Standard Tests And Bias

[laughing dog]

I don't discard all research I disagree with. It's just the social sciences are full of "research" with gaping holes in it.

You keep telling yourself that. In this thread, the first "gaping hole " did not exist. The second "gaping hole you found"also does not exist, since it requires counter-factual data (i.e. what would have happened).

No--while the question obviously can't be answered completely short of trying it you would at least see the size of the problem being dealt with. As it is we have a glaring unknown that is being tiptoed past.

Only in your mind.

The problem is they have repeatedly demonstrated they desire to discriminate, thus we are highly suspicious of anything which appears to favor such discrimination.

The problem is so many people have repeatedly demonstrated they will say anything to rationalize discrimination.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is all learning and testing just a conspiracy to manipulate us?

Teachers test to get some kind of idea about what a student does and doesn't know. A teacher, if left to her own devices, then develops a plan to further the students education by building on what the student does know and by further explaining and developing what he doesn't yet fully understand. That is how it is supposed to work and it does work if you are an A list actor in a Hollywood teen struggle movie [emphasis added].

BUT . . .

In the real world, testing is a way to make Pearson rich, fire/ . . .

Pearson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Education -- Pearson Education is a British-owned education publishing and assessment service to schools and corporations, as well for students directly. Pearson owns educational media brands including Addison–Wesley, Peachpit, Prentice Hall, eCollege, Longman, Scott Foresman, and others. Pearson is part of Pearson plc, which formerly owned the Financial Times. It claims to have been formed in 1840, with the current incarnation of the company created when Pearson plc purchased the education division of Simon & Schuster (including Prentice Hall and Allyn & Bacon) from Viacom and merged it with its own education division, Addison-Wesley Longman, to form Pearson Education. Pearson Education was rebranded to Pearson in 2011 and split into an International and a North American division.

Although Pearson generates approximately 60 percent of its sales in North America, it operates in more than 70 countries. Pearson International is headquartered in London, and maintains offices . . .

But what was testing prior to 1840 (before Pearson)? Was Pearson created as a front for the Freemasons? the Illuminati? the Rothschilds? What's the Ultimate Source of all this shit?

. . . testing is a way to make Pearson rich, fire/demote teachers, and have the state or a private education company take over a public school.

"a way" to make this happen? Whose way? Who or What is guiding this process? Who is plotting to fire and demote which teachers? or have something "take over" what?

There is no way to test this, to distinguish it from paranoia. It's possible that everyone posting on this website is secretly conspiring to put Trump in the White House again in '24, and this website is their secret way of making this happen, and I'm the only one here who's not in the conspiracy, and everyone denying it is just lying.

And even if it's true that some conspirators secretly do testing for the above sinister purposes, that doesn't prevent others from trying to improve the testing to make it serve the "plan to further the students education by building on what the student does know . . . etc. . . . how it is supposed to work" etc. So regardless of the conspiracy by some, it's still the case that the correct solution is to improve and increase the tests (i.e., the good (improved) tests which legitimately promote learning).

It is a way to beat students into submission through a regimen of . . .

Learning does mean a certain amount of "submission" to the truth, to reality, to facts, to correct answers on tests or correct answers to problems or questions arising from the real world one is trying to learn. A student can feel intimidated by this, and maybe should be. There should be such a feeling of intimidation, and then hopefully an attitude of facing it realistically and trying to overcome it or even take power over it ("master the subject matter") in a kind of contest between the student and the subject matter in which the student rises up and conquers the subject matter.

So how do we know if the "submission" is to the truth, i.e., to the real world we want to learn, or to the Conspirators who founded Pearson in 1840 and have been brainwashing all of us and planting all these lies about evolution and climate change and moon landings etc. into our minds?



Why not TEACH TO THE TEST, as long as it's a good test?

. . . through a regimen of teaching the test instead of freeing young minds through teaching to the student.

But maybe learning is only partly a "freeing" of the mind, while also partly a FORCING it to take in the real-world stuff to be learned.

And TEACHING THE TEST (or TO the test) is the same as freeing the minds (and also forcing them) to learn, if it's a good test. There's nothing wrong with "teaching to the test" as long as it's a good test, forcing the student to learn the subject matter in order to perform well on the test. If the test accomplishes this, then it's a good test, and teaching to such a test is essentially the same as teaching the subject matter to the student, as it should be taught. -- unless everything we're taught is really just lies planted in us by the Pearson founders, who probably trace back to whoever it was who abducted Constantine (and replaced him with a duplicate) and launched the Council of Nicea's Reign of Terror.

