5 ms·

The SAT was based on IQ tests used during WWI to try and find draftees with the most potential who shouldn't be wasted in the trenches. Standardized tests have

The SAT was based on IQ tests used during WWI to try and find draftees with the most potential who shouldn't be wasted in the trenches. Standardized tests have always been about making things as fair as possible, and the fact that paying huge money for tutoring only results in minor score improvements should be a sign they are effective the war against them was because people didn't like the implications that poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics regardless of income, which goes against modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset and destroys the basis for trillions in social programs. Standardized tests effectively threaten the entire house of cards, even more than the replication crisis showing that most of the "research" used to justify modern social programs was fake in the first place

drewcoo 3y ago
If you're going to talk about the origins of the SAT, don't forget that it was designed by a eugenicist to try to exclude black candidates. Ironically, the problem with them now is that they're now used to exclude white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT
- ren_engineer 3y ago
  Eugenics was hot among progressive academics in those days, the founder of Planned Parenthood was one and so was the guy whose statistical methods are still the basis for all modern research back then being against eugenics meant you were a crazy religious nutcase who couldn't accept scientific fact about evolution and genetics
  - camdenlock 3y ago
    Progressive academics, all the way up to the president of the United States (Woodrow Wilson). It should be embarrassing to call oneself a “Progressive” these days, yet here we are. A small but meaningful indicator of the extreme bias in our education system…
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Eugenics was always a politically motivated and highly contested topic. Many prominent scientists in relevant fields were opposed to it. It became popular, because nationalism used to be popular among the elite. Then it declined quickly, because WW2 made everything associated with nationalism undesirable in the West.
codexb 3y ago
The war against standardized tests has far more to do with black students performing disproportionately poorer on them. Many people are unwilling to acknowledge the multitude of cultural and socioeconomic factors responsible for that and instead want to simply chalk it up to racism. And so there's a war against any admissions policy that results in disproportionate racial outcomes, until we're left with admissions policies that are openly racist in order to achieve race-based results.
- fireflash38 3y ago
  > Many people are unwilling to acknowledge the multitude of cultural and socioeconomic factors responsible for that and instead want to simply chalk it up to racism. How many of those cultural and socioeconomic factors were almost directly related to racism though?
  - cm2012 3y ago
    Considering Asians were discriminated enough against to have a law just against them + internment camps and still excel in the USA should tell you something. It's that we get very high "quality" Asian immigrants to the USA who are better than average citizens of their home country.
  - testfoobar 3y ago
    Racist policies against Asians in California have pretty deep history. Yet Asians do well in California schools. "The California Alien Land Law of 1913 (also known as the Webb–Haney Act) prohibited "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning agricultural land or possessing long-term leases over it, but permitted leases lasting up to three years.[1][2][3]....... The law was meant to discourage immigration from Asia, and to create an inhospitable climate for immigrants already living in California.[7][8][9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1...
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > And so there's a war against any admissions policy that results in disproportionate racial outcomes Except legacy admissions and pay-to-play donations. After all, pedigree and wealth are merit (or proof thereof) - no need for pesky test scores in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
csa 3y ago
> the fact that paying huge money for tutoring only results in minor score improvements This might be true in aggregate, but I’ve seen data that says otherwise (buddy owns a test prep school). The keys are that the student wants the test prep and that the student has room to grow (i.e., not already near the top, where increases are capped). Middle of the pack students can gain 50-150 points per skill (this is a lot). > the implications that poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics regardless of income, which goes against modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset Is this implying that Asian immigrants do better because of genetics (nature)? The non-agenda-based research on this topic is pretty clear that Asian immigrant success is mostly about a culture of schooling and learning in Asian communities. This includes things like tutoring, “cram schools”, and test prep. Here is an example of research/views from outside the US: https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html Almost all academic success is built on a culture of learning of some sort (e.g., parental involvement in schooling, reading to kids, etc.). Note that this is true regardless of race. The higher quality (non-agenda-based) research in this area all focuses on how this culture of learning can be fostered, with special focus on low SES (low socio-economic status) families regardless of race. > destroys the basis for trillions in social programs > Standardized tests effectively threaten the entire house of cards Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-the-head-start-program/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-t... Fwiw, I actually agree that a lot of research in education is non-replicable, agenda-based bullshit, but your comments here go against both the better research and fairly substantial anecdotal evidence (my buddy’s test prep program).
- legolas2412 3y ago
  > Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact: Something can have an unjustified basis, but have a measurable positive impact. Just because the unjustified basis of race was correlated with income. But using the justified basis of income and wealth will not only lead to even more measurable positive impact, it will also be fair.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  >Is this implying that Asian immigrants do better because of genetics (nature)? Yes, that is very likely true. I would go as far as to say that the "nurture" side of this coin is to a large extent an indirect result of nature as well.
runarberg 3y ago
That is a pretty old link which has been severed a long time ago. They’ve even changed the name from Scholastic aptitude test to just SAT, in an effort to convey that SAT doesn’t actually measure anything but it self. (This is in a stark contrast to IQ which makes ridiculous and pseudo-scientific claims that it measures something approaching what they call general intelligence) I have many beefs with SAT and standardized testing in general, but the link with IQ is not (anymore) one of them. IQ is a horrible and racist concept that should remain along with phrenology as a pathetic attempt to use science to explain racist beliefs. SAT used to be there. But we have to give them credit for having moved on.
- cm2012 3y ago
  IQ is one of the most reliable and proven metrics in social science.
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    Sure, but that says more about social science than IQ.
    - cm2012 3y ago
      You can replace social science with "science about predicting people's behavior" if you want. The important thing is that IQ is one of the most powerful predictors of human behavior in science. So few things get proven to have a major effect on outcomes over and over again. You shouldn't just throw that out.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        I think IQs usages outside of a very narrow scope of a) psychometrics and b) developmental psychology is very limited, if any to speak of. In developmental psychology it is more often a tool to detect developmental or learning disabilities, and even then many (most?) psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. In psychometrics (which is a scientific dead end IMO) IQ is indeed still popular, but the predicting factor of IQ is more often then not other operationally defined concepts which psychometrisians fight tooth and nail to justify is not circular logic, that IQ is not just predicting IQ. If you think IQ is the best predictor of human behavior, you must not have heard about many more. If you grow up in an english speaking household, you are very likely to speak english fluently in your adulthood. You are much quicker to find Waldo if you’ve done so 10 times in the last 20 min, then on your first attempt (cognitive priming), if you smoke weed you take much longer to find Waldo. If you inhibit your serotonin reuptake in specific areas in your brain, you are much less likely to suffer severe depression. If you reward child with a praise you are much more likely to see this child repeat the behavior then if you punish the child with a shout. These are all pretty powerful and—more importantly—useful predictors in behavioral sciences. IQs predictive power is very limited to a very narrow scope inside psychometrics, we will do just fine throwing it out. There are much better constructs out there (including the SAT).
Jun8 3y ago
> modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset The is a simplified way of putting it by I would roughly agree with this statement. However, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the fact that "poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics". It is absolutely about nurture, but not in a way that the "academia" wants to emphasize. I think the main reason these poor kids achieve better is the support and, yes, the tremendous push they get from their families on topics related to education. I'd wager that having a two-parent family that places importance in education correlates most with academic performance.

drewcoo 3y ago

If you're going to talk about the origins of the SAT, don't forget that it was designed by a eugenicist to try to exclude black candidates. Ironically, the problem with them now is that they're now used to exclude white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT

ren_engineer 3y ago
Eugenics was hot among progressive academics in those days, the founder of Planned Parenthood was one and so was the guy whose statistical methods are still the basis for all modern research back then being against eugenics meant you were a crazy religious nutcase who couldn't accept scientific fact about evolution and genetics
- camdenlock 3y ago
  Progressive academics, all the way up to the president of the United States (Woodrow Wilson). It should be embarrassing to call oneself a “Progressive” these days, yet here we are. A small but meaningful indicator of the extreme bias in our education system…
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Eugenics was always a politically motivated and highly contested topic. Many prominent scientists in relevant fields were opposed to it. It became popular, because nationalism used to be popular among the elite. Then it declined quickly, because WW2 made everything associated with nationalism undesirable in the West.

codexb 3y ago

The war against standardized tests has far more to do with black students performing disproportionately poorer on them. Many people are unwilling to acknowledge the multitude of cultural and socioeconomic factors responsible for that and instead want to simply chalk it up to racism. And so there's a war against any admissions policy that results in disproportionate racial outcomes, until we're left with admissions policies that are openly racist in order to achieve race-based results.

fireflash38 3y ago
> Many people are unwilling to acknowledge the multitude of cultural and socioeconomic factors responsible for that and instead want to simply chalk it up to racism. How many of those cultural and socioeconomic factors were almost directly related to racism though?
- cm2012 3y ago
  Considering Asians were discriminated enough against to have a law just against them + internment camps and still excel in the USA should tell you something. It's that we get very high "quality" Asian immigrants to the USA who are better than average citizens of their home country.
- testfoobar 3y ago
  Racist policies against Asians in California have pretty deep history. Yet Asians do well in California schools. "The California Alien Land Law of 1913 (also known as the Webb–Haney Act) prohibited "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning agricultural land or possessing long-term leases over it, but permitted leases lasting up to three years.[1][2][3]....... The law was meant to discourage immigration from Asia, and to create an inhospitable climate for immigrants already living in California.[7][8][9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1...
sangnoir 3y ago
> And so there's a war against any admissions policy that results in disproportionate racial outcomes Except legacy admissions and pay-to-play donations. After all, pedigree and wealth are merit (or proof thereof) - no need for pesky test scores in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

csa 3y ago

> the fact that paying huge money for tutoring only results in minor score improvements This might be true in aggregate, but I’ve seen data that says otherwise (buddy owns a test prep school). The keys are that the student wants the test prep and that the student has room to grow (i.e., not already near the top, where increases are capped). Middle of the pack students can gain 50-150 points per skill (this is a lot). > the implications that poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics regardless of income, which goes against modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset Is this implying that Asian immigrants do better because of genetics (nature)? The non-agenda-based research on this topic is pretty clear that Asian immigrant success is mostly about a culture of schooling and learning in Asian communities. This includes things like tutoring, “cram schools”, and test prep. Here is an example of research/views from outside the US: https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html Almost all academic success is built on a culture of learning of some sort (e.g., parental involvement in schooling, reading to kids, etc.). Note that this is true regardless of race. The higher quality (non-agenda-based) research in this area all focuses on how this culture of learning can be fostered, with special focus on low SES (low socio-economic status) families regardless of race. > destroys the basis for trillions in social programs > Standardized tests effectively threaten the entire house of cards Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-the-head-start-program/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-t... Fwiw, I actually agree that a lot of research in education is non-replicable, agenda-based bullshit, but your comments here go against both the better research and fairly substantial anecdotal evidence (my buddy’s test prep program).

legolas2412 3y ago
> Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact: Something can have an unjustified basis, but have a measurable positive impact. Just because the unjustified basis of race was correlated with income. But using the justified basis of income and wealth will not only lead to even more measurable positive impact, it will also be fair.
fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
>Is this implying that Asian immigrants do better because of genetics (nature)? Yes, that is very likely true. I would go as far as to say that the "nurture" side of this coin is to a large extent an indirect result of nature as well.

runarberg 3y ago

That is a pretty old link which has been severed a long time ago. They’ve even changed the name from Scholastic aptitude test to just SAT, in an effort to convey that SAT doesn’t actually measure anything but it self. (This is in a stark contrast to IQ which makes ridiculous and pseudo-scientific claims that it measures something approaching what they call general intelligence) I have many beefs with SAT and standardized testing in general, but the link with IQ is not (anymore) one of them. IQ is a horrible and racist concept that should remain along with phrenology as a pathetic attempt to use science to explain racist beliefs. SAT used to be there. But we have to give them credit for having moved on.

cm2012 3y ago
IQ is one of the most reliable and proven metrics in social science.
- 11101010001100 3y ago
  Sure, but that says more about social science than IQ.
  - cm2012 3y ago
    You can replace social science with "science about predicting people's behavior" if you want. The important thing is that IQ is one of the most powerful predictors of human behavior in science. So few things get proven to have a major effect on outcomes over and over again. You shouldn't just throw that out.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      I think IQs usages outside of a very narrow scope of a) psychometrics and b) developmental psychology is very limited, if any to speak of. In developmental psychology it is more often a tool to detect developmental or learning disabilities, and even then many (most?) psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests. In psychometrics (which is a scientific dead end IMO) IQ is indeed still popular, but the predicting factor of IQ is more often then not other operationally defined concepts which psychometrisians fight tooth and nail to justify is not circular logic, that IQ is not just predicting IQ. If you think IQ is the best predictor of human behavior, you must not have heard about many more. If you grow up in an english speaking household, you are very likely to speak english fluently in your adulthood. You are much quicker to find Waldo if you’ve done so 10 times in the last 20 min, then on your first attempt (cognitive priming), if you smoke weed you take much longer to find Waldo. If you inhibit your serotonin reuptake in specific areas in your brain, you are much less likely to suffer severe depression. If you reward child with a praise you are much more likely to see this child repeat the behavior then if you punish the child with a shout. These are all pretty powerful and—more importantly—useful predictors in behavioral sciences. IQs predictive power is very limited to a very narrow scope inside psychometrics, we will do just fine throwing it out. There are much better constructs out there (including the SAT).

Jun8 3y ago

> modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset The is a simplified way of putting it by I would roughly agree with this statement. However, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the fact that "poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics". It is absolutely about nurture, but not in a way that the "academia" wants to emphasize. I think the main reason these poor kids achieve better is the support and, yes, the tremendous push they get from their families on topics related to education. I'd wager that having a two-parent family that places importance in education correlates most with academic performance.