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

[Loren Pechtel]

I find your “de facto” interpretation a bit hard to take at face value.

I am not defending Harvard or any of the hundreds of higher education institutions that dropped standardized test scores as admissions requirements. I seriously doubt that the wide variety of institutions dropped that requirement so that they could discriminate based on race. Certainly no one in this thread has presented evidence to support their assertion that is the reason for the elimination of that requirement.

They didn't drop them so they could discriminate on race. They dropped them to make it harder to prove they were discriminating on race. It's a major red flag--they are discarding the very thing that was used to show they were discriminating.

Let me get this straight - you have evidence that hundreds of higher education institutions dropped standardized tests as a requirement for admissions in order to avoid evidence that they were discriminating based on race but you won’t produce it?

Look at the court cases.

 

[laughing dog]

I find your “de facto” interpretation a bit hard to take at face value.

I am not defending Harvard or any of the hundreds of higher education institutions that dropped standardized test scores as admissions requirements. I seriously doubt that the wide variety of institutions dropped that requirement so that they could discriminate based on race. Certainly no one in this thread has presented evidence to support their assertion that is the reason for the elimination of that requirement.

They didn't drop them so they could discriminate on race. They dropped them to make it harder to prove they were discriminating on race. It's a major red flag--they are discarding the very thing that was used to show they were discriminating.

Let me get this straight - you have evidence that hundreds of higher education institutions dropped standardized tests as a requirement for admissions in order to avoid evidence that they were discriminating based on race but you won’t produce it?

Look at the court cases.

Handwaving is evidence that you have no evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Criteria" is one of those strange words that while plural is sometimes grammatically singular--referring to the set of criterion as a single entity. Hence I made a singular/plural oops in a borderline case and got attacked for it to avoid addressing the actual point.

I know it’s a derail, but huh? When has criteria ever been “grammatically singular”? I personally have never heard or read that and “criteria is” will always ring harsh in my ear. Nor does the dictionary, which simply states that criteria is plural of criterion.

It’s ok to just admit you made a mistake and move on. No one here will think lesser of you for that.

I've never paid attention to how trustworthiness of the grammar when I've seen it used--perhaps I'm seeing others errors and thinking they are normal. A bit of searching with Google seems to say the singular use is incorrect, but the people also ask section shows a question where it's being used as a singular. I think it's just a common enough mistake I didn't realize it wasn't a valid usage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, the "everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer" logic. While I see the reason for the obsession about Asians because of the Harvard case, the OP is about higher education institutions in general. There are hundreds more institutions of higher education. And I know from experience that their admissions process is not Harvard's admission process.

Where are you getting that?

There is a lot of discussion about Asians because they are the primary victims of university discrimination. And there's a lot of discussion about Harvard because the lawsuit forced them to show their hand. Of course we go where there's data!

 

[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.

It's a free country. Anybody who wants to correct you about them gets to. Of course you're perfectly free to regard it as presumptuous on anyone else's part -- but you aren't rational to.

If you told a Jewish guy he was littering, no doubt you'd figure he could speak for himself and anyone swooping in to his defense was a buttinski. Maybe so, fair enough. But if you told a Jewish guy he was using the blood of Christians in his synagogue's wicked religious rituals, you should expect to be rightly upbraided for it by whoever's in earshot. The accusation that people who oppose affirmative action oppose it because they're racist is the exact same vicious blood libel that progressives have been slinging at liberals ever since affirmative action was invented. If you want Loren to be the only person to correct you about Loren's opinions and perceptions, get some original material.

You are not Loren and you are no more privy to his thoughts and opinions than am I.

And yet somehow I did a quite good job of understanding his position, as judged by him. How do you think I did that, dumb luck? I got it right because Loren has not been at all secretive or unclear about his thoughts and opinions. He has "a many years long history" of explaining them to you patiently. I am not Loren and you are just as privy to his thoughts and opinions as am I -- so why can't you get it right when other people can?

