3 ms·

>Critics call the SAT inequitable and say high school grades are a good predictor of college success. I mean, it seems pretty clear from the last 6 years of ex

>Critics call the SAT inequitable and say high school grades are a good predictor of college success. I mean, it seems pretty clear from the last 6 years of experience by professors and others that grades (or at least grades in isolation) aren't a good predictor at all for this. The problem is removing the use of standardized tests here was done for ideological reasons. You can already tell by the use of the word "inequitable" here, because a certain insane subset of policymakers and the public believe that we should push for equal outcomes ("equity") over equal opportunity (usually referred to as simply "equality").

ceejayoz 4mo ago
> the public believe that we should push for equal outcomes ("equity") over equal opportunity (usually referred to as simply "equality") This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. Their outcomes aren't guaranteed; an obstacle to achieving them is removed.
- valleyer 4mo ago
  From your link: > Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    Also from my link: > factors specific to one's personal conditions should not interfere with the potential of academic success
    - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
      Sure, but the reality is that such conditions do interfere with the potential of academic success, as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise. If I had a severe brain injury as a child, or my mom drank and did a ton of drugs while pregnant with me, or any number of other reasons, I will probably be far less academically successful than in the counterfactual reality where I didn't get a brick dropped on my head as a child. Equality proponents argue that brick-on-head and no-brick-on-head should be judged by the same standards. Equity proponents argue that brick-on-head should be given advantages over no-brick-on-head to make them obtain substantially similar educational outcomes. Once again, from your own link: >Equity recognizes this uneven playing field and aims to take extra measures by giving those in need more than those who are not. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes for groups, also called substantive equality. Equity aims to ensure that everyone's lifestyle is equal, even if that requires unequal distribution of access and goods.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. (And systemic efforts to prevent dropping bricks on childrens' heads in the first place.)
        JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        >In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. So you claim, but in reality proponents of equity instituted a system that gave Black students a roughly 450 point advantage over Asian students on the SAT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un... Note that the NYT, in their pure, non-partisan spirit of fairness and equity, somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students Make up your mind? If their having to score higher than Black students is unfair, how is "Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites" not also unfair? What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, wealth (translated to parenting time, tutoring access, better schools, etc.) can help do better on the SAT. How does one account for that?
        JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        I didn't say it was fair, I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased (as per usual). Imagine at a school that Jenny gets 10 cookies from the teacher, Timmy gets 3, and Johnny gets two. Billy sees all this, but he has a crush on Jenny, so when he tells everyone on the playground about it he doesn't say "Jenny got way more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!" Instead he says "Timmy got more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!". That's the ridiculousness that I'm pointing out here. >What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? It was never intended to? >How does one account for that? It's impossible to account for everything. As much as the thinkers of the Enlightenment and their successors have attempted to quantify and measure everything, it's simply not possible in reality. If someone could devise a better means of measurement than current standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I would happily welcome them. But one thing is pretty clear and certain: the SAT is a far better measure of mathematical aptitude that high school grades, and until better measures can be found and implemented I fully support continuing to use it for college admissions and college math placement.
- JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
  >This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. From the wiki article you linked: >Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society. Equity proponents believe that some are at a larger disadvantage than others and aims to compensate for this to ensure that everyone can attain the same lifestyle.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    Note: everyone can, not everyone will. That's opportunity, not a guarantee. Yes?
    - indoordin0saur 4mo ago
      But what's the rationale in removing advanced math or objective measures of talent such as SAT tests?
    - zahlman 4mo ago
      Saying "everyone can" is not incompatible with intending to force the issue. The claim "Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society." demonstrates a clear intent to force the issue. "Equality of outcome" could not possibly be more clear or explicit of a phrase.
  - 9dev 4mo ago
    If you hold a race, but some people start further behind others, they have a longer track to run. I think we can agree that to call it a fair race, we'd want to accommodate for the track length.
    - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
      Sure, but if some people are faster than others because they have longer legs or because they've trained more etc. then people without such advantages aren't given special accomodation. It actually runs in my family that we have very short legs in comparison to our torsos. For example I'm 6' tall but look like I'm 6' 4" or thereabouts when sitting down next to someone with more normal proportions. In spite of this disadvantage, one of my brothers did cross country in high school and still runs half-marathons every year or so. He doesn't demand to be given a head start or to have time subtracted to accommodate his inherent disadvantage, because that's the difference between equality and equity.
- elteto 4mo ago
  That all sounds great in theory but in practice it devolves not into only giving extra help to those in need, but also to _take away_ from those perceived to have some sort of advantage. See for example NYC's idiotic plan to close gifted and talended kindergarten programs in public schools. The truth is that it is a hell of a lot easier to lower the bar for everyone than to raise it. I.e. it's a lot easier to make dumb kids than to make smart ones, so in the name of equity we shall have dumber ones.
- zahlman 4mo ago
  > This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. It very obviously is not. The equity proponents are extremely vocal about expecting equal outcomes; their metrics are stated entirely in terms of equality of outcome; they can constantly be observed decrying people as bigoted specifically for arguing for equality of opportunity instead. You were shown clear evidence of this downthread, and you pivoted and failed to engage squarely with a very simple argument. I want to make sure this is perfectly clear. When you say "getting a score of x on the SAT qualifies you for university", you are doing equality of opportunity. When you say "getting a score of f(x) on the SAT qualifies you for university, where f is chosen such that the racial makeup of university entrants matches the racial makeup of {applicants, the local general population, ...}", you are doing equality of outcome. ...And probably also violating the law, although of course it's up to the courts whether this constitutes a "racial quota", Princeton (per the opinion piece, and also Yale and Duke) substantively did the latter, which is how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... happened. As it happens, Students for Fair Admissions won their case. (The policies in question were also likely detrimental, overall, to white students, but it was politically impossible for a white student group to bring such a case. You can see that even in the linked opinion piece, the discrimination against Asians is described as pro-white even though white students still had to do much better than black students to be given the same level of consideration.) > Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. This is disproven by both rhetoric and observable policy. It's all based on equality-of-outcome metrics; every disparity of outcome is directly cited to justify the claim that the work is not done. Either equality of opportunity is conflated with equality of outcome; or it is not actually the goal and any claims of such are dishonest.
- fsckboy 4mo ago
  >Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. Their outcomes aren't guaranteed from your cited wikipedia page: "Equity is equality of outcome" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity#Equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity#Equity giving somebody a hearing aid is basic decency, but will it erase all deficits, guaranteed? no. IQ is a different page of the book, it basically says that a kid with a high IQ who needs a hearing aid is likely to do better on the SAT than a kid with a lower IQ and perfect hearing. Sadly there is no "IQ aid". But just as families with a Down Syndrome child love that child every bit as much, IQ is not a measure of worth as a human, but simply "this kid can run the cognitive 40m dash faster"
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 4mo ago

> the public believe that we should push for equal outcomes ("equity") over equal opportunity (usually referred to as simply "equality") This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. Their outcomes aren't guaranteed; an obstacle to achieving them is removed.

valleyer 4mo ago
From your link: > Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  Also from my link: > factors specific to one's personal conditions should not interfere with the potential of academic success
  - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
    Sure, but the reality is that such conditions do interfere with the potential of academic success, as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise. If I had a severe brain injury as a child, or my mom drank and did a ton of drugs while pregnant with me, or any number of other reasons, I will probably be far less academically successful than in the counterfactual reality where I didn't get a brick dropped on my head as a child. Equality proponents argue that brick-on-head and no-brick-on-head should be judged by the same standards. Equity proponents argue that brick-on-head should be given advantages over no-brick-on-head to make them obtain substantially similar educational outcomes. Once again, from your own link: >Equity recognizes this uneven playing field and aims to take extra measures by giving those in need more than those who are not. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes for groups, also called substantive equality. Equity aims to ensure that everyone's lifestyle is equal, even if that requires unequal distribution of access and goods.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. (And systemic efforts to prevent dropping bricks on childrens' heads in the first place.)
      - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        >In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. So you claim, but in reality proponents of equity instituted a system that gave Black students a roughly 450 point advantage over Asian students on the SAT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un... Note that the NYT, in their pure, non-partisan spirit of fairness and equity, somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students Make up your mind? If their having to score higher than Black students is unfair, how is "Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites" not also unfair? What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, wealth (translated to parenting time, tutoring access, better schools, etc.) can help do better on the SAT. How does one account for that?
        JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        I didn't say it was fair, I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased (as per usual). Imagine at a school that Jenny gets 10 cookies from the teacher, Timmy gets 3, and Johnny gets two. Billy sees all this, but he has a crush on Jenny, so when he tells everyone on the playground about it he doesn't say "Jenny got way more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!" Instead he says "Timmy got more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!". That's the ridiculousness that I'm pointing out here. >What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? It was never intended to? >How does one account for that? It's impossible to account for everything. As much as the thinkers of the Enlightenment and their successors have attempted to quantify and measure everything, it's simply not possible in reality. If someone could devise a better means of measurement than current standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I would happily welcome them. But one thing is pretty clear and certain: the SAT is a far better measure of mathematical aptitude that high school grades, and until better measures can be found and implemented I fully support continuing to use it for college admissions and college math placement.
JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
>This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. From the wiki article you linked: >Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society. Equity proponents believe that some are at a larger disadvantage than others and aims to compensate for this to ensure that everyone can attain the same lifestyle.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  Note: everyone can, not everyone will. That's opportunity, not a guarantee. Yes?
  - indoordin0saur 4mo ago
    But what's the rationale in removing advanced math or objective measures of talent such as SAT tests?
  - zahlman 4mo ago
    Saying "everyone can" is not incompatible with intending to force the issue. The claim "Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society." demonstrates a clear intent to force the issue. "Equality of outcome" could not possibly be more clear or explicit of a phrase.
- 9dev 4mo ago
  If you hold a race, but some people start further behind others, they have a longer track to run. I think we can agree that to call it a fair race, we'd want to accommodate for the track length.
  - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
    Sure, but if some people are faster than others because they have longer legs or because they've trained more etc. then people without such advantages aren't given special accomodation. It actually runs in my family that we have very short legs in comparison to our torsos. For example I'm 6' tall but look like I'm 6' 4" or thereabouts when sitting down next to someone with more normal proportions. In spite of this disadvantage, one of my brothers did cross country in high school and still runs half-marathons every year or so. He doesn't demand to be given a head start or to have time subtracted to accommodate his inherent disadvantage, because that's the difference between equality and equity.
elteto 4mo ago
That all sounds great in theory but in practice it devolves not into only giving extra help to those in need, but also to _take away_ from those perceived to have some sort of advantage. See for example NYC's idiotic plan to close gifted and talended kindergarten programs in public schools. The truth is that it is a hell of a lot easier to lower the bar for everyone than to raise it. I.e. it's a lot easier to make dumb kids than to make smart ones, so in the name of equity we shall have dumber ones.
zahlman 4mo ago
> This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. It very obviously is not. The equity proponents are extremely vocal about expecting equal outcomes; their metrics are stated entirely in terms of equality of outcome; they can constantly be observed decrying people as bigoted specifically for arguing for equality of opportunity instead. You were shown clear evidence of this downthread, and you pivoted and failed to engage squarely with a very simple argument. I want to make sure this is perfectly clear. When you say "getting a score of x on the SAT qualifies you for university", you are doing equality of opportunity. When you say "getting a score of f(x) on the SAT qualifies you for university, where f is chosen such that the racial makeup of university entrants matches the racial makeup of {applicants, the local general population, ...}", you are doing equality of outcome. ...And probably also violating the law, although of course it's up to the courts whether this constitutes a "racial quota", Princeton (per the opinion piece, and also Yale and Duke) substantively did the latter, which is how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... happened. As it happens, Students for Fair Admissions won their case. (The policies in question were also likely detrimental, overall, to white students, but it was politically impossible for a white student group to bring such a case. You can see that even in the linked opinion piece, the discrimination against Asians is described as pro-white even though white students still had to do much better than black students to be given the same level of consideration.) > Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. This is disproven by both rhetoric and observable policy. It's all based on equality-of-outcome metrics; every disparity of outcome is directly cited to justify the claim that the work is not done. Either equality of opportunity is conflated with equality of outcome; or it is not actually the goal and any claims of such are dishonest.
fsckboy 4mo ago
>Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. Their outcomes aren't guaranteed from your cited wikipedia page: "Equity is equality of outcome" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity#Equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_equity#Equity giving somebody a hearing aid is basic decency, but will it erase all deficits, guaranteed? no. IQ is a different page of the book, it basically says that a kid with a high IQ who needs a hearing aid is likely to do better on the SAT than a kid with a lower IQ and perfect hearing. Sadly there is no "IQ aid". But just as families with a Down Syndrome child love that child every bit as much, IQ is not a measure of worth as a human, but simply "this kid can run the cognitive 40m dash faster"

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]