SAT is racist?? NCAA bball coaches call for ACT/SAT ban as they are "longstanding forces of institutional racism"

Wait a minute, I found a rational person? Accomplishment of the week

They need to get sports out of colleges all together except for Cross Country and Golf, Tennis.

If the admission tests are abolished because they are deemed racist, how long before all evaluations at university are also classified as racist and be done away with? It won't be many years before the "a degree is my human right and your racist ways are keeping it from me" thinking makes the jump from SAT to every level of assessment.

I’d be perfectly ok with the elimination of the standardized test requirement for initial (scholarship) eligibility by the NCAA if it was done in conjunction with a return to no competition for first year student-athletes AND a more rigorous progress towards graduation requirement AND first year gpa requirement.

If you are not prepared and ready for HIGHER education level work, consider JUCO.

Loser wrote:

"Calling them "longstanding forces of institutional racism," the National Association of Basketball Coaches on Thursday proposed permanently eliminating SAT and ACT requirements as part of the NCAA's initial eligibility process."

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/29474153/national-association-basketball-coaches-wants-sat-act-eliminated-eligibility-requirement-college-players

So, as an educator, I do agree that the SAT/ACT should not hold as much weight in admissions as GPA/coursework does. I just don't think that the argument of "institutional racism" applies to the SAT/ACT. I think socioeconomic status plays a greater factor in your ability to do well in school and take a standardized test. I feel that using racism as a reason to have athletes not take the SAT is a bit of a reach

Socioeconomic status definitely plays a factor! And when you think about it, much of the black population is disproportionately (in what we consider) the lower class for socioeconomic status. So, things that are gate-kept because of money (unpaid internships, standardized testing tutoring, etc.) where only kids who are comfortable/well off and can afford these extra things, can be considered inherently racist. And its not like there aren't poor white kids, but the lower class has a disproportionate amount of black families.

college is for students wrote:

They need to get sports out of colleges all together except for Cross Country and Golf, Tennis.

Blame the rich donors that have some demented need for their Alma mater to win at football above all else. They created this system of abuse and excess.

Exactly. All of those arguing that the SAT is racist are just people trying to rationalize away their cognitive dissonance that there are racial differences in average intelligence. Sorry, no, you're wrong! Your Blank Slate Theory has been thoroughly debunked, it's gone home devastated. Biology exists, evolution exists, genetic predispositions exist - maybe educate yourself on science within the last 50 years.

that there are no differences*

kvothe - i accept your viewpoint as 1200 is a number to safely predict college progress and completion. But the fact is that there are any number of schools today where the 50th percentile is at around 950 or 975. You can argue of course that requirements have cheapened, and they likely have, but the bottom line is that these coaches don't want the top athletes to do real college work. They want them to compete, and somehow stay eligible. This is what John Thompson Sr (of Georgetown) alluded to as short changing athletes. He could well be called a racist in today's environment, a statement with so much irony you need a chain saw to slice through it. No one did more in his time to help minority athletes and coaches.

In the 80's we hired a guy who was a D1 college bball player. He tired of coaching as an assistant, and came to work for us (a Fortune 50 company). He told me he had 640 on his SAT's, and unfortunately when it came to his work you could see why. His degree was meaningless, and he never was aware of how much catching up he had to do. He didn't last with us (very nice guy, though), and went back to coaching. To my mind, he was exploited - not at Dexter Manley type levels - but exploited nevertheless.

Minorities have less money due to structural racism, hence less money to spend on tutors and practice courses for the exam. I understand the point but the entire system is flawed itself, not just one test.

I graduated high school with a 3.8 and was in the 18th percentile. Our class had the highest class average gpa in our school's history (to that date). Obviously that doesn't show up on any transcript or application process and the percentile actually kept me out a few options I would have preferred at the time.

I did have enough AP credits to enter college as a junior. Something else that doesn't show up when just looking at grades.

This actually makes a lot of sense if you're trying to push college athletics back to a true amateur status. It would put the emphasis back on the student part of student athlete.

This is the end of HARD WORK post.

Like there are no intelligent black high school boys.

This country is going downhill fast

Not necessarily "racist" but there is certainly a stronger correlation between affluence and SAT score, than there is with intelligence. IMO it is a flawed metric for college preparedness, and obviously minorities are more likely to be born into lower income demographics.

For anyone not born into a an English speaking household, or really even anyone who is not exposed as a child to an advanced vocabulary, the reading and writing sections are a disadvantage.

trackislife12 wrote:

Minorities have less money due to structural racism, hence less money to spend on tutors and practice courses for the exam. I understand the point but the entire system is flawed itself, not just one test.

