SAT now scoring for the Oppression Olympics

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, Derec, why are you inserting race into everything where it isn't?

The universities are the ones inserting it, he's just calling them out on it.

Note that until states started cracking down on discriminatory admissions there was no issue of the top x% from each high school--that came along to provide a way of maintaining the current discriminatory admissions while circumventing the law against discriminating. It's the same thing as adding a meaningless height requirement to a job to keep women out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The SAT (and ACT) was the one objective measure for admission; it did not rely on grade inflation, race/ethnic identity, socioeconomic status. It did not matter who you were or where you came from. Now, it appears this objective measure is to be debased as a sacrifice to the Great Awokening. Understandably, people don't like that.

Unfortunately your assessment is incorrect. While it did not reflect grade inflation, it certainly did and does reflect socioeconomic status as well as racial/ethnic biases, however unintentional. Also despite the fact that there are and always have been those who scored very well despite being of lower socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic minority.

Socioeconomic status, certainly--because those from a higher socioeconomic status are generally more ready for college. The answer isn't to admit students who aren't ready, the answer is to take steps to help them get ready.

Race, no--despite widespread claims of bias computer analysis can find the biased questions and remove them. I see no recent examples of actual bias, just the usual shit of saying that a disparate result is proof of bias.

 

[Toni]

The SAT (and ACT) was the one objective measure for admission; it did not rely on grade inflation, race/ethnic identity, socioeconomic status. It did not matter who you were or where you came from. Now, it appears this objective measure is to be debased as a sacrifice to the Great Awokening. Understandably, people don't like that.

Unfortunately your assessment is incorrect. While it did not reflect grade inflation, it certainly did and does reflect socioeconomic status as well as racial/ethnic biases, however unintentional. Also despite the fact that there are and always have been those who scored very well despite being of lower socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic minority.

Socioeconomic status, certainly--because those from a higher socioeconomic status are generally more ready for college. The answer isn't to admit students who aren't ready, the answer is to take steps to help them get ready.

Race, no--despite widespread claims of bias computer analysis can find the biased questions and remove them. I see no recent examples of actual bias, just the usual shit of saying that a disparate result is proof of bias.

Your biases are especially on display today. This post sounds very much as though you heartily approve of and endorse a caste system such as existed/s in India. Or else that you don’t believe the rich are sufficiently superior to hold onto their status without an ever more stringent set of social more and rules and regulations designed to keep others out.

 

[Toni]

Wow, Derec, why are you inserting race into everything where it isn't?

The universities are the ones inserting it, he's just calling them out on it.

Note that until states started cracking down on discriminatory admissions there was no issue of the top x% from each high school--that came along to provide a way of maintaining the current discriminatory admissions while circumventing the law against discriminating. It's the same thing as adding a meaningless height requirement to a job to keep women out.

Affirmative Action is a tool to crack down on discriminatory admissions so mission accomplished!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow, Derec, why are you inserting race into everything where it isn't?

The universities are the ones inserting it, he's just calling them out on it.

Note that until states started cracking down on discriminatory admissions there was no issue of the top x% from each high school--that came along to provide a way of maintaining the current discriminatory admissions while circumventing the law against discriminating. It's the same thing as adding a meaningless height requirement to a job to keep women out.

The discussion around the op is a narrow discussion about this SAT adversity score. There is no race metric. Your further discussion is like talking about race in a 9/11 towers thread. It's irrelevant, just like Derec's.

 

[Trausti]

The SAT (and ACT) was the one objective measure for admission; it did not rely on grade inflation, race/ethnic identity, socioeconomic status. It did not matter who you were or where you came from. Now, it appears this objective measure is to be debased as a sacrifice to the Great Awokening. Understandably, people don't like that.

Unfortunately your assessment is incorrect. While it did not reflect grade inflation, it certainly did and does reflect socioeconomic status as well as racial/ethnic biases, however unintentional. Also despite the fact that there are and always have been those who scored very well despite being of lower socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic minority.

The SAT is a proxy for IQ. Which, I guess, is why social engineers hate it because no government program can change that. It's contra to their ideology. And yet it moves.

Exceptional Cognitive Ability: The Phenotype

Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education

A longstanding concern about gifted education in the United States is the underrepresentation of minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. One explanation for this gap is that standard processes for identifying gifted students, which are based largely on the referrals of parents and teachers, tend to miss many qualified students. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that a universal screening program in a large urban school district led to significant increases in the numbers of poor and minority students who met the IQ standards for gifted status. Our findings raise the question of whether a systemic failure to identify qualified students from all backgrounds may help explain the broader pattern of minority underrepresentation in all advanced K−12 academic programs.

 

[Trausti]

Students Were Advised to Claim to Be Minorities in College-Admissions Scandal

Well, that's just silly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread is not about the SAT either. Wow, conservatives...

