Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Grievance Proxies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:37 AM
    Posts
    17,755
    Post Thanks / Like

    Grievance Proxies

    Grievance Proxies
    The College Board plans to introduce a new “adversity score” as a backdoor to racial quotas in college admissions.

    Heather Mac Donald
    May 16, 2019

    For decades, the College Board defended the SAT, which it writes and administers, against charges that the test gives an unfair advantage to middle-class white students. No longer. Under relentless pressure from the racial-preferences lobby, the Board has now caved to the anti-meritocratic ideology of “diversity.” The Board will calculate for each SAT-taker an “adversity score” that purports to measure a student’s socioeconomic position, according to the Wall Street Journal. Colleges can use this adversity index to boost the admissions ranking of allegedly disadvantaged students who otherwise would score too poorly to be considered for admission.

    Advocates of this change claim that it is not about race. That is a fiction. In fact, the SAT adversity score is simply the latest response on the part of mainstream institutions to the seeming intractability of the racial academic-achievement gap. If that gap did not exist, the entire discourse about “diversity” would evaporate overnight. The average white score on the SAT (1,123 out of a possible 1,600) is 177 points higher than the average black score (946), approximately a standard deviation of difference. This gap has persisted for decades. It is not explained by socioeconomic disparities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported in 1998 that white students from households with incomes of $10,000 or less score better on the SAT than black students from households with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. In 2015, students with family incomes of $20,000 or less (a category that includes all racial groups) scored higher on average on the math SAT than the average math score of black students from all income levels. The University of California has calculated that race predicts SAT scores better than class.

    Those who rail against “white privilege” as a determinant of academic achievement have a nagging problem: Asians. Asian students outscore white students on the SAT by 100 points; they outscore blacks by 277 points. It is not Asian families’ economic capital that vaults them to the top of the academic totem pole; it is their emphasis on scholarly effort and self-discipline. Every year in New York City, Asian elementary school students vastly outperform every other racial and ethnic group on the admissions test for the city’s competitive public high schools, even though a disproportionate number of them come from poor immigrant families.

    Colleges pay lip service to socioeconomic diversity, but that concept is inevitably a surrogate for race. Colleges have repeatedly rejected admissions schemes that purport to substitute socioeconomic preferences for racial preferences, on the ground that those socioeconomic schemes do not yield enough “underrepresented minorities.” Harvard admits richer black students with a lower academic ranking over poorer but more qualified white and Asian applicants; it admits more than two times as many middle-class blacks as “disadvantaged” blacks and confers no admissions preference to disadvantaged blacks compared with their non-disadvantaged racial peers.

    The SAT’s critics notwithstanding, no alternative measure of student capacity exists that better predicts student success. “Leadership,” “character,” “persistence”—all these earlier attempts to come up with a more politically palatable proxy for racial preferences are far less valid as a measure of academic capacity than the SAT. The College Board’s “adversity score” will be no different. And it will subject its alleged beneficiaries to the same problem as overt racial preferences—academic mismatch. Students admitted to a selective college with significantly weaker academic credentials than the school norm will, on average, struggle to keep up in their classes. Many will switch out of demanding majors like the STEM fields; a significant portion will drop out of college entirely. Had those artificially preferred students enrolled in a college for which they were academically prepared, like their non-preferred peers, they would have a much higher chance of graduating in their chosen field of study. There is no shame or handicap in graduating from a non-elite college. The proponents of racial preferences, like all “woke” advocates, claim to be against privilege. Yet those anti-privilege warriors adopt a blatantly elitist view of college, holding, in essence, that attending a name-brand college is the only route to life success.
    More.

    Students lose three ways with this scheme:

    1. Most unqualified students at competitive schools cannot overcome their lack of foundational knowledge and skill soon enough to make a difference. Some are literate at only the 6th grade level (if that) and many are at 4th grade level in math. Few have been taught critical thinking skills.

    Then there are the issues around time management, prioritizing some study subjects and times, review, and organizing information. These are all skills that kids should be building from around the 5th grade (without constant parental direction).

    If you have all these strikes against you, you will probably drop out before Christmas in your second year but you will pay for all that wasted time.

    2. If you are a hardship case, designated as part of an oppressed group, or have some other issue that makes your education more difficult AND your parent(s) taught you to work like a devil, read a lot, master skills, and redo shoddy work so that your college experience (academically) is on par or better than your more fortunate peers, there will be suspicion that you didn't acheive your rank on merit. It won't last forever (if you are smart and skilled) but it will be a bitter thing for some years.

    3. If you got a slot based on skin tone, hardship, genitals, or whatever but you are not qualified and you drop out, somebody who should have been in your class didn't get a shot there. That won't be a big deal to you but it probably would be to them and they are becoming more aware of it. Lawsuit aware of it.

    This system has to change. If merit means nothing, what person who has merit will continue to play this game? There's no upside.

    City Journal
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    More.

    Students lose three ways with this scheme:

    1. Most unqualified students at competitive schools cannot overcome their lack of foundational knowledge and skill soon enough to make a difference. Some are literate at only the 6th grade level (if that) and many are at 4th grade level in math. Few have been taught critical thinking skills.

    Then there are the issues around time management, prioritizing some study subjects and times, review, and organizing information. These are all skills that kids should be building from around the 5th grade (without constant parental direction).

    If you have all these strikes against you, you will probably drop out before Christmas in your second year but you will pay for all that wasted time.

    2. If you are a hardship case, designated as part of an oppressed group, or have some other issue that makes your education more difficult AND your parent(s) taught you to work like a devil, read a lot, master skills, and redo shoddy work so that your college experience (academically) is on par or better than your more fortunate peers, there will be suspicion that you didn't acheive your rank on merit. It won't last forever (if you are smart and skilled) but it will be a bitter thing for some years.

    3. If you got a slot based on skin tone, hardship, genitals, or whatever but you are not qualified and you drop out, somebody who should have been in your class didn't get a shot there. That won't be a big deal to you but it probably would be to them and they are becoming more aware of it. Lawsuit aware of it.

    This system has to change. If merit means nothing, what person who has merit will continue to play this game? There's no upside.

    City Journal
    I don't disagree with this analysis, other than the implication that it's unique to present circumstances. For many generations, the unqualified offspring of wealthy and/or powerful people were admitted to (and often graduated from) "top" schools, solely on the strength of money, skin color, class, genitals, and family name, to the exclusion of smarter, more capable students who lacked those attributes. People knew or suspected that the positions they were given upon completion of their education (or facsimile thereof) were awarded on the basis of attributes other than talent or skills.

    It's a matter of who gets the unearned advantage. And since, as you observe, we allow "affirmative action" candidates to fail - something that seldom happened with "legacy" preferences - the scale is not even close to being balanced.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:07 AM
    Posts
    10,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Denying reality is never a good thing. I understand that West Point graduated an historic number of black women. I hope that they got in there on merit, not color.

    Its one thing to do that kind of stuff for civilians, it could be disastrous for our country if they do it in the military.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Posts
    8,361
    Post Thanks / Like
    I deeply distrust this move. But I'd add a different argument than the "fairness" debate.

    The SA stands for Scholastic Aptitude. The test isn't an IQ test, or a predictor of professional success. It's simply meant to predict further scholastic success, as in post secondary ed, which is why it's a college admissions test, and not a qualitative evaluation of one's high school education, sort of a graduation grade.

    So what role does "adversity" play in predicting further scholastic success? Any?

    Are spoiled legacy students likely to waddle through with "gentleman's Cs"? Is that all the college wants? if their eye is on future alumni donations?

    Are students who have overcome "adversity" more likely to succeed scholastically?

    That last question is probably answered yes, but it would do the student a grave disservice to falsely measure what amount of material he or she has already mastered.

    My suggestion would be to have an adversity measure accompany the test score. Colleges can do with it what they want, but it shouldn't be hidden, merely an effort grade baked in.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Posts
    3,740
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    My suggestion would be to have an adversity measure accompany the test score. Colleges can do with it what they want, but it shouldn't be hidden, merely an effort grade baked in.
    I don't think that the college board should be doing this adversity score, but unless I misread the stories about it, it is a separate score.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    8,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who determines what "adversity" is?
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:37 AM
    Posts
    17,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    Celeste points out that legacies and some of the wealthy or famous have gained places or graduated under a system of privilege that is not based on ability and she's right - that has happened since the beginning.

    And everybody agrees that it is wrong. Even the parents, students, and administrative enablers would never proudly proclaim that Susie Cupcake only got her degree from X Institution because Daddy wrote a check. It might be true but nobody will admit it because they all know that it's wrong.

    Instead of expanding the pool of unqualified students, it makes more sense to limit or eliminate the ability to buy your way into and through the system.

    Conflating adversity points and academic talent doesn't do anybody any favors. We don't even have a way to codify adversity impacts other than through parental income. There are poor kids from sketchy backgrounds who are brilliant. There are middle class kids from enriched backgrounds who are dumb as a bag of hammers. A black kid with a single college-educated Mom who makes 6 figures working for the Federal government isn't a hardship case. The Asian kid with two parents who own a storefront and live in a marginal inner city area might be - especially if she spends her free time helping with the store or the siblings.

    There's just no way to know and no way to tie the indicators to academic achievement.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:21 AM
    Posts
    10,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's a reason the EEOC exists and it starts here. Remember? EVERYONE is EQUAL...…………… no matter WHAT...………….no one can achieve without Everyone getting that same trophy. Starts way back in babyhood.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:21 AM
    Posts
    10,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michele View Post
    Who determines what "adversity" is?
    The school, depending on what demographics they need to make themselves look good.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 16th, 2019 @ 10:23 PM
    Posts
    4,608
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michele View Post
    Who determines what "adversity" is?
    An excellent question. I can't think of an example of what I consider adversity that thousands of people don't overcome every day.

    There is a college in Appalachia dedicated to educating poor people in an area where young men went to work in mines at 14. Some of these young people come from homes made of scrap wood and tar paper, heated by a wood stove, some with running water and indoor plumbing, others without. The college actively scouts students who qualify whether their teachers promoted them or not. Surely these people are more disadvantaged than some kid who lives ten blocks from Capitol Hill in a Section 8 house with heat and air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and possibly cable television and internet. There is a diffrence between poor and dirt poor. There is a sense of permanency to dirt poor that has to be harder to break free from when you don't have major activist groups cheering you on. It should also be noted that people make disparaging remarks and jokes about "hillbillies" without compunction. I guess the reasoning is that if you are white then you don't have an excuse for being uneducated and poor.
    I'm thinking that once, in 1953, a group of interesting people just happened to be in a coffee shop at the same time and a great discussion of issues, ideas, and the meaning of life occurred. Since then we have been waiting at Starbucks for Lawrence Ferlinghetti to say something heavy.

  11. Likes 80zephyr, Gingersnap liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •