Vox admissions article

[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.

Sir, I have a Ph.D. in a research field; crunching numbers was part of my training and my current job. This is not my particular area of expertise, but I understand enough about the data to understand how wealth absolutely is correlated with higher test scores, and causally implicated in the relationship, as others have noted.

[Anonymous]

Scores are table stakes, nothing more. Putting up a good score signals wealth, sure there are high scores that come from concerted effort without expense, but that's the exception, that's the kid pulling the wool over admissions eyes, because schools are using the tests to sort for *wealth*. If schools wanted a test that measured some other quality--intelligence, ability to succeed in life--there'd be one already. They don't. All you have to do is read through a sample test, there are no challenging questions. Anything that a student gets wrong on first pass can be taught, any place they work too slowly can be taught. Anyone with means makes sure this happens. Anyone who puts another meaning in these tests, is the real chump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a fair amount of self-serving platitudes in there, along with some insights that can be boiled down to:

Early Decision gives standard private school kids a significant edge. And these kids already have a big edge, one that is exacerbated by their generally higher test scores.

White men are advantaged in SLAC admissions, particularly athletes recruited for sports that nobody really cares about.

Rankings are junk science and yet remain influential.

Highly selective admissions is kind of a crap shoot for the most qualified candidates.

Saved you a click and 15 minutes.

I would take issue with one thing: female athletes are the most advantaged of all. Thanks to title IX they are recruited for many sports that few care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sir, I have a Ph.D. in a research field; crunching numbers was part of my training and my current job. This is not my particular area of expertise, but I understand enough about the data to understand how wealth absolutely is correlated with higher test scores, and causally implicated in the relationship, as others have noted.

I don't care about your PhD because I've been around enough PhDs who are so full of their own biases.... as seems to be the case here.

You are ignoring the simple reality that being wealthy barely helps rich AAs get higher scores. And that poor Asians outscore rich AAs despite coming from nothing. Why? That is the real question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sir, I have a Ph.D. in a research field; crunching numbers was part of my training and my current job. This is not my particular area of expertise, but I understand enough about the data to understand how wealth absolutely is correlated with higher test scores, and causally implicated in the relationship, as others have noted.

I don't care about your PhD because I've been around enough PhDs who are so full of their own biases.... as seems to be the case here.

You are ignoring the simple reality that being wealthy barely helps rich AAs get higher scores. And that poor Asians outscore rich AAs despite coming from nothing. Why? That is the real question.

You still haven't addressed the literature on stereotype threat and race (your 1 meta-analysis with mixed findings on gender math and spatial thinking doesn't address it). That literaturee would be relevant here as black students experience racist assumptions about intelligence that impact their performance. There are positive stereotypes about Asians and academic achievement and many Asian families emphasize academics--particularly test prep and performance (though Asians are by no means a monolithic whole). ANd you keep calling income level wealth despite multiple others pointing out this is problematic. AND you haven't addressed the fact that SAT isn't a good predictor so ISN'T a great criteria for determining who "deserves" college entry. Your one real question is problematic.

[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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

That's what you get when you plus-one a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

That's what you get when you plus-one a bigot.

Well, math is logic. And the PP was the one speaking logically. IQ has been well studied across races, you can read the studies yourself. There's actually no dispute about the conclusions.

The gap will never be closed. Never. I do think we can make it smaller though. And the only way to do that is to face facts and help people the way they can be helped. Trying to teach particular kids algebra and latin and keep advancing them through grades just to keep up with their age cohort is not the way to help them.

Ways that can help include teaching them a trade, going over and over basic literacy and number skills, teaching about the way that society functions, very basic financial literacy, trying to develop personal agency. Things that would be "below" many other people are exactly what some need. But to do that, we need to accept certain realities that some unfortunately people seem to refuse to accept. And that's ironic, since it really hurts the people they claim to be trying to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fair amount of self-serving platitudes in there, along with some insights that can be boiled down to:

Early Decision gives standard private school kids a significant edge. And these kids already have a big edge, one that is exacerbated by their generally higher test scores.