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

So what's your explanation for why your words match progressives' catechism? What hypothesis matches the facts better than you wearing ideological blinders? The circumstance that you can't get it right after all those years and the circumstance that the erroneous theory you came up with is the precise well-poison that progressivism always uses against liberalism is just a coincidence?

Wow. Yes, Loren has for years explained to me how not racist he is while bemoaning that Black students and Hispanic students get into Harvard. And about how undeserving those students are for not having had the wisdom of being born to families who could send them to a handful of select high schools. Oh, I forgot about the deficits in 'black culture.'

I was unaware that being progressive was a religion outside of the minds of those who are looking for ways to cast aspersions upon those with whom they disagree. Since you are fond of doing so, I will take it that is your religion and those who do not align with your beliefs are, in your POV, heretics or apostate. Or infidels. Now, where have I seen that last term?????

Continuing to claim I hold a position I do not isn't an argument.

I don't care what their skin color is. I care how qualified they are--and the data clearly shows they are admitting students they shouldn't be. The effect is even greater as you move down a tier or two--they have virtually zero qualified black admits because they were already snapped up by the schools above.

If I was being racist why would I be advocating for something that I believe will primarily benefit a race other than my own??

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, the "everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer" logic. While I see the reason for the obsession about Asians because of the Harvard case, the OP is about higher education institutions in general. There are hundreds more institutions of higher education. And I know from experience that their admissions process is not Harvard's admission process.

Where are you getting that?

There is a lot of discussion about Asians because they are the primary victims of university discrimination. And there's a lot of discussion about Harvard because the lawsuit forced them to show their hand. Of course we go where there's data!

There is a lot of discussion because of a few cases at elite schools. There are hundreds of colleges and universities where there is no complaints of discrimination against Asians that have dropped standardised scores for admission.

 

[laughing dog]

If I was being racist why would I be advocating for something that I believe will primarily benefit a race other than my own??

As a matter or reason, a person need only think one race is inferior to be considered a racist. So it is possible for a racist to advocate for something that benefits a different race than their own. Hence the question really doesn’t help your case.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

If it quacks like a duck...

... The intent of race-blind policies is to not racially discriminate.

Sometimes, the intent of face blind policies is to not racially discriminate. That's true to a certain extent but you have to also take into account who is setting those policies, their perspectives and structural racism that is pervasive throughout society

... it's usually a duck. When somebody tells me he doesn't have a religion and then goes on to tell me what God wants from us, I don't put a lot of stock in his denial of religiousness. There's a prevalent religion which says the same things about the unevidenced entity its followers believe in; consequently I take him to be one of its ducks.

So if my fixation is misplaced and inaccurate -- if you aren't another duck infected with the progressive faith -- then (1) define this so-called "structural racism that is pervasive throughout society". Then (2) explain why that's an accurate name for the concept you define. And then (3) cough up some empirical evidence that it exists, with none of the word games, equivocation fallacies and unfalsifiability engines that are progressive ducks' stock in trade.

Suppose school EPIC wishes to have race blind admissions. They also have a long history and a long relationship with recruiting students predominately from 7 high schools. All of those high schools are predominately white and Asian, with only a small minority of students who are Black, Hispanic, or NA.

Is that because those high schools are applying different admission standards to Black, Hispanic, or NA applicants?

It is almost certain that most of the students who demonstrate academic excellence at those 7 high schools are either Asian or White, simply by the numbers. ... Most of the likely successful applicants to those 7 high schools will come from families who are able to move close to one of those 7 schools and to provide whatever support and extras those 7 schools expect from the students and their families. Trying to expect parents who are working 2-3 jobs each in order to pay rent to volunteer or to chip in extra money for...anything is not reasonable. ... This says NOTHING at all about the academic potential of any of the students whose families cannot afford to live close to one of the 7 schools or who cannot afford the uniforms or the extracurriculars which are mandatory or any of the extra lessons and instruments and other expectations. ...

