Standard Tests And Bias

[Derec]

I'm not too concerned about it though. Many black people do just fine with or without SAT and other tests.

Well racial preferences sure help. But, the notorious ACB may help fix that soon.

Some even manage to succeed without graduating Highschool (said while whisking dust off my shoulder). The efforts made towards inclusion have me slightly at ease. I mean look, even Derec gets it, he includes my people in almost all of his posts.

Huge exaggeration, but I admit a sizable minority of my posts did include black people. Given how many news stories involve them (especially during the monthslong 2020 riots) is it a surprise or in any way different from most other posters?

Anyhow, anyone looking at the bigger picture as far as statistics go can see a gradual improvement in Black SAT scores VS White.

A good trend for sure. The difference is still very large.

Overall White SAT scores have neither increased nor decreased over the same amount of time that Black SAT scores have been on the increase.

Not quite true.

Which in my opinion shows black people are working on it while Asians are kicking yall asses for just doing the bare minumum VIA "white privilege".

There is no "white privilege" in college admissions. There is a lot of black and hispanic privilege, euphemistically called "affirmative action".

If I was white I'd want to work on doing away with privilege cause it's clearly making yall dumber (look at your recent choices in political leadership vs back in the "good ole days"). Yall had some truly educated folk (despite them being slave-owning cock buffers).

Dude, you have a lot of hatred for white people. Not healthy for you dude.

 

[Derec]

Example of how SAT can be biased rests in the accuracy of the test materials. For example I did well in math and science but failed history because I disagreed with the SAT on History as it is mostly from an inaccurate & WHITE perspective.

Salami eggs and bacon, my brother!
But do you even own any capri pants?

 

[laughing dog]

The authors statistically control for the school effect,

Which means that it is something that had to be controlled for. Which means it has an effect. An admissions office that gets applicants from 100s of high schools will not be able to perform those controls.

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that the study found that the HS GPA is a predictor of college success than the SAT/ACT regardless of the HS school: they found it was a better predictor for students from poor schools, and from average schools and from good schools. No one is arguing that schools do not matter.

But even if we assume that GPA alone is a better predictor than SAT alone, that does not mean that GPA+SAT is not the best predictor out of the three.
And in fact, the study posted by Axulus shows just that: GPA+SAT is better than either one alone.

Which means SAT is very much important despite the ideological attempts to ax it.

Neither logically nor statistically is that true. Whether or not the SAT is very much important depends on the how much and how relevant the additional accuracy that the SAT provides relative to its additional cost.

 

[DBT]

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

Oh, so NOW Daily Fail is a good source to quote. LMAO!

The paper refers to a study. A study upon which the report is based. Why do you overlook that? Easier to dismiss without the slightest consideration? Of course it is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The study:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25114

It was linked in the Daily Mail article. It is easier to click the link than to argue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok let me rephrase. The reading section (IIRC) had some materials centered on history. It also tended to use words myself and my homies would never use in our entire lives as well as I've never heard any white people use.

As you say, those "SAT words" are not part of the everyday vocabulary for anyone. So where's the bias?

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right. If they used common words everyone would know them, what's the point? The whole point of using uncommon words is a sense of how broad your vocabulary is--which has a strong relationship with intelligence and learning. Only the absolutely brightest of students should get everything right on the a test like the SAT.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok let me rephrase. The reading section (IIRC) had some materials centered on history. It also tended to use words myself and my homies would never use in our entire lives as well as I've never heard any white people use.

As you say, those "SAT words" are not part of the everyday vocabulary for anyone. So where's the bias?

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right. If they used common words everyone would know them, what's the point? The whole point of using uncommon words is a sense of how broad your vocabulary is--which has a strong relationship with intelligence and learning. Only the absolutely brightest of students should get everything right on the a test like the SAT.

So you would have no problem with the SAT or ACT using urban slang in questions and answers if the goal is to get a sense of how broad one's vocabulary is?

 

[Trausti]

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right. If they used common words everyone would know them, what's the point? The whole point of using uncommon words is a sense of how broad your vocabulary is--which has a strong relationship with intelligence and learning. Only the absolutely brightest of students should get everything right on the a test like the SAT.

So you would have no problem with the SAT or ACT using urban slang in questions and answers if the goal is to get a sense of how broad one's vocabulary is?

It’s been done. The BITCH test.

 

[Derec]

The study:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25114

It was linked in the Daily Mail article. It is easier to click the link than to argue.

Yes, and my point is that the study itself does not fit the Daily Fail editorializing.

 

[Derec]

It’s been done. The BITCH test.

Missed opportunity: math portion all about selling dime bags and nickel bags. Could even have a chemistry question about deprotonating cocaine hydrochloride ...

