Vox admissions article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you’ve convincingly debunked anything, graph-posting PP. The author’s point about SAT scores is that they are overvalued because they haven’t been shown to predict much about the applicant’s success in school beyond first year grades. They don’t predict who’s going to contribute to university life, be a college community leader, a star researcher, etc.

The author acknowledges the other general correlation to post- college earnings and simply points out that that’s not a very meaningful reason to rely so heavily on scores because many of the higher scorers already come from wealth. Your attempt at debunking that is not very persuasive because, whatever the reason for the racial differences (and well-studied ones have been pointed out that you don’t address), within each group the lines clearly show that scores go up as income goes up. So, yes, wealth and scores generally correlate.

I don’t see any of the extreme views in the article that you are attributing to the author. The article is a lot more rational and nuanced than you paint it. And the example he gives about SAT scores is about a student who was an excellent candidate and well qualified and whose main “deficit” was a standardized score below the college’s median. I’m sure that there have been plenty of white male athletes admitted with scores similarly below the median. Nothing about his discussion of this example suggests that he’s advocating for acceptance of unqualified URMs with “shit grades”.

Scores are not correlated to wealth. Because if they were, wealthy blacks would be getting better scores than poor Whites, or poor Asians would be doing badly on testing. Both of which are not true and those two exceptions destroy the wealth argument. So how do you account for wealthy whites scoring better than poor whites or wealthy blacks scoring better than poorer blacks. Simple. It has nothing to do with wealth, but more to do with IQ and "Assortative mating". Higher IQ parents who become wealthy (and there is a strong causation here, as Steven Pinker points out) produce more intelligent kids who score better. Wealth is a result of higher IQ which the scores reflect. So you are dead wrong in reading that graph.

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you’ve convincingly debunked anything, graph-posting PP. The author’s point about SAT scores is that they are overvalued because they haven’t been shown to predict much about the applicant’s success in school beyond first year grades. They don’t predict who’s going to contribute to university life, be a college community leader, a star researcher, etc.

The author acknowledges the other general correlation to post- college earnings and simply points out that that’s not a very meaningful reason to rely so heavily on scores because many of the higher scorers already come from wealth. Your attempt at debunking that is not very persuasive because, whatever the reason for the racial differences (and well-studied ones have been pointed out that you don’t address), within each group the lines clearly show that scores go up as income goes up. So, yes, wealth and scores generally correlate.

I don’t see any of the extreme views in the article that you are attributing to the author. The article is a lot more rational and nuanced than you paint it. And the example he gives about SAT scores is about a student who was an excellent candidate and well qualified and whose main “deficit” was a standardized score below the college’s median. I’m sure that there have been plenty of white male athletes admitted with scores similarly below the median. Nothing about his discussion of this example suggests that he’s advocating for acceptance of unqualified URMs with “shit grades”.

Scores are not correlated to wealth. Because if they were, wealthy blacks would be getting better scores than poor Whites, or poor Asians would be doing badly on testing. Both of which are not true and those two exceptions destroy the wealth argument. So how do you account for wealthy whites scoring better than poor whites or wealthy blacks scoring better than poorer blacks. Simple. It has nothing to do with wealth, but more to do with IQ and "Assortative mating". Higher IQ parents who become wealthy (and there is a strong causation here, as Steven Pinker points out) produce more intelligent kids who score better. Wealth is a result of higher IQ which the scores reflect. So you are dead wrong in reading that graph.

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Lol, obvious what types of websites you read. Also, you don't have a great understanding of correlation in statistics. The wealth-scores correlation can be significant even if there are exceptions.

Also, I'm glad you learned a big word there, assortative mating, but most disparities we see in the world have multiple causal factors. And you're ignoring some of those that are relevant in the American historical context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Liberals this, and liberals that, uh? Belong, uh?

A score that can be retaken as many times as you want as long as you are willing to pay for it does not predict whether you "belong". All it says is that your parents are willing to fork out the $$$ so their precious UMC kids can keep perpetuating the good old networks, wealth and pat themselves on the back for their "achievement" that they "deserve".

[Anonymous]

Intelligence is not uniformly distributed in the human race. That is just a fact, but it makes people very uncomfortable. Just as not everybody has the same height, not everybody is of the same intelligence and there are group differences in IQ also. This is not some "right wing" nut job theory. These facts are fairly well substantiated.

In the pre-industrial era, it really did not matter how intelligent you were. There wasn't much you could do with your high IQ. You still were doing about the same stuff that your low IQ neighbor was doing, but today.....

