Restriction of range. People who get into top colleges are smarter than people who don’t, and have a narrower distribution of SAT scores that obscures the overall correlation. One analogy would be weight and football players. A 250lb linebacker may not be much worse than a 300lb one, but that doesn’t mean that weight is not correlated with football success. Your blithe assumption that SAT scores don’t matter (from a biased source at that) is like a scrawny 150-pounder claiming that weight doesn’t matter in football, charging the field, and getting clobbered.
Studies show that preparation has a small effect on actually changing scores.
Let’s look at this from another angle. Why do groups enjoy protections which individuals do not?
I personally sleep in on sundays. If my work requires me to be in on time on sundays, can I sue and require them to prove that their policy is necessary? Of course not! Now one might argue* that I can choose to alter my sleeping habits but a racial minority cannot choose to alter their race. But here’s the problem with using disparate outcomes as a basis for claims of discrimination: It doesn’t require any proof (as far as I’m aware, anyway. Correct me if I’m wrong) that the disparate outcome is the result of something beyond the control of the individuals whose outcome is unsatisfactory. So what if some aspect of a race or culture creates problems in the workplace? They are presented with a choice; They can either choose to make a change, or accept the disparate outcome. But it seems to me, laws like these give people the option of simply suing to get a better outcome rather than altering their own behaviour even when that’s the real cause of their unsatisfactory outcome. The fact that it gives this option only to minorities is somewhat beside the point, I think.
*I am not claiming anyone here IS arguing this, so please don’t cry strawman here.
For the moment you may take solace in having this gene set unnamed. Be careful; we are mapping the genome and the phenotypic expressions and I do not think it will remain unnamed. We have had this discussion on this board before, as you know.
I agree the government has an even firmer reason to protect underrepresented minorities in the interest of diversity, and it is for this reason I am in favor of race-based AA. It becomes sticky when the shoe is on the other foot…should we aim for diversity in the NFL or NBA or the USA track and field teams to help protect the poor whites who, of no fault of their own, are less capable than their black counterparts?
On the “there is no race front”: if we can’t define race at all, then we can’t have any disparate impact for a given race and we can’t have any race-based AA of any kind. If we can define it, then we take whatever THAT group is that’s being under-represented and we look at their performance. And if their performance is substantially inferior, then we make sure they are given equal or greater opportunity. If THAT group still underperforms, then their reason for underperforming is genetic, regardless of whether or not the rest of THAT group’s genes are more or less diverse, or whether THAT group is more or less related to itself genetically. As I’ve mentioned ad nauseum, all tall people have a different gene from all short people, and can be their own cohort with that difference being genetic even if all short people are completely unrelated to each other.
Finally, to Strassia’s point: “I have heard this many times and you seem to be implying that on a distribution of achievement or scores that the groups are almost completely separated. That a small deviation in the mean is proof that any given member of the group A is better than any given member of group B.”
The difference is not “a small deviation.” It is enormous. On the MCATs, as an example, after 4 years of college preparation, the score differences between black and white applicants are huge: 7 v 9.5 VR (Verbal Reasoning) and 7.6 v 10 BS (Biological Sciences), for example. http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgparaceeth08.htm
The notion that there are a handful of petty differences out there with skin color being the main one makes for nice little paradigms but those of us struggling to handle differences in the real world of academia recognize it is not a “small deviation.”
These are staggering differences considering that by the time kids apply to med school they’ve already had college preparation and for underrepresented minorites that preparation for getting ready for med school often involves a great deal of special care and attention directed at the black students in an effort to prepare more blacks for medicine.
Wrong. Your point is not even relevant to the studies mentioned. Did you even read the site? It talks about numerous studies, including ones involving schools other than top colleges.
Nice try though.
Don’t move the goalposts. You stated that these tests were predictive, not that the correlate (not that it matters anyway). In terms of your analogy, it would be like saying weight is predictive of football success. Would any knowledgeable person make this argument? BTW, weight is not correlated with football success anyway, even when you only consider NFL players. You probably couldn’t be an 150lb linebacker, but you couldn’t be a 450 linebacker either. However, you could do other things. Lamont Brightful (former DB-Giants) is 160lbs, and Kevin Lovell (former K-Falcons) is 150lbs. Plenty of players are under 200lbs, which is relatively normal for a person of their height.
