3 ms·

Yes. You can't distinguish that case from a lack of innate ability, and history is full of examples of poor people doing well in academia and elevating themselv

Yes. You can't distinguish that case from a lack of innate ability, and history is full of examples of poor people doing well in academia and elevating themselves. Standardized testing, not affirmative action, is the great equalizer.

diamondcutter 11y ago
Standardized testing is hugely influenced by unfair factors. Like the fact that if I'm rich, I can pay for my kids to get better tutoring which boosts scores by hundreds of points. Or the fact that stereotype threat may keep minorities from doing well on tests. Or that tests can be culturally biased against people from certain backgrounds.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  I don't care. Our goal should not be to equalize rewards to effort, but match talent to opportunity. It doesn't matter where that talent comes from. Trying to account for these "unfair factors" is itself hugely unfair, creates perverse outcomes, and in the end, reinforces our biases instead of eradicate them. Even if you begin these measures with the best intentions, they decay to favoritism and resentment. Fair testing has legitimacy. Your ad-hoc patches do not.
- Nadya 11y ago
  So instead of giving these positions to the people most qualified and capable of making the most out of them based on the metrics we have chosen to measure success. We should give them to people because of their upbringing or gonads? Regardless if they are the most qualified person to fill that position? So the student (let's call them Sally) was afforded a better education, and using their superior knowledge are more qualified for a position. So Sally should be told "Sorry, this spot is being given to Sam because they are an ethnic minority."? Remind me how that is fair for Sally and not benevolent racism towards Sam?
IvyMike 11y ago
When I went to college, I knew some kids who had trained their whole life to be test-taking machines. These kids got great grades in school. They sat in the front row. "Is this going to be on the test?" was their favorite thing to say. They did exactly what was asked of them, and they did it well, although a lot of the time, that's all they did. On the other hand, there were other kids who worked on VR rigs in their spare time, designed solar cars, helped launch linux distros, created early ISPs, and invented NCSA Mosaic. On the whole, these kids probably didn't get as good of grades as the kids in the first group. A world of pure standardized testing would have selected more from the first group and less from the second. I think this would have been a shame.
- gravypod 11y ago
  You don't go to college to build your dreams. You go to college to help build someone else's. This [0] is one of the best videos about this topic. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ZmM7zPLyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ZmM7zPLyI
mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
Standardized testing is not a great equalizer. It is a great way to maintain the status quo though. Paying for GRE classes can raise your GRE scores. Historically, IQ tests have "proven" that whites are smarter than other races.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  > Historically, IQ tests have "proven" that whites are smarter than other races. Why the scare quotes? On average, whites score a standard deviation higher than blacks on IQ tests, and East Asians score half a standard deviation higher than whites. IQ is strongly heritable (0.5-0.8) and is strongly correlated with lifespan and income. These are facts. They do not disappear merely because they disagree with your worldview. If you start with an incorrect premise, there's no limit to how wrong your conclusions can be.
  - itsybitsycoder 11y ago
    Because the link between IQ tests and intelligence is more tenuous than most people understand it to be.
    - rewqfdsa 11y ago
      Whatever you think IQ tests measure, it correlates incredibly well with life outcome.
      - diamondcutter 11y ago
        Yeah...and of COURSE that's because IQ tests measure something inherent like intelligence! It isn't because people who do well on IQ tests tend to be wealthy and well-educated, which produces better life outcomes. Let me be very clear. When I was 15 I took the SAT and got every single question right. That was undoubtedly in part because a) I grew up in one of the wealthiest counties in the country b) my parents got me private math tutoring from the time I was 7 c) they read to me from an early age d) they sent me to private school e) I could go on, but you get the point. If you do well on these tests, good for you! But the idea that they are unaffected by confounding factors like income, education, and stereotype threat is absurd. These false beliefs that we can just give people a test to measure true talent worry me in light of Silicon Valley's incredible lack of diversity.
panglott 11y ago
The largest factor in educational outcomes is not any in-school factor, but rather the socioeconomic status of a child's parents. Use the educational system to reproduce the privilege of social elites and then launder it as "meritocracy". What could go wrong.

