Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No I didnt imply that the SAT was racist. How you arrived at your assumption is something you need to explain a lot better than you have to this point.While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.
Let me be exteremly clear then. Any time a person brings race into a topic that, until that point was not a racial topic, they are effectively saying the topic has to do with race.No I didnt imply that the SAT was racist. How you arrived at your assumption is something you need to explain a lot better than you have to this point.While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.
Why would I argue that I was mistaken in saying that and what makes you think that means I believe the SAT is racist? Are you implying that instead of asking what I meant you wrongly assumed?
Youre not being clear. Youre just reiterating your lack of comprehension for everyone to see. Now that you have made that statement I can see why your logic is faulty but I am still mystified as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Lets take your opinion for example.....Let me be exteremly clear then. Any time a person brings race into a topic that, until that point was not a racial topic, they are effectively saying the topic has to do with race.No I didnt imply that the SAT was racist. How you arrived at your assumption is something you need to explain a lot better than you have to this point.While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.
Why would I argue that I was mistaken in saying that and what makes you think that means I believe the SAT is racist? Are you implying that instead of asking what I meant you wrongly assumed?
Racist: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
"... whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent."
How is that not implying the test is racist? Let me reword, if I may, White use it to prove thay are more intelligent.
Does that clear it up? I certainly hope so.
Nope, and apparently neither do you.Youre not being clear. Youre just reiterating your lack of comprehension for everyone to see. Now that you have made that statement I can see why your logic is faulty but I am still mystified as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Lets take your opinion for example.....Let me be exteremly clear then. Any time a person brings race into a topic that, until that point was not a racial topic, they are effectively saying the topic has to do with race.No I didnt imply that the SAT was racist. How you arrived at your assumption is something you need to explain a lot better than you have to this point.While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.
Why would I argue that I was mistaken in saying that and what makes you think that means I believe the SAT is racist? Are you implying that instead of asking what I meant you wrongly assumed?
Racist: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
"... whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent."
How is that not implying the test is racist? Let me reword, if I may, White use it to prove thay are more intelligent.
Does that clear it up? I certainly hope so.
Implying that whites with an inferiority complex are racist does not = the SAT being racist. It only means those whites specified as having an inferiority complex are racist. IOW A being true does not mean B = A. It's like claiming because I said that fish swim in water then that means they breathe water. Do you understand your faulty logic now?
I pretty much figured you wouldnt understand your own logic. You are right. I dont understand your logic either.Nope, and apparently neither do you.Youre not being clear. Youre just reiterating your lack of comprehension for everyone to see. Now that you have made that statement I can see why your logic is faulty but I am still mystified as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Lets take your opinion for example.....Let me be exteremly clear then. Any time a person brings race into a topic that, until that point was not a racial topic, they are effectively saying the topic has to do with race.No I didnt imply that the SAT was racist. How you arrived at your assumption is something you need to explain a lot better than you have to this point.While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.
Why would I argue that I was mistaken in saying that and what makes you think that means I believe the SAT is racist? Are you implying that instead of asking what I meant you wrongly assumed?
Racist: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
"... whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent."
How is that not implying the test is racist? Let me reword, if I may, White use it to prove thay are more intelligent.
Does that clear it up? I certainly hope so.
Implying that whites with an inferiority complex are racist does not = the SAT being racist. It only means those whites specified as having an inferiority complex are racist. IOW A being true does not mean B = A. It's like claiming because I said that fish swim in water then that means they breathe water. Do you understand your faulty logic now?
Any time a person brings race into a topic that, until that point was not a racial topic, they are effectively saying the topic has to do with race.
Racist: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
"... whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent."
How is that not implying the test is racist? Let me reword, if I may, White use it to prove thay are more intelligent.
Does that clear it up? I certainly hope so.
My goodness, OF COURSE the topic is about race!! That's why we are interested in the SAT in this time of racial campus uproar and mob action.
The topic is about race, but of course the SAT is not racist: it's just a test. Taking whites as the reference group, blacks do far worse on average, and Asians do reliably better. This is a problem for colleges, so they want to dump the SAT.
The New Yorker had a great article on the history of the SATs some few years ago. It said that they were developed as an attempt to make college admissions a meritocracy, so Jews could get in --- they were blackballed generally by the Ivy League colleges especially, in favor of legacy admissions and such. This worked great, since American Jews have a good 17-point IQ advantage on the 100-point average of whites generally. (Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve) That went along for decades without any of these SAT books and then courses and then cram schools that we have now.
But colleges don't want a meritocracy now. They want to admit blacks who get far lower SAT scores, and they want to not admit so many Asians who regularly get higher scores than whites. MIT has for many years now been termed "Beijing North" locally: even 20 years ago it was fully half Asian, because they really are meritocratic based on test scores, and that's a problem if the universities are viewed as a resource to provide higher education to the general populace. A very current problem is that extremely high-scoring foreign students from populations five times ours (China and India) send in their highest scorers (or they cheat --- recent news report) and ace out our native students easily.
Colleges don't like any of this, and one reason is that they get sued repeatedly if they pretend they are meritocracies with the SAT but then actually aren't, as we know, with the problem that they let in low-scoring blacks. These cases go to the Supreme Court and everyone is mad about it. If they can get rid of the meritocratic SATs and just pick whomever they want for whatever reason they want --- maybe that would be better. They are just businesses, after all -- they don't actually have a responsibility to educate our best and smartest. If what they really want to do is have more of the mobs and rioting and death of free speech as we have been seeing, or educate China, well, our smartest white students will, I am confident, probably find a way to succeed anyway. They always have before: cream rises to the top.
Red:
Is this -- Getting In - The New Yorker -- The New Yorker article to which you referred?
It appears that now Asians are getting similar treatment.
It's not entirely clear to me that universities view themselves that way [as educators for the nation's smartest], notwithstanding their own so-called mission statements to that effect.
Well, isn't that about what we had prior to the 1970s?] [legacy acceptances for admission] I don't know for sure from first hand experience, but from listening to my parents (90 year old people), I got the sense that in their day, what school one attended had to do mainly with identifying which one wanted to attend and where one's parents were predisposed to sending one. That applied to one's schooling prior to college as well; if one's father and uncles and so on went to, say, Deerfield, well, you were going there too. It was good enough for them, it was good enough for you too.
Therein lies what I think of as another "dirty secret" about "elite schools." From what I've gleaned anecdotally, in the past, though the education they imparted was first rate, they were considered elite largely because damn near everyone there -- perhaps one or two folks per class year were not -- was in the Social Register. The reality then, as now, was that an equally fine education could be had at "less elite" institutions. That this is so can be seen in the scores of blacks who attended Howard University and been very high achievers. It's also seen in the high achievers who attended non-elite schools. From what I can tell, what made elite schools elite is that everyone there was very well connected -- politically and in business -- and those connections fairly well ensured that so long as one could find one's calling -- the thing one enjoys and is good at -- one would do well after college.
Considering the question of whether it's better now that schools at least attempt to be merit-based with their admissions policies and whether it was better before any pretenses to be so, it's not clear to me which paradigm is actually better. It seems to me that top performers are going to be exactly that and succeed no matter where they go to school. It's also very clear to me that wealth and high social standing, now as always, has its privileges. That it does is what I think folks seek to overcome with things like the SAT, things that attempt to imbue education, political access, even dinner reservations with a sense of objectivity.
I think privilege can be overcome, but the reality is that few folks who have the wherewithal to drive making that happen also have the character/ethics to make that happen. Most folks who have it have no desire to lose it. Folks who haven't got it, but who can see their way to getting it, want it to be there when they "make it." For the most part, the only folks who truly want to dispense with it are folks who, for all intents and purposes, have no way to ever expect to having it. People "dance around" this reality and put forth all manners of "fair alternatives," but in truth, they only want what's fair and what fairly allows them to remain "a more equal animal."
...It's how the people view Harvard and the rest now, which contributes to our sense of profound dislocation as we find they've been letting in rioters in quantity, seem to be educating India and China for those countries, etc. I think the mission of the Ivies in particular has become badly confused. The death of free speech and the criminal behaviors of too many of their students show that they can certainly no longer be considered elite. Not even safe.
Sure. I would think the Ivies especially should LIKE to go back to that! For one obvious thing, it doubles and trebles the endowment: if families go to Dartmouth, as my stepfather did, for many generations, they give a LOT. But the screeching black students who invaded the library at Dartmouth yesterday, shouting obscenities at students who were studying and working instead of "supporting them" in their mob protesting ---- yow. Did Dartmouth really do the right thing accepting these instead of legacy students? I'd say not at all. Bad move, big mistake.
Therein lies what I think of as another "dirty secret" about "elite schools." From what I've gleaned anecdotally, in the past, though the education they imparted was first rate, they were considered elite largely because damn near everyone there -- perhaps one or two folks per class year were not -- was in the Social Register. The reality then, as now, was that an equally fine education could be had at "less elite" institutions. That this is so can be seen in the scores of blacks who attended Howard University and been very high achievers. It's also seen in the high achievers who attended non-elite schools. From what I can tell, what made elite schools elite is that everyone there was very well connected -- politically and in business -- and those connections fairly well ensured that so long as one could find one's calling -- the thing one enjoys and is good at -- one would do well after college.
This is being replaced by unpaid internships: a system of apprenticeships for young people that only families well off enough to support their children entirely in other cities at non-paying jobs can take advantage of. My niece has spent two summers this way meeting high-level pols in Washington. Never made a cent.
I was all in favor of meritocracy in the old days, but now they simply aren't doing it, so that's that. I mean, hey, letting in blacks with bad SATs resulting in all these riots and purges and censorship, and keeping out Asians with better scores because they would swamp the system -------- well, there is one seriously failed meritocracy! It's dead, bury it. I'm up for that, I hate hypocrisy, pretending they are a meritocracy when everyone KNOWS they aren't. They are a business, they have admissions like country clubs and pro sports teams, let them take whomever it suits them to take. They want rioting mobs, let 'em have them. We simply need a whole new system for higher education: it's broken in a lot of ways, and this admittance issue is only one of many. I bet you didn't take out loans for your undergraduate educations, and nor did I, for one problem out of many.
Privilege is fine with me. (Well, it would be.) As long as people are obeying the law, that's the main thing, and having good manners is the next most important thing. After those two, privilege away at will, I'd say. If you've got it, flaunt it.
What happened yesterday?
I'm aware of last week's events at the Dartmouth library.
Therein lies what I think of as another "dirty secret" about "elite schools." From what I've gleaned anecdotally, in the past, though the education they imparted was first rate, they were considered elite largely because damn near everyone there -- perhaps one or two folks per class year were not -- was in the Social Register. The reality then, as now, was that an equally fine education could be had at "less elite" institutions. That this is so can be seen in the scores of blacks who attended Howard University and been very high achievers. It's also seen in the high achievers who attended non-elite schools. From what I can tell, what made elite schools elite is that everyone there was very well connected -- politically and in business -- and those connections fairly well ensured that so long as one could find one's calling -- the thing one enjoys and is good at -- one would do well after college.
This is being replaced by unpaid internships: a system of apprenticeships for young people that only families well off enough to support their children entirely in other cities at non-paying jobs can take advantage of. My niece has spent two summers this way meeting high-level pols in Washington. Never made a cent.
I'm not even going to ask what inferences you have made that led you "wager" as you did about how I paid for school.
Really?
The thing about the law is that it has a "letter" and a "spirit." What matters and what people of integrity do is uphold both, and not just when it's convenient for their own circumstances, at the moment or in general. I really don't see that among many people these days, and yet that sort of character is exactly what distinguished the people of my parents' generation and the people of my own age -- especially the ones of them/us who went to elite schools.
My goodness, OF COURSE the topic is about race!! That's why we are interested in the SAT in this time of racial campus uproar and mob action.
The topic is about race, but of course the SAT is not racist: it's just a test. Taking whites as the reference group, blacks do far worse on average, and Asians do reliably better. This is a problem for colleges, so they want to dump the SAT.
