5 ms·

what do you think about people who claim standardized test is systematic racism? standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for do

what do you think about people who claim standardized test is systematic racism? standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT. yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.

csa 5y ago
> yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism. People throw this out as though it is fact, when in reality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College#Decision_and_appeal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions... “In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies do not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.” “In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and ultimately ruled in late 2020 in favor of Harvard, concluding that Judge Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.” Elite admissions is more than great grades and great standardized test scores. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but that doesn’t make it less true, and it doesn’t (necessarily) make it racist.
- thenanyu 5y ago
  Judge Burroughs was wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn, especially given the explicit promise by (likely to be confirmed) Justice Jackson to abstain.
MichaelApproved 5y ago
I’d say you’ve got more straw men in that loaded question than farmers have in their field. You’re taking poorly summarized opinions and pretending that combination of opinions are held by a group of significant size.
- tomatowurst 5y ago
  I don't think so ivy league discrimination of asian american applicants despite high standardized test scores is very much a published statistic one that is often met with emotional fervor by groups that seek to continue it. Just my observation as an outsider looking into America. Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman or whataboutism. I'm just seeing this from an objective data driven view and puzzled why ppl would react so harshly.
  - MichaelApproved 5y ago
    People who claim “standardized test is systematic racism” are not necessarily the same people who think “asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.” You are taking two different points of views which are made by two different groups, reducing their arguments down to practically nothing, and pretending they’re being made by the same group. You are mutating the arguments and inventing a boogie man. Textbook straw man argument. > Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman There’s a reason for that. It has nothing to do with following a mainstream narrative or not. It has to do with the false assumptions in the basis of your questions.
    - weekendmodder 5y ago
      You must write stack overflow responses. Not addressing the root questions, just insult the question and the asker.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - tomatowurst 5y ago
      You are trying to argue that the people who claim standardized test is systematic racism is meritocracy and against affirmative action. Then following your logic, the people who aren't claiming standardized test is systematic racism is anti-meritocracy and pro affirmative action. Yet the standard test does not differentiate the race of the test taker. If race was factored into the test scores somehow then what you are claiming makes sense, but the SAT/LSAT/MCAT/PCAT do not, cannot know the race or socioeconomic status of the test taker because as society we benefit from placing people of merit, who have the aptitude. Are you comfortable with a lawyer/doctor who is responsible for you because they fit a certain affirmative action profile but scored low on their aptitude test and low gpa to meet a certain quota for that demographic group vs someone who were hired because of their high score on standardized aptitude test and consequently high gpa (that does not discriminate the test taker based on their race or socioeconomic class)? Would you trust the latter or former if it meant your life/bank account depended on it and is it racism if you do not choose the former?
freedomben 5y ago
I think your question would have been a lot better if it was just: > What do you think about the argument that standardized tests are systemically racist?
- tomatowurst 5y ago
  how is it different? there are people that make that exact argument, after all it isn't some tabloid paper claiming it as such.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    > how is it different? Thanks for asking! IMHO, a couple of ways: 1. Your original asked what GP thinks of people that make the argument. Mine asks about the argument itself. It's subtle but important difference, and to have productive discussion about sensitive topics it's imperative to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Even if one's answer might be "those people are stupid" it doesn't help. By addressing the claim/substance rather than the person, it will likely be a more productive conversation. 2. By omitting your opinion portions, it keeps the conversation more focused. When you introduce "standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT", you move the conversation away from systemic racism and toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well. These seem to me like completely separate topics/discussion.
    - tomatowurst 5y ago