And all these obstacles in the path of typical Black, Hispanic, or NA applicants are also in the path of White and Asian students from poor families or from regions far from the feeder schools. This so-called "structural racism" gives no leg up to the typical White or Asian student -- quite the reverse. What you're describing could reasonably be called structural classism.

There is a strata of students who belong and those who 'belong.' It does follow socioeconomic lines but also racial ones. Race and socioeconomic class are extremely intertwined. And where there are students who are wealthy from a group that is traditionally not wealthy, there are divided loyalties.

If you think we should try to engineer society to alter students' loyalty patterns, your option. Your policy preferences don't magically mean people who leave race out of the decision process are trying to exclude blacks and Hispanics from going to good colleges.

At Harvard, more than 40 percent of its students come from the Northeast; another 16 percent come from the West Coast. That's a whole lot of geography to to fill up the rest of the student body, spread very, very thin. Fewer than 10% of Harvard students come from rural areas, with most coming from suburban areas or urban areas.

And it's mostly white people in that whole lot of geography.

It is extremely difficult to design a truly race blind selection criteria. SATs have biases inherent in all of their tests, mostly biases for upper and middle class white kids. Not necessarily by design but by....tradition. Going with the flow. It's so much easier.

Can you give examples of SAT questions that are biased for upper and middle class white kids against upper and middle class kids of other races? And, assuming the SATs are so biased, the fact that to get admitted Asians need to score better than whites on a test that was already biased against them just makes the case that universities are racially discriminating against Asians that much stronger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if my fixation is misplaced and inaccurate -- if you aren't another duck infected with the progressive faith -- then (1) define this so-called "structural racism that is pervasive throughout society". Then (2) explain why that's an accurate name for the concept you define. And then (3) cough up some empirical evidence that it exists, with none of the word games, equivocation fallacies and unfalsifiability engines that are progressive ducks' stock in trade.

Exactly. It's effectively another version of disparate results prove discrimination--no matter how many ways you dress it up it's still a pig.

What is pervasive in society is socioeconomic differences. If you dig into it "racial" discrimination normally turns out to be a proxy for socioeconomic status. We shouldn't be trying to help blacks, we should be trying to help the poor. Yes, there is definitely an overlap and helping the poor will disproportionately help blacks--fine. But I do not favor the current system which puts already well off blacks on easy street but does virtually nothing for the people who actually need help.

Suppose school EPIC wishes to have race blind admissions. They also have a long history and a long relationship with recruiting students predominately from 7 high schools. All of those high schools are predominately white and Asian, with only a small minority of students who are Black, Hispanic, or NA.

Is that because those high schools are applying different admission standards to Black, Hispanic, or NA applicants?

And why would they have a relationship with a specific set of schools unless those schools were the schools in it's location?

It is almost certain that most of the students who demonstrate academic excellence at those 7 high schools are either Asian or White, simply by the numbers. ... Most of the likely successful applicants to those 7 high schools will come from families who are able to move close to one of those 7 schools and to provide whatever support and extras those 7 schools expect from the students and their families. Trying to expect parents who are working 2-3 jobs each in order to pay rent to volunteer or to chip in extra money for...anything is not reasonable. ... This says NOTHING at all about the academic potential of any of the students whose families cannot afford to live close to one of the 7 schools or who cannot afford the uniforms or the extracurriculars which are mandatory or any of the extra lessons and instruments and other expectations. ...

And all these obstacles in the path of typical Black, Hispanic, or NA applicants are also in the path of White and Asian students from poor families or from regions far from the feeder schools. This so-called "structural racism" gives no leg up to the typical White or Asian student -- quite the reverse. What you're describing could reasonably be called structural classism.

Yup--classism certainly exists.

Can you give examples of SAT questions that are biased for upper and middle class white kids against upper and middle class kids of other races? And, assuming the SATs are so biased, the fact that to get admitted Asians need to score better than whites on a test that was already biased against them just makes the case that universities are racially discriminating against Asians that much stronger.

