Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[Hector12]

The SAT was developed by a Eugenicist


Where Did The Test Come From? - Americans Instrumental In Establishing Standardized Tests | Secrets Of The Sat | FRONTLINE | PBS.

Carl C. Brigham, the father of the SAT, became interested in mental testing while a student a Princeton. He later became a psychology professor at the university, where he was an enthusiastic member of the eugenics movement. During the 1920s he developed his own objective admissions test for students applying to Princeton.

Brigham later worked on the Army Alpha Test, an intelligence test given to millions of recruits during World War I. In 1923, he wrote A Study of American Intelligence, which analyzed the findings of the Alpha Test by race. Its conclusion, which Brigham insisted was without prejudice, was that American education was declining and "will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial mixture becomes more and more extensive."

Eventually Brigham adapted the Army Alpha Test for use in college admissions, renaming it the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Brigham's work interested Henry Chauncey and Bill Bender, assistants to James Conant at Harvard. Starting in 1934, Harvard adopted the SAT to select scholarship recipients at the school.

Brigham later repudiated much of his book, doubting the idea that there is universal human intelligence quotient. He also opposed the formation of the Educational Testing Service.

Right now we are experiencing dysgenics. In the United States, and internationally those with IQ's below 100 are more prolific than those with IQ's above 100. At the same time that human evolution is taking a U turn, computer technology and automation are reducing the number of jobs people with IQ's below 100 can learn.

 

[JoeB131]

That would be a difficult choice. Bush II benefited from a legacy admission; Obama benefited from affirmative action; I read somewhere that Trump may have paid someone to take the SAT for him.

Actually, it wouldn't be a difficult choice at all. First, Obama is a JD. Bush has an MBA and Trump has a Bachelor's degree.

But thanks for confirming your racism.

 

[Lisa558]

Two White kids, impoverished or not, have no more right to go to a specific and more notably, PRIVATE university than those two Black kids. The college has a right to consider multiple factors in its admissions policy. No elite college has ever admitted solely on test scores and gpa, nor should.

In the end, there is a big chunk of admissions slots going to White people who may not be as meritorious and you instead go after the tiny proportion of non-Whites.

But what you are saying is that two impoverished white kids, with top grades and scores, and a chance to attend a prestige college that will open doors and get them started on a wonderful life should be willing to step aside and go to a lesser school so that two black kids, with lower scores and grades, get the opportunity - and that the two academically superior kids should go to a lesser school.

Why should the white kids have to sacrifice when they are better qualified? Why shouldn’t the lesser qualified black kids be the ones to go to the lesser school?

 

[JoeB131]

Right now we are experiencing dysgenics. In the United States, and inter nationally those with IQ's below 100 are more prolific than those with IQ's above 100. At the same time that human evolution is taking a U turn, computer technology and automation are reducing the number of jobs people with IQ's below 100 can learn.

Oh, please, if anything, computers make life easier for the stupids.

I would agree our society is getting dumber, because simply, there's no reason to learn. Why learn to do math why you have a calculator? Why memorize history when you can look something up on Wiki? Shit, my biggest problem in College was trying to meet my German language requirement, but I've have breezed right through that if I had access to Google Translate at the time.

But what you are saying is that two impoverished white kids, with top grades and scores, and a chance to attend a prestige college that will open doors and get them started on a wonderful life should be willing to step aside and go to a lesser school so that two blacks kids, with lower scores and grades, get the opportunity - and that the two academically superior kids should go to a lesser school.

Why should the white kids have to sacrifice when they are better qualified? Why shouldn’t the lesser qualified black kids be the ones to go to the lesser school?

Because the greater school gives more access to privilege, and what we are balancing out here is privilege, at the end of the day. This is about opening doors.

The two white kids who went to the "lessor school" will be just fine. They'll have a bachelor's degree and they will still have all the privileges to being white. They will still have plenty of doors to pick from.

 

[Lisa558]

My debate with Coyote illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives see people as individuals. Liberals see people as colors.

On the individual level, we have two academically brilliant students, with scores and grades at the very top. They grew up in impoverished circumstances, the son and daughter of uneducated immigrants, walk-up tenements without hot water. Yet Coyote thinks that because they are white, they should be willing to forsake the opportunities that come with attending a prestige college and allow two black students, with grades and scores significantly below them, to take their spots Instead - and that the superior white students should go to a lesser college.