      Think you are being overly pedantic with syntaxes here to warp my intended context. I did not care about the people, if not clear from my previous comment, that it was intended to raise attention to the idea of standardized testing being perceived as systematic racism, one which is obviously held by some people. It's to be construed as part of everyday speech, not witchhunting on the character of people believing in the said idea that standardized test is systematic racism. The examples I added of standardized aptitude test for law school entry and the very real biases against Asians in American institutions requiring standardized testing quod erat demonstrandum was designed to set the context in which you are to understand the implicit spirit of the question (not the people rather the focus on standardized test = systematic racism). Anything else you derived ad litteram to accuse me of malo animo by "moving the conversation away from systemic racism toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well" is exactly what you are doing here. However, I am curious to hear what other possible scalable medium you think exists for an institution to properly vet millions of applicants every year and evaluate one's aptitude for law school that does not involve unbiased standardized testing that measures ability to think logically and work under timed pressure? Do you mean to say then that physically active professional sports must properly test a candidates aptitude from their understanding of game theory and physics through a written examination or is that somehow exempt from alternative means to detect aptitude? Shall law schools instead pit candidates in a simulated combat environment like Navy Seal's hell week to test their mental grit? Where does this end? How does this constitute as systematic racism in your view when the test taker's scantron is measured against a pre-configured solution? Does the scantron system take account the race, socioeconomic background of the exam taker to invalidate and validate their exam responses at the time of scanning? Are test takers given penalties or extra time based on their demographic?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Standardized test largely reflect reality, and reality has racial inequities. They don't measure human potential at Birth and don't try to.
- chii 5y ago
  the inequalities could be caused by racial discrimination (bring born in a black household, you're more likely to have issues than a white household, statistically). Inequalities could also be caused by other factors, unrelated to racism. The tests measure certain cognitive capabilities. Genes have an effect, nutrient intake has an effect, nurture has an effect. Trying to fix racism via test scores (or disregarding it) isn't going to help fix racism.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I agree. To be blunt. You can look at life expectancy for black and white americicans. Whites live longer. Measuring the difference is not systemic racism. We should not avoid measurements for this reasons. Some minorities perform worse on SAT. This is a fact. SAT predicts performance in college, this is also a fact. The question becomes, how do we select college students. Those most likely to succeed, or other values.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Many universities explicitly want policies of institutional, systemic racism. Obviously many people who are in favor of this hateful divisive racism will try to gaslight you into believing it somehow isn't racism, or try to redefine the meaning of words such that they are innocent and you are guilty. But that doesn't change what it is. So at the end of the day these institutions will bring in whatever policies they want, and they don't really give a crap about actual racism. All they care about is money, PR, etc.
- DownUnde 5y ago
  When the effects of actively racist institutions and policies is not even a generation away. I Don't think leveling the field that should be level in the first place isn't racism. what is real racism to you honest question.
  - yucky 5y ago
    Are you saying you support racial discrimination?
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I can't really understand what you're saying there. There are actively racist institutions now, their systemic racism is affecting people today, and they are continually pushing for more racism. The racists are becoming more emboldened and blatant -- look at California prop 16, there was a push to explicitly repeal the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination! And it was only narrowly defeated! Does that not ring any alarm bells with you? I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in. I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that. I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.
biohacker85 5y ago
I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist". While I never got a direct answer, I could infer or "read between the lines" that they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism, its just that when it comes to equality--the ends justify the means. Groups whom have previously enjoyed privilege with college admissions (whites and Asians) may endure some injustices and discrimination during this transition phase to equality. Other minorities dealt with this for so long, it's no big deal if some applicants with perfect SAT scores get cut because they are Asian.
- csa 5y ago
  > I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist" The most defensible explanation that folks who claim standardized tests are racist is that the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races. There are a lot of assumptions baked into the argument, many with which I disagree, but it’s an interesting idea. Much of the data supports the idea that most of the differences in test scores are due to socio-economic status. When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores Iirc, race is the largest contributor to variance when SES is controlled for, but folks within the same SES perform much more similarly than same race folks in different SESes.
  - biohacker85 5y ago
    > ...the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races. This is a good example of what I meant by "they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism". If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion you have to explain why races don't have similar ranges while also accounting for the core belief that "we are all equal and race doesn't matter." The "socio-economic factors" argument is easier to argue and also more widely accepted, yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race.

