go away run wrote:
It just seems too logical and moral not to ask about sex or race on the application.
What would be logical to use? Obviously not tests like the SAT/ACT with their known racial, gender and social economic bias.
If your premise is that no test can be devised to determine a person's intelligence, skills, or aptitude for a particular position or project, then you are not even in reality. If you are just referring to the SAT or ACT, then this is an exaggerated statement at best. Deliberately false statement at worst.
Saying take people on merit sounds great but actually defining merit is almost impossible.
This is ridiculous statement. It is quite possible for an institution or employer to determine merit. It is quite possible to determine who is qualified, who has the intelligence, who has the abilities, who has the skills necessary, and who has the characteristics needed to perform and succeed at a particular position or project.
It isn't a very controversial opinion that the SAT is biased racially. Everyone who has looked at it has come to that conclusion. It is a result of them normalizing questions around white middle class males and that social context that they live in.
Plenty of people who have looked at it have come to the common sense understanding that a test on, e.g., algebra skills is not biased against black people. Nor is a test for reading comprehension of an article excerpt on, e.g., which bacteria grows at the greatest rate and under what conditions. Unless you are just saying that the lower test scores for blacks prove that the test must be racially biased. But that's just a tautology you're trying to create.
You can't "normalize" algebra or geometry around middle class males whatever the hell "normalize" even means in that context. Describe a few high school math questions that fit that idea of yours, if possible. And somehow these decades of tests, all supposedly "normalized around white middle class males" all yield higher scores for Asians? Not much of a normalization. What could possibly be the odds of this? It's got to either be a billions to one chance, or there is something else explaining it that doesn't have anything to do with test questions inexplicably racially biased for white males.
I encourage you to go figure this out yourself. It won't take long. Get a hold of an old SAT or ACT (easy to find), and skim through it looking for questions that are racially biased against black test takers. If you find any, post them here and explain the bias. I don't think you will.
There is even less controversy that you can study for the SAT and pick up 100-200 points which is a huge leg up for rich people who can afford a 1000 bucks for a tutor. You basically end up rewarding people for spending money on developing a skill that is only useful for taking SATs.
Where do you live, Beverly Hills? You can get a tutor for a lot less than that. You can get a college student at $20/hour. Even better, you can get a hold of old tests for FREE and take those for practice. There is certainly nothing odd about getting a higher score on a test if you actually review the material on it beforehand. It's called "studying" and its another concept that can't be normalized for white males.
Could you make a test that was nonbiased? I doubt it. You can look at the poor history of the attempts to do that. You could make one that is less biased. Can your test be remotely accurate (i.e. a person scoring a 1000 is better than a 990) enough for picking out classes? No existing test has been., Heck the schools current scheme isn't that good. The correlation between kids in the top 1/3rd let in and bottom 1/3rd as fall as over all academic performance is weak. Pretty much everyone who isn't paying to get in is overqualified at elite schools.
It is hard to say what not letting people pay for admission would do. There is some value of have rich idiots there to let smart people get access to social networks.
Of course you can make a non-racially biased test. There are millions of them made in school, universities, and work places every day. You either have some weird definition of bias, or you're not trying hard enough.
And the rest of your post is just your own resentments and skewed perceptions.