And why, according to Coyote? Because blacks are not represented proportionate to their numbers, and the two lesser-qualified students belong to that group - and by virtue of that, get the slots.

I look at the two impoverished white kids not as part of a group, but as individuals. Why should they be punished when they are the superior students?

As I said, thank Gd my parents went to college before Affirmative Action.

 

[Hector12]

Oh, please, if anything, computers make life easier for the stupids.

I would agree our society is getting dumber, because simply, there's no reason to learn. Why learn to do math why you have a calculator? Why memorize history when you can look something up on Wiki? Shit, my biggest problem in College was trying to meet my German language requirement, but I've have breezed right through that if I had access to Google Translate at the time.



Because the greater school gives more access to privilege, and what we are balancing out here is privilege, at the end of the day. This is about opening doors.

The two white kids who went to the "lessor school" will be just fine. They'll have a bachelor's degree and they will still have all the privileges to being white. They will still have plenty of doors to pick from.

Computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income. Employers will not hire a person when machines can perform his job faster, better, and less expensively.

 

[JoeB131]

My debate with @Coyote illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives see people as individuals. Liberals see people as colors.

You mean liberals see reality.
You try to pretend you are colorblind, but you started a whole thread on how offended you were that there were posters of black people at your local mall.

On the individual level, we have two academically brilliant students, with scores and grades at the very top. They grew up in impoverished circumstances, the son and daughter of uneducated immigrants, walk-up tenements without hot water. Yet Coyote thinks that because they are white, they should be willing to forsake the opportunities that come with attending a prestige college and allow two black students, with grades and scores significantly below them, to take their spots Instead - and that the superior white students should go to a lesser college.

Yes, and here's why.

The white kids who go to that lesser college will still have opportunities when they get their bachelor's degree (which they will probably have a much easier time getting).

It's not just about the individual students, it's about how their entire community benefits. Let's take medical school. The black doctor is going to go back to his underserved community and provide health care. The white kid is probably going to give botox to old ladies to pay off his student loans. Which is the greater benefit to society?

And why, according to Coyote? Because blacks are not represented proportionate to their numbers, and the two lesser-qualified students belong to that group - and by virtue of that, get the slots.

Yes, because- wait for it - we given privileges out along with those pedigrees.

I worry less about people who work hard and get a boost by affirmative action (Like Obama) and more about privileged white folks like Trump and Bush who get in only because their families have privilege and connections.

I look at the two impoverished white kids not as part of a group, but as individuals. Why should they be punished when they are the superior students?

As I said, thank Gd my parents went to college before Affirmative Action.

Yes, because being able to claim you are oppressed AND enjoy the benefits of privilege really is the best of both worlds.

 

[JoeB131]

Computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income. Employers will not hire a person when machines can perform his job faster, better, and less expensively.

Works on the assumption that computers really need a great deal of skill to operate.

Reading all the barely literate posts I see here on USMB tells me otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

But what you are saying is that two impoverished white kids, with top scores, and a chance to attend a prestige college that will open doors and get them started on a wonderful life should be willing to step aside and go to a lesser school so that two blacks kids, with lower scores and grades, get the opportunity - and that the two academically superior kids should go to a lesser school.

The interesting way you choose to unevenly weight each group is noted.

I will clarify what I am saying.

1. As long as admissions requirements are met, the schools have latitude in what criteria they may consider in admissions. Admissions in these elite institutions have NEVER been based only on GPA or test scores alone.

2. Only 3.6% of applicants are accepted. That means 64% of applicants, most of whom are going to be highly qualified bright young people will have to choose to go elsewhere. That is a simple fact.

3. If you REALLY wanted to increase their chances of admissions, you would go after the much larger pool of legacies, but then they are, due to a policy that was originally anti-Semitic and racist, mostly White.

4. Diversity in colleges has been shown to have a positive value to the college, business world and underserved communities.

Why should an institution implement policies that don’t serve it’s own interests, mission or the community at large?

Who is more likely to return the value they gain from the degree?

The student who becomes an alumni donor?
The student who becomes a Nobel winning physicist?
The student who uses his medical degree open a clinic in a remote rural town where the nearest health clinic is an hour away?
The student who uses his law degree to fight injustice?

All of the above?