Yeah, they keep claiming bias. Given how much work goes into the SAT it should be easy to test questions for bias so long as you think to test for the relevant criteria. The only one I've heard of that slipped through was regatta--it is biased towards the well to do but it's also biased towards those near suitable water. Growing up in the desert why would I ever encounter it?

 

[Bomb#20]

...To put it baldly, Harvard admissions officers have de facto claimed in their paper trail that Asians are typically not as nice people as the rest of us.

So the question for anyone who wants to defend Harvard and to argue that its officers know which criteria for student admission are sound better than a bunch of internet cranks needs to answer is: are Asians really typically not as nice people as the rest of us?

I find your “de facto” interpretation a bit hard to take at face value.

Do tell. What de facto interpretation of the observation that Asian applicants on average have substantially lower personal quality ratings in Harvard's admission decision records than non-Asian applicants would you find a bit easier to take at face value?

Read your own italicized words and then get back to me.

Didn't need to, since I remember what I wrote, but to humor you, I read them anyway. I'm back. Feel free to answer the question.

If you need clarification wrt the italicized words, those words as I said are a question for anyone who wants to defend Harvard and to argue that its officers know which criteria for student admission are sound better than a bunch of internet cranks. As noted upthread, that's you, not me. I'm not defending Harvard. But to humor you, I'll give my answer. IMnsHO, Asians are in fact typically just as nice as the rest of us. Therefore, Harvard admissions officers were disproportionately putting negative comments about Asians' niceness in their candidate reviews either sincerely, because the officers were racist against Asians, or else insincerely, because the officers were lying in an attempt to cover up an illegal quota system. (My bet is on the latter option but you never know.)

I seriously doubt that the wide variety of institutions dropped that requirement so that they could discriminate based on race.

Yes. It looks like they dropped that requirement not so they could discriminate based on race but so that they could get more of the races they wanted without needing to discriminate based on race. If you eliminate whichever criteria Asians do better on then you can comply with the Civil Rights Act's race-blindness requirement and still get no more Asians than you want. For that matter, if having a student body that racially matches their applicant pool is their highest priority, all they need to do is admit students randomly. That way they can obey the law and the dictates of their ideology simultaneously; all they'd be losing is their status as elite schools.

Ah, the "everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer" logic. While I see the reason for the obsession about Asians because of the Harvard case, the OP is about higher education institutions in general. There are hundreds more institutions of higher education.

True. When a factory pulls one widget out of hundreds off the assembly line and tests it thoroughly, and finds it to be of substandard quality, the sensible conclusion is that it's a one-off anomaly and the rest of the widgets are just fine and getting the bad one when they pulled one out for testing was just happenstance, right?

And I know from experience that their admissions process is not Harvard's admission process.

I'm sure they aren't. But changing the standards in a way that gets them more of the races they want is something we've seen any number of colleges do. The "Accept the top 10% from every high school" rule is a well-known example.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

So what's your explanation for why your words match progressives' catechism? What hypothesis matches the facts better than you wearing ideological blinders? The circumstance that you can't get it right after all those years and the circumstance that the erroneous theory you came up with is the precise well-poison that progressivism always uses against liberalism is just a coincidence?

Wow. Yes, Loren has for years explained to me how not racist he is while bemoaning that Black students and Hispanic students get into Harvard.

If Loren has for years been bemoaning that Black students and Hispanic students get into Harvard, then you should have no difficulty quoting him doing so. Quote him.

And about how undeserving those students are for not having had the wisdom of being born to families who could send them to a handful of select high schools.

Once again, quote him. It never happened. You are putting words in his mouth. That's not something you would do if you had goodwill towards him.

The problem, evidently, is that he has blasphemed, and you have been primed to think the worst of blasphemers. So when he said something that your ideology teaches its adherents to regard as just as immoral as "they're undeserving for not having had the wisdom of being born to families who could send them to a handful of select high schools", you reacted to it emotionally as if he'd actually said that. And then, months or years later, you remember not his words but your emotional reaction to his words. Then you retrospectively accuse him of words you compose now that would have caused the same emotional reaction then, even though they're not what he said. And you apparently aren't ashamed of doing that, apparently because whatever he actually said was according to your ideology just as bad, so he's a bad person who isn't deserving of truthfulness.

