Why the science of intelligence matters: affirmative action for college admission but not for graduation

[ApostateAbe]

You don't have to speak purely from your gut. The data is out there. You are right that AP test scores are better predictors than the SAT of college GPA, per Table 2 and Page 10 of this study:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.434.6711&rep=rep1&type=pdf

...and you are right about high-school GPAs. Family income... not so much. The Appendix on Page 14 of this study shows correlations among college GPA, high school GPA, SAT, and SES (socioeconomic status):

https://research.collegeboard.org/s...mic-status-sat-freshman-gpa-analysis-data.pdf

But you got me on shoe size. I can't find the needed correlation data for that assertion of possibility (not that I have looked).

I am not speaking from my gut. I am not the one holding to a number on a test as an article of faith. You say that correlation is enough only because every attempt at proving causation has gone down in flames. When other correlations are shown, some with stronger connection than test scores, you wave your hands at them and say "no no, it is enough to have this weaker correlation to the scores I believe in than to, say, GPA or income level," both of which tell you more about life outcomes, success, and intelligence than any single test can.

But these correlations can be proven or disproven as actual causes, they are indicative of observable behaviors at both the macro and micro level of human action. And they are things we can change and manipulate without regard to skin color, eye shape, or mysterious genetic cocktails.

Causes are irrelevant, and I am not dismissing anything. When you make claims about correlations, those claims are directly testable by the data. You made a mix of such claims, most right, one wrong and the remaining untestable or ambiguous. You made the claim that family income is a better predictor of college performance than SAT. That claim is plainly wrong, in direct contradiction of the data. That is because you spoke from the gut. I won't hold it against you. You made right claims about high school grades and AP tests. I don't dismiss those. Far from it.

 

[ksen]

It is not merely about science, not merely about politics, but about both. Politics first--as it calling for a change in the politics to be more in touch with the science. It could have been moved to the Social Science forum, as every claim agrees with the mainstream scientific thought of the relevant field, but it wasn't. It was moved to the Pseudoscience forum: the poisoned well of the FRDB. I wonder why.

Probably because Tom is a member of that race with the lowest IQ: Canadian.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod:

 

[ApostateAbe]

My argument mathematically predicts that disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades are less likely to graduate due to higher rates of failing grades, and the racial graduation gaps seem to bear out that prediction, but it would help to have an additional correlation: lower grades means higher probability of dropping out. I think I found it in this study by Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner, "Learning about Academic Ability and the College Drop-out Decision," 2009, at http://www.nber.org/papers/w14810.pdf. The authors conclude not just the existence of the correlation but a strong psychologically-rooted causal link: "The paper shows that learning about ability plays a major role in the drop-out decision process."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My argument mathematically predicts that disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades are less likely to graduate due to higher rates of failing grades

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

If there is none, I suggest that you apply to an appropriate research program and design a study.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My argument mathematically predicts that disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades are less likely to graduate due to higher rates of failing grades

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

If there is none, I suggest that you apply to an appropriate research program and design a study.

And which government organization or non-profit do you expect would be willing to fund such a study? There really is no need. The correlations premised seem to make the inferred correlation inevitable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

If there is none, I suggest that you apply to an appropriate research program and design a study.

And which government organization or non-profit do you expect would be willing to fund such a study? There really is no need. The correlations premised seem to make the inferred correlation inevitable.

If it is true, you can find funding. Instead of stating that you are going to prove racial IQ is true, set out to disprove it. If you are honest you will find out what is going on. I'm a little weary of your correlations since the previous working paper you linked to does not look into race or IQ, but rather socioeconomic, enjoyment and self-perception of individuals. (a.k.a. what I am arguing.)

 

[ApostateAbe]

And which government organization or non-profit do you expect would be willing to fund such a study? There really is no need. The correlations premised seem to make the inferred correlation inevitable.

If it is true, you can find funding. Instead of stating that you are going to prove racial IQ is true, set out to disprove it. If you are honest you will find out what is going on. I'm a little weary of your correlations since the previous working paper you linked to does not look into race or IQ, but rather socioeconomic, enjoyment and self-perception of individuals. (a.k.a. what I am arguing.)

The linked paper makes a case for why students drop out of school: primarily low grades and the realization of low mental ability, not primarily money or anything else. Organizations fund studies of controversial topics when they know what the likely outcome will be, and anyone not completely delusional could take a reasonable guess that minority students who don't meet the typical requirements are more likely to fail the courses. All the existing data speaks in favor of that conclusion.

In 1976, Sandra Scarr and Robert Weinberg sought funding for their proposed study of the IQs of black children adopted into white families, along with the IQs of their biological parents and the adoptive parents, claiming it was an attempt to prove that the racial IQ gap was not genetic. No organization was willing to fund them, except one: the Pioneer Fund. The two researchers accepted the funding, and, yep, the study showed that the IQs of adopted black children are much closer to the IQs of their biological mothers. The Pioneer Fund got its science, which is now a central argument in the scientific debate, serving the scientific racists. Every other organization was wise to turn them down. They knew the probable results. Sandra Scarr thereafter criticized her own study as flawed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My argument mathematically predicts that disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades are less likely to graduate due to higher rates of failing grades

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

If there is none, I suggest that you apply to an appropriate research program and design a study.

A simple test of most of this:

Look at what happened when California banned AA in admissions: Total black admission rates didn't change but they moved to more appropriate schools and the graduation rate went up.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

If there is none, I suggest that you apply to an appropriate research program and design a study.

A simple test of most of this:

Look at what happened when California banned AA in admissions: Total black admission rates didn't change but they moved to more appropriate schools and the graduation rate went up.

