Reply to Banneker versus School Without Walls

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Banneker versus School Without Walls"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OK, so have you opted your kid(s) our of the PARCC in DCPS? I do so every year, because PARCC is a poorly written, unnecessarily lengthy, widely discredited corporate 10-hour test given to 8 year-olds, crafted and graded by a British company vs. an American one.

The SAT has been around since 1926, helping tens of millions of low and moderate-income students prove their value to elite colleges through four or five generations. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater because Banneker students don't get the prep to collectively shine on the SAT, or you can see the forest for the trees.

Test optional doesn't mean that the SAT, or ACT, has been rejected by academe.  It means a decent score can only enhance an application.  I don't know of any colleges that won't permit an applicant to submit a favorable SAT score with an application, do you?[/quote]
It’s EXTREMELY disingenuous not to acknowledge that the SAT was created by a eugenicist as a way to support only allowing white people to immigrate to the US.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2020/08/17/history-sat-reflects-systemic-racism-opinion[/quote]

LOL it's EXTREMELY ahistorical and ignorant to say the SAT was about only letting white people immigrate. You know the restrictionists in the early 20th century were trying to keep out Eastern European Catholics and Jews, right? And Bruce Hammond is a hack, not a historian. Read a book. [/quote]

If you had read a book, you'd know that white supremacists didn't (and still don't) consider Jews like me or European Catholics to be white.

Also, the white-supremacist origins of the test that became the SAT have been documented extensively.  You need look no further than the writings of Carl Bingham, developer of the Alpha test (which became the Scholastic Aptitude Test),  to understand that his primary intellectual driving force in the 1920s was white supremacy and eugenics.  He started with the ideas that different ethnic groups had an innate genetic intelligence level, that "Nordic peoples" had the most intelligence, and that allowing other groups to immigrate or to be admitted to universities risked lowering the standards and quality of those institutions.  It's quite clear that his intellectual project was to scientifically justify segregation and closing both US borders and universities to people other than "Nordic" whites.  It's also worth noting that he explicitly repudiated many of these ideas and much of his support for intelligence testing later in life.

It's also abundantly clear that:

- High school grades are the best predictor of first year college success (higher r value than SATs, per the College Board's own studies)

- SATs are most effective statistically at predicting parental SES

- The College Board has been really slow to implement changes that would go a long way toward reducing the pro-white, pro-wealthy bias of the SAT, the easiest of which would be to make the SAT more difficult.  Studies of re-scoring previous tests by eliminating easy questions and only grading difficult questions have been repeatedly shown to reduce the wealth and racial gaps in test results, but the College Board has resisted.

All of which makes the assertion -- in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary --- that SATs are an objective measure of college readiness really laughable.
 [/quote]

DP.  I haven't extensively researched any of that.  Decades ago, the SAT was considered a good proxy test for the IQ test.  They've changed it several times since then and it no longer is.  Maybe you're going to say that IQ is meaningless wrt college.  Maybe it is.  Is it also meaningless wrt grad school or a doctorate?  Is IQ ever meaningful?[/quote]

I'm a 99th percentile IQ person married to a 99th percentile IQ person. High IQ means you have a brain that processes things and learns quickly. These people have the capacity to do well in grad school etc BUT IQ is not a predictor that they will do well. GPA is much more a predictor of that, because it indicates how well you do the actual work you are required to do.

There was some longitudinal study of gifted children (above 140 IQ) that followed them into adulthood. They could be found in all areas of work -- some getting grad degrees, but plenty who chose a different path entirely, worked with their hands, never graduated, etc.

High IQ people who also work hard are unstoppable, for sure. And most unique insights come from the community. But there isn't this clear line from high IQ to grad school.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics