J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/10/MNVK184GQF.DTL
TRYING OUGHTA COUNT AS MUCH AS WHAT YOU DO, RIGHT?
TRYING OUGHTA COUNT AS MUCH AS WHAT YOU DO, RIGHT?
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
college board scores are iffy as predictors of success. she graduated from Princeton magna cum laude, and did well at Yale Law School.
arguably then, lessening the reliance on test scores, for targeted groups, makes sense and has a good outcome (at least in this case). incidentally i'd argue the same for 'poor whites' applying to top schools.
yes "trying" should count for something, as well as (partly) overcoming adverse circumstances including poor schooling. why, because "trying" or *effort* as it's also called, is mildly predictive of life success.
i agree it appears badly to take test scores, then leave them aside as in the Ricci situation. fairer might be [assessment of] a pre specified blend of accomplishments, talents, achievement, efforts, opportunities available and taken AND prospects for the future. i say the latter since i don't want to defend any program that puts poorly qualified people into key positions. (Sotomayer, at this point, can scarcely be called that, notwithstanding Rush 'n all.)
arguably then, lessening the reliance on test scores, for targeted groups, makes sense and has a good outcome (at least in this case). incidentally i'd argue the same for 'poor whites' applying to top schools.
yes "trying" should count for something, as well as (partly) overcoming adverse circumstances including poor schooling. why, because "trying" or *effort* as it's also called, is mildly predictive of life success.
i agree it appears badly to take test scores, then leave them aside as in the Ricci situation. fairer might be [assessment of] a pre specified blend of accomplishments, talents, achievement, efforts, opportunities available and taken AND prospects for the future. i say the latter since i don't want to defend any program that puts poorly qualified people into key positions. (Sotomayer, at this point, can scarcely be called that, notwithstanding Rush 'n all.)
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
PURE
College Boards are normed using all kinds of people. The fund of questions is what every butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker who took the test got right. They dont norm tests using George Bush and Caroline Kennedy to set the standards.
You can bet that every step along the way some nice white person pressed their thumb hard upon the scale Sotomayor was measured by. A home run dont mean shit if you bat from 3rd base.
College Boards are normed using all kinds of people. The fund of questions is what every butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker who took the test got right. They dont norm tests using George Bush and Caroline Kennedy to set the standards.
You can bet that every step along the way some nice white person pressed their thumb hard upon the scale Sotomayor was measured by. A home run dont mean shit if you bat from 3rd base.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
note:
jbj: PURE
College Boards are normed using all kinds of people. The fund of questions is what every butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker who took the test got right. They dont norm tests using George Bush and Caroline Kennedy to set the standards.
You can bet that every step along the way some nice white person pressed their thumb hard upon the scale Sotomayor was measured by. A home run dont mean shit if you bat from 3rd base.
-----------------------------
hi jbj,
[see below] i wasn't talking about 'norms'. i was talking "to what extent do the sat's predict academic success." i don't think they do, very much. see, for example:
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080703153541361
US: SAT a poor predictor of academic success Geoff Maslen
06 July 2008
Issue: 0035
The SAT test commonly used by American universities and colleges to select students for entry is a poor predictor of how well the students will actually perform on campus, a new study has found. An analysis of a decade of research at the University of California has produced compelling evidence that the SAT does not identify the students most likely to succeed in college.
as far as 'thumb on the scale", i remind you that Princeton, like Yale [where gwb was admitted], LOWERS its test-score and hs grade [gpa] requirements for all alumni offspring. indeed, up untill the 60s, any son of an alum [-nice white person with BA from Princeton] could be admitted if they could be sure he wouldn't flunk out (could do C level of work).
=============
pure had said //college board scores are iffy as predictors of success. she graduated from Princeton magna cum laude, and did well at Yale Law School.//
jbj: PURE
College Boards are normed using all kinds of people. The fund of questions is what every butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker who took the test got right. They dont norm tests using George Bush and Caroline Kennedy to set the standards.
You can bet that every step along the way some nice white person pressed their thumb hard upon the scale Sotomayor was measured by. A home run dont mean shit if you bat from 3rd base.
-----------------------------
hi jbj,
[see below] i wasn't talking about 'norms'. i was talking "to what extent do the sat's predict academic success." i don't think they do, very much. see, for example:
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080703153541361
US: SAT a poor predictor of academic success Geoff Maslen
06 July 2008
Issue: 0035
The SAT test commonly used by American universities and colleges to select students for entry is a poor predictor of how well the students will actually perform on campus, a new study has found. An analysis of a decade of research at the University of California has produced compelling evidence that the SAT does not identify the students most likely to succeed in college.
as far as 'thumb on the scale", i remind you that Princeton, like Yale [where gwb was admitted], LOWERS its test-score and hs grade [gpa] requirements for all alumni offspring. indeed, up untill the 60s, any son of an alum [-nice white person with BA from Princeton] could be admitted if they could be sure he wouldn't flunk out (could do C level of work).
=============
pure had said //college board scores are iffy as predictors of success. she graduated from Princeton magna cum laude, and did well at Yale Law School.//
Last edited:
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
PURE
According to the studies, SAT scores are a better predictor of college success, than grades are, for blacks. The opposite is true for females, whites, and asians. That is, blacks benefit from grade inflation resulting from low expectations and political pressure. Females, whites, and asians work harder and out-perform the SAT.
I'm sure all kinds of people benefit from grade inflation.
According to the studies, SAT scores are a better predictor of college success, than grades are, for blacks. The opposite is true for females, whites, and asians. That is, blacks benefit from grade inflation resulting from low expectations and political pressure. Females, whites, and asians work harder and out-perform the SAT.
I'm sure all kinds of people benefit from grade inflation.