If my fixation on your ideology is inaccurate, then seriously, why did you claim Loren said something so ridiculous, something nobody would ever say? Did you imagine readers would take your word for it? Did you think you wouldn't get called on it? Did you think nobody would ask for a quote? Do you live in a bubble where your listeners typically accept such accusations uncritically because the guy you make them against is in their outgroup?

Your reliability as a witness aside, there's something else also going on here. You and Loren evidently have different notions of what criteria schools should use for deciding admissions. He thinks it's wrong to hold race against an applicant; you appear to think it's wrong to hold anything against an applicant that isn't her own fault. So if, hypothetically, Loren indicated that it's okay with him for a college to reject a student for not going to one of the select high schools, then combining your moral premise with Loren's judgment would together imply not going to one of those high schools was the student's own fault so she was undeserving. I.e., you appear to have derived the words you put in his mouth like this:

He says X.
I believe Y.
X and Y imply Z.
------------------
Therefore, he says Z.​

That is a fallacious inference.

Oh, I forgot about the deficits in 'black culture.'

What about them? If you think any of Loren's claims about deficits in 'black culture' imply that what family a child is born to is unwise or her own fault, or that it's bad for a Black student to get into Harvard, or that all Black students are low-achieving, or that Asian students deserve "all the slots in every incoming class of freshmen at Harvard and any other highly selective school", or any of the other absurdities you've put in his mouth, quote him and show your work.

I was unaware that being progressive was a religion outside of the minds of those who are looking for ways to cast aspersions upon those with whom they disagree.

Of course you were. The family resemblance between progressivism and Christianity is obvious to outsiders but I would no more expect a progressive or a Christian to see it than I'd expect a Christian to see how much like Islam his opinions are.

Since you are fond of doing so, I will take it that is your religion and those who do not align with your beliefs are, in your POV, heretics or apostate.

Apostate?!? What, like progressives have betrayed and abandoned liberalism? That's ridiculous. You were never liberals.

 

[laughing dog]

...To put it baldly, Harvard admissions officers have de facto claimed in their paper trail that Asians are typically not as nice people as the rest of us.

So the question for anyone who wants to defend Harvard and to argue that its officers know which criteria for student admission are sound better than a bunch of internet cranks needs to answer is: are Asians really typically not as nice people as the rest of us?

I find your “de facto” interpretation a bit hard to take at face value.

Do tell. What de facto interpretation of the observation that Asian applicants on average have substantially lower personal quality ratings in Harvard's admission decision records than non-Asian applicants would you find a bit easier to take at face value?

Read your own italicized words and then get back to me.

Didn't need to, since I remember what I wrote, but to humor you, I read them anyway. I'm back. Feel free to answer the question.

If you need clarification wrt the italicized words, those words as I said are a question for anyone who wants to defend Harvard and to argue that its officers know which criteria for student admission are sound better than a bunch of internet cranks. As noted upthread, that's you, not me. I'm not defending Harvard. But to humor you, I'll give my answer. IMnsHO, Asians are in fact typically just as nice as the rest of us. Therefore, Harvard admissions officers were disproportionately putting negative comments about Asians' niceness in their candidate reviews either sincerely, because the officers were racist against Asians, or else insincerely, because the officers were lying in an attempt to cover up an illegal quota system. (My bet is on the latter option but you never know.)

Completely non-responsive. You have offered absolutely no evidence that the Harvard admissions were evaluating the “ niceness” of applicants.

Yes. It looks like they dropped that requirement not so they could discriminate based on race but so that they could get more of the races they wanted without needing to discriminate based on race. .,,.