It’s not an assumption, it’s a documented fact that SATs are a poor predictor of future academic success. It’s not that the test “doesn’t matter”, it just doesn’t measure what people claim it does.
You are welcome to counter with a cite if you’d like. Don’t shoot the messenger. The group may have a bias, but they quote reputable studies.
Weight doesn’t matter much in football, or at least, not as much as numerous other factors. Such an assertion only highlights your football ignorance. The fattest guy isn’t usually the best. In fact, weighing too much is a hindrance in most positions. I understand the (bad) point you are making, but your analogy is awful.
Correct, so you would admit that those who don’t prepare would have scores that do not reflect what they would have scored with preparation? If that is the case, then why do you assume that these tests are an accurate reflection of genetic potential when so many other things contribute to success?
Also, do you care to address the other points I made about presenting actual evidence of your opinion, or admitting you are a racist.
Not at all. You don’t understand how disparate impact laws work. If a job requires people of certain strength, and women tend not to be that strong, and the job tends to be populated by men rather than women, according to disparate impact laws, this is just fine. The laws do not presume, or try to create a situation in which, everyone performs equally given equal opportunity.
I wouldn’t say WASPS are oppressed, but disadvantaged white males have very little in the way of support. When women and certain types of minorities are chosen ahead of them to get admission, scholarships, and job offers then the effect is that they are put at a disadvantage. Standing outside looking down (in both meanings of the phrase) it’s simple to see white males as a monolithic block, but they are not. Some (I repeat some) of the current craziness we see on the right is a reaction to this.
I grew up poor, and though I tend to be liberal on most issues, affirmative action, quotas, and special support for women and minorities still put my teeth on edge. These non-race blind policies result in breaking the natural alliance between poor whites and poor blacks and fuel resentment.
Like you, I’d like to see affirmative action based on things like income, neighborhoods, whether anyone else in your family went to college, etc.
Of course not, for any individual physician if their quantitative scores and grades for identical curricula and training are the same as the next doctor to which they are being compared. Self-identification with any particular cohort is meaningless at an individual level. The quantitative scores loosely measure the ability to grasp, retain and regurgitate data. Grades often measure a qualities beyond that such as drive and work ethic (since grades are so subjective, obviously the only grades that can be compared with one another are grades within an identical class). Training is self-evident.
Where these are dissimilar, the answer is “yes” for any doctor being compared with any other doctor of any color. Medical licensure alone does not confer some sort of equality in performance. Students who are admitted with marginal records or who attend different training programs do not attain the same proficiency level. While the old joke that the lowest guy in the med class is still called “Doctor” is true, it’s not true that their performance is equal.
Howard and Meharry Colleges, for instance, have traditionally educated primarily black students. Their matriculating classes have about the lowest MCAT scores in the country: 7.5 at Meharry and 8 at Howard v. 11.2 at Vanderbilt and 10 at Georgetown, say). US Medical Schools: MCAT Scores and GPA
In 2003 the Hartford Courant wrote an article about how difficult it is for these historically black colleges to compete:
“A Courant analysis of disciplinary actions against doctors nationwide found, however, that both Howard and Meharry produce troubled doctors more frequently than most other schools - at rates about 10 times greater than the schools with the lowest numbers. The actions ranged from a simple citation to permanent license revocation for a range of misdeeds including medical incompetence, ethical lapses and criminal behavior.” http://www.ruralmedicaleducation.org/underserved/black_medical_schools.htm
The best medical schools, like the best colleges, tend toward having the best quantitative scores for their matriculants. Once a physician is out in practice, it’s very difficult to objectively quantify who is the “best.” I can say at a personal level I’m going to go the the one with the highest quantitative score for anything complex and the one with the best personality (and other qualities) for my personal physician.
How did you understand the core issue in the New Haven case?
As I understood it, part of the issue was that the disparate impact on black firefighters seeking promotion was taken as prima facie evidence the test must have been biased. The test was set up by the company to be free of cultural bias, was administered after an equal opportunity to prepare and filtered out only white (and one Hispanic) candidates for promotion. Because it had this disparate impact, it was not “just fine” at all according to many.
If one posits that the disparately impacted groups taking the test were disparately enabled, the test results make logical sense. But the law in this case presumes that everyone given equal opportunity will perform equally, and that therefore the exam itself must be faulty.
