Why, wejo?

That's a good question. I thought most of the debate was pretty high-minded. I had already typed a response to Third Choice's question about cultural bias on the SAT. Maybe he'll find it here (if this isn't immediately deleted). Anyway, here it is:

As I said a few posts ago, the SATs were designed to be intelligence tests. That was why they called them "scholastic APTITUDE tests." However, as I mentioned, Stanley Kaplan proved that he could "coach" students to better scores, thus disproving the notion that they were what they were purported to be.

My son took an SAT preparation course this past year. I had very mixed feelings about this, because I know that those of us who can afford to pay for these courses are conferring an additional element of advantage on our children over those who come from less-privileged backgrounds. At the same time, if I stood on principle I would have been penalizing my son as compared to all of his peers who were signing up for these courses in droves.

My point is not about my angst or possible hypocrisy in giving my son this advantage (flame me if you like), but rather about what goes on in those coaching sessions, and what that demonstrates about the tests themselves. For the verbal test, for example, my son was given huge lists of vocabulary words (many of them quite obscure) and was told that if he learned those words he would be able to ace the verbal test. As I looked over the lists, I could see that many were the types of words that you were much more likely to encounter in a James Joyce novel than in a standard high school classroom setting. In other words, the SAT verbal test is in significant part a test not only of how much you have read, but of what kinds of books you have read. If you have read all of the books in the Harvard Classics series (or are one of the probably 2% of high school students who have taken Latin), you are going to be in pretty good shape. But if your read less (say, only what you are assigned in school), or if your reading tastes vary from the classics, you are not going to be in the same kind of position. Unless that is, you can pay to take an expensive preparation course and can force feed yourself huge numbers of vocabulary words in a short period of time.

I know what you're going to say next. Aren't I being racist in assuming that this is a cultural bias in favor of whites? I know, of course, that not all white kids have read Ullyses. I also know, of course, that some black kids have. But we are not just talking about individual cases here. We are talking about whether blacks (or hispanics or Native Americans) as a whole might suffer from cultural disadvantages in taking these purported intelligence tests that really test a particular kind of learning. In other words, might there be large numbers of blacks (or educationally disadvantaged whites, for that matter) who have never read a word of Shakespeare, but who could nonetheless adapt very quickly and thrive at the very best colleges. From an intelligence standpoint, I would argue that these folks in fact are "equally qualified," even if their vocabularies aren't as large and their SATs therefore aren't as high. I think that constitutes a cultural bias. Moreover, I think these students would bring something valuable and different to the classroom. Of course I am generalizing. You can't talk about affirmative action without generalizing. And, as I said yesterday, the best and most defensible affirmative action programs actually look at each student as an individual to see whether and how these generalizations might apply (or not) in each individual case.

Well how about this? Instead of whining about "cultural biases" maybe they should buy their kids more books when they are little.

Its not a racial thing either. A lot of white trailer park 6-year olds can fill your tank up at the gas station but they can't read a single word of a Doctor Suess book.

People who learn to adapt don't worry about these excuses.

a typically ignorant response from the peanut gallery... i'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you didn't grow up in a ghetto...

Tryon,

Seems like the test wants to see what you genuinely have experienced (from the whole of life), not just what you can recall from learning in a classroom.

Where's the problem with that?

I was enjoying that whole "affirmative" thread and the level of debate. Made a welcome change from "who's hot...?"

The "problem with that", is that there are a lot of intelligent, gifted kids out there who want to go to college, but have had limited resources and opportunities to broaden their "whole of life" experiences--thus putting them at a disadvantage when a test is geared toward kids who HAVE had access to those resources and opportunities. (see link) (sorry, wejo - I really was just trying to get an answer from you, not start the whole thread again, but I couldn't resist responding to Question. Hopefully he'll get to read this before the thread gets pulled again!)

ASide from this i just want to know why it was deleted, they're alot of other threads on this board that have nothing to do with running and i think that the level of discussion was very high on this one. EVen the people that disagreed were generally respectful and promoted good fiscussion.

I was a little surpised the thread was deleted as well. NFL was the only belligerant one, and his perception was so out of whack you couldn't even takle it seriously... I am complemented when "bashed" by people like him.

Anyway, let's put in a running analogy in order to avoid deletion this time around. A lot of runners are born with all the advantages...maybe at altitude, good areas to train, around buddies who like to run as well, all the gear they need. better/knowledgeable coaches etc. etc. This isn't to say that that they are more talented than less privileged runners, though, right? But since the privileged have more support, they probably should run better (over an equally talented, but less privileged) and they most likely often do. It's not "fair" is it? I agree. It's not. So, how do we fix it to make "the playing field level"? Well, if we start runners at different places in a race, do you think this is the best way? Do you think the more privileged runners who start further back (and the spectatators) will have respect for the runners being allowed to start ahead? Do you think that the incentive to achieve mechanism for the runners starting ahead is as good as it could be? Do you think this method would result in a reduction of the head start over time, or is more likely that the head start would have to be lengthened? Do you think that this method would help relations between the various runners?

It isn't fair, and that sucks, but the way to mend it well doesn't involve a quick fix from the government or ill advised policies.

Fair enough, calbear.

