It's just an example of an entire class of words. Material things.

How does owning furniture lead to a greater chance of being exposed to information about a pre-Great War empire that spanned modern day Turkey, Arabia, North Africa, Mesopotamia and South East Europe, reaching its greatest geographical extent in the fourteenth century, and collapsing, as did the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy, after their defeat in 1918?

I mean, I am familiar enough with it, and my dad has a huge house full of antique furniture, but I don't think those facts are connected.

 

[Trausti]

Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.

Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.

It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families

''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families

The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard

Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich

Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers

Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''

As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.

 

[DBT]

Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.

Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.

It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families

''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families

The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard

Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich

Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers

Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''

As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.

Desperate housewives taught us this?

 

[Trausti]

As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.

Desperate housewives taught us this?

Apology, noticed you're from down under.

Felicity Huffman, 13 others to plead guilty in college admissions scandal

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Consider the word "ottoman," for example. I am not claiming the word is on the test or has been, but kids that have families who own furniture sets have a greater chance to be exposed to such things. It's just an example of an entire class of words. Material things.

How does owning furniture lead to a greater chance of being exposed to information about a pre-Great War empire that spanned modern day Turkey, Arabia, North Africa, Mesopotamia and South East Europe, reaching its greatest geographical extent in the fourteenth century, and collapsing, as did the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy, after their defeat in 1918?

I mean, I am familiar enough with it, and my dad has a huge house full of antique furniture, but I don't think those facts are connected.

See, this is why you would fail the SAT.

 

[Jarhyn]

As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.

Desperate housewives taught us this?

IIRC, the actress got caught in a pay to play scandal. So the show didn't teach us this except by elevating her so that she could have a more visible fall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.

You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.

Pretending it doesn't make sense doesn't address the point you refuse to deal with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, students who do not go to college are not included in a sample for study about success in college. It is moronic to claim that they ought to be included, regardless of the quality of the high school.

You once again cover your eyes to the obvious: The sample is distorted because the students who got a high GPA but low ACT didn't get into college in the first place. This is like putting a doctor on top of a mountain and having him do EKGs and concluding heart disease isn't a problem because he never sees it.

Whether or not you accept their results is immaterial to the point that there are institutions of higher learning that understand there is growing research that HS GPA is a better predictor of college success than standardized tests. If their experience is that HS GPA is a sufficient predictor in their experience, it makes sense for them to drop it as a requirement since it reduces the expense and effort for potential students to apply for admission.

There are institutions that see it as a way to discriminate without appearing to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.

You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.

Pretending it doesn't make sense doesn't address the point you refuse to deal with.

In order to have college success or failure in college, one must go college.. In a study about whether HS GPA or the SAT/ACT is a better predictor of college success, it would makes no sense to include people who do not go to college because they will have no success or failure in college regardless of their HS GPA or SAT/ACT score. This is basic reasoning. Hence your claim about bias due to the omission of any students who do not go to college (let alone high GPA from crappy schools) is inane given the purpose of the study.

For some reason, you feel that the "the school matters" is relevant to the issue. It is not. The authors statistically control for the school effect, and when they do in their model, HS GPA is still a better predictor of college success than either the SAT or ACT. Before you respond, your view of the adequacy of the model is not germane to the point that their result exists.

You have yet to provide a response that rebuts my point that there is growing research showing that HS GPA is a better predictor of college success than the SAT or ACT. I understand you don't agree with the results. However, you have yet to provide any evidence you have actually read the article., let alone produce a reality-based sane criticism of their actual work or results. Frankly, with each response, your objections are appear more unhinged.

But more importantly, whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to the existence of those results. Whether nor not you agree with them is irrelevant to the point that institutions of higher learning seem to think those results from the growing research are valid. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant to the point that people are making decisions about the admissions process that are partially based on such results. And the implication is that your accusation that they are only dropping the use of standardized tests in the admission process is unsubstantiated, and, perhaps, unfounded in reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.

Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.

It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families

''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families

The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard

Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich

Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers

Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''

The problem here is that three things are inherited:

Intelligence
Money
Attitudes

Your study is comparing the first two without considering the third.