 

[Toni]

The SAT is a proxy for IQ. Which, I guess, is why social engineers hate it because no government program can change that. It's contra to their ideology. And yet it moves.

Exceptional Cognitive Ability: The Phenotype

Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education

A longstanding concern about gifted education in the United States is the underrepresentation of minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. One explanation for this gap is that standard processes for identifying gifted students, which are based largely on the referrals of parents and teachers, tend to miss many qualified students. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that a universal screening program in a large urban school district led to significant increases in the numbers of poor and minority students who met the IQ standards for gifted status. Our findings raise the question of whether a systemic failure to identify qualified students from all backgrounds may help explain the broader pattern of minority underrepresentation in all advanced K−12 academic programs.

Oh, I agree that SAT scores are seen as proxies for IQ. But it’s an incorrect interpretation.

 

[Gun Nut]

The only component to an "adversity" score that makes any sense for accompanying a test score, would be the national ranking of the school. The only "adversity" I would entertain as applicable to education is the quality of the education provided to them.

"considering the school you went to is such a piece of shit, you didn't do so bad on that test"
"Considering the school you went to is so highly regarded, "you really should have done better"

Something like that would be less ridiculous.

 

[steve_bank]

That they call an "adversity score". It's basically scoring for the Oppression Olympics. And as crooked as the East German figure skating judges.
SAT adds ‘adversity score’ amid concerns that privileged students have an unfair advantage

This is ridiculous. SATs should measure Math and English aptitude, not penalize students because they are of the wrong race or socioeconomic background. College admissions offices do more than enough of that as it is.

It looks like affirmative action. A student has a score indicative of social adversity. Someone who does not score as high as someone from a stable family and environment gets soft points for effort and degree of difficulty.

I do not see how that could be fairly quantified numerically. That kind of evaluation is handled at admissions time.

There is software that rakes a zip code and predicts potential success.

 

[Trausti]

Could this all be a cynical attempt to encourage more white/Asian kids to go to black high schools? Instead of “spend the night in haunted house, win $1mill”, it’s “graduate from high school in da hood and win admission to Harvard.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Socioeconomic status, certainly--because those from a higher socioeconomic status are generally more ready for college. The answer isn't to admit students who aren't ready, the answer is to take steps to help them get ready.

Race, no--despite widespread claims of bias computer analysis can find the biased questions and remove them. I see no recent examples of actual bias, just the usual shit of saying that a disparate result is proof of bias.

Your biases are especially on display today. This post sounds very much as though you heartily approve of and endorse a caste system such as existed/s in India. Or else that you don’t believe the rich are sufficiently superior to hold onto their status without an ever more stringent set of social more and rules and regulations designed to keep others out.

I don't endorse a caste system. I just recognize that socioeconomic differences generally reflect differences in ability.

I've already pointed out the example of Poland and you totally ignored it. After WWII the Russians had to rebuild the whole educational system. They, of course, tried to make it as equal as they could and since they were starting from scratch and didn't care about trodding all over people's freedoms that was very equal. Did it work? Nope--the kids of parents with skilled jobs ended up in skilled jobs, the kids of unskilled parents ended up unskilled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, Derec, why are you inserting race into everything where it isn't?

The universities are the ones inserting it, he's just calling them out on it.

Note that until states started cracking down on discriminatory admissions there was no issue of the top x% from each high school--that came along to provide a way of maintaining the current discriminatory admissions while circumventing the law against discriminating. It's the same thing as adding a meaningless height requirement to a job to keep women out.

Affirmative Action is a tool to crack down on discriminatory admissions so mission accomplished!

When the only tool you know is a hammer you think everything is a nail.

AA did it's job long ago. Discrimination's back was broken at least 40 years ago. Now it only does harm, virtually no good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education

A longstanding concern about gifted education in the United States is the underrepresentation of minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. One explanation for this gap is that standard processes for identifying gifted students, which are based largely on the referrals of parents and teachers, tend to miss many qualified students. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that a universal screening program in a large urban school district led to significant increases in the numbers of poor and minority students who met the IQ standards for gifted status. Our findings raise the question of whether a systemic failure to identify qualified students from all backgrounds may help explain the broader pattern of minority underrepresentation in all advanced K−12 academic programs.

Yup, this is showing that care must be taken when providing multiple educational tracks. (And gifted programs are an example of multiple educational tracks.) You need objective standards for admission or you're likely to miss the ones where the parents aren't as involved in their children's education and you may get racial biases also.

While I do favor a multiple-track approach it must be approached with caution.

(And note that I think some of the greatest benefits from such a system will show up in the poor areas. When you're in a school with a bunch of bad students you're not likely to learn much. A multiple-track approach would rescue many of these students that would otherwise be lost.)