4 ms·

>Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racis

>Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist. Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? What's your alternative then? >The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and oppression that those who came before up put up. Skew the odds then? A lot of people do that, but it requires putting effort which in majority of the cases is what people lack - determination, desire and other.

light_hue_1 5y ago
> Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities. > What's your alternative then? Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. If a university doesn't like this, that's fine, they can go their own way. They get 0 federal dollars and no federal backing for student loans that go there. Let colleges figure this out. They're smart. You need to solve problems at the output level, what society you want. And we can all agree that the society we want is one where your skin color doesn't determine your fate.
- flowerlad 5y ago
  > If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. That's insane. They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. Limiting the number of smart & hard working kids in universities will lead to a dumber nation.
  - light_hue_1 5y ago
    > They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? What you wrote is exactly how all of this insanity of scientific and rational racism started in the 1800s. How we ended up with standardized tests, IQ tests, phrenology, and eventually with Hitler and Stalin exterminating inferior people. If you adopt your view, then you end up with a strictly racist and classist society. People at the top get their kids into the best schools because they have money and connections, those schools provide the best education and the best social connections, and the cycle continues forever. No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people.
    - flowerlad 5y ago
      > That is literally what racism is! No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. > White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? You are putting words in my mouth. > The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! If the goal is to help people in lower socio-economic brackets, then the best way to do that is to make college free, not eliminate standardized tests. I see too many deserving students accepted into good colleges decide that they can't go because they can't afford it.
      - light_hue_1 5y ago
        > No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. It is literally saying "people of this race should be given more stuff" > You are putting words in my mouth. I am not. I repeated what you said. You said that the children of the 1% are somehow genetically superior. I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. That is the simple logical consequence of your beliefs. And it a chain of reasoning we have already followed right into slavery and concentration camps as a species. One that we should not follow again. > Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! Look back on that chain of inferences and think to yourself where you went wrong, how did your thoughts, that you consider innocent, lead to an extremely racist conclusion. There are only two outcomes possible. Either you look at your chain of reasoning and its simple plain outcome "white people are genetically superior" which you seem to believe in, and you feel ok with that. In which case this is just plain racism. Or you look at it and realize that no there is something deeply wrong here. And you will find that the idea that your parents are wealthy somehow meaning that their children are genetically superior is bankrupt. Your choice. Racism or changing your thought process.
- tester34 5y ago
  >A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities. With Internet access I think you can overcome shitton, at least when it comes to english, math and similar like physics, computer science Unless you're literally taking about poorest of the poorest who cannot even access internet. >Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. If a university doesn't like this, that's fine, they can go their own way. They get 0 federal dollars and no federal backing for student loans that go there. I don't see it working in practice. Even when there are standarized tests there is significant gap between top and bottom students, with your approach the gap will be even wider, thus it will decrease quality of classes unless you change system even more and I guess that's what you want to do - change system even more. So, how would you pick students? let's say that 500 students that sit at top 50% income applied, how will you decide which will be accepted? Also What will happen to those top performing students that will not be accepted due to them being at top $$$? Rejecting them in long run will cause your whole nation

light_hue_1 5y ago

> Saying that "standarized test" is racist is some joke? A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities. > What's your alternative then? Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. If a university doesn't like this, that's fine, they can go their own way. They get 0 federal dollars and no federal backing for student loans that go there. Let colleges figure this out. They're smart. You need to solve problems at the output level, what society you want. And we can all agree that the society we want is one where your skin color doesn't determine your fate.

flowerlad 5y ago
> If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. That's insane. They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. Limiting the number of smart & hard working kids in universities will lead to a dumber nation.
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  > They are in the top 1% because of being smarter and because of hard work (especially in the US, where they are more likely to have made their wealth on their own than inherited it). Their children are likely to inherit some of these traits. That is literally what racism is! White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? What you wrote is exactly how all of this insanity of scientific and rational racism started in the 1800s. How we ended up with standardized tests, IQ tests, phrenology, and eventually with Hitler and Stalin exterminating inferior people. If you adopt your view, then you end up with a strictly racist and classist society. People at the top get their kids into the best schools because they have money and connections, those schools provide the best education and the best social connections, and the cycle continues forever. No. The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. They are not some sort of ruling race. They are just people who happened to have been born to rich people.
  - flowerlad 5y ago
    > That is literally what racism is! No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. > White people mostly make up the top 1%, so we should give them more opportunities because they're in the top 1% because you think they're genetically superior? You are putting words in my mouth. > The children of people in the top 1% are not predestined to be genetically superior. Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! If the goal is to help people in lower socio-economic brackets, then the best way to do that is to make college free, not eliminate standardized tests. I see too many deserving students accepted into good colleges decide that they can't go because they can't afford it.
    - light_hue_1 5y ago
      > No, it is the opposite of racism. Racism is when some people are treated differently just because of their race. When you do well because you're smarter and work harder, regardless of race, then that's the opposite of racism. No.. when you say that the children of people in the top 1% who are overwhelmingly of one race should be given disproportionate opportunities because of some genetic factor, that is racism. It is literally saying "people of this race should be given more stuff" > You are putting words in my mouth. I am not. I repeated what you said. You said that the children of the 1% are somehow genetically superior. I pointed out that the 1% is overwhelmingly white. And I wrote down your beliefs. That white people are genetically superior. That is the simple logical consequence of your beliefs. And it a chain of reasoning we have already followed right into slavery and concentration camps as a species. One that we should not follow again. > Your argument is with Charles Darwin, not me! Look back on that chain of inferences and think to yourself where you went wrong, how did your thoughts, that you consider innocent, lead to an extremely racist conclusion. There are only two outcomes possible. Either you look at your chain of reasoning and its simple plain outcome "white people are genetically superior" which you seem to believe in, and you feel ok with that. In which case this is just plain racism. Or you look at it and realize that no there is something deeply wrong here. And you will find that the idea that your parents are wealthy somehow meaning that their children are genetically superior is bankrupt. Your choice. Racism or changing your thought process.
tester34 5y ago
>A joke? It's deadly serious. Standardized tests help entrench racist ideas and keep the poor out of good opportunities. With Internet access I think you can overcome shitton, at least when it comes to english, math and similar like physics, computer science Unless you're literally taking about poorest of the poorest who cannot even access internet. >Simple. If universities want government funding they must admit classes that accurately represent the socioeconomic conditions of the wider population. 1% of the class can be in the top 1% of the income bracket. If a university doesn't like this, that's fine, they can go their own way. They get 0 federal dollars and no federal backing for student loans that go there. I don't see it working in practice. Even when there are standarized tests there is significant gap between top and bottom students, with your approach the gap will be even wider, thus it will decrease quality of classes unless you change system even more and I guess that's what you want to do - change system even more. So, how would you pick students? let's say that 500 students that sit at top 50% income applied, how will you decide which will be accepted? Also What will happen to those top performing students that will not be accepted due to them being at top $$$? Rejecting them in long run will cause your whole nation