If that is true, then the logic of this is hard to refute. And it simply makes sense that admitting people at lower standards is going to cause some difficulty for those people. It doesn't matter if you are doing this based on race, gender, shoe size, or favourite ninja turtle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A simple test of most of this:

Look at what happened when California banned AA in admissions: Total black admission rates didn't change but they moved to more appropriate schools and the graduation rate went up.

If that is true, then the logic of this is hard to refute. And it simply makes sense that admitting people at lower standards is going to cause some difficulty for those people. It doesn't matter if you are doing this based on race, gender, shoe size, or favourite ninja turtle.

To me it's a pretty compelling demonstration of the effect. It didn't stop the discriminators, though, note how now it's top-x%-of-your-high-school. Same shit, different package.

 

[fromderinside]

If that is true, then the logic of this is hard to refute. And it simply makes sense that admitting people at lower standards is going to cause some difficulty for those people. It doesn't matter if you are doing this based on race, gender, shoe size, or favourite ninja turtle.

To me it's a pretty compelling demonstration of the effect. It didn't stop the discriminators, though, note how now it's top-x%-of-your-high-school. Same shit, different package.

If the objective is to find people who will perform then tom 10% makes good sense. It factors out socio-economic discriminators as long as funding remains consistent with that as well. I'm pretty sure that the 85% of pro athletes who are black demonstrate their competence every Monday, Thursday, and Sunday and their graduation rates are about the same as whites who go pro.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me it's a pretty compelling demonstration of the effect. It didn't stop the discriminators, though, note how now it's top-x%-of-your-high-school. Same shit, different package.

If the objective is to find people who will perform then tom 10% makes good sense. It factors out socio-economic discriminators as long as funding remains consistent with that as well. I'm pretty sure that the 85% of pro athletes who are black demonstrate their competence every Monday, Thursday, and Sunday and their graduation rates are about the same as whites who go pro.

Being in the top 10% of a shitty school doesn't make you able to handle the coursework of an elite college.

 

[ronburgundy]

My argument mathematically predicts that disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades are less likely to graduate due to higher rates of failing grades

Put your money where your mouth is. Show us a study that indicates that "disadvantaged minorities admitted below the typical requirements of test scores and grades"

#1 are less likely to graduate than:

a) White students who were admitted with the same test scores
b) All students who were admitted with the same test scores
c) All minority students regardless of score
​

These predictions do not follow Abe's claim, or at least they depend upon a rather narrow and odd interpretation of his claim.
Abe, are you claiming that it is the low scores that lead to struggle and drop out, or their race, or an interaction where only minorities are harmed by having low scores? I would hope that you mean the former, that it is all about the low scores, since that is all that's supportable by the data. The issue is that a higher % of non-Asian minorities are admitted with low scores, thus a higher % drop out due to struggling once admitted.

If its about the scores, then none of Nice Squirrel's predictions follow, and in fact they are the opposite of what your argument predicts. People with the same low scores should have similar drop out rates, regardless of their minority status. What is predicted are the following:

The minority students admitted with lower than typical scores, due to AA policies are less likely to graduate than:
a) Minority students whose scores are more typical of the total college population.
b) Non-minority students whose scores are more typical of the total college population.

Also, they should be similarly unlikely to graduate as are non-minority students who also got admitted with similarly low scores (note: there are fewer of them to begin with because AA policies that don't apply to them are the main reason why low scorers are admitted).

We don't need new research to show this. The research already linked in this an parallel threads already show that all these predictions hold true.

AND make sure this study has interviewed and surveyed these populations to make sure that they

#2)did not complete college after 6 years:

a) Due to grades
b) Due to grade w/extenuating circumstances (alcohol/drug/behavioral/maturity issues) <-common reasons for all groups.
c) Due to non-grade issues (ex. money, pregnancy, major life event, mental illness, etc.)​

Self-reported "reasons" are rather useless and not needed. The already cited research shows that low grades are the major predictor of dropping out for both minority and non-minority students, and that low-scorers of any race get lower grades in college.

 

[fromderinside]

If the objective is to find people who will perform then tom 10% makes good sense. It factors out socio-economic discriminators as long as funding remains consistent with that as well. I'm pretty sure that the 85% of pro athletes who are black demonstrate their competence every Monday, Thursday, and Sunday and their graduation rates are about the same as whites who go pro.

Being in the top 10% of a shitty school doesn't make you able to handle the coursework of an elite college.

That depends. the 10% is a cutoff for looking at other elements like inventiveness, depth of study, ability to analyze. Proper use of these other tools will generally result in matches from most any school and 'elite' programs. One thing I've found is that elite schools have teachers who teach students how to learn. Given their need to demonstrate results they will find ways to get most any student to 'succeed'. Elite schools have at least two missions. First they turn out top level products from their students. Second they serve to connect all their students with top level places of work or endeavor. It is really the latter from which we need to find ways to be inclusive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being in the top 10% of a shitty school doesn't make you able to handle the coursework of an elite college.

That depends. the 10% is a cutoff for looking at other elements like inventiveness, depth of study, ability to analyze. Proper use of these other tools will generally result in matches from most any school and 'elite' programs. One thing I've found is that elite schools have teachers who teach students how to learn. Given their need to demonstrate results they will find ways to get most any student to 'succeed'. Elite schools have at least two missions. First they turn out top level products from their students. Second they serve to connect all their students with top level places of work or endeavor. It is really the latter from which we need to find ways to be inclusive.

This is what the discriminators say. That doesn't make it true.