White men are advantaged in SLAC admissions, particularly athletes recruited for sports that nobody really cares about.

Rankings are junk science and yet remain influential.

Highly selective admissions is kind of a crap shoot for the most qualified candidates.

Saved you a click and 15 minutes.

I would take issue with one thing: female athletes are the most advantaged of all. Thanks to title IX they are recruited for many sports that few care about.

I wish that this had been addressed as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

That's what you get when you plus-one a bigot.

Well, math is logic. And the PP was the one speaking logically. IQ has been well studied across races, you can read the studies yourself. There's actually no dispute about the conclusions.

The gap will never be closed. Never. I do think we can make it smaller though. And the only way to do that is to face facts and help people the way they can be helped. Trying to teach particular kids algebra and latin and keep advancing them through grades just to keep up with their age cohort is not the way to help them.

Ways that can help include teaching them a trade, going over and over basic literacy and number skills, teaching about the way that society functions, very basic financial literacy, trying to develop personal agency. Things that would be "below" many other people are exactly what some need. But to do that, we need to accept certain realities that some unfortunately people seem to refuse to accept. And that's ironic, since it really hurts the people they claim to be trying to help.

Yeah, maybe work on a salute or something, because the other supremacist took you for inferior stock and still hasn't apologized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

That's what you get when you plus-one a bigot.

Well, math is logic. And the PP was the one speaking logically. IQ has been well studied across races, you can read the studies yourself. There's actually no dispute about the conclusions.

The gap will never be closed. Never. I do think we can make it smaller though. And the only way to do that is to face facts and help people the way they can be helped. Trying to teach particular kids algebra and latin and keep advancing them through grades just to keep up with their age cohort is not the way to help them.

Ways that can help include teaching them a trade, going over and over basic literacy and number skills, teaching about the way that society functions, very basic financial literacy, trying to develop personal agency. Things that would be "below" many other people are exactly what some need. But to do that, we need to accept certain realities that some unfortunately people seem to refuse to accept. And that's ironic, since it really hurts the people they claim to be trying to help.

Yeah, maybe work on a salute or something, because the other supremacist took you for inferior stock and still hasn't apologized.

Sorry, I don't get it. Are you saying I'm a supremacist? How do you figure that?

And what do you mean about me being inferior stock?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People on this site have an extremely skewed view on how many whites are "old money". That is way over blown. Within the private school crowd, there are a few such families, but the bulk of the people are either UMC folks who attended elite schools (lots as First Gen or similar) themselves and now prioritize education or immigrants. Each year since at least the 80s, elite colleges have admitted classes which were/are 30-50% "minority", so legacy status is not limited to whites. Just stop with the whole white privilege thing here, when most whites are working class or middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. A high IQ was all I needed (and all I had!) to escape my lower working class (what most DCUM folks would probably call poor) family background. My country of origin does college admissions by scores alone, no preferences or "hooks", and I went to a university that regularly makes the top x world ranking lists and ended up with a PhD.

I see. Medieval studies, I presume?

LOL. Applied math. Nice try though

That's what you get when you plus-one a bigot.

Well, math is logic. And the PP was the one speaking logically. IQ has been well studied across races, you can read the studies yourself. There's actually no dispute about the conclusions.

The gap will never be closed. Never. I do think we can make it smaller though. And the only way to do that is to face facts and help people the way they can be helped. Trying to teach particular kids algebra and latin and keep advancing them through grades just to keep up with their age cohort is not the way to help them.

Ways that can help include teaching them a trade, going over and over basic literacy and number skills, teaching about the way that society functions, very basic financial literacy, trying to develop personal agency. Things that would be "below" many other people are exactly what some need. But to do that, we need to accept certain realities that some unfortunately people seem to refuse to accept. And that's ironic, since it really hurts the people they claim to be trying to help.

You are far too logical and pragmatic for this board. I’d get out before the rampant stupidity corrodes your thinking.