There is an IQ premium and it shows. As Steven Pinker points out, higher IQ folks get richer, stay married and have lower crime rates. Their kids reap those advantages and some land up in private schools.

You can hate them all you want, but this gap is only going to widen. You are not going to be able to flatten the results of differing IQ no matter how hard you try. Wealth, the privilege from it and better academic profiles are a result of higher IQ not the other way around. This eats at the soul of "woke liberals" because it just crushes their 'socialist mindset" that races and gender differences are all cultural constructs. They are not.

Pointing that out does not make a person racist or sexist.

Elite schools have limited seats. Wasting their resources on mismatched kids in the name of "leveling the playing field" is a gross waste of resources, specially when there are so many good schools the people who don't fit the profile can go to and get a decent education. There is no shame in going to a second or third tier school, if you profile matches to those schools. This insistence that we use "Holistic admissions" to push unprepared and "clearly unqualified" kids into elite schools, so that some white administrators can feel good about themselves is actually hurting these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you’ve convincingly debunked anything, graph-posting PP. The author’s point about SAT scores is that they are overvalued because they haven’t been shown to predict much about the applicant’s success in school beyond first year grades. They don’t predict who’s going to contribute to university life, be a college community leader, a star researcher, etc.

The author acknowledges the other general correlation to post- college earnings and simply points out that that’s not a very meaningful reason to rely so heavily on scores because many of the higher scorers already come from wealth. Your attempt at debunking that is not very persuasive because, whatever the reason for the racial differences (and well-studied ones have been pointed out that you don’t address), within each group the lines clearly show that scores go up as income goes up. So, yes, wealth and scores generally correlate.

I don’t see any of the extreme views in the article that you are attributing to the author. The article is a lot more rational and nuanced than you paint it. And the example he gives about SAT scores is about a student who was an excellent candidate and well qualified and whose main “deficit” was a standardized score below the college’s median. I’m sure that there have been plenty of white male athletes admitted with scores similarly below the median. Nothing about his discussion of this example suggests that he’s advocating for acceptance of unqualified URMs with “shit grades”.

Scores are not correlated to wealth. Because if they were, wealthy blacks would be getting better scores than poor Whites, or poor Asians would be doing badly on testing. Both of which are not true and those two exceptions destroy the wealth argument. So how do you account for wealthy whites scoring better than poor whites or wealthy blacks scoring better than poorer blacks. Simple. It has nothing to do with wealth, but more to do with IQ and "Assortative mating". Higher IQ parents who become wealthy (and there is a strong causation here, as Steven Pinker points out) produce more intelligent kids who score better. Wealth is a result of higher IQ which the scores reflect. So you are dead wrong in reading that graph.

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Lol, obvious what types of websites you read. Also, you don't have a great understanding of correlation in statistics. The wealth-scores correlation can be significant even if there are exceptions.

Also, I'm glad you learned a big word there, assortative mating, but most disparities we see in the world have multiple causal factors. And you're ignoring some of those that are relevant in the American historical context.

And you don't understand causation. Wealth does not cause the scores to be higher even if there seems to be a correlation. Don't you get that simple fact? And since wealth is not the cause for higher scores, harping on wealth, just shows you have class envy. High scoring kids also happen to be rich,but you don't need to be rich to score well nor will you score well, because you are rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you’ve convincingly debunked anything, graph-posting PP. The author’s point about SAT scores is that they are overvalued because they haven’t been shown to predict much about the applicant’s success in school beyond first year grades. They don’t predict who’s going to contribute to university life, be a college community leader, a star researcher, etc.

The author acknowledges the other general correlation to post- college earnings and simply points out that that’s not a very meaningful reason to rely so heavily on scores because many of the higher scorers already come from wealth. Your attempt at debunking that is not very persuasive because, whatever the reason for the racial differences (and well-studied ones have been pointed out that you don’t address), within each group the lines clearly show that scores go up as income goes up. So, yes, wealth and scores generally correlate.

I don’t see any of the extreme views in the article that you are attributing to the author. The article is a lot more rational and nuanced than you paint it. And the example he gives about SAT scores is about a student who was an excellent candidate and well qualified and whose main “deficit” was a standardized score below the college’s median. I’m sure that there have been plenty of white male athletes admitted with scores similarly below the median. Nothing about his discussion of this example suggests that he’s advocating for acceptance of unqualified URMs with “shit grades”.

