5 ms·

This is an excellent cautionary tale against lazily attributing politically inconvenient data to testing bias (which remains fashionable). It may seem like an e

by dTal 5y ago

This is an excellent cautionary tale against lazily attributing politically inconvenient data to testing bias (which remains fashionable). It may seem like an easy way out, but it also offers an excuse to simply ignore the problem, which perpetuates it.

Aunche 5y ago
Blaming testing bias is a great way to gain support from disadvantaged minorities without having to actually do any meaningful work. Conveniently, it allows allows the elite to exclude the educated bourgeoisie from their elite institutions, instead replacing them with underqualified candidates who pose no real threat to the power hierarchy.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I guess. But seems to me that if you are going to claim testing bias, then you have some work to do in creating an unbiased test.
  - bsuvc 5y ago
    No. The plan is to eliminate testing altogether. https://edsource.org/2021/university-of-california-sticks-with-test-free-admissions-wont-replace-sat-and-act-with-new-standardized-test/663870?amp=1 https://edsource.org/2021/university-of-california-sticks-wi...
- mistrial9 5y ago
  definite "maybe" on that.. the statement "it allows" is made with certainty, yet at most, that is only part of one possible scenario.. among many
ip26 5y ago
It isn't necessarily just laziness. The first step to fixing the problem means accepting the results, which in this case meant accepting a certain racial group of (silently lead-poisoned) kids had measurably lower intelligence. I don't think I need to explain why that is a minefield.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  Right but ironically, the fact that it is a minefield is likely what drove this teacher to make that discovery. Imagine if it was just a random scattering of students living in such apartments (but same number of people). It may have never been discovered in that case.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Everybody accepts that. The only difference is the hypotheses that some people have for explaining that difference. Those who accept a genetic hypothesis are unlikely to look for the real cause.
gruez 5y ago
Now instead of lazily explaining differences with "there must be some testing bias, black kids are just as smart as white kids", we're lazily explaining differences with "it must be systemic oppression, black kids are more oppressed than white kids".
- tombert 5y ago
  Couldn't you argue the disproportionate number of black people being stuck in lead-filled houses is still an example of some sort of oppression? It's not like black people who were shopping for their houses said "Gee, I'd sure like my kids to have lead poisoning."
  - hunter2_ 5y ago
    I think the critical difference is that a gut reno to eliminate the actual source of low IQ is significantly more feasible than swiftly eradicating most of the other issues that contribute to oppression. Identifying low-hanging fruit is a good quick win, so long as it doesn't weaken broader efforts.
    - tombert 5y ago
      Sure, I'm all for quick wins; get lead outta houses, I'm all on board, but we also shouldn't forget the circumstances that caused black people to disproportionately be in lead-filled houses (presumably mostly economic). I guess what I'm trying to say is that lead poisoning is a symptom of a bigger issue. It's perfectly fine (and encouraged) to treat the symptoms, but I feel like the comment was replying to was acting like we shouldn't attribute things like this to systemic oppression.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I think everybody agrees that we should get rid of unnecessary environmental sources of lead as rapidly as we can. But it's not all that cheap[1], and there's probably a correlation between not owning the place you leave (i.e., not being entitled to massive renovations) and being a member of an oppressed group. Even as a financially secure white tenant, I have found my landlords to be extremely hesitant to initiate any testing that might legally obligate them to renovate (or at least cover/shield) sources of lead. And in most municipalities, your landlord is only obligated to follow up on lead concerns if they have personal knowledge of lead paint usage on the property; they're not obligated to go through the property's history and refute the possibility of lead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_abatement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_abatement_in_the_United_S...
rory 5y ago
"Of defects did the spirit of those Saviours consist; but into every defect had they put their illusion, their stop-gap, which they called God."
newbamboo 5y ago
Or focus all resources on the wrong problem and ensure everyone is trying to optimize the wrong thing, thereby actually exacerbating the very problems that we as a society need to address. Sometimes the wrong solution is much worse than doing nothing.

by dTal 5y ago

Aunche 5y ago

Blaming testing bias is a great way to gain support from disadvantaged minorities without having to actually do any meaningful work. Conveniently, it allows allows the elite to exclude the educated bourgeoisie from their elite institutions, instead replacing them with underqualified candidates who pose no real threat to the power hierarchy.

jjeaff 5y ago
I guess. But seems to me that if you are going to claim testing bias, then you have some work to do in creating an unbiased test.
- bsuvc 5y ago
  No. The plan is to eliminate testing altogether. https://edsource.org/2021/university-of-california-sticks-with-test-free-admissions-wont-replace-sat-and-act-with-new-standardized-test/663870?amp=1 https://edsource.org/2021/university-of-california-sticks-wi...
mistrial9 5y ago
definite "maybe" on that.. the statement "it allows" is made with certainty, yet at most, that is only part of one possible scenario.. among many

ip26 5y ago

It isn't necessarily just laziness. The first step to fixing the problem means accepting the results, which in this case meant accepting a certain racial group of (silently lead-poisoned) kids had measurably lower intelligence. I don't think I need to explain why that is a minefield.

sam0x17 5y ago
Right but ironically, the fact that it is a minefield is likely what drove this teacher to make that discovery. Imagine if it was just a random scattering of students living in such apartments (but same number of people). It may have never been discovered in that case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lern_too_spel 5y ago
Everybody accepts that. The only difference is the hypotheses that some people have for explaining that difference. Those who accept a genetic hypothesis are unlikely to look for the real cause.

gruez 5y ago

Now instead of lazily explaining differences with "there must be some testing bias, black kids are just as smart as white kids", we're lazily explaining differences with "it must be systemic oppression, black kids are more oppressed than white kids".

tombert 5y ago
Couldn't you argue the disproportionate number of black people being stuck in lead-filled houses is still an example of some sort of oppression? It's not like black people who were shopping for their houses said "Gee, I'd sure like my kids to have lead poisoning."
- hunter2_ 5y ago
  I think the critical difference is that a gut reno to eliminate the actual source of low IQ is significantly more feasible than swiftly eradicating most of the other issues that contribute to oppression. Identifying low-hanging fruit is a good quick win, so long as it doesn't weaken broader efforts.
  - tombert 5y ago
    Sure, I'm all for quick wins; get lead outta houses, I'm all on board, but we also shouldn't forget the circumstances that caused black people to disproportionately be in lead-filled houses (presumably mostly economic). I guess what I'm trying to say is that lead poisoning is a symptom of a bigger issue. It's perfectly fine (and encouraged) to treat the symptoms, but I feel like the comment was replying to was acting like we shouldn't attribute things like this to systemic oppression.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I think everybody agrees that we should get rid of unnecessary environmental sources of lead as rapidly as we can. But it's not all that cheap[1], and there's probably a correlation between not owning the place you leave (i.e., not being entitled to massive renovations) and being a member of an oppressed group. Even as a financially secure white tenant, I have found my landlords to be extremely hesitant to initiate any testing that might legally obligate them to renovate (or at least cover/shield) sources of lead. And in most municipalities, your landlord is only obligated to follow up on lead concerns if they have personal knowledge of lead paint usage on the property; they're not obligated to go through the property's history and refute the possibility of lead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_abatement_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_abatement_in_the_United_S...

rory 5y ago

"Of defects did the spirit of those Saviours consist; but into every defect had they put their illusion, their stop-gap, which they called God."

newbamboo 5y ago

Or focus all resources on the wrong problem and ensure everyone is trying to optimize the wrong thing, thereby actually exacerbating the very problems that we as a society need to address. Sometimes the wrong solution is much worse than doing nothing.