Racial standards in SAT and college admissions - ideal threshold?

[MandaJo]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well, shit. Nothing is THAT simple. But if you are going to replace a system that uses largely objective criteria with a system that uses largely subjective criteria because the objective criteria are imperfect, then I think you have to show that your subjective criteria are more perfect and not just different.

Replace a system? I’m talking about keeping the one we already have, more or less. If you want to get schools to stop looking at essays/rec letters/resume/interviews, you need to come up with an argument for why those things are less meaningful.

And it’s true that any system can be gamed, but that includes test scores. I teach English at a highly competitive academic magnet. I blended focused SAT prep into the English curriculum and in two years took our average score up 190 points–which was possible because my mostly poor and almost all minority students had, for the most part, not had the advantage of formal SAT prep. The kids three years ago were not less prepared for college, but they had lower scores.

@Shodan

They are good indicators of the qualititative differences between students. They say nothing about the source of those differences, but they are clearly demonstrations that differences exist.Because you have denied opportunities to students who are better qualified to take advantage of them. You are getting less bang for the buck, in other words.

They show a difference, but it’s not clear what the relationship that difference is to the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities. It’s especially not clear what the difference is at the upper ends of the range–I’ve taught a lot of high scoring kids, and there’s a difference between a kid who scores 1950 and a kid that scores 2310, but it’s not a difference that maps neatly onto “the skills you need to be successful in college”. On the old test, the difference in that range was knowing obscure vocabulary and being able to read a little more quickly (and possibly being a little better at seeing efficient ways to solve problems in math/less prone to careless error).*

Honestly, I think the gap between racial/ethnic groups at selective schools is less that schools are taking black/Hispanic kids who can’t hack it and more that they have so many high scoring white applicants that they are using it as an almost arbitrary filter for that group. Somewhere like Stanford could put in a ceiling–we aren’t going to take anyone with over a 2000–and STILL have enough talented, qualified applicants to make up a class as successful, as talented, as prepared as the one they have now.
*The new SAT is a much better test, I think, and may do a better job, but it’s still problematic.

[Shodan]

@MandaJo

They show a difference, but it’s not clear what the relationship that difference is to the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities.

SAT scores correlate pretty strongly to academic success in post-secondary education, IIUC. That’s what I meant by the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities. Also drop out rates, how long it takes to graduate, and probably some other factors I forget about.

It’s especially not clear what the difference is at the upper ends of the range…

We aren’t comparing those at the top end with each other - the comparison is between those who are let in based on a minimum standard vs. those who are let in who are below that standard.

Honestly, I think the gap between racial/ethnic groups at selective schools is less that schools are taking black/Hispanic kids who can’t hack it and more that they have so many high scoring white applicants that they are using it as an almost arbitrary filter for that group. Somewhere like Stanford could put in a ceiling–we aren’t going to take anyone with over a 2000–and STILL have enough talented, qualified applicants to make up a class as successful, as talented, as prepared as the one they have now.

I’m not following you. The only ceiling I know about is one on race, not SATs - “we are getting too many Asians”, as discussed in another GD thread.

If you mean you have to have higher SATs to get into Stanford if you are white or Asian, sure, I agree, but that is unfair.

I can’t imagine a university saying “you scored too high on your SATs - we don’t want you”. Sure, they could do that, and then no doubt they would be more diverse because all the high-scoring Asians and whites would go somewhere else. But I suspect it would have an unfortunate effect on their reputation. Unless, as I said, I didn’t understand you. If so, I apologize.

Regards,
Shodan

[brickbacon]

@Shodan

They are good indicators of the qualititative differences between students.

Actually they are not. You have to get to a pretty stark difference in test scores to notice any reliable differences, and even then, it’s not something you’d necessarily want to bet on. It’s more akin to the correlation between height and basketball skill than it is an actual reliable quantitative relationship.

@Shodan

You are also, by systematically overmatching less-qualified students at more competitive universities, set the less-qualifed up to fail.

Again, the mismatch is not accepting by the vast majority of people who study the issue, so your concern is misguided.

