4 X more "unqualified" white students admitted to Harvard than black students

[ronburgundy]

I see legacy and donor admissions as one and the same. The study referenced by the OP likewise - "we examine the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff." If children of alumni can't get admitted, the alumni will put away their checkbooks.

So, it is not an issue of admitting the most "qualified" students after all for you.

If admitting the less qualified brings in enough money to pay for another position nobody is losing out.

I question whether the alumni admissions are of that much benefit, though.

Legacy admissions would actually harm donations. If you can get your kid in w/o donating, then less alumni will donate. Harvard has a separate system that puts donors on a list, and if you donate enough you get on a special Dean list that essentially guarantees admission. If they required donations to get any special preference, then you'd get more alumni donating rather than just counting on their being an alumni to be enough.

 

[Metaphor]

Trautsi's arguments requires that there is nothing a student can do or anyone can do for them to improve their score.

I don't think he said that. It's true of any test that sitting it more than once tends to improve your score (though nearly a quarter of people get a worse score).

Any such effect means that wealth is an advantage. Plus, there is a large literature on "The testing effect" showing that testing by itself w/o opportunity to learn and study in between improves test performance, often more than studying. In fact, even on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, the gold standard IQ test b/c it is so hard to study for, shows a score increase of 1/2 a standard deviation from 1st to 3rd time taking it (that corresponds to an increase of 70th to 90th percentile on the SAT). That's why research generally considers IQ tests as invalid for comparisons when comparing people who have differing experience with the particular test. Plus there the all the literature on how performing a cognitive task under similar contexts better prepares you for optimal performance in that context.

The claim that taking the SAT or ACT multiple times doesn't improve scores requires rejecting some of the more basic and established facts in cognitive science.

Plus, the meta-analysis showed huge 16 percentile ranking increases due to coaching on SAT are in controlled experiments with nothing by a coaching session differing between randomly assigned groups.

Coaching improves high school grades, too. Do you want to eliminate high school grades from consideration by universities?

 

[Jokodo]

Trautsi's arguments requires that there is nothing a student can do or anyone can do for them to improve their score.

I don't think he said that. It's true of any test that sitting it more than once tends to improve your score (though nearly a quarter of people get a worse score).

Any such effect means that wealth is an advantage. Plus, there is a large literature on "The testing effect" showing that testing by itself w/o opportunity to learn and study in between improves test performance, often more than studying. In fact, even on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, the gold standard IQ test b/c it is so hard to study for, shows a score increase of 1/2 a standard deviation from 1st to 3rd time taking it (that corresponds to an increase of 70th to 90th percentile on the SAT). That's why research generally considers IQ tests as invalid for comparisons when comparing people who have differing experience with the particular test. Plus there the all the literature on how performing a cognitive task under similar contexts better prepares you for optimal performance in that context.

The claim that taking the SAT or ACT multiple times doesn't improve scores requires rejecting some of the more basic and established facts in cognitive science.

Plus, the meta-analysis showed huge 16 percentile ranking increases due to coaching on SAT are in controlled experiments with nothing by a coaching session differing between randomly assigned groups.

Coaching improves high school grades, too. Do you want to eliminate high school grades from consideration by universities?

I don't think ronburgundy asked for SAT scores to be eliminated from consideration. As far as I can tell, he objected to painting them as some kind of entirely objective measure floating in the ether and unaffected by any kind of context. So they shouldn't be the sole criterion. Which part of that says they shouldn't be *a* criterion?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think he said that. It's true of any test that sitting it more than once tends to improve your score (though nearly a quarter of people get a worse score).



Coaching improves high school grades, too. Do you want to eliminate high school grades from consideration by universities?

I don't think ronburgundy asked for SAT scores to be eliminated from consideration. As far as I can tell, he objected to painting them as some kind of entirely objective measure floating in the ether and unaffected by any kind of context. So they shouldn't be the sole criterion. Which part of that says they shouldn't be *a* criterion?

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer. Every measure is affected by context. Yet, despite these imperfections, the SAT predicts academic outcomes, so it continues to be used.

What's entirely subjective is the 'wholistic' criteria used by places like Harvard. "What enrichment could this student bring to campus?" is a popularity competition, only a clutch of administrators get to determine the winners according to their subjective preferences instead of everyone voting for prom queen.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't think he said that. It's true of any test that sitting it more than once tends to improve your score (though nearly a quarter of people get a worse score).



Coaching improves high school grades, too. Do you want to eliminate high school grades from consideration by universities?

I don't think ronburgundy asked for SAT scores to be eliminated from consideration. As far as I can tell, he objected to painting them as some kind of entirely objective measure floating in the ether and unaffected by any kind of context. So they shouldn't be the sole criterion. Which part of that says they shouldn't be *a* criterion?

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer. Every measure is affected by context. Yet, despite these imperfections, the SAT predicts academic outcomes, so it continues to be used.

Here's what [MENTION=968]ronburgundy[/MENTION] actually wrote: "Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22."

Which part of that do you believe not to be supported by evidence?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...black-students&p=810828&viewfull=1#post810828

 

[Metaphor]

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer. Every measure is affected by context. Yet, despite these imperfections, the SAT predicts academic outcomes, so it continues to be used.

Here's what @ronburgundy actually wrote: "Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22."

Which part of that do you believe not to be supported by evidence?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...black-students&p=810828&viewfull=1#post810828

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

 

[Jokodo]

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer. Every measure is affected by context. Yet, despite these imperfections, the SAT predicts academic outcomes, so it continues to be used.

Here's what @ronburgundy actually wrote: "Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22."

Which part of that do you believe not to be supported by evidence?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...black-students&p=810828&viewfull=1#post810828

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

Well, "massive" is vague enough.

You don't think a 16 percentile difference between first and 3rd attempt counts as "massive", that what you're trying to say?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer. Every measure is affected by context. Yet, despite these imperfections, the SAT predicts academic outcomes, so it continues to be used.

Here's what @ronburgundy actually wrote: "Test scores are part of the mix to assess developed skills, but they are far from a pure measure of "merit". They are massively impacted by SES, via things such costly prep courses, practice tests, and even just paying to take the test multiple times. Plus, richer parents means better high schools with teachers more capable of teaching effective strategies for such tests. A rich kid that scores a 23 on the ACT is likely to be less capable and less motivated than a poor kid who scores 22."

Which part of that do you believe not to be supported by evidence?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...black-students&p=810828&viewfull=1#post810828

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

So your point is to demonstrate you don't read what you are responding to, like making strawman arguments to argue against instead, and really really want to ignore the content in the OP that indicates undeserving white people are a much larger reason why other white people and Asians aren't getting into preferred schools.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

Well, "massive" is vague enough.

You don't think a 16 percentile difference between first and 3rd attempt counts as "massive", that what you're trying to say?

What per cent of the total variability in SAT scores do you think is actually attributable to academic aptitude? 10% 50% 90%?

The way it has been discussed by some, they seem to have no problem uttering obvious falsehoods such as 'SAT score measures SES status', which it does not.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

So your point is to demonstrate you don't read what you are responding to, like making strawman arguments to argue against instead, and really really want to ignore the content in the OP that indicates undeserving white people are a much larger reason why other white people and Asians aren't getting into preferred schools.

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

Well, "massive" is vague enough.

You don't think a 16 percentile difference between first and 3rd attempt counts as "massive", that what you're trying to say?

What per cent of the total variability in SAT scores do you think is actually attributable to academic aptitude? 10% 50% 90%?

The way it has been discussed by some, they seem to have no problem uttering obvious falsehoods such as 'SAT score measures SES status', which it does not.

Quote one person who said that or quit your strawmen.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

So your point is to demonstrate you don't read what you are responding to, like making strawman arguments to argue against instead, and really really want to ignore the content in the OP that indicates undeserving white people are a much larger reason why other white people and Asians aren't getting into preferred schools.

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

This is the first time in the thread anyone has written the phrase "affirmative action for white people". If you think someone said basically that in other words, it's upon you to quote them.

Strawmanning again?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

So your point is to demonstrate you don't read what you are responding to, like making strawman arguments to argue against instead, and really really want to ignore the content in the OP that indicates undeserving white people are a much larger reason why other white people and Asians aren't getting into preferred schools.

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

Come on. The long history of Harvard is an institution for WASPS up until the 1960s, so legacy admissions were most certainly a form of affirmative action for children of "legacies" (who were white). Even now, since the vast majority of Harvard attendees are white, legacy admissions are still a form of affirmative action for white people.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

This is the first time in the thread anyone has written the phrase "affirmative action for white people". If you think someone said basically that in other words, it's upon you to quote them.

Strawmanning again?

No. It's an argument I've seen more than once.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think he said that. It's true of any test that sitting it more than once tends to improve your score (though nearly a quarter of people get a worse score).



Coaching improves high school grades, too. Do you want to eliminate high school grades from consideration by universities?

I don't think ronburgundy asked for SAT scores to be eliminated from consideration. As far as I can tell, he objected to painting them as some kind of entirely objective measure floating in the ether and unaffected by any kind of context. So they shouldn't be the sole criterion. Which part of that says they shouldn't be *a* criterion?

Well, they are objective. Each of the questions in the SAT has a correct answer.

It is more accurate to say each question has one identified answer. Questions about word usage and interpretation may have more than one correct answer. Moreover, the SAT essay is graded and there is no way that anyone can seriously claim that grade is purely objective.

And while the SAT may predict GPAS, that is not the same as predicting learning and education and all the other effects of going to college.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

Come on. The long history of Harvard is an institution for WASPS up until the 1960s, so legacy admissions were most certainly a form of affirmative action for children of "legacies" (who were white). Even now, since the vast majority of Harvard attendees are white, legacy admissions are still a form of affirmative action for white people.

No. "Affirmative action" applies to an entire class of people. Black people get affirmative action a Harvard. "White people" do not. "The children of WASPs who attended Harvard" is not "white people". It's not even one percent of one percent of white people.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't believe they are 'massively impacted' by SES or any of those other things, inasmuch as I think most of the variability in scores is indeed attributable to the academic aptitude of the test taker.

Well, "massive" is vague enough.

You don't think a 16 percentile difference between first and 3rd attempt counts as "massive", that what you're trying to say?

What per cent of the total variability in SAT scores do you think is actually attributable to academic aptitude? 10% 50% 90%?

That's not the relevant question though - the relevant question is whether the part that's not attributable to aptitude alone is random or systematically correlates with other identifiable factors (such as SES).

If a high SES candidate landing in the 96th percentile has a bigger chance of finding out they don't have what it takes for the program after wasting everybody's time and effort for two years than a low SES student landing in the 92nd percentile, it makes economic sense for the school to give preference to the latter. If the same high SES 96th percentile student has a higher chance of voluntarily dropping out than the 88th percentile low SES candidate who sees this as his one shot at a decent life, it may make sense to give preference to the latter even when the former is more suited in terms of academic aptitude alone.

Since no-one has suggested dropping SAT scores altogether as one (among several) criteria, your question is neither here nor there.

 

[Jokodo]

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

This is the first time in the thread anyone has written the phrase "affirmative action for white people". If you think someone said basically that in other words, it's upon you to quote them.

Strawmanning again?

No. It's an argument I've seen more than once.

There's a lot of arguments I've seen more than once. The internet is a big place.

For them to be relevant in this thread, someone needs to have supported them here, though.

Pretending the people you are arguing with have made arguments they haven't actually made is dishonest and lazy.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not the relevant question though - the relevant question is whether the part that's not attributable to aptitude alone is random or systematically correlates with other identifiable factors (such as SES).

Sure it does.

If a high SES candidate landing in the 96th percentile has a bigger chance of finding out they don't have what it takes for the program after wasting everybody's time and effort for two years than a low SES student landing in the 92nd percentile, it makes economic sense for the school to give preference to the latter. If the same high SES 96th percentile student has a higher chance of voluntarily dropping out than the 88th percentile low SES candidate who sees this as his one shot at a decent life, it may make sense to give preference to the latter even when the former is more suited in terms of academic aptitude alone.

Sure. And all of these things are other, objective, actuarial statistics.

Though I do wonder what support there would be if Harvard found that, at a given SAT score, black people were more likely to drop out than white people, and effectively penalised black SAT scores on those lines.

Since no-one has suggested dropping SAT scores altogether as one (among several) criteria, your question is neither here nor there.

Harvard itself wants to drop the SAT and ACT.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I have never supported sports or legacy admissions either, but I don't believe them to be 'affirmative action for white people', which is a stupid and false description.

Come on. The long history of Harvard is an institution for WASPS up until the 1960s, so legacy admissions were most certainly a form of affirmative action for children of "legacies" (who were white). Even now, since the vast majority of Harvard attendees are white, legacy admissions are still a form of affirmative action for white people.

No. "Affirmative action" applies to an entire class of people. Black people get affirmative action a Harvard. "White people" do not. "The children of WASPs who attended Harvard" is not "white people". It's not even one percent of one percent of white people.

First, WASPs are white people. Second, using pedantry to miss the point is pathetic that legacy admissions are a de facto form of admitting unqualified white people.