2 ms·

Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying

by tomp 11y ago

Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have (and definitely a better one than race or disadvantage - remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse (although there is some research that claims SATs systematically underscore women)). Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have Its not. For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades, or even first-year grades (weaker than high school grades, class rank, or even just the high school you attended), and, to the extent its useful, at least one study has indicated that its predictive power is almost entirely explained by the degree to which it serves as a proxy measure for the high school that the student attended, and that within-school variation in SAT scores lacks predictive power. Also, there is evidence that the relationship between SAT scores (and the same is true of other measures, like GPA) and college performance is not consistent across various axes of demographic variation (race, income, etc.) -- I've cited one analysis on this elsewhere in the thread. > remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups, where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit. > Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians? I never said they were.
- tomp 11y ago
  > For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades? > where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack merit in math. > I never said they were. Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take (as you claim in your original response to me)...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take Yes, it does. The definition of merit is necessary to assess whether the current system is, excluding AA, actually meritocratic, as claimed. While it would also be necessary in order to assess whether one race or another was better than another, if that were an interesting question to answer -- the fact that I'm not asserting that one race is better doesn't alter the fact that an actual definition of merit is necessary for the claim that the existing system (but for AA) is meritocratic to even have meaning.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance_problem/ http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance... Your source agrees with this if you scroll down to the data tables. Note the sign on the black and hispanic coefficients. So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics. Consequently, if we wanted to have the most accurate predictor possible, we'd include negative weights for black people. Is this really the critique you are making of using SAT and GPA? One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups... That's simply incorrect. If it were true, then blacks would overperform relative to SAT rather than underperform.

by tomp 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Hm... Aren't SATs widely used for college admissions Yes. > (not exclusively, of course, but if they were, I'd say the system is totally meritocratic)? Wait, what? Unless you make that tautologically true by defining the merit you are trying to assess in admission as "SAT scores", I don't see why you would. > I'm not saying it's the best indication of the kind of merit required to excel at the university, but it's probably one of the best we have Its not. For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades, or even first-year grades (weaker than high school grades, class rank, or even just the high school you attended), and, to the extent its useful, at least one study has indicated that its predictive power is almost entirely explained by the degree to which it serves as a proxy measure for the high school that the student attended, and that within-school variation in SAT scores lacks predictive power. Also, there is evidence that the relationship between SAT scores (and the same is true of other measures, like GPA) and college performance is not consistent across various axes of demographic variation (race, income, etc.) -- I've cited one analysis on this elsewhere in the thread. > remember, we're favoring the disadvantaged so that they can improve despite them being worse, not because we believe SATs wrongly assess them as being worse One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups, where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit. > Also, in which way (relevant to university admissions or completion) are blacks better than whites/Asians? I never said they were.

tomp 11y ago
> For predicting college performance, its a very weak predictor of college grades That's interesting. Naively, I would expect SAT correlated with IQ, and that correlated with success in university. Are there better predictors of college grades? > where the measure reflects disadvantage of circumstance rather than lack of merit Hm... I can hardly imagine how a bad score on the math SAT would not indicate that you lack merit in math. > I never said they were. Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take (as you claim in your original response to me)...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Well, then it doesn't much matter which definition of merit (who is better) you take Yes, it does. The definition of merit is necessary to assess whether the current system is, excluding AA, actually meritocratic, as claimed. While it would also be necessary in order to assess whether one race or another was better than another, if that were an interesting question to answer -- the fact that I'm not asserting that one race is better doesn't alter the fact that an actual definition of merit is necessary for the claim that the existing system (but for AA) is meritocratic to even have meaning.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance_problem/ http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance... Your source agrees with this if you scroll down to the data tables. Note the sign on the black and hispanic coefficients. So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics. Consequently, if we wanted to have the most accurate predictor possible, we'd include negative weights for black people. Is this really the critique you are making of using SAT and GPA? One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups... That's simply incorrect. If it were true, then blacks would overperform relative to SAT rather than underperform.