It doesn't really matter what the test says or if the questions are bias since even a perfectly balanced test will be weaponized against actually teaching children to think for themselves.

"weaponized" by whom?

E.g., does it "really matter" if Muslim children in a Madrasa are tested on their knowledge of the Koran? If instead their schools and tests were abolished, would those children then learn more because then they could "think for themselves" rather than memorizing verses? Aren't the children still learning, and mentally improving or acquiring more knowledge, while also the methods could be improved so that the learning is made still better, with better testing? and maybe expanding the subject matter? Why doesn't it "matter" if tests are made better?

But "even a perfectly balanced test" makes no difference, because no matter how good the test is it can only become a still better weapon to thwart learning? That means nothing can ever be made better, because anything we might do is just another conspiracy and manipulation of us to thwart us and beat us down, because the entire world is rigged by some Establishment to destroy us no matter what anyone does to try to throw off the yoke.

If it's true that "even a perfectly balanced test will be weaponized against" us no matter what, then nothing matters, nothing can ever be fixed, nothing ever learned or improved or overcome or made right. Even if you post in this message board it's just another manipulation of you by those rigging the system against us, to deceive you into thinking you have a voice and an independent mind, when all you're really doing is reciting back what the Pearson Conspirators programmed into you.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Found this in my notifications this morning.

 

[SimpleDon]

Claims have been made that standardized tests like SAT are racially biased.

How is this so?

How can reading comprehension and math be radially biased?

I agree tests can be intentionally biased. As part of past voter suppression tests were required to be allowed to vote. Questions were asked that blacks many of whom did not go to high school could not possibly answer.

Of course, the SAT test isn't racially biased. Unfortunately, as support for the arguments made by white male grievance warriors, WMGWs, it is the education that the SAT test measures that is racially biased. It is part of the systemic racism in the US that WMGWs consistently deny exists.

Liberals, social justice warriors, SJWs, consistently declare the SAT tests to be racially biased without explaining why the tests are biased because they think that the reason undercuts the liberal's demands for special compensation for the students who are adversely affected by the systemic racism.

In this partisan world where we have to choose between the SJWs and the WMGWs views of this matter, there really is no choice, the views of the WMGWs are deeply more delusional.

As usual, I didn't pay attention to how old the thread is and how many pages of posts it has, I thought that it was a new thread.

 

[Derec]

Most colleges do not have a rowing team.

But enough do that it is not too obscure a word for an SAT word.

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.

But only when controlling for school. I.e. within a school, GPA is a better predictor. But when you have a pool of 1000s of students from many different schools with highly diverse grading practices, you need some sort of yardstick that will allow you to compare students from different scho

No one said anything about using only HS GPA as the criterion.

Actually, there are many who advocate for eliminating SATs and other standardized tests (MCAT, LSAT etc.) from college and grad/professional school admissions. Do you disagree with them?

In any case, that means that the relevant question is not whether SAT is better than GPA or vice versa, but whether SAT+GPA is better than either alone.

Don't need evidence to point the logical fallacies in your argument.

There are no fallacies. The data indicates that SAT+GPA is better than GPA alone. If you want to attack the study, do so. If you think the effect size is too small to matter, show it. But you don't get to say, well maybe the effect size is too small, so let's just go with GPA alone. Especially since "no SAT" has become an ideological position by now.

I have and do forecasting with statistical models.

For the sake of your employer, I hope you do not employ the same sophistry you often do in discussions here.

 

[Derec]

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.

I do not think that's a problem in itself. An educated mind should be exposed to words outside of their normal sphere of experience. Now if terms involving boats predominated, that would give people living around water an advantage, yes. But that is not an argument against individual words.

I don't see how you can come up with a pool of "SAT words", i.e. somewhat obscure words, without some of those words being more familiar to some people. The goal is to have a pool that is a good mix of "spheres" these words belong to, not to eliminate them.

 

[Derec]

To my knowledge, no institution is relying only on HS GPA.

Some (University of California system) have already dropped SAT/ACTs and the Left is pushing for basically wholesale rejection of these tests. That leaves HS GPA as the sole measure of somebody's academic preparedness and aptitude.

 

[Derec]

Found this in my notifications this morning.

When I clicked on it to play in YouTube, an ad came on for a ... Princeton Review MCAT prep course. LMAO!

 

[Elixir]

When I was growing up you would have had to go more than 200 miles to be able to row.