But even if that were the case, why do you care? Do you worry about whether Apple is hiring the best engineers or if the various ambassadorships go to the most deserving people? Are you equally annoyed every time a “more qualified” player is cut from an NBA roster, or when a well-regarded TV show is canceled when lesser TV shows get renewed? Again, setting aside the fact that your argument doesn’t seem to be based on facts, why do you care so much who Harvard decides to accept?

[MandaJo]

@Shodan

SAT scores correlate pretty strongly to academic success in post-secondary education, IIUC. That’s what I meant by the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities. Also drop out rates, how long it takes to graduate, and probably some other factors I forget about.

It’s not a great correlation. From the college board:

The SAT Benchmark score of 1550 (critical reading, mathematics and writing sections combined) indicates a 65 percent likelihood of achieving a B- average or higher during the first year of college.

So, the College Board itself sets 1550 as the score that indicated a kid has the fundamental skills to go to college, and even their own research shows it’s okay but not great at predicting college success.

I don’t know of any research that shows that very high scorers (2250+) outperform high scoring kids (1850+) in college.

We aren’t comparing those at the top end with each other - the comparison is between those who are let in based on a minimum standard vs. those who are let in who are below that standard.

Yes, we are. My understanding is that we are talking about the gap at selective institutions–places where the average Asian has a 2250 and the average African American has an 1850 or whatever. All those are kids at the upper ranges. And it’s quite possible that all those kids meet the “minimum”. It’s just some kids exceed it by a lot more than others.

I’m not following you. The only ceiling I know about is one on race, not SATs - “we are getting too many Asians”, as discussed in another GD thread.

If you mean you have to have higher SATs to get into Stanford if you are white or Asian, sure, I agree, but that is unfair.

I can’t imagine a university saying “you scored too high on your SATs - we don’t want you”. Sure, they could do that, and then no doubt they would be more diverse because all the high-scoring Asians and whites would go somewhere else. But I suspect it would have an unfortunate effect on their reputation. Unless, as I said, I didn’t understand you. If so, I apologize.

My point is that they get so many white/Asian kids who are qualified that they use SAT scores as a way to cull the herd, not because the kids with 2300’s are so much more qualified, but because it’s easy and because to some people that seems “fair” because those kids are “smarter”. So if they did set a ceiling, and looked only at their second layer of white/Asian kids in terms of test scores, and chose from that pool, the class they’d end up with would also be qualified and talented and prepared and fully ready to take advantage of whatever opportunities they were given.

[Shodan]

@MandaJo

It’s not a great correlation. From the college board:

So, the College Board itself sets 1550 as the score that indicated a kid has the fundamental skills to go to college, and even their own research shows it’s okay but not great at predicting college success.

Which kind of demonstrates the issue - average SAT scores for Asians is 1654, for whites it’s 1576, and for blacks it is 1277. Cite. So if 1550 is the minimum you are going to admit a whole lot of Asians and whites who will succeed (based on their SAT scores), and not a lot of blacks, a lot of whom are going to not succeed.

My point is that they get so many white/Asian kids who are qualified that they use SAT scores as a way to cull the herd, not because the kids with 2300’s are so much more qualified, but because it’s easy and because to some people that seems “fair” because those kids are “smarter”. So if they did set a ceiling, and looked only at their second layer of white/Asian kids in terms of test scores, and chose from that pool, the class they’d end up with would also be qualified and talented and prepared and fully ready to take advantage of whatever opportunities they were given.

If you set 1550 as the ceiling, you are still going to get the same problem as before - the Asians and whites will out-perform everyone else.

You could set a ceiling for whites and Asians, but that just transfers the problem of lack of diversity to other schools that prefer not to recruit from the bottom. Then employers can decide who to recruit - Bill or Vijay or Chang, who graduated from an academically demanding school, or Leroy or Rahman who graduated from Mediocrity U., and it took them five years.

Regards,
Shodan

[MandaJo]

@Shodan

Which kind of demonstrates the issue - average SAT scores for Asians is 1654, for whites it’s 1576, and for blacks it is 1277. Cite. So if 1550 is the minimum you are going to admit a whole lot of Asians and whites who will succeed (based on their SAT scores), and not a lot of blacks, a lot of whom are going to not succeed.