Scores are not correlated to wealth. Because if they were, wealthy blacks would be getting better scores than poor Whites, or poor Asians would be doing badly on testing. Both of which are not true and those two exceptions destroy the wealth argument. So how do you account for wealthy whites scoring better than poor whites or wealthy blacks scoring better than poorer blacks. Simple. It has nothing to do with wealth, but more to do with IQ and "Assortative mating". Higher IQ parents who become wealthy (and there is a strong causation here, as Steven Pinker points out) produce more intelligent kids who score better. Wealth is a result of higher IQ which the scores reflect. So you are dead wrong in reading that graph.

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Lol, obvious what types of websites you read. Also, you don't have a great understanding of correlation in statistics. The wealth-scores correlation can be significant even if there are exceptions.

Also, I'm glad you learned a big word there, assortative mating, but most disparities we see in the world have multiple causal factors. And you're ignoring some of those that are relevant in the American historical context.

And you don't understand causation. Wealth does not cause the scores to be higher even if there seems to be a correlation. Don't you get that simple fact? And since wealth is not the cause for higher scores, harping on wealth, just shows you have class envy. High scoring kids also happen to be rich,but you don't need to be rich to score well nor will you score well, because you are rich.

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Intelligence is not uniformly distributed in the human race. That is just a fact, but it makes people very uncomfortable. Just as not everybody has the same height, not everybody is of the same intelligence and there are group differences in IQ also. This is not some "right wing" nut job theory. These facts are fairly well substantiated.

In the pre-industrial era, it really did not matter how intelligent you were. There wasn't much you could do with your high IQ. You still were doing about the same stuff that your low IQ neighbor was doing, but today.....

There is an IQ premium and it shows. As Steven Pinker points out, higher IQ folks get richer, stay married and have lower crime rates. Their kids reap those advantages and some land up in private schools.

You can hate them all you want, but this gap is only going to widen. You are not going to be able to flatten the results of differing IQ no matter how hard you try. Wealth, the privilege from it and better academic profiles are a result of higher IQ not the other way around. This eats at the soul of "woke liberals" because it just crushes their 'socialist mindset" that races and gender differences are all cultural constructs. They are not.

Pointing that out does not make a person racist or sexist.

Elite schools have limited seats. Wasting their resources on mismatched kids in the name of "leveling the playing field" is a gross waste of resources, specially when there are so many good schools the people who don't fit the profile can go to and get a decent education. There is no shame in going to a second or third tier school, if you profile matches to those schools. This insistence that we use "Holistic admissions" to push unprepared and "clearly unqualified" kids into elite schools, so that some white administrators can feel good about themselves is actually hurting these kids.

The story here on group differences in IQ/tests of academic achievements far more complicated than you make it out to be. Read all the research-based rebuttals, re-analyses, critiques of the underlying data and assumptions of say The Bell Curve and those of its ilk following in its path--along with the work that on the predictive value of SATs and impact. It's not that the facts are uncomfortable, it's that they are less well established than you claim. There's a complicated web of factors that shape a) what we determine intelligence, b) how we measure it, c) what impacts intelligence (it's NOT race/assortive mating at the population level), d) and the predictive value of those measures controlling for other factors. It's not that the facts are true but uncomfortable, it's that they are simplistic and challenged by stronger, more robust and contextualized analyses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Liberals this, and liberals that, uh? Belong, uh?

A score that can be retaken as many times as you want as long as you are willing to pay for it does not predict whether you "belong". All it says is that your parents are willing to fork out the $$$ so their precious UMC kids can keep perpetuating the good old networks, wealth and pat themselves on the back for their "achievement" that they "deserve".

Then why aren't black kids from wealthy families doing well on these tests? They have every conceivable advantage that an average poor white kid would not have. They can do "countless prep", hire the best tutors, and game the system as much as any other rich kid can. Why is the average poorer white kid still doing better? The best reason give here has been "Stereotype threat". This is total nonsense.

Flore & Wicherts (2015) performed a meta-analysis that subjected stereotype threat findings to a whole family of skeptical tests, such as p-curves, funnel and forest plots, and tests for excess of significant results and showed that "stereotype threat findings" just don't hold up. There are Other studies too that cast doubt on this cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it is because most rich white families are old wealth and are top tier school educated and know how to game the system. Tons of private tutors, test prep, go to an elite college-prep school. Even if they make say only $250K a year, their parents are making a ton of money and they will see millions once they die.