We had to row that far! And uphill, both ways.

 

[Rhea]

I do not think that's a problem in itself. An educated mind should be exposed to words outside of their normal sphere of experience. Now if terms involving boats predominated, that would give people living around water an advantage, yes. But that is not an argument against individual words.

I don't see how you can come up with a pool of "SAT words", i.e. somewhat obscure words, without some of those words being more familiar to some people. The goal is to have a pool that is a good mix of "spheres" these words belong to, not to eliminate them.

"regatta" is not a matter of being "more familiar" to some than others. It is utterly outside of the sphere of knowledge for huge swaths of Americans. You have to not only be near water, but be in an economic group that would interact with "regattas". To many, it would a something they might see, perhaps a "boat parade" but not a "regatta."

That's an excellent example of a word that should not be in a vocab test for all American students.

 

[laughing dog]

But enough do that it is not too obscure a word for an SAT word.

No way.

But only when controlling for school. I.e. within a school, GPA is a better predictor. But when you have a pool of 1000s of students from many different schools with highly diverse grading practices, you need some sort of yardstick that will allow you to compare students from different scho

Apparently some institutions think they can make such comparisons without the SAT/ACT.

Actually, there are many who advocate for eliminating SATs and other standardized tests (MCAT, LSAT etc.) from college and grad/professional school admissions. Do you disagree with them?

I think the institutions are the best judges of what they need to make admissions decisions.

In any case, that means that the relevant question is not whether SAT is better than GPA or vice versa, but whether SAT+GPA is better than either alone.

No, the question is how much better compared to the other alternative methods and the relative costs. And, I strongly suspect that these institutions have a much better idea about the answers to those questions than you or I do.

For the sake of your employer, I hope you do not employ the same sophistry you often do in discussions here.

Your ad hom does not disguise your logical fallacies and pure ignorance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not think that's a problem in itself. An educated mind should be exposed to words outside of their normal sphere of experience. Now if terms involving boats predominated, that would give people living around water an advantage, yes. But that is not an argument against individual words.

I don't see how you can come up with a pool of "SAT words", i.e. somewhat obscure words, without some of those words being more familiar to some people. The goal is to have a pool that is a good mix of "spheres" these words belong to, not to eliminate them.

"regatta" is not a matter of being "more familiar" to some than others. It is utterly outside of the sphere of knowledge for huge swaths of Americans. You have to not only be near water, but be in an economic group that would interact with "regattas". To many, it would a something they might see, perhaps a "boat parade" but not a "regatta."

That's an excellent example of a word that should not be in a vocab test for all American students.

Being outside the sphere of knowledge of most Americans isn't an issue--it was the whole point! Consider the other rare word that's been brought up: Banns. The problem with regatta is that some have far more exposure to it than others. If you're testing the breadth of vocabulary you need to pick words that will be rare for everybody.

 

[Rhea]

Being outside the sphere of knowledge of most Americans isn't an issue--it was the whole point! Consider the other rare word that's been brought up: Banns. The problem with regatta is that some have far more exposure to it than others. If you're testing the breadth of vocabulary you need to pick words that will be rare for everybody.

I agree with that. yes good point.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Claims have been made that standardized tests like SAT are racially biased.

How is this so?

How can reading comprehension and math be racially biased?

I agree tests can be intentionally biased. As part of past voter suppression tests were required to be allowed to vote. Questions were asked that blacks many of whom did not go to high school could not possibly answer.

Of course, the SAT test isn't racially biased. Unfortunately, as support for the arguments made by white male grievance warriors, WMGWs, it is the education that the SAT test measures that is racially biased. It is part of the systemic racism in the US that WMGWs consistently deny exists.

This confirms again that the solution (if there's a problem) is to improve and increase the testing, not reduce or eliminate it. Since the testing is not what's racist, then increasing it and making it better will result in better outcomes for all students and offset the racism and anything else in the system which interferes with the learning.

Liberals, social justice warriors, SJWs, consistently declare the SAT tests to be racially biased without explaining why the tests are biased because they think that the reason undercuts the liberal's demands for special compensation for the students who are adversely affected by the systemic racism.

In this partisan world where we have to choose between the SJWs and the WMGWs views of this matter, there really is no choice, the . . .

Yes there is a choice: increase and improve the testing.

. . . there really is no choice, the views of the WMGWs are deeply more delusional.

More and better testing will counteract the harm done by either side, no matter which is more delusional.

 

[Gospel]

I scream death to the SAT! It was created by a racist anyway.