You won’t get all of the above with a monochrome admissions policy that doesn’t consider things like first generation, ethnicity, race, leadership ability, etc. in the process of admissions.

So, your two White students can hitch a ride with the Black students in that 64% who didn’t get admitted.

Why should the white kids have to sacrifice when they are better qualified? Why shouldn’t the lesser qualified black kids be the ones to go to the lesser school?

Why should Black kids have to sacrifice to kids who already make up the largest demographic in the school because someone doesn’t like a diverse student body?

By the way….if your impoverished but bright Jewish immigrant grandparents had applied today, they would most likely have gotten extra points for being first generation. If they had applied back then, they would have likely been denied under the anti-semitic policies of the time. It isn’t just Blacks who get some benefit, but it is only Blacks who seem to be targeted. Not Hispanics or legacy admits…

 

[Coyote]

My debate with Coyote illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives see people as individuals. Liberals see people as colors.

When you buy into ideas see entire groups of people in terms of IQ or athletic ability, are you seeing people as individuals or colors?

Seems to me conservatives only see people as individuals when it suits.

On the individual level, we have two academically brilliant students, with scores and grades at the very top. They grew up in impoverished circumstances, the son and daughter of uneducated immigrants, walk-up tenements without hot water. Yet Coyote thinks that because they are white, they should be willing to forsake the opportunities that come with attending a prestige college and allow two black students, with grades and scores significantly below them, to take their spots Instead - and that the superior white students should go to a lesser college.

The more often you iterate this theoretical, the bigger YOUR fish gets and the smaller the other guy’s fish is. You are reeling in a mighty Beluga while your opponent is stuck with a minnow. That is too funny

And why, according to Coyote? Because blacks are not represented proportionate to their numbers, and the two lesser-qualified students belong to that group - and by virtue of that, get the slots.

Nah…your theoreticals would be guaranteed a slot based on first gen….

I look at the two impoverished white kids not as part of a group, but as individuals. Why should they be punished when they are the superior students?

Sure you took them as a group. They are White and Jewish. Every time.

As I said, thank Gd my parents went to college before Affirmative Action.

You are entitled to your opinion

 

[IM2]

When you buy into ideas see entire groups of people in terms of IQ or athletic ability, are you seeing people as individuals or colors?

Seems to me conservatives only see people as individuals when it suits.




The more often you iterate this theoretical, the bigger YOUR fish gets and the smaller the other guy’s fish is. You are reeling in a mighty Beluga while your opponent is stuck with a minnow. That is too funny




Nah…your theoreticals would be guaranteed a slot based on first gen….



Sure you took them as a group. They are White and Jewish. Every time.




You are entitled to your opinion

You can't reason with a racist.

 

[MarathonMike]

It doesn’t matter. The effect is racist because it began as a racist process AND it is unfair to more deserving students. Athletic admits are unfair as well.

So if you oppose one policy for being racist, but approve of the other, despite being racist, what does that say? AND…the same policy also takes into account ethnicity as a factor, yet no one complains about Hispanics taking slots away.

Our race relations "expert" has falsely framed legacy college admissions as a Racist White Privilege issue. It is not. Of course the majority of legacy admits are White since the vast majority of Ivy League Students a generation ago were white. It is not a Race issue. It is a money issue. Does our race relations "expert" blame the Ivy Leagues for their "racist" policy of legacy admissions? Of course not. He blames white people for being white.

Now does the result of this money-driven policy reduce the number of admission slots for EVERYONE, including Black students? Of course it does. Then go after the Ivy Leagues and pressure them to change THEIR policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Our race relations "expert" has falsely framed legacy college admissions as a Racist White Privilege issue. It is not. Of course the majority of legacy admits are White since the vast majority of Ivy League Students a generation ago were white. It is not a Race issue. It is a money issue. Does our race relations "expert" blame the Ivy Leagues for their "racist" policy of legacy admissions? Of course not. He blames white people for being white.

Now does the result of this money-driven policy reduce the number of admission slots for EVERYONE, including Black students? Of course it does. Then go after the Ivy Leagues and pressure them to change THEIR policy.

But the point is, the White Dude using disaffected Asian students as his cut-outs to try to end Affirmative Action for blacks isn't going after the legacies or the Dean's interest or the Children of Staff admits (Almost always white people of privilege.) He's going after the race-based admissions.