Now there's an action that one might plausibly argue has racist causes. I don't have a strong opinion on the deliberacy of racial bias underpinning the use of whites as a reference group.
On the matter of blacks collectively performing worse than other ethnic identity groups, there is a study conducted by researchers at Stanford and UT Austin that ascribes the outcomes in part to what I describe as the "self-fulfilling prophecy coming true."
View attachment 55374
[Sorry for the unrefined presentation of content from the publication...the document won't let me select text.]
Steele's work was further examined by The Gordon Commission and Dr. Mendoza-Denton toward the end of the last decade. Their work seems corroborate and expand on that of Steele.
In consideration of the work conducted and corroborated by multiple researchers, I think if there is racial bias and discrimination to be found in connection with the SAT, its oblique at best. Thinking back to the "Doll Test" cited in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, KS, it makes sense to me that society's convenying an image of blacks being, in general, intellectually less acute than other ethnic groups, is plausibly the racist act that results in the test performance that we observe. Accordingly, I think the composition and delivery of the test, along with its outcomes, should be looked at as a symptom not as a cause or demonstration of racism. Following from that, I believe the thing to do is eradicate the cause and the symptoms will go away.
Of course, I realize that treating the cause isn't as easily accomplished as it is for me to write that it's the thing to do, particularly when the notions and behaviors that give rise to the sociological and psychological "dumbing down" of an entire class of people -- stereotyping -- aren't things that I think most folks perceive as having a palpable impact across the broad spectrum of individuals branded by the bromides our society perpetuates, much less that they have a negative impact on performance. Moreover, I think that most folks who perpetuate them don't, often enough view themselves as doing so with specific racist intent, and that genuine lack of intent makes it difficult for them to see there is problem that they are helping maintain. Therein lies what I think is the big problem with overcoming racism in our society: most folks realize they aren't deliberately racist, but in knowing that they discount the possibility that they nonetheless have a share in perpetuating it, and that applies, based on my own observations, to members of each of the ethnic groups involved and to both the positive and negative chestnuts expressed.
My goodness, OF COURSE the topic is about race!! That's why we are interested in the SAT in this time of racial campus uproar and mob action.
The topic is about race, but of course the SAT is not racist: it's just a test. Taking whites as the reference group, blacks do far worse on average, and Asians do reliably better. This is a problem for colleges, so they want to dump the SAT.
Now there's an action that one might plausibly argue has racist causes. I don't have a strong opinion on the deliberacy of racial bias underpinning the use of whites as a reference group.
On the matter of blacks collectively performing worse than other ethnic identity groups, there is a study conducted by researchers at Stanford and UT Austin that ascribes the outcomes in part to what I describe as the "self-fulfilling prophecy coming true."
View attachment 55374
[Sorry for the unrefined presentation of content from the publication...the document won't let me select text.]
Steele's work was further examined by The Gordon Commission and Dr. Mendoza-Denton toward the end of the last decade. Their work seems corroborate and expand on that of Steele.
In consideration of the work conducted and corroborated by multiple researchers, I think if there is racial bias and discrimination to be found in connection with the SAT, its oblique at best. Thinking back to the "Doll Test" cited in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, KS, it makes sense to me that society's convenying an image of blacks being, in general, intellectually less acute than other ethnic groups, is plausibly the racist act that results in the test performance that we observe. Accordingly, I think the composition and delivery of the test, along with its outcomes, should be looked at as a symptom not as a cause or demonstration of racism. Following from that, I believe the thing to do is eradicate the cause and the symptoms will go away.
Of course, I realize that treating the cause isn't as easily accomplished as it is for me to write that it's the thing to do, particularly when the notions and behaviors that give rise to the sociological and psychological "dumbing down" of an entire class of people -- stereotyping -- aren't things that I think most folks perceive as having a palpable impact across the broad spectrum of individuals branded by the bromides our society perpetuates, much less that they have a negative impact on performance. Moreover, I think that most folks who perpetuate them don't, often enough view themselves as doing so with specific racist intent, and that genuine lack of intent makes it difficult for them to see there is problem that they are helping maintain. Therein lies what I think is the big problem with overcoming racism in our society: most folks realize they aren't deliberately racist, but in knowing that they discount the possibility that they nonetheless have a share in perpetuating it, and that applies, based on my own observations, to members of each of the ethnic groups involved and to both the positive and negative chestnuts expressed.
