3 ms·

If the SAT test wasn't selective in some meaningful way then people admitted through affirmative action should be expected to do approximately as well as the pe

If the SAT test wasn't selective in some meaningful way then people admitted through affirmative action should be expected to do approximately as well as the people that was admitted purely through merit. The outcome says otherwise [1], or if prefer a video [2]. Mismatching people to schools based upon an ideal hurts those people when they come unprepared relative to their peers. Many diverse people admitted through affirmative action with a dream to do the sciences abandon them for other less rigorous disciplines, and it doesn't have to be so if they were matched with a school without the social engineering attempts of ideologues. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-pai... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVvnTByzTmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVvnTByzTmA

LordDragonfang 8y ago
Focussing on "affirmative action" feels uncomfortably close to the exact kind of dog whistling this article criticized up front. As I understand it, most colleges have been using some form of linear regression model on many factors to filter admissions in a way that maximize returns (i.e. alumni donations) for decades now. Surely there is other evidence which shows that if SAT scores were actually a poor heuristic of potential success, schools would have stopped relying on them by now. (without having to bring race into the conversation)
- samatman 8y ago
  He didn't bring race into the conversation; you did. Affirmative action is precisely an adjustment of admissions criteria such that ceterus paribus a candidate is more likely to be admitted. Yes, it's based on race, but if it was based on lottery, it would have the same effect: students with lower SAT scores are admitted to schools which otherwise require a certain threshold. That they don't do as well, shows that the SAT is measuring something relevant to success in education. Note that affirmative action would have this effect even if average IQ were the same across races, because schools vary in the SAT thresholds they set, and this would have the effect of propelling students into settings they aren't prepared to flourish in.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Has anyone done an equivalent study for legacy admissions?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      Data for that is hard to find. Since IQ is at least partially hereditary one would assume that the picture amongst legacy admissions to be at least somewhat different than other forms of social engineering. That said some people find legacy admissions unfair, but as a person that did not receive that I think it is fine because one of the purposes of any group is to provide advantage to the people in the group. The primary purpose of a long lived entity like an Ivy is to ensure the long term health of the culture that keeps it competitive, which includes providing continuity and a reason to invest for legacy families while also admitting new members from families that can provide mutual value to the entity.
  - mike00632 8y ago
    By focusing all your scrutiny on racial minorities who you suggest didn't get accepted to college entirely on merit instead of other groups, like legacy admissions, then you could be seen as blowing the racist dog whistle.
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      As the other person said you are the one bringing up race, not me. My comment brought up a data set that could be used to evaluate the claim of the article that iq tests are meaningless for what they claim to measure. This data contradicts this claim. The inclination of social justice believers to treat all people that look the same as a unit is too simplistic, because there is more variance within such groups than between them. It also fits the definition of racism unlike my comment, and saying someone is defined by their skin color is way beyond dog whistle territory. If you have a rationale supporting your claim use that, because otherwise we can’t engage in productive discourse. I find it unethical when claims of racism like what you use here is used as a bludgeon tool to force others to accept actions or beliefs that are dogma in social justice while evidence shows it hurts those it claims this helps. Especially when those groups are unchosen, and applied by largely upper middle class and above white social justice activists for their political utility.

LordDragonfang 8y ago

Focussing on "affirmative action" feels uncomfortably close to the exact kind of dog whistling this article criticized up front. As I understand it, most colleges have been using some form of linear regression model on many factors to filter admissions in a way that maximize returns (i.e. alumni donations) for decades now. Surely there is other evidence which shows that if SAT scores were actually a poor heuristic of potential success, schools would have stopped relying on them by now. (without having to bring race into the conversation)

samatman 8y ago
He didn't bring race into the conversation; you did. Affirmative action is precisely an adjustment of admissions criteria such that ceterus paribus a candidate is more likely to be admitted. Yes, it's based on race, but if it was based on lottery, it would have the same effect: students with lower SAT scores are admitted to schools which otherwise require a certain threshold. That they don't do as well, shows that the SAT is measuring something relevant to success in education. Note that affirmative action would have this effect even if average IQ were the same across races, because schools vary in the SAT thresholds they set, and this would have the effect of propelling students into settings they aren't prepared to flourish in.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Has anyone done an equivalent study for legacy admissions?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    Data for that is hard to find. Since IQ is at least partially hereditary one would assume that the picture amongst legacy admissions to be at least somewhat different than other forms of social engineering. That said some people find legacy admissions unfair, but as a person that did not receive that I think it is fine because one of the purposes of any group is to provide advantage to the people in the group. The primary purpose of a long lived entity like an Ivy is to ensure the long term health of the culture that keeps it competitive, which includes providing continuity and a reason to invest for legacy families while also admitting new members from families that can provide mutual value to the entity.
- mike00632 8y ago
  By focusing all your scrutiny on racial minorities who you suggest didn't get accepted to college entirely on merit instead of other groups, like legacy admissions, then you could be seen as blowing the racist dog whistle.
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    As the other person said you are the one bringing up race, not me. My comment brought up a data set that could be used to evaluate the claim of the article that iq tests are meaningless for what they claim to measure. This data contradicts this claim. The inclination of social justice believers to treat all people that look the same as a unit is too simplistic, because there is more variance within such groups than between them. It also fits the definition of racism unlike my comment, and saying someone is defined by their skin color is way beyond dog whistle territory. If you have a rationale supporting your claim use that, because otherwise we can’t engage in productive discourse. I find it unethical when claims of racism like what you use here is used as a bludgeon tool to force others to accept actions or beliefs that are dogma in social justice while evidence shows it hurts those it claims this helps. Especially when those groups are unchosen, and applied by largely upper middle class and above white social justice activists for their political utility.