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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It gets them into school. It doesn't get them an education.

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.

I object on sports. I question on legacy--but because if (I do not believe we have data) legacy admissions bring in enough money the result is a bigger pool rather than taking slots from superior students (because what truly matters is how many superior students are admitted, not what percent are superior students.) What other category are you thinking of?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I do not take it on faith. I know they are far from perfect--it's just that they are best we have. Schools that have gotten away from test scores end up more skewed towards wealth than those who still rely on test scores. Getting rid of test scores is simply a case of getting rid of the metric that shows their misconduct.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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. ... 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.

Uh huh. You were suggesting he's one of those nonracists who object to blacks and Hispanics going to good colleges. Got it.

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy

So what makes it seem to you like Loren's real problem is more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges is that Loren isn't a communist, got it. The rich get a head start in a capitalist world, and that's something all sane people are willing to put up with, not because we're racist but because the alternative to it is a totalitarian police state. Having wealthy parents tends to open a lot of doors because it tends to cause people to be better prepared. Do you think it's racist to hire the pilot with a thousand hours to fly you to your meetings instead of the pilot with a hundred hours because the white pilot only has a thousand hours because her wealthy parents paid for her flying lessons and the black pilot had to pay for them herself by working two jobs? Do you think the guy who hires thousand-hour pilot seems like his real problem is he doesn't want black people flying planes?

and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard.

He seemed to you to have no issue with legacies because you didn't bother to find out if he had an issue with legacies.

(Moreover, Harvard is a private school. It has a right to admit whomever it pleases as long as it isn't breaking the law. Discriminating on legacy status is legal; discriminating on race is illegal. When the government puts up with illegal discrimination against Asians but does not put up with illegal discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, that's a 14th Amendment equal protection violation. That's racial discrimination by the government. So if somebody were to have an issue with government discrimination against Asians and no issue with a private school discriminating against non-legacies, that would not qualify as his "real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges." His real problem would seem to be that he doesn't pretend private citizens are the government whenever progressives snap their fingers.)

Indeed, he has castigated students for not attending ‘better’ schools

Yeah, right. Quote him. Pointing out cause and effect does not qualify as "castigated".

He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’.

Being aware of the statistics and taking them into account in an analysis does not qualify as making assumptions about any particular individuals.

He has not yet demonstrated that a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability.

Good god, not this again. Whether a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Progressives keep bringing up that canard because they are in the grip of religious delusion. If Harvard were admitting or rejecting students by counting their bulimia vomits, it would still be racial discrimination if Asians had to purge six times to get admitted and Hispanics and blacks only had to purge three times, unless the Asians weren't as good on some other admission criterion. So, once again:

What merit, what measure of college worthiness, what positive personal characteristic or skill or background, do Asians have less of than the rest of us?​

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.

No, he doesn't seem to regard them that way. You made that up. He has never indicated that. And you would not make up that sort of defamatory accusation against a person you had goodwill towards. You're poisoning the well.

Note I said: seems. I could be mistaken.

Of course you're mistaken. But "seems" isn't a defense. To say he "seems" that way is to blame the victim of your libels -- it's to say your mistake is his fault. It isn't his fault. You don't think those things about him because what he said would make a reasonable person think them of him. You think those things about him because your ideology spreads ad hominems against its opponents as a way to give its acolytes permission to dismiss counterarguments without thinking about them.

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.

Doesn't matter. His debate shortcomings justify you challenging him for evidence, and telling him he's wrong when he can't back up his claims. They don't justify you making up the worst possible motivation and imputing it to him without evidence.

 

[Toni]

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

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. ... 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.

Uh huh. You were suggesting he's one of those nonracists who object to blacks and Hispanics going to good colleges. Got it.

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy

So what makes it seem to you like Loren's real problem is more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges is that Loren isn't a communist, got it. The rich get a head start in a capitalist world, and that's something all sane people are willing to put up with, not because we're racist but because the alternative to it is a totalitarian police state. Having wealthy parents tends to open a lot of doors because it tends to cause people to be better prepared. Do you think it's racist to hire the pilot with a thousand hours to fly you to your meetings instead of the pilot with a hundred hours because the white pilot only has a thousand hours because her wealthy parents paid for her flying lessons and the black pilot had to pay for them herself by working two jobs? Do you think the guy who hires thousand-hour pilot seems like his real problem is he doesn't want black people flying planes?

and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard.

He seemed to you to have no issue with legacies because you didn't bother to find out if he had an issue with legacies.