But that’s not where the gap is. When people talk about the troubling gap between races in college admissions, they are talking about at competitive, selective schools–and all those kids are well above average. The issue is not that black kids are getting into community colleges and tertiary state schools with a 1277–everyone gets in there–it’s that black kids are getting into MIT with a mere 2000 while white and Asian kids are not getting in with 2250s.

If you set 1550 as the ceiling, you are still going to get the same problem as before - the Asians and whites will out-perform everyone else.

You could set a ceiling for whites and Asians, but that just transfers the problem of lack of diversity to other schools that prefer not to recruit from the bottom. Then employers can decide who to recruit - Bill or Vijay or Chang, who graduated from an academically demanding school, or Leroy or Rahman who graduated from Mediocrity U., and it took them five years.

I’m not sincerely suggesting a ceiling. I’m merely suggesting that there are many, many qualified white and Asian students with SAT scores in the range of the black students, but they don’t get admitted not because they aren’t qualified, but because of an arbitrary preference for high SAT scores even though exactly what those mean is not clear.

[MandaJo]

And to further my point-- you speak of " Mediocrity U". At highly selective schools, 75% of all students score above 2000 on the SAT. If one of those schools instead took the second set of kids, so that their average score, instead, was 2000, I don’t think you’d see a drop in the quality of graduates. They are ALL highly qualified. There is a shameful glut of highly qualified kids.

[brickbacon]

Did you honestly expect anyone to fall for this? You initially said:

@Shodan

SAT scores correlate pretty strongly to academic success in post-secondary education, IIUC.

When it was pointed out to you that you were in fact WRONG, and that the College Board themself doesn’t even make that claim, you move the goalposts to talk about disparate scores between racial groups?

@Shodan

Which kind of demonstrates the issue - average SAT scores for Asians is 1654, for whites it’s 1576, and for blacks it is 1277. Cite.

Funny you didn’t quote the article which elaborates on what you said with the following:

Much of the criticism from colleges has been about fears that the SAT scores seem to reflect family income, and that, on average, black and Latino students receive significantly lower scores than white and Asian students do.

But despite these efforts, the pattern with regard to family income remained the same. In each of the three parts of the SAT, the lowest average scores were those with less than $20,000 in family income, and the highest averages were those with more than $200,000 in income, and the gaps are significant. In reading, for example, the average for those with family income below $20,000 is 433, while the average for those with income of above $200,000 is 570.

The above highlighting the overlapping concern that these tests are too prone to preparation and outside variables.

[Chief_Pedant]

@brickbacon

*"Much of the criticism from colleges has been about fears that the SAT scores seem to reflect family income, and that, on average, black and Latino students receive significantly lower scores than white and Asian students do.

But despite these efforts, the pattern with regard to family income remained the same. In each of the three parts of the SAT, the lowest average scores were those with less than $20,000 in family income, and the highest averages were those with more than $200,000 in income, and the gaps are significant. In reading, for example, the average for those with family income below $20,000 is 433, while the average for those with income of above $200,000 is 570."*

The above highlighting the overlapping concern that these tests are too prone to preparation and outside variables.

The income disparity of races does not explain the differences in SAT scores, although it is a popular misconception that it does. Black students from highly privileged backgrounds for income and parental education score barely on par with whites from poverty backgrounds and poor parental education.

Looking specifically at income as an explanation:

*"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000."*

There isn’t a way to get diversity for blacks without (de facto, at least) race-based quotas because there is no known program, preparation, income level, or socioeconomic level that can be adjusted for, such that black scores for a given tier approach white scores (much less asian scores).

The approach to diversity for blacks needs to be to have a certain number of set asides for that race group, and then let a school compete for the best black students it can find to fill the black quota. Without that in place (at least informally), you would get a markedly lopsided representation since, at every socioeconomic tier and measurable background privilege, blacks would markedly underscore whites and asians.

This is the central argument of U Texas in Fisher (in front of SCOTUS now). U Texas can fill its black diversity needs using the 10% rule because schools are functionally segregated by race. But U Texas wants high-quality black students and cannot get them from inner city schools. Within every race group, income and test scores always correlate together for any given income tier. However if U Texas reaches out to blacks from privileged backgrounds, their scores are woefully below those of their SES peers; as noted above they are barely on par with poverty stricken whites, much less thier socioeconomic peer group. So U Texas needs to assign to blacks a special race-alone consideration so that the population of black matriculates can be stronger black students. Without that, the matriculated black students from the 10% rule are very weak academic performers once mixed in with whites and asians. They go from top tier in high school to bottom tier in college.