But if you only test kids on what they have been taught in the syllabus, you will not necessarily discover the gifted kids, more likely just those with good memory retention.

I tend to think that those who are gifted, are also given the inner resources to get out and try and do "something" with their gift, and not just stay home and blame lack of resources. This, much in the same way that top runners need the discipline to get out and do the training as much, if not more, than the talented physiology that gives them the potential, no more.

Besides, if you have not "shone" in some way by senior year at HS, it would be tough to believe you are particularly gifted in any sphere. College is not there to "discover" the gifted, but give those who are gifted and disciplined the right environment in which to push their gift to its limits.

Well, on re-reading, that sounds somewhat utopian... maybe just my belief that one cannot "teach", one can merely provide the best environment in which "learning" can take place. (in the sense of "horse to water...")

Just my thoughts after having lived in a number of countries. I would like to see the other thread continued.

Question wrote:

one can merely provide the best environment in which "learning" can take place.

BINGO!!! Through no fault of their own, that's precisely what underpriveleged kids (of any color!) from poor school districts are lacking. Affirmative action, SAT's, and the college admission process aside, the bottom line is that reform needs to happen at the K-12 level in order to level out the playing field. But in the meantime, how do we keep the doors to college open to those who aren't being given the "best environment in which learning can take place"???

How phony of Bush to insist that Michigan do away with affirmative Action Programs when he was accepted into Yale under "The Legacy" program. Thats a program where the off-spring of certain well-to-do or well-known parents are accepted into Ivy League and other universities/colleges because of their parents (parent graduated from that school or family was a major contributor to that school). Those accepted under the Legacy Program wouldn't stand a chance of getting in on their own.

Bush was accepted at Yale under the Legacy program; he probably would of had to settle for Podunk Jr. College, if his entry into a college depended on test scores or scholastic achievement. How hypocritical!!!!!

Its not too late for Bush to issue a public apology for using parental influence to wrangle admission to Yale since he used an allocation that should have gone to a far more worthy applicant in terms of scholastic achievement and test scores.

Legacy, I agree with most of what you said, but you can't say that no legacies would be accepted to Yale on their own merit. I guaranteee there are well-rounded legacies with 4.0's and 1500 or above SAT's. That's just like saying no one admitted through affirmative action got in on their own merits, which is also not true.

If they got in under their own merits, they wouldn't be part of the affirmative program because no exceptions would be made (or needed) for them. I agree that might be true for the legacy program. Although I think pride would dictated that they try and make it on their own rather then go the legacy route.

As an example, I believe WEJO was a top student in school and made it on his own into Yale without undue influence from his father (a Yale grad) or the Bush family. They may well have intervened but it probably wasn't needed. Being wealthy is no bar to being smart as being pretty (for a woman) is also no bar to being intelligent

Legacy wrote:

If they got in under their own merits, they wouldn't be part of the affirmative program because no exceptions would be made (or needed) for them.

That's not quite true. Affirmative action isn't just about exceptions. Unfortunately, it was put into place to make sure certain minority quotas were filled. This meant that anyone of color, whether they had a 4.0 or 2.8, became part of that quota.

I know Wejo shut down the first thread, so I'm loathe to join in another one, because I figure that he didn't like something about the first thread... but here goes anyway.

The difference between Legacy and race is this: A Private College is around to make money, it is a private establishment, a business. It is in their interest, in general, to let in the smartest students because they can help the faculty create better work to bring the school more prestige. They are also very likely to get the best jobs in the future, and may give more money back. However, a legacy also helps the college tremendously. The parents of legacies are much more likely to give money (if they haven't already) than other parents. In other words, legacies make Private Institutions a ton of money. Does anyone else realize how bad America's public schools are and how good the colleges are? There are countless countries with far better public school systems than us, while we have undoubtedly more than our fair share of the finest universities in the world, and most of the greatest foreign thinkers come to America for college. In my opinion, this is because the college system is private and the public school system is run by the beaurocratic monster known as the government. My evidence? Capitalism has always triumphed over Communism in the past, given a chance the flourish, the free market will always win out over anything else.

And, the point by JEH about those runners born at altitude was the same analogy I used in the last thread, and a great one. Affirmative Action is like putting little weights on the legs of Kenyans because they were unfairly born at altitude.

Oh, and the point about the SATs being culturally biased was what I expected... Any kid can go to a library and get more of the great classics than he/she can possibly read. No one is standing in their way. It is their own fault if they are not responsible for themselves. Shouldn't we reward those kids with the initiative to read Jane Austen?? Well, no, we should stop playing God. We should just leave everyone equal in the eyes of Government (like in the Constitution), and let the free market control itself. That will allow for the more efficiently run universities.

The rich boy administrators don't think anyone else is capable...now that IS racism.

what'd bush get on his SATs?

How many runners would put in 100 miles weeks if they were not allowed to run in any races? There really wouldn't be any point. So, without being able to imagine going to a top school or any school, and the future education brings, why would someone go to the library simply to read.

the best analogy i can think of is you have two runners, one is allowed to train outside and one is locked in a room. Now either way when they race it's not going to be fair to someone but the second way attempts to make the race competativie and somewhat even. it comes down to an ideological debate between if you think our contry exists for equality or freedom