diamondcutter 11y ago

Standardized testing is hugely influenced by unfair factors. Like the fact that if I'm rich, I can pay for my kids to get better tutoring which boosts scores by hundreds of points. Or the fact that stereotype threat may keep minorities from doing well on tests. Or that tests can be culturally biased against people from certain backgrounds.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
I don't care. Our goal should not be to equalize rewards to effort, but match talent to opportunity. It doesn't matter where that talent comes from. Trying to account for these "unfair factors" is itself hugely unfair, creates perverse outcomes, and in the end, reinforces our biases instead of eradicate them. Even if you begin these measures with the best intentions, they decay to favoritism and resentment. Fair testing has legitimacy. Your ad-hoc patches do not.
Nadya 11y ago
So instead of giving these positions to the people most qualified and capable of making the most out of them based on the metrics we have chosen to measure success. We should give them to people because of their upbringing or gonads? Regardless if they are the most qualified person to fill that position? So the student (let's call them Sally) was afforded a better education, and using their superior knowledge are more qualified for a position. So Sally should be told "Sorry, this spot is being given to Sam because they are an ethnic minority."? Remind me how that is fair for Sally and not benevolent racism towards Sam?

IvyMike 11y ago

When I went to college, I knew some kids who had trained their whole life to be test-taking machines. These kids got great grades in school. They sat in the front row. "Is this going to be on the test?" was their favorite thing to say. They did exactly what was asked of them, and they did it well, although a lot of the time, that's all they did. On the other hand, there were other kids who worked on VR rigs in their spare time, designed solar cars, helped launch linux distros, created early ISPs, and invented NCSA Mosaic. On the whole, these kids probably didn't get as good of grades as the kids in the first group. A world of pure standardized testing would have selected more from the first group and less from the second. I think this would have been a shame.

gravypod 11y ago
You don't go to college to build your dreams. You go to college to help build someone else's. This [0] is one of the best videos about this topic. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ZmM7zPLyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ZmM7zPLyI

mrgoldenbrown 11y ago

Standardized testing is not a great equalizer. It is a great way to maintain the status quo though. Paying for GRE classes can raise your GRE scores. Historically, IQ tests have "proven" that whites are smarter than other races.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
> Historically, IQ tests have "proven" that whites are smarter than other races. Why the scare quotes? On average, whites score a standard deviation higher than blacks on IQ tests, and East Asians score half a standard deviation higher than whites. IQ is strongly heritable (0.5-0.8) and is strongly correlated with lifespan and income. These are facts. They do not disappear merely because they disagree with your worldview. If you start with an incorrect premise, there's no limit to how wrong your conclusions can be.
- itsybitsycoder 11y ago
  Because the link between IQ tests and intelligence is more tenuous than most people understand it to be.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    Whatever you think IQ tests measure, it correlates incredibly well with life outcome.
    - diamondcutter 11y ago
      Yeah...and of COURSE that's because IQ tests measure something inherent like intelligence! It isn't because people who do well on IQ tests tend to be wealthy and well-educated, which produces better life outcomes. Let me be very clear. When I was 15 I took the SAT and got every single question right. That was undoubtedly in part because a) I grew up in one of the wealthiest counties in the country b) my parents got me private math tutoring from the time I was 7 c) they read to me from an early age d) they sent me to private school e) I could go on, but you get the point. If you do well on these tests, good for you! But the idea that they are unaffected by confounding factors like income, education, and stereotype threat is absurd. These false beliefs that we can just give people a test to measure true talent worry me in light of Silicon Valley's incredible lack of diversity.

panglott 11y ago

The largest factor in educational outcomes is not any in-school factor, but rather the socioeconomic status of a child's parents. Use the educational system to reproduce the privilege of social elites and then launder it as "meritocracy". What could go wrong.