(Moreover, Harvard is a private school. It has a right to admit whomever it pleases as long as it isn't breaking the law. Discriminating on legacy status is legal; discriminating on race is illegal. When the government puts up with illegal discrimination against Asians but does not put up with illegal discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, that's a 14th Amendment equal protection violation. That's racial discrimination by the government. So if somebody were to have an issue with government discrimination against Asians and no issue with a private school discriminating against non-legacies, that would not qualify as his "real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges." His real problem would seem to be that he doesn't pretend private citizens are the government whenever progressives snap their fingers.)

Indeed, he has castigated students for not attending ‘better’ schools

Yeah, right. Quote him. Pointing out cause and effect does not qualify as "castigated".

He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’.

Being aware of the statistics and taking them into account in an analysis does not qualify as making assumptions about any particular individuals.

He has not yet demonstrated that a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability.

Good god, not this again. Whether a 10 or 50 point difference on the SAT is truly indicative of superior ability is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Progressives keep bringing up that canard because they are in the grip of religious delusion. If Harvard were admitting or rejecting students by counting their bulimia vomits, it would still be racial discrimination if Asians had to purge six times to get admitted and Hispanics and blacks only had to purge three times, unless the Asians weren't as good on some other admission criterion. So, once again:

What merit, what measure of college worthiness, what positive personal characteristic or skill or background, do Asians have less of than the rest of us?​

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.

No, he doesn't seem to regard them that way. You made that up. He has never indicated that. And you would not make up that sort of defamatory accusation against a person you had goodwill towards. You're poisoning the well.

Note I said: seems. I could be mistaken.

Of course you're mistaken. But "seems" isn't a defense. To say he "seems" that way is to blame the victim of your libels -- it's to say your mistake is his fault. It isn't his fault. You don't think those things about him because what he said would make a reasonable person think them of him. You think those things about him because your ideology spreads ad hominems against its opponents as a way to give its acolytes permission to dismiss counterarguments without thinking about them.

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.

Doesn't matter. His debate shortcomings justify you challenging him for evidence, and telling him he's wrong when he can't back up his claims. They don't justify you making up the worst possible motivation and imputing it to him without evidence.

Loren and I have a many years long history of discussing SAT scores and their relevance. Loren is free to correct any misconceptions I have about his positions or statements. I freely acknowledge that I may be mistaken and am happy to be corrected where I am. However, you are not the person to correct me about Loren's opinions or perceptions. You are not Loren and you are no more privy to his thoughts and opinions than am I.

You seem very fixated on what you perceive to be my ideology. Your fixations are misplaced and inaccurate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren seems to have no issue with students whose parents are wealthy

So what makes it seem to you like Loren's real problem is more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges is that Loren isn't a communist, got it. The rich get a head start in a capitalist world, and that's something all sane people are willing to put up with, not because we're racist but because the alternative to it is a totalitarian police state. Having wealthy parents tends to open a lot of doors because it tends to cause people to be better prepared. Do you think it's racist to hire the pilot with a thousand hours to fly you to your meetings instead of the pilot with a hundred hours because the white pilot only has a thousand hours because her wealthy parents paid for her flying lessons and the black pilot had to pay for them herself by working two jobs? Do you think the guy who hires thousand-hour pilot seems like his real problem is he doesn't want black people flying planes?

Exactly. We can't stamp out the effects of wealth because it shows up in the next generation being more prepared and it appears to show up in genetics, also--when you have a population that lost it's wealth you still see differences in the next generation.

Besides, what I've been pointing out here is that all the other proposed systems have fared worse--the admits are even more skewed towards wealth.

(And your question is moot--you can't hire that 100 hour pilot, period.)

and who attended Harvard being admitted at higher rates than students whose parents did not attend Harvard.

He seemed to you to have no issue with legacies because you didn't bother to find out if he had an issue with legacies.

Exactly--it wasn't the topic of discussion. I want to see a cost/benefit on legacies before coming down on one side or the other. Supposedly, allowing them brings in enough in donations to cover the cost--but I don't trust the universities to be honest about this.

(Moreover, Harvard is a private school. It has a right to admit whomever it pleases as long as it isn't breaking the law. Discriminating on legacy status is legal; discriminating on race is illegal. When the government puts up with illegal discrimination against Asians but does not put up with illegal discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, that's a 14th Amendment equal protection violation. That's racial discrimination by the government. So if somebody were to have an issue with government discrimination against Asians and no issue with a private school discriminating against non-legacies, that would not qualify as his "real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges." His real problem would seem to be that he doesn't pretend private citizens are the government whenever progressives snap their fingers.)

Again, spot on. Legacies are not discrimination. Disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination!

