7 ms·

Indeed -- it's become fashionable to replace tests of critical thinking with tests of rote regurgitation, since the former are "biased" towards students with we

by verteu 9y ago

Indeed -- it's become fashionable to replace tests of critical thinking with tests of rote regurgitation, since the former are "biased" towards students with wealthy or intellectual parents. I'm skeptical this is good idea. Even the famous "oarsman:regatta" SAT analogy, oft-cited as a culturally biased question, had a lower black/white gap than culturally neutral questions on the same exam [1]. > In countries that specify the content to be taught at each grade level, standardized tests can test students on what they’ve learned in school. But in the United States, where schools are all teaching different content, test designers give students passages on a variety of topics that may have nothing to do with what they’ve learned in school—life in the Arctic, for example, or the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. [1] https://archive.org/stream/TheBellCurve/bell-curve-richard-j-herrnstein-charles-murray-1994-jewish_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/TheBellCurve/bell-curve-richard-j...

acdha 9y ago
> Indeed -- it's become fashionable to replace tests of critical thinking with tests of rote regurgitation, since the former are "biased" towards students with wealthy or intellectual parents. That sounds like a misunderstanding of the issue. It’s not shifting to rote memory but rather being cognizant of where the test implicitly depends on knowledge which isn’t broadly shared — e.g. how well would poor kids do on a question which used a lot of jargon related to sailing or polo? – so it’s only measuring the intended skills. In the AP tests this has apparently meant making the tests more self-contained so you’re testing someone’s ability to reason about it rather than trivia recall. The science teachers I know (all former postdocs) this has been received positively since that’s closer to how actual science happens — nobody works without an Internet connection. As for The Bell Curve, linking to decades-debunked pseudoscience is not a good way to start any discussion which will end well. There are less tainted sources for any valid argument.
- burfog 9y ago
  No significant number of kids have any experience with sailing (regattas at least) or polo. This thus doesn't favor the non-poor, and certainly not white people. The kids from rich families are so rare that you can treat them as non-existent, and even those kids aren't too likely to be into sailing and polo. Basically nobody does those things. The only bias is toward those who should score well: the students who read a wide variety of material and are thus well-prepared for the reading demands of college.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Just to repeat the point, it’s about intentional versus unintentional usage. Nobody is saying that it’s wrong to test things like familiarity with a wide range of material, only that it’s important to only test the things you intend to test — i.e. what basic scientific principles would tell you to do in any similar situation. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t e.g. publish a big reading list and say that the English test may include material by these authors since anyone could read that list; it’s just about keeping the competition fair by making sure anyone can learn all of what they should prepare for.
  - lsc 9y ago
    >The kids from rich families are so rare that you can treat them as non-existent not so if you are trying to get into an elite school... 15-20% of the kids going to the really top schools come from parents in the top 1% of incomes[1] - if you are looking to get into an elite school, well, you are competing with really wealthy people. And if you want a job at one of the top bay area tech companies... well, i'm not saying it's impossible without a degree from an elite school, hell, I know people here who don't have any education... but it seems to me like a large proportion of their hires come from elite schools. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
    - burfog 9y ago
      The top 1% isn't rich. That is merely upper middle class. Those people still aren't in regattas. At no income level will you find a significant portion of people who are in regattas. Regattas just aren't a thing, generally. We could say top 0.0001% even... and still essentially no regattas. People don't do regattas. The question is fair.
      - lsc 9y ago
        > The top 1% isn't rich. That is merely upper middle class. yeah, we can argue all day about what defines a class, and by older standards, 99th percentile still puts you solidly in the 'working class' as defined by people who, you know, had to work, rather than those rich enough to let their capital do it all. but... the point remains that there's a huge difference between someone in the top ten percent of incomes and someone in the bottom ten percent of incomes. (I'd go so far as to say that there is a bigger difference between the top 20% and the bottom 20% than there is between the top 20% and the top 0.1% - just 'cause having a top 20% income gives you access to most of what society has on offer.) And this difference is wide and deep and has a lot to do with what sort of information you encounter; I think it's fair to say that you are likely to know a lot more about boating if you are wealthy, just like how poor people are likely to know a lot more, say, about football or the price of fast food. >We could say top 0.0001% even... and still essentially no regattas. People don't do regattas. So, I'm closer to the top 20% than the top 1%, but I've got family members who own sailboats, and even a family member who was pretty into competitive rowing. I think this is more common than you think for this income tax bracket. I bet that'd be a lot less likely if I was born into the bottom quintile.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- verteu 9y ago
  Please do a cursory amount of research before attempting to speak like an authority. Far from "decades-debunked", a 2018 analysis in the Archives of Scientific Psychology found that the book "stand[s] up well to the test of time and contain[s] very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars." It further notes that "some readers will also be surprised to find that The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe." [1] [1] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-07714-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-07714-001

by verteu 9y ago

acdha 9y ago

> Indeed -- it's become fashionable to replace tests of critical thinking with tests of rote regurgitation, since the former are "biased" towards students with wealthy or intellectual parents. That sounds like a misunderstanding of the issue. It’s not shifting to rote memory but rather being cognizant of where the test implicitly depends on knowledge which isn’t broadly shared — e.g. how well would poor kids do on a question which used a lot of jargon related to sailing or polo? – so it’s only measuring the intended skills. In the AP tests this has apparently meant making the tests more self-contained so you’re testing someone’s ability to reason about it rather than trivia recall. The science teachers I know (all former postdocs) this has been received positively since that’s closer to how actual science happens — nobody works without an Internet connection. As for The Bell Curve, linking to decades-debunked pseudoscience is not a good way to start any discussion which will end well. There are less tainted sources for any valid argument.

burfog 9y ago
No significant number of kids have any experience with sailing (regattas at least) or polo. This thus doesn't favor the non-poor, and certainly not white people. The kids from rich families are so rare that you can treat them as non-existent, and even those kids aren't too likely to be into sailing and polo. Basically nobody does those things. The only bias is toward those who should score well: the students who read a wide variety of material and are thus well-prepared for the reading demands of college.
- acdha 9y ago
  Just to repeat the point, it’s about intentional versus unintentional usage. Nobody is saying that it’s wrong to test things like familiarity with a wide range of material, only that it’s important to only test the things you intend to test — i.e. what basic scientific principles would tell you to do in any similar situation. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t e.g. publish a big reading list and say that the English test may include material by these authors since anyone could read that list; it’s just about keeping the competition fair by making sure anyone can learn all of what they should prepare for.
- lsc 9y ago
  >The kids from rich families are so rare that you can treat them as non-existent not so if you are trying to get into an elite school... 15-20% of the kids going to the really top schools come from parents in the top 1% of incomes[1] - if you are looking to get into an elite school, well, you are competing with really wealthy people. And if you want a job at one of the top bay area tech companies... well, i'm not saying it's impossible without a degree from an elite school, hell, I know people here who don't have any education... but it seems to me like a large proportion of their hires come from elite schools. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
  - burfog 9y ago
    The top 1% isn't rich. That is merely upper middle class. Those people still aren't in regattas. At no income level will you find a significant portion of people who are in regattas. Regattas just aren't a thing, generally. We could say top 0.0001% even... and still essentially no regattas. People don't do regattas. The question is fair.
    - lsc 9y ago
      > The top 1% isn't rich. That is merely upper middle class. yeah, we can argue all day about what defines a class, and by older standards, 99th percentile still puts you solidly in the 'working class' as defined by people who, you know, had to work, rather than those rich enough to let their capital do it all. but... the point remains that there's a huge difference between someone in the top ten percent of incomes and someone in the bottom ten percent of incomes. (I'd go so far as to say that there is a bigger difference between the top 20% and the bottom 20% than there is between the top 20% and the top 0.1% - just 'cause having a top 20% income gives you access to most of what society has on offer.) And this difference is wide and deep and has a lot to do with what sort of information you encounter; I think it's fair to say that you are likely to know a lot more about boating if you are wealthy, just like how poor people are likely to know a lot more, say, about football or the price of fast food. >We could say top 0.0001% even... and still essentially no regattas. People don't do regattas. So, I'm closer to the top 20% than the top 1%, but I've got family members who own sailboats, and even a family member who was pretty into competitive rowing. I think this is more common than you think for this income tax bracket. I bet that'd be a lot less likely if I was born into the bottom quintile.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
verteu 9y ago
Please do a cursory amount of research before attempting to speak like an authority. Far from "decades-debunked", a 2018 analysis in the Archives of Scientific Psychology found that the book "stand[s] up well to the test of time and contain[s] very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars." It further notes that "some readers will also be surprised to find that The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe." [1] [1] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-07714-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-07714-001