The firefighters won the lawsuit because the court found that everything on the test was justified as being relevant to the skills required for the job.
It’s my understanding that that sentence summarizes the most important point of the court’s reasoning.
Genes determine maximum potential; environment shapes how much of that potential is realized.
If I were given better training and opportunity I would be a better basketball player than I am today. I would not ever reach an NBA-level. I don’t have the genes for it.
When any standardized tests are administered on a broad scale, what is reflected in those tests is a combination of nurture and nature. If a gap narrows, it’s evident that the pool of examinees has changed because their nurturing has changed. Either they are completely different pools or perhaps the nurturing of a given group was improved–better schools, say.
If the gap is unable to be closed despite equivalent nurturing, then the remaining gap is due to genetic differences.
A common argument is that current IQ (and standardized testing) measurement differences are due entirely to nurturing differences. Unfortunately, no amount of nurturing effort has shown this to be the case.
But how well understood are the nurturing components of intelligence?
My position is that was you write is definitely possible and can’t be ruled out based on what we know today, but the interplay of environment and intelligence (as well as the definition of intelligence itself) is too complex to be conclusive about.
You are dodging the question. Since Blacks, on average, score worse on tests you feel are important, and because they are genetically deficient, why wouldn’t you assume that the average Black doctor is worse? A best college football player may be better than the worst NFL player, but it would be logical to assume the NFL player is gonna be better in the vast majority of cases.
The MCAT score is not very predictive of “both medical school performance and medical board licensing exam measures”. That being said it is still troubling that those two schools have such low standards across the board. Either way, where is the evidence of genetic inferiority. It’s obvious that you can point to several examples of unequal outcomes, what you haven’t done is give any evidence as to why you think this is due to genetics.
Again, troubling statistic, but it would need to be put in context to determine how much we should worry. Plus, you didn’t mention that the full version of that article suggested a few reasons for the disparity that have nothing to do with genetics.
So if Black doctors are dealing with Black and poor patients more often than other doctors, wouldn’t it make sense that they would have more complaints? Why do you feel these explanations are incorrect, or less compelling than your theory? Why don’t you think anyone else suggested that Blacks are genetically incapable to competing? Could it be because there is no evidence for that position?
As I said to athelas earlier, why don’t you just come out and admit you are a racist. There are certainly worse things you could be, and it would alleviate a lot of this nonsensical arguing if you would just come clean and admit your beliefs about Black inferiority is based on little more than faith. There is little science to back up your claims, so you can’t lay this dead fish at their doorstep. Your process just further demonstrates your desire to work backwards to justify your unsubstantiated claims.
Why do you think we can measure students (among others) at every other level with such accuracy, but we can’t measure physicians out in practice?
What does their personality have to do with their grasp of the science or their level of expertise? Don’t you think those kinds of biases could lead to many complaints against Black doctors?
ISTM that your position is unfalsifiable, since you are apparently going to attribute every measure that shows any meaningful difference to some sort of racism. That doesn’t make you wrong, but it’s not an argument for your position, and it certainly doesn’t make Chief Pedant a racist.
Howard’s average MCAT is 8.0, so is Wright State’s. And the universities in Puerto Rico are much lower. Does this have more to do with the racial make up of the students, and less with the quality of the universities?
Not asking you, brick, just thinkinkg I’d add on to what you said. But feel free to answer anyway.
Or just finally admit your are a racist who bases his/her belief in Black intellectual inferiority on faith and dubious science. There is a reason that mainstream society finds your views abhorrent and ill-though. It’s not because we are blind to reality, it’s because you have almost no proof.
Or is it because society wants and wishes that race would play zero role in things like intelligence? Because it feels icky.
Oh, please. You are guilty of the same thing. You are using as a basis of reality a world that comports to your wishes. Either race plays a role or it doesn’t. And their seems to be some evidence (no, not proof) that race does play a role, the same way it plays a role in physical endeavors. I think on your side what you’re offering is mainly “Well, it really wouldn’t be good to acknowledge that race plays a role in intelligence, so let’s just assume and insist that it doesn’t.”
And, it would be very helpful to the discussion if you didn’t keep trying to paint your adversaries in this debate as racist. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes: Here’s a question for you: do you acknowledge that different races share genetic tendencies that manifest themselves in physical attributes?
If so, how do you explain away the difference in size between say, Asians and Whites? Or the domination of track and field by blacks?