[Shodan]

@brickbacon

When it was pointed out to you that you were in fact WRONG, and that the College Board themself doesn’t even make that claim, you move the goalposts to talk about disparate scores between racial groups?

I’m not wrong, and no goalposts have been moved. SAT scores correlate strongly to academic success, and we were talking about affirmative action.

The above highlighting the overlapping concern that these tests are too prone to preparation and outside variables.

I already addressed that - SAT scores say nothing about the reasons for the difference, only that it exists and persists.

Regards,
Shodan

[brickbacon]

@Shodan

I’m not wrong, and no goalposts have been moved. SAT scores correlate strongly to academic success, and we were talking about affirmative action.I already addressed that - SAT scores say nothing about the reasons for the difference, only that it exists and persists.

Regards,
Shodan

You are clearly wrong about it being a strong correlation. Once again, even the college board doesn’t claim this.

[Shodan]

No I’m not. The college board claimed that 1550 was the minimum score. The average white and Asian student scores higher; the average black scores below that. The average black student does worse than the average white or Asian student, which is a result correlating to their SAT scores.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

[brickbacon]

@Shodan

No I’m not. The college board claimed that 1550 was the minimum score. The average white and Asian student scores higher; the average black scores below that. The average black student does worse than the average white or Asian student, which is a result correlating to their SAT scores.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

Again, you said:

@Shodan

SAT scores correlate pretty strongly to academic success in post-secondary education, IIUC.

Which is, once again, false. Your current claim, which has nothing to do with the initial one, is also nonsense. Why? Because these averages have almost no bearing on the issue of racial preference at schools. As was already carefully explained to you by Manda JO:

But that’s not where the gap is. When people talk about the troubling gap between races in college admissions, they are talking about at competitive, selective schools–and all those kids are well above average. The issue is not that black kids are getting into community colleges and tertiary state schools with a 1277–everyone gets in there–it’s that black kids are getting into MIT with a mere 2000 while white and Asian kids are not getting in with 2250s.

So, once again, you are out of gas on this one. Not that I expect you to acknowledge it as you very rarely demonstrate any intellectual honesty.

[Shodan]

No, again, I am not wrong. The gap does not occur only at select schools. In higher education in general, blacks tend to under-achieve as compared to whites.

Facts are inconvenient things, but they are still facts.

Regards,
Shodan

[MandaJo]

@Shodan

No, again, I am not wrong. The gap does not occur only at select schools. In higher education in general, blacks tend to under-achieve as compared to whites.

Facts are inconvenient things, but they are still facts.

Regards,
Shodan

But the complaint about affirmative action/taking up slots only applies at selective schools because the other schools* don’t have competitive admissions*.

It’s also a fact that a 65% chance of predicting whether or not you’ll maintain a B- average is not highly predictive of college success. That’s not much better than a 50/50 shot.

It’s also a fact that SAT scores in very unprepared students can often be shifted a couple hundred points by teaching them strategies and a little bit of content, but you continue to hold to the argument that SAT measures some deep inherent quality of college readiness representing the whole of their educational experience. And it’s also a fact that poor students have a lot less access to that prep than upper-middle class kids.

[Chief_Pedant]

@MandaJo

It’s also a fact that SAT scores in very unprepared students can often be shifted a couple hundred points by teaching them strategies and a little bit of content…

Whose fact is this? A fact from commercial companies who compare SAT scores of those who take their prep v not? LOL.

Here’s another opinion on the effect of SAT prep:
“For students that have taken the test before and would like to boost their scores, coaching seems to help, but by a rather small amount. After controlling for group differences, the average coaching boost on the math section of the SAT is 14 to 15 points. The boost is smaller on the verbal section of the test, just 6 to 8 points. The combined effect of coaching on the SAT for the NELS sample is about 20 points. The effect of coaching is similar on comparable sections of the ACT.”

Rich kids do better than poor kids, and while one argument is better preparation of all kinds, including schooling advantages, another is a fundamental difference in inheritable skillsets that make middle and upper classes successful in the first place.