csa 5y ago

> yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism. People throw this out as though it is fact, when in reality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College#Decision_and_appeal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions... “In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies do not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.” “In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and ultimately ruled in late 2020 in favor of Harvard, concluding that Judge Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.” Elite admissions is more than great grades and great standardized test scores. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but that doesn’t make it less true, and it doesn’t (necessarily) make it racist.

thenanyu 5y ago
Judge Burroughs was wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn, especially given the explicit promise by (likely to be confirmed) Justice Jackson to abstain.

MichaelApproved 5y ago

I’d say you’ve got more straw men in that loaded question than farmers have in their field. You’re taking poorly summarized opinions and pretending that combination of opinions are held by a group of significant size.

tomatowurst 5y ago
I don't think so ivy league discrimination of asian american applicants despite high standardized test scores is very much a published statistic one that is often met with emotional fervor by groups that seek to continue it. Just my observation as an outsider looking into America. Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman or whataboutism. I'm just seeing this from an objective data driven view and puzzled why ppl would react so harshly.
- MichaelApproved 5y ago
  People who claim “standardized test is systematic racism” are not necessarily the same people who think “asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.” You are taking two different points of views which are made by two different groups, reducing their arguments down to practically nothing, and pretending they’re being made by the same group. You are mutating the arguments and inventing a boogie man. Textbook straw man argument. > Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman There’s a reason for that. It has nothing to do with following a mainstream narrative or not. It has to do with the false assumptions in the basis of your questions.
  - weekendmodder 5y ago
    You must write stack overflow responses. Not addressing the root questions, just insult the question and the asker.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - tomatowurst 5y ago
    You are trying to argue that the people who claim standardized test is systematic racism is meritocracy and against affirmative action. Then following your logic, the people who aren't claiming standardized test is systematic racism is anti-meritocracy and pro affirmative action. Yet the standard test does not differentiate the race of the test taker. If race was factored into the test scores somehow then what you are claiming makes sense, but the SAT/LSAT/MCAT/PCAT do not, cannot know the race or socioeconomic status of the test taker because as society we benefit from placing people of merit, who have the aptitude. Are you comfortable with a lawyer/doctor who is responsible for you because they fit a certain affirmative action profile but scored low on their aptitude test and low gpa to meet a certain quota for that demographic group vs someone who were hired because of their high score on standardized aptitude test and consequently high gpa (that does not discriminate the test taker based on their race or socioeconomic class)? Would you trust the latter or former if it meant your life/bank account depended on it and is it racism if you do not choose the former?

freedomben 5y ago

I think your question would have been a lot better if it was just: > What do you think about the argument that standardized tests are systemically racist?

tomatowurst 5y ago
how is it different? there are people that make that exact argument, after all it isn't some tabloid paper claiming it as such.
- freedomben 5y ago
  > how is it different? Thanks for asking! IMHO, a couple of ways: 1. Your original asked what GP thinks of people that make the argument. Mine asks about the argument itself. It's subtle but important difference, and to have productive discussion about sensitive topics it's imperative to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Even if one's answer might be "those people are stupid" it doesn't help. By addressing the claim/substance rather than the person, it will likely be a more productive conversation. 2. By omitting your opinion portions, it keeps the conversation more focused. When you introduce "standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT", you move the conversation away from systemic racism and toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well. These seem to me like completely separate topics/discussion.
  - tomatowurst 5y ago
    Think you are being overly pedantic with syntaxes here to warp my intended context. I did not care about the people, if not clear from my previous comment, that it was intended to raise attention to the idea of standardized testing being perceived as systematic racism, one which is obviously held by some people. It's to be construed as part of everyday speech, not witchhunting on the character of people believing in the said idea that standardized test is systematic racism. The examples I added of standardized aptitude test for law school entry and the very real biases against Asians in American institutions requiring standardized testing quod erat demonstrandum was designed to set the context in which you are to understand the implicit spirit of the question (not the people rather the focus on standardized test = systematic racism). Anything else you derived ad litteram to accuse me of malo animo by "moving the conversation away from systemic racism toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well" is exactly what you are doing here. However, I am curious to hear what other possible scalable medium you think exists for an institution to properly vet millions of applicants every year and evaluate one's aptitude for law school that does not involve unbiased standardized testing that measures ability to think logically and work under timed pressure? Do you mean to say then that physically active professional sports must properly test a candidates aptitude from their understanding of game theory and physics through a written examination or is that somehow exempt from alternative means to detect aptitude? Shall law schools instead pit candidates in a simulated combat environment like Navy Seal's hell week to test their mental grit? Where does this end? How does this constitute as systematic racism in your view when the test taker's scantron is measured against a pre-configured solution? Does the scantron system take account the race, socioeconomic background of the exam taker to invalidate and validate their exam responses at the time of scanning? Are test takers given penalties or extra time based on their demographic?

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Standardized test largely reflect reality, and reality has racial inequities. They don't measure human potential at Birth and don't try to.

chii 5y ago
the inequalities could be caused by racial discrimination (bring born in a black household, you're more likely to have issues than a white household, statistically). Inequalities could also be caused by other factors, unrelated to racism. The tests measure certain cognitive capabilities. Genes have an effect, nutrient intake has an effect, nurture has an effect. Trying to fix racism via test scores (or disregarding it) isn't going to help fix racism.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I agree. To be blunt. You can look at life expectancy for black and white americicans. Whites live longer. Measuring the difference is not systemic racism. We should not avoid measurements for this reasons. Some minorities perform worse on SAT. This is a fact. SAT predicts performance in college, this is also a fact. The question becomes, how do we select college students. Those most likely to succeed, or other values.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Many universities explicitly want policies of institutional, systemic racism. Obviously many people who are in favor of this hateful divisive racism will try to gaslight you into believing it somehow isn't racism, or try to redefine the meaning of words such that they are innocent and you are guilty. But that doesn't change what it is. So at the end of the day these institutions will bring in whatever policies they want, and they don't really give a crap about actual racism. All they care about is money, PR, etc.

DownUnde 5y ago
When the effects of actively racist institutions and policies is not even a generation away. I Don't think leveling the field that should be level in the first place isn't racism. what is real racism to you honest question.
- yucky 5y ago
  Are you saying you support racial discrimination?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I can't really understand what you're saying there. There are actively racist institutions now, their systemic racism is affecting people today, and they are continually pushing for more racism. The racists are becoming more emboldened and blatant -- look at California prop 16, there was a push to explicitly repeal the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination! And it was only narrowly defeated! Does that not ring any alarm bells with you? I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in. I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that. I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.

biohacker85 5y ago

I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist". While I never got a direct answer, I could infer or "read between the lines" that they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism, its just that when it comes to equality--the ends justify the means. Groups whom have previously enjoyed privilege with college admissions (whites and Asians) may endure some injustices and discrimination during this transition phase to equality. Other minorities dealt with this for so long, it's no big deal if some applicants with perfect SAT scores get cut because they are Asian.

csa 5y ago
> I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist" The most defensible explanation that folks who claim standardized tests are racist is that the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races. There are a lot of assumptions baked into the argument, many with which I disagree, but it’s an interesting idea. Much of the data supports the idea that most of the differences in test scores are due to socio-economic status. When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores Iirc, race is the largest contributor to variance when SES is controlled for, but folks within the same SES perform much more similarly than same race folks in different SESes.
- biohacker85 5y ago
  > ...the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races. This is a good example of what I meant by "they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism". If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion you have to explain why races don't have similar ranges while also accounting for the core belief that "we are all equal and race doesn't matter." The "socio-economic factors" argument is easier to argue and also more widely accepted, yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race.