 

[Derec]

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right.

What's problematic about "regatta"? Given that many colleges have a rowing team, it's not that obscure word for a demographic seeking to go to college.

 

[Derec]

So you would have no problem with the SAT or ACT using urban slang in questions and answers if the goal is to get a sense of how broad one's vocabulary is?

Laughing dog practicing his trademark silliness. In what way would "urban slang" be in any way indicative of college aptitude? Broad vocabulary in standard English != some slang.

 

[Derec]

The paper refers to a study. A study upon which the report is based. Why do you overlook that? Easier to dismiss without the slightest consideration? Of course it is.

Daily Fail refers to it but it editorializes in a way that makes claims not supported by the study itself.

 

[Derec]

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that the study found that the HS GPA is a predictor of college success than the SAT/ACT regardless of the HS school: they found it was a better predictor for students from poor schools, and from average schools and from good schools. No one is arguing that schools do not matter.

No, you are missing the point. GPA may be a better predictor when comparing within schools, and that may well hold true across all types of schools.
The problem is with comparison between very disparate schools, and that's exactly what college admissions need to do.
The same student could be a 3.6 or a 4.1 student depending on what high school they go to because the grading polices and practices and general educational rigor vary so much.
That's why you need testing that measures students form different schools based on the same yard stick - SAT/ACT for general math and English skills but also AP exams in various subjects which btw. are also done by College Board.

Neither logically nor statistically is that true. Whether or not the SAT is very much important depends on the how much and how relevant the additional accuracy that the SAT provides relative to its additional cost.

Do you have any evidence that the effect size is not significant or is this just your usual kneejerk gainsaying?

 

[DBT]

The paper refers to a study. A study upon which the report is based. Why do you overlook that? Easier to dismiss without the slightest consideration? Of course it is.

Daily Fail refers to it but it editorializes in a way that makes claims not supported by the study itself.

What is not being supported? More detail is needed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Attack the messenger.

 

[DBT]

That appears to be the strategy.

 

[laughing dog]

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right.

What's problematic about "regatta"? Given that many colleges have a rowing team, it's not that obscure word for a demographic seeking to go to college.

Most colleges do not have a rowing team. According to these site, https://www.ncsasports.org/mens-rowing/collegesthere are 84 mens college rowing teams and 156 women rowing teams (from https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-rowing/colleges). To put that in perspective, there are roughly 3000 4 year degree granting institutions of higher learning.

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that the study found that the HS GPA is a predictor of college success than the SAT/ACT regardless of the HS school: they found it was a better predictor for students from poor schools, and from average schools and from good schools. No one is arguing that schools do not matter.

No, you are missing the point. GPA may be a better predictor when comparing within schools, and that may well hold true across all types of schools.
The problem is with comparison between very disparate schools, and that's exactly what college admissions need to do.
The same student could be a 3.6 or a 4.1 student depending on what high school they go to because the grading polices and practices and general educational rigor vary so much.
That's why you need testing that measures students form different schools based on the same yard stick - SAT/ACT for general math and English skills but also AP exams in various subjects which btw. are also done by College Board.

HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT is the result from the study. Nothing you or LP or Trausti or Auxulus rebutted that fact. No one said anything about using only HS GPA as the criterion.

Do you have any evidence that the effect size is not significant or is this just your usual kneejerk gainsaying?

Don't need evidence to point the logical fallacies in your argument. Whether or not ____ (you fill in the blank) is very much important depends on how much and how relevant _____ (fill in the blank with the same factor) provides relative it cost. Furthermore, I see you are now backing down from "very much important" to "significant" .

I have and do forecasting with statistical models. Whether or not a factor/variable is useful depends on many factors. Telling institutions what they ought to be using without any information about relative effectiveness of the factors, the goals of the admission process, and the possible costs to the potential applicants and their willingness to apply is arrogance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right. If they used common words everyone would know them, what's the point? The whole point of using uncommon words is a sense of how broad your vocabulary is--which has a strong relationship with intelligence and learning. Only the absolutely brightest of students should get everything right on the a test like the SAT.

So you would have no problem with the SAT or ACT using urban slang in questions and answers if the goal is to get a sense of how broad one's vocabulary is?

Slang shouldn't be used, period, any more than regatta should have been used.

Bann is an uncommon word but not one that some populations are more likely to encounter than others. Long ago it would have been unfair due to the religious use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are words like "regatta" that were problematic, but for the most part you're right.

What's problematic about "regatta"? Given that many colleges have a rowing team, it's not that obscure word for a demographic seeking to go to college.

The problem with regatta is that it selects for those around substantial water. When I was growing up you would have had to go more than 200 miles to be able to row.