He seems to make assumptions that students of ( some) colors being ‘low achieving,’ coming from ‘lower socioeconomic classes’ and ‘under performing’.

Being aware of the statistics and taking them into account in an analysis does not qualify as making assumptions about any particular individuals.

Exactly. I follow the numbers even if they say ugly things.

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.

No, he doesn't seem to regard them that way. You made that up. He has never indicated that. And you would not make up that sort of defamatory accusation against a person you had goodwill towards. You're poisoning the well.

What's probably going on is that I recognize that Asians on average perform better. I believe this is cultural rather than racial, though. This doesn't say any given Asian will do better or worse.

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.

Doesn't matter. His debate shortcomings justify you challenging him for evidence, and telling him he's wrong when he can't back up his claims. They don't justify you making up the worst possible motivation and imputing it to him without evidence.

Especially when those motives are opposite of positions I have clearly stated in the past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren and I have a many years long history of discussing SAT scores and their relevance. Loren is free to correct any misconceptions I have about his positions or statements. I freely acknowledge that I may be mistaken and am happy to be corrected where I am. However, you are not the person to correct me about Loren's opinions or perceptions. You are not Loren and you are no more privy to his thoughts and opinions than am I.

You seem very fixated on what you perceive to be my ideology. Your fixations are misplaced and inaccurate.

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

 

[Toni]

Loren and I have a many years long history of discussing SAT scores and their relevance. Loren is free to correct any misconceptions I have about his positions or statements. I freely acknowledge that I may be mistaken and am happy to be corrected where I am. However, you are not the person to correct me about Loren's opinions or perceptions. You are not Loren and you are no more privy to his thoughts and opinions than am I.

You seem very fixated on what you perceive to be my ideology. Your fixations are misplaced and inaccurate.

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

That’s really not accurate. You are fine with and see it as inevitable that the children of wealthy parents are more likely to have higher test scores and have parents who paid fir them to take infinite lessons and paid for their charity work in foreign countries and otherwise paid for the resumes of their children to be inflated by copious amounts of cash. Just so their children can go to the ‘best’ brand of school where they will meet other kids just like themselves and…learn nothing about the world other than how to obtain degrees and jobs that will allow them to perpetuate their wealthy privilege for the next few generations.

You are not racist or against any race but you sure do talk about ‘culture’ that different demographic groups are raised in ( in previous threads).

In post #45, you wrote:

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

You have not indicated why you felt the need to write the above or the significance. You seemed to imply that it was somehow objectionable that black and Hispanic students were being admitted.

You have refused to address whether or not a small difference in SAT scores is actually indicative or predictive of future academic success. Admissions counselors don’t seem to believe that small differences are actually indicative of future academic success. Admissions offices are dispensing with the SAT because it has shown to NOT be a good tool to select the students most likely to succeed in their schools.

 

[laughing dog]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

There is always a thumb on the scale. Your thumb is resources ( good schools, culture, wealth).

Race blind policies may have known and predictable disparate racial outcomes.

Institutions arę better judges of the kind of student and the mix of studenta than internet sjws.

 

[laughing dog]

Doesn't matter. His debate shortcomings justify you challenging him for evidence, and telling him he's wrong when he can't back up his claims. They don't justify you making up the worst possible motivation and imputing it to him without evidence.

I am sure the irony is Lost on the poster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

That’s really not accurate. You are fine with and see it as inevitable that the children of wealthy parents are more likely to have higher test scores and have parents who paid fir them to take infinite lessons and paid for their charity work in foreign countries and otherwise paid for the resumes of their children to be inflated by copious amounts of cash. Just so their children can go to the ‘best’ brand of school where they will meet other kids just like themselves and…learn nothing about the world other than how to obtain degrees and jobs that will allow them to perpetuate their wealthy privilege for the next few generations.

Yes, I see it as inevitable. You can't remove the effects of money and some of it is also merit.

You are not racist or against any race but you sure do talk about ‘culture’ that different demographic groups are raised in ( in previous threads).

In post #45, you wrote:

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

You have not indicated why you felt the need to write the above or the significance. You seemed to imply that it was somehow objectionable that black and Hispanic students were being admitted.

You're being totally blinded by your faith here. The point is that the result of what you propose actually increases the effect of money. You want to trade flawed for even more flawed so you can shoot the messenger that is proving your position is discriminatory.

You have refused to address whether or not a small difference in SAT scores is actually indicative or predictive of future academic success. Admissions counselors don’t seem to believe that small differences are actually indicative of future academic success. Admissions offices are dispensing with the SAT because it has shown to NOT be a good tool to select the students most likely to succeed in their schools.

Admission officers are dispensing with the SAT because it has been proven to show they are discriminating. We laugh at His Flatulence's statement that if we quit testing Covid would go away--but you're after the same thing. Quit providing a yardstick that shows the discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

There is always a thumb on the scale. Your thumb is resources ( good schools, culture, wealth).

Race blind policies may have known and predictable disparate racial outcomes.

Institutions arę better judges of the kind of student and the mix of studenta than internet sjws.

This is assuming their goal is actually to select the best students. The data we have seen clearly shows major discrimination coupled with efforts to hide that discrimination.

And race blind policies only produce disparate outcomes, they do not produce discrimination. No matter how many times you claim you don't believe that a disparate result proves discrimination you continue to show that you actually believe it to be true.

 

[laughing dog]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

There is always a thumb on the scale. Your thumb is resources ( good schools, culture, wealth).

Race blind policies may have known and predictable disparate racial outcomes.

Institutions arę better judges of the kind of student and the mix of studenta than internet sjws.

This is assuming their goal is actually to select the best students. The data we have seen clearly shows major discrimination coupled with efforts to hide that discrimination.

It all depends what one views as "best student". You think you know best for the institution. Your data does not encompass every institution, so you really have clue what institutions in general have in mind.

And race blind policies only produce disparate outcomes, they do not produce discrimination. No matter how many times you claim you don't believe that a disparate result proves discrimination you continue to show that you actually believe it to be true.

You are babbling again. If the intent of "race blind" policies is to produce disparate outcomes, it is racial discrimination.

 

[lostone]

Gaming the SAT/ACT was not done until they had been used a few years. Part of the idea was that the tests would provide a more fair way of evaluating students who came from inferior or smaller schools.

 

[Toni]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

That’s really not accurate. You are fine with and see it as inevitable that the children of wealthy parents are more likely to have higher test scores and have parents who paid fir them to take infinite lessons and paid for their charity work in foreign countries and otherwise paid for the resumes of their children to be inflated by copious amounts of cash. Just so their children can go to the ‘best’ brand of school where they will meet other kids just like themselves and…learn nothing about the world other than how to obtain degrees and jobs that will allow them to perpetuate their wealthy privilege for the next few generations.

Yes, I see it as inevitable. You can't remove the effects of money and some of it is also merit.

You are not racist or against any race but you sure do talk about ‘culture’ that different demographic groups are raised in ( in previous threads).

In post #45, you wrote:

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

You have not indicated why you felt the need to write the above or the significance. You seemed to imply that it was somehow objectionable that black and Hispanic students were being admitted.

You're being totally blinded by your faith here. The point is that the result of what you propose actually increases the effect of money. You want to trade flawed for even more flawed so you can shoot the messenger that is proving your position is discriminatory.

You have refused to address whether or not a small difference in SAT scores is actually indicative or predictive of future academic success. Admissions counselors don’t seem to believe that small differences are actually indicative of future academic success. Admissions offices are dispensing with the SAT because it has shown to NOT be a good tool to select the students most likely to succeed in their schools.

Admission officers are dispensing with the SAT because it has been proven to show they are discriminating. We laugh at His Flatulence's statement that if we quit testing Covid would go away--but you're after the same thing. Quit providing a yardstick that shows the discrimination.

You have a very long habit of dismissing anything I write that you cannot effectively counter as being my ‘religion’ or my faith.

In fact I haven’t made any suggestions for fixing admissions other than to state that I trust admissions counselors to know whether or not SAT scores are as good predictors as they were initially intended to be and currently purported to be. In that instance, one could accurately assert that I have much greater confidence in professionals who work in the field of admissions, particularly with respect to admissions to elite universities to have not only greater expertise but also a greater stake in being correct than any yahoo on the internet, you and I included.

You, in what I can only assume is a faith based statement, assert that what I am proposing increases the effect of money—without one word of elucidation or gasp! DATA or even reference to any study. In fact, my only assertion is that admissions counselors have made some extremely good arguments for not relying on SAT scores. At least you finally admit that the SAT is discriminatory. It’s also a poor predictor of future academic success.

I think you have fallen into the trap of seeing your own faults in others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He did a quite good job of understanding my position.

And I've made my position clear repeatedly--make it race-blind. There is no need for the people doing the admissions to know anybody's race, gender, sexuality and the like.

You call it racism when I'm simply saying not to put a thumb on the scale anywhere.

There is always a thumb on the scale. Your thumb is resources ( good schools, culture, wealth).

Race blind policies may have known and predictable disparate racial outcomes.

Institutions arę better judges of the kind of student and the mix of studenta than internet sjws.

This is assuming their goal is actually to select the best students. The data we have seen clearly shows major discrimination coupled with efforts to hide that discrimination.

It all depends what one views as "best student". You think you know best for the institution. Your data does not encompass every institution, so you really have clue what institutions in general have in mind.

If the institutions actually had a valid criteria for best student they would present it. Instead, they try to hide the data.

And race blind policies only produce disparate outcomes, they do not produce discrimination. No matter how many times you claim you don't believe that a disparate result proves discrimination you continue to show that you actually believe it to be true.

You are babbling again. If the intent of "race blind" policies is to produce disparate outcomes, it is racial discrimination.

The problem is with the yardstick. A race-blind policy will admit students in proportion to their prevalence in the pool of the applicants. The current policy admits students biased towards the racial distributions overall, not the applicant pool.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have a very long habit of dismissing anything I write that you cannot effectively counter as being my ‘religion’ or my faith.

Because you base many of your positions on faith.

In fact I haven’t made any suggestions for fixing admissions other than to state that I trust admissions counselors to know whether or not SAT scores are as good predictors as they were initially intended to be and currently purported to be. In that instance, one could accurately assert that I have much greater confidence in professionals who work in the field of admissions, particularly with respect to admissions to elite universities to have not only greater expertise but also a greater stake in being correct than any yahoo on the internet, you and I included.

The thing is they have been proven to be hiding the data. And they have responded to inquiry by getting rid of metrics.

You, in what I can only assume is a faith based statement, assert that what I am proposing increases the effect of money—without one word of elucidation or gasp! DATA or even reference to any study. In fact, my only assertion is that admissions counselors have made some extremely good arguments for not relying on SAT scores. At least you finally admit that the SAT is discriminatory. It’s also a poor predictor of future academic success.

I think you have fallen into the trap of seeing your own faults in others.

And you continue to ignore the elephant--that everything else is worse.

 

[laughing dog]

If the institutions actually had a valid criteria for best student they would present it. Instead, they try to hide the data.

You are babbling again. Most institutions hide nothing.

You are babbling again. If the intent of "race blind" policies is to produce disparate outcomes, it is racial discrimination.

The problem is with the yardstick. A race-blind policy will admit students in proportion to their prevalence in the pool of the applicants. The current policy admits students biased towards the racial distributions overall, not the applicant pool.

As usual, that is non-responsive to my comment. Try again.

 

[Toni]

You have a very long habit of dismissing anything I write that you cannot effectively counter as being my ‘religion’ or my faith.

Because you base many of your positions on faith.

In fact I haven’t made any suggestions for fixing admissions other than to state that I trust admissions counselors to know whether or not SAT scores are as good predictors as they were initially intended to be and currently purported to be. In that instance, one could accurately assert that I have much greater confidence in professionals who work in the field of admissions, particularly with respect to admissions to elite universities to have not only greater expertise but also a greater stake in being correct than any yahoo on the internet, you and I included.

The thing is they have been proven to be hiding the data. And they have responded to inquiry by getting rid of metrics.

You, in what I can only assume is a faith based statement, assert that what I am proposing increases the effect of money—without one word of elucidation or gasp! DATA or even reference to any study. In fact, my only assertion is that admissions counselors have made some extremely good arguments for not relying on SAT scores. At least you finally admit that the SAT is discriminatory. It’s also a poor predictor of future academic success.

I think you have fallen into the trap of seeing your own faults in others.

And you continue to ignore the elephant--that everything else is worse.

Nope. Your assertions are based on your faith in your own beliefs. Anyone whose opinion differs from yours is wrong and since you refuse to read links or articles, then you can simply stay muggy secure in your own opinions, offering nothing at all other than the smug: that’s your faith—which you now use because I have called you out so often for saying it was my religion.

Instead, you simply see no reason to change anything ( sounds pretty faith based to me) even when experts in the field say that reliance on the SAT isn’t so reliable.

 

[bilby]

If the institutions actually had a valid criteria for best student they would present it.

It likely includes an understanding that "criteria" is a plural, whose singular form is "criterion".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the institutions actually had a valid criteria for best student they would present it. Instead, they try to hide the data.

You are babbling again. Most institutions hide nothing.

You are babbling again. If the intent of "race blind" policies is to produce disparate outcomes, it is racial discrimination.

The problem is with the yardstick. A race-blind policy will admit students in proportion to their prevalence in the pool of the applicants. The current policy admits students biased towards the racial distributions overall, not the applicant pool.

As usual, that is non-responsive to my comment. Try again.

Referring to my words as babbling and non-responsive doesn't make it so.