Except, of course, Asians. Somehow, they have managed to game the SAT despite having less money to spend on tutors like all the privileged white kids.

I don't suppose it will ever be possible to devise a test of learning ability and intelligence. Tests are inherently biased, and should be abolished.

comedyrelief wrote:

Women are still admitted at a slightly higher rate (and still receive preferential treatment in admissions for majors where they are historically under represented like engineering and computer science) and graduate at much higher rates than men (a 25-29 year old woman is about 20% more likely to have a 4-year degree than their male counterparts, so in that respect, they do over achieve). However, I will say that women tend to be in easier majors, whereas men tend to be in much more difficult majors, which may skew the completion results.

Women are better at passing classes. They attend classes more regularly, they are more likely to turn in assignments on time, and they tend to write better papers. Even the exams in college courses are better suited for women than standardized tests, because they know what to prepare for.

This relates to the topic of this thread. High school GPA is a far better predictor of college GPA than SAT or ACT. SAT or ACT is a better predictor of GRE, LSAT or other standardized tests.

Exactly what the poster above has said. If you go to a decent school your GPA is far and beyond a much greater measure of future college success than one test. To succeed in college at a high level you only need to attend class, pay attention, and submit decent assignments on time. If the course is not challenging you will easily become bored and fail. I was always a great test taker even when I paid little attention to the course. I could easily coast through and miss many classes and still get very good test scores. I could not give a damn about assignments if I was not challenged. For that reason I was not a good college student, and right then is when I realized that the vast majority of college graduates were not very intelligent at all. All they had was the ability to try to complete the tasks given. A student that is dull but determined will always outperform a student that is intelligent but lacks motivation.

Are these tests racist? I don't know. But the coaches putting this forward are being ridiculous. Their athletes do next to nothing when they get to college. It is very common for a top athlete to learn nothing and barely attend classes for their full 4 years. The diploma they earn is sown on the court or field they play on. It is worthless and tells you nothing about what is in their head.

You're forgetting the role of money in completion statistics. A lot of people drop out from college because they are working to make it while in college and if they don't have deep pockets to support them, which most African American students lack, then they will not finish. Also, a lot of scholarships like the HEOP, which I recall being a common scholarship in NYC, will drop you if you fail a course or get below a certain average. So, students on such scholarships, which are minority students, will drop out under those circumstances. But, as I was saying, the #'s say that 1) GPA better predicts college grades than SAT/ACT and 2) minorities and women get better college GPAs than their SAT/ACT's predict, whereas white men do worse than those standardized tests predict.

As for rojo's example of the 660M would-be engineering major with 4.0, the grades on average do a better job predicting, but at the very high levels that may not be enough. There are thousands with 4.0, but they don't all have the ability to do engineering at Cornell. That's why the achievement tests and national/international math competitions, as well as which hs/college courses they've taken, help to winnow down the competitors there. I know that on a graduate admissions committee I saw lots of people with very high GPA's and the GRE's were up and down, but what was really telling were the essays in the subject matter. Some with 3.9/4.0 couldn't write at all, whereas some with closer to 3.0, could write an outstanding paper and was absolutely ready for graduate school. I ranked that student very highly and convinced others to do so. So, this can be subject-specific.

altitude hermit wrote:

Not necessarily "racist" but there is certainly a stronger correlation between affluence and SAT score, than there is with intelligence. IMO it is a flawed metric for college preparedness, and obviously minorities are more likely to be born into lower income demographics.

For anyone not born into a an English speaking household, or really even anyone who is not exposed as a child to an advanced vocabulary, the reading and writing sections are a disadvantage.

Maybe it’s just my personal experience - but I graduated from a school that was ranked in the top 25-50 in the country and the kids from the richest families at my school only scored like 1300-1400 on their SATs. I was one of the dumber Asians and only scored 1450, but I couldn’t even speak English semi-fluently until I was in 9th grade.

altitude hermit wrote:

Not necessarily "racist" but there is certainly a stronger correlation between affluence and SAT score, than there is with intelligence. IMO it is a flawed metric for college preparedness, and obviously minorities are more likely to be born into lower income demographics.

For anyone not born into a an English speaking household, or really even anyone who is not exposed as a child to an advanced vocabulary, the reading and writing sections are a disadvantage.

Source? Cause as someone who has looked into these things, it sounds like you're talking out your arse.