Rich black parents are fairly new to our country because we basically held them down for centuries, and even decades after the civil rights movement. They don't come from old school wealth. They don't have family that are also wealthy. Most aren't top 25 school educated. They worked their asses off to get where they are and their kids deserve just as much, or more of a chance than your white rich kids playing the game.

I say all this as a white person myself. I am so sick of comparing races. We wiped out native Americans, slaved African Americans, and pay South Americans pennies for hard labor. And then we sit here and cry our white boys aren't getting into the colleges they deserve. Sickening.

+1,000,000

You are all comparing black wealth towards white wealth and trying to say race shouldn't be an issue. Apples and Oranges. You can't take a group of 100 say making 150K and take 2000 that make average of $500K and call them all the same with $110K+ families. Old white money is rich and ivy. They have legacy, money, AND they are white.

[Anonymous]

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

You clearly don't read. Go back and look at the graph that was posted earlier. Why are rich black kids that can do exactly what you are saying, still scoring below poor white kids who can't afford any of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

You clearly don't read. Go back and look at the graph that was posted earlier. Why are rich black kids that can do exactly what you are saying, still scoring below poor white kids who can't afford any of this?

Also, you are equating current income with "rich" when you should be looking at net worth. White families at high incomes have intergenerational wealth; black families tend to have intergenerational responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

You clearly don't read. Go back and look at the graph that was posted earlier. Why are rich black kids that can do exactly what you are saying, still scoring below poor white kids who can't afford any of this?

NP. Because there is a correlation between SAT scores and race does not mean that there is not a correlation between SAT scores and wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

You clearly don't read. Go back and look at the graph that was posted earlier. Why are rich black kids that can do exactly what you are saying, still scoring below poor white kids who can't afford any of this?

NP. Because there is a correlation between SAT scores and race does not mean that there is not a correlation between SAT scores and wealth.

Same NP. But what is also true is that SAT scores are not a strong predictor of success in/after college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the case of the SAT, because you can take it as many times as you want, as long as you are willing to pay, the wealth causes the score to be higher.

You clearly don't read. Go back and look at the graph that was posted earlier. Why are rich black kids that can do exactly what you are saying, still scoring below poor white kids who can't afford any of this?

Also, you are equating current income with "rich" when you should be looking at net worth. White families at high incomes have intergenerational wealth; black families tend to have intergenerational responsibilities.

Black wealth has also been much harder hit by recession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point of the graph, which demolishes this liberal argument that "Scores" should be discounted. Another reason liberals often use is "Scores don't predict much". Well they are wrong there too. There is a Duke study that clearly shows that URM"s entering Duke with as much interest in STEM fields just get slaughtered and exit the STEM fields in huge numbers into areas like "Gender studies" and less rigorous areas, because they can't cut it if they have lower score profiles than white and Asian kids in the STEM areas. Scores do predict whether you belong at a school. Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Vox writer is trying to make the argument that scores don't matter is because if he acknowledges that scores matter, he would have to admit that certain kids (white, black, Asian) with subpar academics and scores are mismatched to elite schools, when they should be going to other schools.

Liberals this, and liberals that, uh? Belong, uh?

A score that can be retaken as many times as you want as long as you are willing to pay for it does not predict whether you "belong". All it says is that your parents are willing to fork out the $$$ so their precious UMC kids can keep perpetuating the good old networks, wealth and pat themselves on the back for their "achievement" that they "deserve".

Then why aren't black kids from wealthy families doing well on these tests? They have every conceivable advantage that an average poor white kid would not have. They can do "countless prep", hire the best tutors, and game the system as much as any other rich kid can. Why is the average poorer white kid still doing better? The best reason give here has been "Stereotype threat". This is total nonsense.

Flore & Wicherts (2015) performed a meta-analysis that subjected stereotype threat findings to a whole family of skeptical tests, such as p-curves, funnel and forest plots, and tests for excess of significant results and showed that "stereotype threat findings" just don't hold up. There are Other studies too that cast doubt on this cause.

This was a meta-analysis for a subset of studies international girls/adolescents on math. Cross-cultural comparisons are hard because the stereotypes vary widely and so combining them is problematic. Yes it's a piece of evidence that challenges some claims- and is a well-done meta-analysis -but hardly a slam dunk (they acknowledge their own limitations) and there's no serious body of evidence that says stereotype threat is in your words "total nonsense." "casting doubt" on claims is part of the scientific process. There's far stronger support for stereotype threat than there is for genetically related racial differences in IQ.