Therein lies the rub: The poor self image of many African Americans (not all Blacks) can only be changed from within. External preferences and undeserved promotion only serve to confirm one's belief of inferiority.
To the extent they are granted based on the individual, I agree with you. I would never advocate given "Bob" or "Mary" preferences or promotions s/he doesn't deserve. I would support establishing programs that ensure that "Bob" or "Mary" are given opportunities to ensure individuals of their respective classes -- racial minority or gender, say -- are fairly represented/offered opportunities they previously were denied on the basis of their class.
Bullshit. If thats the case then whites must be the most inferior feeling people on the face of the planet. They made laws to guarantee they had preference, undeserved promotion, and made laws that purposefully kept Blacks down for centuries.My goodness, OF COURSE the topic is about race!! That's why we are interested in the SAT in this time of racial campus uproar and mob action.
The topic is about race, but of course the SAT is not racist: it's just a test. Taking whites as the reference group, blacks do far worse on average, and Asians do reliably better. This is a problem for colleges, so they want to dump the SAT.
Now there's an action that one might plausibly argue has racist causes. I don't have a strong opinion on the deliberacy of racial bias underpinning the use of whites as a reference group.
On the matter of blacks collectively performing worse than other ethnic identity groups, there is a study conducted by researchers at Stanford and UT Austin that ascribes the outcomes in part to what I describe as the "self-fulfilling prophecy coming true."
View attachment 55374
[Sorry for the unrefined presentation of content from the publication...the document won't let me select text.]
Steele's work was further examined by The Gordon Commission and Dr. Mendoza-Denton toward the end of the last decade. Their work seems corroborate and expand on that of Steele.
In consideration of the work conducted and corroborated by multiple researchers, I think if there is racial bias and discrimination to be found in connection with the SAT, its oblique at best. Thinking back to the "Doll Test" cited in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, KS, it makes sense to me that society's convenying an image of blacks being, in general, intellectually less acute than other ethnic groups, is plausibly the racist act that results in the test performance that we observe. Accordingly, I think the composition and delivery of the test, along with its outcomes, should be looked at as a symptom not as a cause or demonstration of racism. Following from that, I believe the thing to do is eradicate the cause and the symptoms will go away.
Of course, I realize that treating the cause isn't as easily accomplished as it is for me to write that it's the thing to do, particularly when the notions and behaviors that give rise to the sociological and psychological "dumbing down" of an entire class of people -- stereotyping -- aren't things that I think most folks perceive as having a palpable impact across the broad spectrum of individuals branded by the bromides our society perpetuates, much less that they have a negative impact on performance. Moreover, I think that most folks who perpetuate them don't, often enough view themselves as doing so with specific racist intent, and that genuine lack of intent makes it difficult for them to see there is problem that they are helping maintain. Therein lies what I think is the big problem with overcoming racism in our society: most folks realize they aren't deliberately racist, but in knowing that they discount the possibility that they nonetheless have a share in perpetuating it, and that applies, based on my own observations, to members of each of the ethnic groups involved and to both the positive and negative chestnuts expressed.
Therein lies the rub: The poor self image of many African Americans (not all Blacks) can only be changed from within. External preferences and undeserved promotion only serve to confirm one's belief of inferiority.
Bullshit. If thats the case then whites must be the most inferior feeling people on the face of the planet. They made laws to guarantee they had preference, undeserved promotion, and made laws that purposefully kept Blacks down for centuries.
I figured you would change your tune.Bullshit. If thats the case then whites must be the most inferior feeling people on the face of the planet. They made laws to guarantee they had preference, undeserved promotion, and made laws that purposefully kept Blacks down for centuries.
Bullshit, indeed.
