Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Affirmative Action just got saved for another 5-10 years today.
I will vote Democratic in November, but I agree it is time for race-based affirmative action to fall.
I have no issue with SES-based affirmative action, which will benefit a lot minority kids anyway. But preferences based on race alone are constitutionally problematic and need to go. As President Obama has said, kids like his don't need affirmative action.
Since the children of poor whites score the same as the children of affluent blacks on the SAT, moving away from race based affirmative action to SES based affirmative action will significantly reduce the number of minority students in colleges.
Could you provide a link or the source that poor whites score the same as affluent blacks? I can only surmise your source opines that affluent blacks send their children to substandard schools resulting in poor test scores.
Sure:
http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
Scroll down the page where it talks about family income differences. It's using 2008 college board numbers.
From the article: "But income differences explain only part of the racial gap in SAT scores. For black and white students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 in 2008, there still remains a huge 149-point gap in SAT scores. Even more startling is the fact that in 2008 black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored lower on the SAT test than did students from white families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. "
Like I said before, if you go to SES based affirmative action it will significantly reduce the number of minorities in selective colleges?
I'd be interested in seeing current research as the study is 8 years old. Additionally, there is not a clear explanation why such a wide disparity.
has been written in brookings and nyt but the definitive answer is that if you got rid of race based AA and substituted puely class-based (SES) AA, you would get a massive drop in URM/NAM enrollment in elite schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/what-israel-tells-us-about-affirmative-action-and-race.html
The reason is that there are just way too many poor whites and asians that destroy URMs/NAMs in academics.
As for 'clear explanations' to the wide disparity - there are PC reasons and un PC reasons. I won't get into those
Let's not get it twisted- we are talking about how AAs perform on standardized tests.
You know, tests that have proven to not be a reliable predictive measure of future academic performance and career success. Perhaps we place too much emphasis on standardized testing in the college selection criteria process. My DH who is AA, went to a prestigious boarding school, graduated near the top of his classes and still performed less than average on SATs and later the LSATs. Thankfully, he still got accepted to excellent schools. Now he's knocking it out of the park.
Funny how when you look back in history, tests have historically been a way to exclude blacks. It always gives others the reason to say "look we did they can't. It's not racist." I'm surprised more people don't understand this. Or I guess they see it as excuses. Whatever. When Asians start making up 85% of the top schools then whites will be crying for tougher immigration rules and more "less emphasis on testing." It's already happening at the business school level.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota (Paul Sackett and Nathan Kuncel) were given access to a dataset for over a
million students which comprised their SAT scores, high school grades and all class grades in college. They found SAT scores to be a very good predictor of grades in college, across all racial and SES lines. Assuming you actually have any interest in what the real data shows, you can watch a presentation of their findings here:
http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/
That's great and there is also a study that measured the differences between students who did not submit test scores at option testing schools against those who did. They found across the board that HS GPA was the best at predicting success. Guess which students were less likely to not submit grades?
Point is, it's not that SATs and other tests like it are meaningless. No, they do have some value and there is some correlation of success, but even per your referemce, statistically, the correlation is not strong. Particularly as it relates to those who score less than the top 1-5%. Problem is, they are too heavily relied on by college administrators and even now, employers. And studies have shown its not really necessary to use them at all if their goal is to find high performing students who will do well in their schools. For every low ses kid that may score high and beat the odds, there are 20 that dont and their future earnings are impacted as a result. Minorities historically score lower so there is already a built in loss for them, just like there is with life in general (e.g, institutionalized racism).
The standardized test industry is a billion dollar industry with much marketing and many lobbyists. It's not surprising that certainty low SES and certain races are negatively impacted the most by these tests. There is also something designed to keep the status quo so that those who pay into the system benefit the most. It's the same with politics. Get your head out of the sand folks.
Http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/nacac-research/Documents/DefiningPromise.pdf
Article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/confirmed-high-school-gpas-predict-college-success/
Actually, from the reference quoted it's a strong correlation. From the bolded section above, I'd be interested to see what the sample size was; I'm guessing it wasn't 1,000,000. Test scores accurately (in aggregate; there are always exceptions) measure things which lead to college and career success. They're not biased; they're not "designed to keep a status quo". They're accurately measuring things which reflect college readiness/intelligence of students.
It isn't strong. Read the study you posted. It's mainly strong for those who score extremely high. The variance is not substantial below that. And that's fine. You want to give someone points for that on admissions, great. But what's happening is a B student with and above average SAT is getting accepted over an A student with other good "specs" that scores middle of the pack. That's not necessarily right. Otherwise, why bother with HS grades entirely. Why not just have kids take IQ or fake IQ tests like the SAT at the end of each year instead of state exams. Why even bother with subjects like art, history, music.
And the fact that you have whole ethnicities who as a group score substantially worse than others shows that in general the test is flawed at best. How can anyone argue that it's not built in for them to lose? Ridiculous.
Again, I'm not arguing that it's a meaningless measure. My argument is that it's too heavily weighted. Too much depends on the outcome. And quite frankly, I know way too many people who have done exceptionally well adacemicay in college and life without high SAT scores. I guess these are your "exceptions" but there are a hell of a lot of exceptions! I have worked in low SES public schools and elite private schools, and now consult admissions teams at colleges throughout the U.S. (Including Ivies) and I can tell you from experience that on the ground level, the test is nothing more than a confidence killer for high performing low SES kids, the ones who actually have a chance. And even kids who do score well don't believe they can even get in to top schools and don't bother applying. Much of the anxiety comes from the weight of this stupid test (in addition to high tuition costs). Internal studies performed at least two schools I have consulted with in the NE have resulted in them adjusting their "formula" for admissions to reduce the weight of standardized tests or in the other case, result in them dropping the requirement entirely/making it optional. As more and more of the majority get dominated by Asians in the testing world, I believe this trend will ultimately continue for the foreseeable future.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}