Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Welcome to the tread.
Berkeley = No SAT = Blacks 2%
UCLA = No SAT = Blacks 3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

Because quality of education, education level of parents, nutrition level, etc. are all highly correlated to zip code. The tests are no longer where the inequity lies--test makers have responded to that issue. We need to continue to help in solving the other problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The SAT is way too easy to serve as a measure for readiness at Caltech (and MIT or any other elite math, physics, or engineering program).
It’s a classic example of using a test with an enormous ceiling effect to predict performance, and then finding that it doesn’t predict performance for kids at the top end.

If they used the AMC12, the test would work just fine.

They look at AMC12 and AIME and USAMO and IMO and other activities as well.

How does that work for students whose schools do not offer those or who don’t know how to access them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Welcome to the tread.
Berkeley = No SAT = Blacks 2%
UCLA = No SAT = Blacks 3%

Already addressed in thread. Read up and pay attention.


"Admission of California freshmen reached an all-time high with 84,223 students and 36,462 of them, or 43%, are students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Latinos were the largest group admitted for the second year in a row, making up 37%. Asian Americans made up 34%, white students 20% and Black students 5%. The rest were American Indians, Pacific Islanders or those who declined to state their race or ethnicity, officials said."

5% black admission vs 6 % CA population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

OMG.. here we go again.

Please explain how SAT math questions are racist.

Also, why bother with GPA, since grading is subjective, right?

Why bother looking at academics at all since, apparently, college "education" is more than just about "education".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

Because quality of education, education level of parents, nutrition level, etc. are all highly correlated to zip code. The tests are no longer where the inequity lies--test makers have responded to that issue. We need to continue to help in solving the other problems.

Remember when the College Board tried to implement an " adversity score" to the SAT after their findings? Guess who opposed this?

The standardized testing results are a mirror of the systemic inequities. AND the origin, purpose, and design of the standardized testing was to justify the existence of the system via a fake "meritocracy."

Getting closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

Because quality of education, education level of parents, nutrition level, etc. are all highly correlated to zip code. The tests are no longer where the inequity lies--test makers have responded to that issue. We need to continue to help in solving the other problems.

Remember when the College Board tried to implement an " adversity score" to the SAT after their findings? Guess who opposed this?

The standardized testing results are a mirror of the systemic inequities. AND the origin, purpose, and design of the standardized testing was to justify the existence of the system via a fake "meritocracy."

Getting closer.

"holistic" admission, including "likeability", origin and purpose was to limit the number of certain groups. Maybe we should get rid of that, too.

[Anonymous]

I can see SAT is not the issue when they go Color Blind next year orderd by the Suprment Court.

TO would be advantageious to plenty of Asiasn as well with color blind policy as shown in Berkely, UCLA, CalTech.
Its' really funny that some people think it would only help URMs.

You really need to go to the real sources of the problem if you want real solutions and imporvements.
Blaming on SAT or asking for free points is not even a quick fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

OMG.. here we go again.

Please explain how SAT math questions are racist.

Also, why bother with GPA, since grading is subjective, right?

Why bother looking at academics at all since, apparently, college "education" is more than just about "education".

You are misquoting here. Posters have said that a college education in the US is about more than just academics. US colleges are interested in educating the whole student. They want their graduates to be able to go forward and be leaders in their communities, not just workers in a business.

Academics are important, but they aren’t the *only* characteristic colleges are looking at when they put a class together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see SAT is not the issue when they go Color Blind next year orderd by the Suprment Court.

TO would be advantageious to plenty of Asiasn as well with color blind policy as shown in Berkely, UCLA, CalTech.
Its' really funny that some people think it would only help URMs.

You really need to go to the real sources of the problem if you want real solutions and imporvements.
Blaming on SAT or asking for free points is not even a quick fix.

What are the "real sources" of the problem? What would you propose to improve the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

OMG.. here we go again.

Please explain how SAT math questions are racist.

Also, why bother with GPA, since grading is subjective, right?

Why bother looking at academics at all since, apparently, college "education" is more than just about "education".

You are misquoting here. Posters have said that a college education in the US is about more than just academics. US colleges are interested in educating the whole student. They want their graduates to be able to go forward and be leaders in their communities, not just workers in a business.

Academics are important, but they aren’t the *only* characteristic colleges are looking at when they put a class together.

+1

Funny how the education purists don't have much to say about ALDCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see SAT is not the issue when they go Color Blind next year orderd by the Suprment Court.

TO would be advantageious to plenty of Asiasn as well with color blind policy as shown in Berkely, UCLA, CalTech.
Its' really funny that some people think it would only help URMs.

You really need to go to the real sources of the problem if you want real solutions and imporvements.
Blaming on SAT or asking for free points is not even a quick fix.

What are the "real sources" of the problem? What would you propose to improve the problem?

I don't mind spending more tax and support in the lower income area for education.
Tutor service, better teachers, resrouces for test prep, etc. equip them to compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

What’s your working definition of “objective “?
When people know so little about the process of test construction, norming, and validating, yet insist — with nothing to support their assertions— that only “a culture of victimhood” could possibly account for questioning an assessment tool, it’s anything but comical. I might agree with you about the “fall of Rome” though — albeit for very different reasons.

Yes. These posters who think standardized tests are objective haven't read the research. Also, they are one data point that many colleges do consider, so why up in arms about TO or holistic? Most likely from parents who have prepared their kids to perform well on certain metrics and want those alone to count as "merit."

Yep. Follow the money. Scores are highly correlated to zip codes.

Hmm... standardized testing created by eugenicists and segregationists. What could possibly go wrong?

OMG.. here we go again.

Please explain how SAT math questions are racist.

Also, why bother with GPA, since grading is subjective, right?

Why bother looking at academics at all since, apparently, college "education" is more than just about "education".

You are misquoting here. Posters have said that a college education in the US is about more than just academics. US colleges are interested in educating the whole student. They want their graduates to be able to go forward and be leaders in their communities, not just workers in a business.

Academics are important, but they aren’t the *only* characteristic colleges are looking at when they put a class together.

+1

Funny how the education purists don't have much to say about ALDCS.

ALDC is absolutely disgusting, but we are focusing on the race issue here since the hearing is currently going on.