 

[Lisa558]

You can't reason with a racist.

1) This is Zone 1. No calling people “racists.”

2) There is nothing racist about judging people as INDIVIDUALS rather than as part of a group.

 

[Lisa558]

When you buy into ideas see entire groups of people in terms of IQ or athletic ability, are you seeing people as individuals or colors?

Seems to me conservatives only see people as individuals when it suits.

You can actually do both. One can still recognize that Ashkenazim have higher-than-average IQs, and still judge each Jew as an individual. Nobody is saying, for example, that a Jewish applicant should be admitted because he belongs to a group with high IQs. It all comes down to the individual.

The more often you iterate this theoretical, the bigger YOUR fish gets and the smaller the other guy’s fish is. You are reeling in a mighty Beluga while your opponent is stuck with a minnow. That is too funny

?L

?

Nah…your theoreticals would be guaranteed a slot based on first gen….



Sure you took them as a group. They are White and Jewish. Every time.

No, I gave the example of my two parents - white, Jewish, and grew up in poverty. Why should they, with their superior academic accomplishments be relegated to a lesser school so that two black kids with weaker academic accomplishments get the top school? The blacks with the weaker metrics should get the lesser school.

You are entitled to your opinion

 

[MarathonMike]

But the point is, the White Dude using disaffected Asian students as his cut-outs to try to end Affirmative Action for blacks isn't going after the legacies or the Dean's interest or the Children of Staff admits (Almost always white people of privilege.) He's going after the race-based admissions.

Wut? Who is the White Dude? Who is he? Clarify please.

 

[Lisa558]

The interesting way you choose to unevenly weight each group is noted.

I will clarify what I am saying.

1. As long as admissions requirements are met, the schools have latitude in what criteria they may consider in admissions. Admissions in these elite institutions have NEVER been based only on GPA or test scores alone.

2. Only 3.6% of applicants are accepted. That means 64% of applicants, most of whom are going to be highly qualified bright young people will have to choose to go elsewhere. That is a simple fact.

3. If you REALLY wanted to increase their chances of admissions, you would go after the much larger pool of legacies, but then they are, due to a policy that was originally anti-Semitic and racist, mostly White.

4. Diversity in colleges has been shown to have a positive value to the college, business world and underserved communities.

Why should an institution implement policies that don’t serve it’s own interests, mission or the community at large?

Who is more likely to return the value they gain from the degree?

The student who becomes an alumni donor?
The student who becomes a Nobel winning physicist?
The student who uses his medical degree open a clinic in a remote rural town where the nearest health clinic is an hour away?
The student who uses his law degree to fight injustice?

All of the above?

You won’t get all of the above with a monochrome admissions policy that doesn’t consider things like first generation, ethnicity, race, leadership ability, etc. in the process of admissions.

So, your two White students can hitch a ride with the Black students in that 64% who didn’t get admitted.



Why should Black kids have to sacrifice to kids who already make up the largest demographic in the school because someone doesn’t like a diverse student body?

By the way….if your impoverished but bright Jewish immigrant grandparents had applied today, they would most likely have gotten extra points for being first generation. If they had applied back then, they would have likely been denied under the anti-semitic policies of the time. It isn’t just Blacks who get some benefit, but it is only Blacks who seem to be targeted. Not Hispanics or legacy admits…

See? Your question about “why should black kids have to sacrifice to [better scoring and higher GPA] kids who are already the largest demographic” is EXACTLY what I was saying about your seeing people as “color groupings” instead of individuals.

The fact that the more qualified white kids are part of the ”white color” group is irrelevant. They are the better students, and should not be rejected due to race.

 

[Lisa558]

But the point is, the White Dude using disaffected Asian students as his cut-outs to try to end Affirmative Action for blacks isn't going after the legacies or the Dean's interest or the Children of Staff admits (Almost always white people of privilege.) He's going after the race-based admissions.

Because race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No you aren't. You support polcies that only favor whites.

That’s not what I read from her. She supports policies that are color blind and support the most qualified students gaining entrance to universities. On the other hand YOU support any policy that gives blacks an advantage over people of any other race.

 

[Hector12]

Works on the assumption that computers really need a great deal of skill to operate.

Reading all the barely literate posts I see here on USMB tells me otherwise.

Take a course in a computer language.