More “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” reasoning employed by “ race blind” social justice warriors and their duped white knights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem, evidently, is that he has blasphemed, and you have been primed to think the worst of blasphemers. So when he said something that your ideology teaches its adherents to regard as just as immoral as "they're undeserving for not having had the wisdom of being born to families who could send them to a handful of select high schools", you reacted to it emotionally as if he'd actually said that. And then, months or years later, you remember not his words but your emotional reaction to his words. Then you retrospectively accuse him of words you compose now that would have caused the same emotional reaction then, even though they're not what he said. And you apparently aren't ashamed of doing that, apparently because whatever he actually said was according to your ideology just as bad, so he's a bad person who isn't deserving of truthfulness.

Exactly. I have found that people very often are incapable of actually comprehending blasphemy. It applies just as much when it's blasphemy against a faith-based position as when it's a religious thing. It's the same as the fundies lumping pedophiles with homosexuals. All unapproved sexualities are wrong, they can't see a difference between consenting adults and non-consenting children.

If my fixation on your ideology is inaccurate, then seriously, why did you claim Loren said something so ridiculous, something nobody would ever say? Did you imagine readers would take your word for it? Did you think you wouldn't get called on it? Did you think nobody would ask for a quote? Do you live in a bubble where your listeners typically accept such accusations uncritically because the guy you make them against is in their outgroup?

You are implying an intent I do not believe she has.

Your reliability as a witness aside, there's something else also going on here. You and Loren evidently have different notions of what criteria schools should use for deciding admissions. He thinks it's wrong to hold race against an applicant; you appear to think it's wrong to hold anything against an applicant that isn't her own fault.

Yup. I think an applicant should be judged only on their own merits, their background is irrelevant. I consider the current approach to be painting over society's rust.

Oh, I forgot about the deficits in 'black culture.'

What about them? If you think any of Loren's claims about deficits in 'black culture' imply that what family a child is born to is unwise or her own fault, or that it's bad for a Black student to get into Harvard, or that all Black students are low-achieving, or that Asian students deserve "all the slots in every incoming class of freshmen at Harvard and any other highly selective school", or any of the other absurdities you've put in his mouth, quote him and show your work.

It's socioeconomic, not racial. Ghetto or white trash, doesn't make much difference. Family failed. The neighborhood failed. You can't go back and wave a magic wand and say it didn't leave a lasting difference.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ghetto or white trash, doesn't make much difference. Family failed. The neighborhood failed. You can't go back and wave a magic wand and say it didn't leave a lasting difference.

WTF.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

If my fixation on your ideology is inaccurate, then seriously, why did you claim Loren said something so ridiculous, something nobody would ever say? Did you imagine readers would take your word for it? Did you think you wouldn't get called on it? Did you think nobody would ask for a quote? Do you live in a bubble where your listeners typically accept such accusations uncritically because the guy you make them against is in their outgroup?

You are implying an intent I do not believe she has.

I don't mean to imply intent -- note the "If ... then". I'm focusing on her ideology as the most plausible explanation for why she put all those words in your mouth precisely because the alternative to it is intent.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg

 

[thebeave]

Well, this escalated quickly...

Brown University to reinstate standardized test requirements for undergraduate admission

Brown University will reinstate standardized testing requirements for most applicants to the College beginning with the class of 2029, according to University administrators.

Brown will become the third Ivy — after Dartmouth and Yale — to again require all first-year applicants to submit a standardized test score as part of their application, with the exception of those who are “unable to take the test” when “the International Baccalaureate or a national exam may be substituted.”

Transfer applicants, resumed undergraduate education applicants and prospective student veterans will still enjoy a test optional policy.

The committee cited student academic performance at Brown as a main reason for requiring the test, finding that higher test scores were correlated with higher grades at the University. Those who did not submit scores had comparable academic performance to those that submitted low scores. The findings aligned with the results of a study released earlier this year by John Friedman, the chair of Brown’s economics department and a member of the committee.

The summary adds that there are “unintended adverse outcomes of test-optional policies in the admissions process itself, potentially undermining the goal of increasing access.”