In any case, for admission purposes, you have to let each race group compete only against that race group since each performs so disparately against the next group even when adjusted for income.

Rich black students score barely on par with poverty-stricken whites on the SAT.

[Chief_Pedant]

@MandaJo

But the complaint about affirmative action/taking up slots only applies at selective schools because the other schools* don’t have competitive admissions*.

It’s also a fact that a 65% chance of predicting whether or not you’ll maintain a B- average is not highly predictive of college success. That’s not much better than a 50/50 shot.

Grades are a very weak way of tracking “success” in college. Not only are they highly subjective; a grade in Physics at a selective school v grade in The Impact of Comics on Social Stratification at a weak school is a meaningless comparison.

What does correlate highly with the SAT, is performance on all of the subsequent standardizable evaluations that drive real academic success–and with it, access to higher levels of careers. Every job with significant income except purely entrepeneurial ones has a standardized screen in it somewhere. Professional jobs; government roles; industry jobs. The smart kids who do well on the SAT are the same ones who do well on those other standardized tests–even if it’s just a content exam to be eligible for promotion in the city fire department. This is why, all along the academic and career path, we need to segregate by race to get to any sort of diversity representation. The average performance by race remains permanently disparate throughout careers. It doesn’t go away just because you get kids into the same academic programs.

Kids with aptitude for the SAT are the same ones with aptitude for all the test after that. There’s no “catchup” for race-based groups once preparation opportunities are normalized.

[Magiver]

@MandaJo

Again, it’s about meeting the minimum.

it’s about meeting a quota.

@MandaJo

No one should be let in who can’t handle the work, but in a lot of schools, a kid who got a 1750 is not less capable than a kid who got a 2310

That’s like saying a person who shoots 70% free throws is as qualified as someone who shoots 80% and should therefor be on the team based on ethnicity.

All you’re doing is making excuses for discrimination and promoting a lower standard of achievement.

[Octarine]

@Chief_Pedant

Whose fact is this? A fact from commercial companies who compare SAT scores of those who take their prep v not? LOL.

Total anecdotal evidence time, but I’m a junior in high school who got my SAT scores (from the last “old” test administered) back yesterday, so I figure I’ll chime in here. By studying a rather thin “SAT grammar” book for about two weeks, I was able to raise my writing section score over 100 points (670 to 790). Not trying to stealth brag, because I’m NOT a genius - it’s just that the SAT is an extremely predictable test, with noticeable patterns that, if you have the resources, you can quickly exploit. If the SAT was truly some quantitative measure of innate intelligence, you wouldn’t be able to raise your score so easily.

I don’t have a firm opinion on AA, because I can see both sides, but I have an East Asian friend who keeps on talking about how she’s going to take the picture she sends out to colleges carefully, because she wants to look white. She’s 16. That makes me sad.

[MandaJo]

@Magiver

it’s about meeting a quota.

The question was “what should schools do?” and my answer was “they should worry about meeting a minimum”. So it’s not clear who you think you are speaking for there.

That’s like saying a person who shoots 70% free throws is as qualified as someone who shoots 80% and should therefor be on the team based on ethnicity.

All you’re doing is making excuses for discrimination and promoting a lower standard of achievement.

No, it’s like saying once someone is over 6’7" or so, additional height is a lot less important than other factors–like whatever skills and qualities the team is otherwise lacking–and that it behooves a manager to build the best team, not just a bunch of individuals with the numerically highest data behind them.

Have you taken an SAT in the last 20 years–including observing the time frame? Have you seen the skills it emphasizes? They don’t map closely onto “what you need to be successful in college” (the new one may be a little better). They are pretty good tests. They are not perfect.

As an analogy: I work in a high school that does selective admissions. We are highly competitive. We use like 10 different assessments–some standardized, some developed in house–to make our decisions. And there is a surprisingly weak correlation between performance at school and how they did on any of our criteria. Certainly no one criteria is anything like predictive. We do know that there are certain lower limits on certain assessments that are important: we need fundamental math ability to be there. But we’ve had many, many kids come in who just barely met that minimum and went on to be top scholars by any criteria. And we’ve had plenty with test scores that were just amazing who went on to be meh.