I just want to note that when the Army tested white and blacks during the first world war, they found that Northern blacks, were more ‘intelligent’ than Southern whites. Now unless we are to believe that Southern whites are genetically different than Whites in the North; perhaps we should look at this genetic disposition to lower intelligence due to race, with a more critical eye.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some cultural loading on the initial IQ testing. However, remember that blacks were initially concentrated in the South as sharecroppers, and the great migration northwards was driven by the opportunities for industrial jobs. It is quite possible, even from a all-races-same perspective, that there was self-selection among those who migrated north, and their descendents. (It is also possible that better sanitation and lower disease burden environmentally increased their IQ, but that’s even more speculative. Certainly that is a factor in the intelligence scores of modern Africans, who test a further standard deviation below their American counterparts.)
But - I find it interesting that you have to reach back over a century, to talk about a science while it was in its infancy. Over the past thirty years pyschometricians have refined IQ tests carefully to elminate cultural bias. People tend to postulate cultural bias when they disagree with test results. (By the way, on the infamous “regatta” question, blacks did as well as whites.)
Do you have a cite and a metric for “post-education outcomes”? You know the old joke about what they call the guy who graduates at the bottom of the class at med school. Doctor.
Judging by the nature of the continuous debate within the scientific community that psychometrics engenders, I would submit that the discipline still has a long way to go.
[quote=“Maeglin, post:104, topic:498268”]
Judging by the nature of the continuous debate within the scientific community that psychometrics engenders, I would submit that the discipline still has a long way to go.[/QUOTE
Is it true that it engenders debate (no snark intended)?
I was under the impression that the debate was somewhat akin to the ‘debate’ about evolution or global warming.
I had assumed that psychometrics people had pretty much concluded that intelligence is real, measurable, a good predictor of competence on tasks that have some intellectual requirement (ie. most), largely inherited and that most of the criticism about the nature and existence of g comes from outside the scientific community.
Am I misinformed?
So then you’re saying the blacks who self-selected and moved North, were genetically more intelligent that the whites that stayed in the South? I 'm just trying to understand how you can explain why the Northern blacks, did better than the Southern whites.
If it is genetic, then you’re also saying that Southern whites are genetically inferior than Northern whites; because the Southerns scored less than that group as well.
Have the results changed? We are still using IQ tests to ‘prove’ that blacks are lesser than every other group on the planet. The reason why I like that cite is that it shows when the rot began, when we really started using IQ to determine the fate of entire groups of people. It shows that when confronted with his own results, Yerks ignored hand waved it away.
I think it shows that education and environment is the key factor to determining “IQ”, not the color of a person’s skin.
We know what the living conditions for the majority of blacks were at that time in history. We know that people truly believed that blacks were inferior, yet we have blacks from the North outscoring Southern whites, why?
If blacks were truly inferior then they should score less en mass against all whites, regardless of where they lived; but the Northerns outscored the Southerners. Going even furthers, All Northerners outscored all Southerners, regardless of race.
Why? That’s the question.
I am not perpared to believe that people who are in the North are genetically superior than those who live in the South, based on an IQ test; regardless of when it was taken. Are you?
Getting this discussion back on track, I have but one question:
What, Chief Pedant and mswas and others who are critical of the decision in the case, should the City of New Haven have done? Remember, the evidence at trial shows that, had the City used the results of the disputed test to establish a promotion list, they would have been sued under Title VII for having discriminated against the minority candidates. Such a suit would very likely have been successful, given the rules of the EEOC which we have discussed, not to mention the evidence that was before the City when they looked into the validity of the test. Y’all assert that they did the wrong thing by invalidating the test. What alternative do you propose?? :dubious:
Hmm, I was thinking of her and trying to figure out whether or not I had met any of her Doctors and whether or not they were black. Maybe I met him in passing, but I don’t recall.
It’s not that I don’t believe that there are good black Doctors only that it makes me nervous that the standards are lowered based upon race.
Right, but once admitted are they similarly coddled all the way through? I mean if a white pre-med student scores an 8.7 and cannot get into Yale or Columbia, but a black student scores a 7.7 and gets into Yale or Columbia, then is the rest of their experience similarly weighted?
No problem. Thank you for your reply as well
Correct. But how do you know there is a problem before the results start showing up?
True, but such a claim would have no basis under title VII on that evidence alone.
That is part of the standard. The disparate impact is the smoke, the testing flaws are the fire. We generally try to fight fires, but we still must investigate large unexplained plumes of smoke.
The last part is just not true. See my cite above. There was other evidence presented. I admit it’s hard to know how much, or how compelling the evidence was based on the few summaries I’ve been able to find, but I think we need to defer to the judges who were privy to all the information in context. More importantly, testing is not just about cognitive abilities. If it were, you would have a point.
All of these conclusions are based on phenotype rather than the underlying genetic makeup. They also completely disregard culture and environment. What you are really saying is that people who look, self-identify, and are presumably treated as Black, tend to do worse on tests (as a group) than people who look Asian/White. That is something I think most people can see is self-evident. The problem is that you assume the basis for this is genetic based on scant and dubious evidence, whereas most other reputable scientists, sociologists, and other professionals see that it is most likely to due various other factors. They conduct studies that tend to substantiate the belief that people are primarily social animals, and that testing, like behavior, morals, intellect, and thoughts, are molded more by social forces than they are by our genetic potential. That’s why individuals tend to live up or down to the expectations we have of them.
We know that even being around elderly people makes you walk and talk more slowly. Is it really that surprising that a group of people who have been systematically discriminated against and told they are genetically inferior by people like you tend to do worse than those who have undergone the opposite priming? Just look at the Hindu untouchables once they come to the US. In India, they are burdened with the social expectation of failure. Here, they are expected to do as well as other Indian people. If they had stayed in India, they might be digging ditches because they were thought of as genetically inferior, swarthy people worthy of contempt. Here, they can realize their potential because they are not as bound by negative cultural legacies.
Ok, but let’s look at the NBA/ABA/Professional Basketball Leagues of the past. Jews used to be heavily represented, now there is just Jordan Farmar.
Funny how the same thing now applies to Blacks (both in boxing and basketball). Unless you are arguing that biologically, Jews have become inferior over the last few decades, I don’t see where you are coming from. They went from dominating the sport to having one Jew in the today’s NBA in a matter of 65 years or so. Do you think this is genetic?
Blacks are overrepresented TODAY, just as Jews were in the 40’s. This isn’t genetics, it’s sociology.
You haven’t even begun to substantiate any of that. Let me ask you, what makes your conclusion any less laughable than Gallico’s when he said Jews were good at basketball because of their “smart-aleckness”?
I said to such it is a fool’s errand to attempt to do so with such precision. I don’t buy it that you can tell me person A is 15% smarter, better looking, or more clever than person B.
I agree. My problem isn’t solely with tests, it’s with the broad conclusions we draw from them. Do you really think every doctor who scored higher than you on a test is a better doctor than you? Nobody is talking about allowing incompetent people to practice medicine or design bridges, what I am saying is that once someone passes that threshold, it becomes harder and harder to justifiably rank them via testing.
I think you just misunderstand the law and how it is applied. Please re-read some of the opinions and some related cases.
Q-School (AFAIK) tests the skills directly related to the job which will be performed. The firefighters’ test was not. Here is what title VII says:
You can’t be in the PGA without being phenomenal at golf. The same does not apply to firefighters, particularly when many have testified that the test did not solely test things relevant to the job.
You’re probably right. However, I don’t think that makes your arguments any more valid because the current, conservative Supreme Court decides to reverse a decision.
But you have yet to prove your boldest assertion that genetics are the roots of this disparity.
No one is coddled through medical school. I can’t believe you are seriously asking this question. Maybe this is a whoosh?
Everyone takes the same tests. Everyone takes the same classes and rotations. Everyone takes the same board exams in order to become licensed. Everyone does residencies and internships.
It’s strange that you think a MCAT score might be better measure of a doctor’s competence when that is a test that is taken prior to one’s medical training, when all they know about intubation or suturing is what they’ve learned from watching ER. You’d be better off judging them based on their board exam score, since at least that test comes closer to measuring how knowledgable an actual physician is.
Even still, a doc who aces their board can easily suck in their profession if they have poor bedside manner, communicates poorly, freezes at the sight of blood, or doesn’t know how to get a thorough history from a patient because they are too arrogant to ask the right questions or listen. Not even a board exam can test for these things.
If things like SAT and MCAT scores were reliable determinants of anything worth sweating over, why don’t employers routinely use this information when evaluating potential employees? It’s because after schooling these things cease to matter. The only purpose entrance exams serve is to thin out the herd. The reality is that not everyone can go to Yale, not (just) because it’s hard but because there are only so many seats. Forcing people to jump through the SAT hoop simply saves admission committees precious time and energy.
you with the face Why is it so ridiculous to think that if they have lower standards for the MCAT that they don’t have lower standards across the board?
If black med students systemically had adjusted grades or were given tests different than white students, don’t you think you would have heard about this by now? How do you explain the absence of the expected outcry?
Your question is like asking whether man has mastered time travel yet. After all, we sent a man to the moon, so why not? The question itself reveals you very ignorant on how professional schools work. So it’s no wonder you think the MCAT is useful information with which to evaluate a physician.
Are engineering schools who let women in with lower SAT scores than males “coddling” them? And is it plausible to think that women are “coddled” throughout their engineering training with “lowered standards”?
Has it been demonstrated that such differences have resulted in Black being worse doctors? Do they kill or misdiagnose more people on average?
Because scoring lower on your MCATs doesn’t reliably determine how good a doctor you are going to be. I’ll give you an example. Say you are drafting a professional football all-star team. Would you rather use their high school stats, college stats, or current NFL stats to make your selections? Why would any logical person care about their college stats even if they played against inferior competition (like Div. II), or didn’t score as many touchdowns, or score as high on their wonderlic test? This is why almost no employer will ask you what your high school or college GPA was after a certain point. Many don’t even care where you went to school after you have demonstrated yourself in the field.
Because testing is useful in weeding the unqualified from the qualified. It is not so good at determining who is more qualified to do something amongst those who are particularly skilled or close in ability. It also is the basis by with we ration scarce things. We only have a limited number of spots, jobs, etc. so we use tests to justify our decisions. Do you think only 7.1% of Harvard applicants could hack it there this year, but 9% could last year?
Why? Is it because you are ignoring that those “lower standards” do not predict how good a doctor will be? In fact, no standards or barriers at all to enter medical school, and rigorous profession standards would produce the best doctors. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but high “standards” don’t ensure a higher level of competence, they often undermine it.
Blacks are overrepresented TODAY, just as Jews were in the 40’s. This isn’t genetics, it’s sociology…
But you have yet to prove your boldest assertion that genetics are the roots of this disparity.
[/QUOTE]
Let me just tackle these two for now.
It’s a common comeback for folks to point out the over-representation of Jews in the NBA in the remote past. The inference they are hoping will be drawn is apparently that it’s sort of the blacks’ turn now in the same way it was someone else’s turn in the past, and will perhaps be the Inuits’ turn in the future. This is bogus, and I’m pretty sure you know it is.
There is an enormous difference between today’s NBA, which is open to all comers who wish to try and get there, and has such enormous reward attached to it that all comers have it as their first choice of career if they have the potential, and the NBA of the 40’s, which was closed to blacks and didn’t have quite the same panache. You know that. And you know it’s silly to pretend the only reason blacks are so over-represented in the NBA is “cultural.” C’mon…give me a break. The culture of those millions of white boys trying from age 6 to get to the pros is somehow outweighed by the black culture? Whites have every conceivable advantage–coaching; money; time; nuclear families; medical care; facilities; camps; socially tighter networks; rides to games…you don’t need the list. It’s just inane to pretend the inferiority of whites (as a group average, remember) is anything but an inferior maximum potential. And genes determine that maximum potential. That a different ethnic group was over-represented in the past when the group with the highest potential was excluded from competing is meaningless. And if you need one more proof, take a look at some old basketball films and figure out for yourself who would kick whose a$$.
This thread is about the New Haven decision, and I have already sidetracked it too far into genetics and racial differences, I’m afraid. There are lots of threads discussing that subject, with few minds changed in them. It’s true that you won’t find many academics publicly in favor of my position. It would be career suicide and in general is anathema to our sense of fairness anyway, so the reason for black/white disparities will remain “elusive” for most of you. What you will find is that if you correct for income (children of rich blacks underperform children of poor whites on the SAT), culture (blacks adopted by whites underperform their white counterparts), opportunity (see the New Haven case and thousands of others), the gap is never closed. Draw your own conclusions. One by one the historic excuses are falling away.
The performance difference for blacks and whites persists into the post-medical school licensing exams (called the USMLE) and into the Specialty Board exams (these are usually 3-7 years post medical school). So ten to fifteen years out from entering college, with identical training over the prior ten to fifteen years, we still see a disparity on medical exams. There aren’t any effective ways to decide who is misdiagnosing and who is not; who is managing patients better than others. All we can say is who is able to show a better mastery of the material. And of course testing is not a sufficient criterion to establish a good doctor; the world is full of stupid or lazy clinicians who are good at tests.
At issue is not so much whether tests are good or bad predictors (although most of us have a better comfort level if our doctor was in the 99th instead of the 9th percentile) but why there is a difference. If all groups have equal potential, on average, and all groups have equal opportunity to learn exactly the same material, why is there any group-based performance disparity at all?
Well as of yet no one has addressed my concern that the lowered standards are not applied uniformly throughout the medical school.
Can you post cites for those assertions?
Yes, it’s not just plausible but it happens.
I’m in Australia ATM and will be in India shortly next month. In both countries women in technology courses at university are “coddled” in the sense that there are female-only mentoring programs available, female only training available, female only resources available (for example at my current university the equity organisation has new laptop computers available for long term loan that are available only to women). I should add that similar “coddling” is available for black students. See here for a starting point.
And I’ve been quite shocked to see how far some of this goes. I know of one case where the mentoring program involved the mentor getting her research assistant to completely re-write an assignment. I don’t know how common that is, but I do know that the mentors routinely correct assignments before they are submitted, and I have been asked to do this myself for one mentor. IOW minority students have their essays and so forth corrected by a post-doctoral researcher before they are submitted, an option not available to the vast majority of non-minorities. Mentors also give “substantial assistance” to things like appeals, the result being that their charges have far better chances of getting supplementary exams, not being excluded for poor performance and so forth.
So it’s not just plausible that women are coddled throughout their entire engineering training, I know that it happens. It’s not strictly speaking “lowered standards”, but when a freshman gets her essays re-written by a post-doc, or has the her mentor the dean recommend a supplementary exam after failure on the primary, the effect is the same.
Does this happen in the US? I don’t know. I haven’t had a lot of direct involvement with the US college system, and that was over a decade ago. Is it plausible that it happens? Hell yeah. There are all sorts of ways to effectively lower standards that don’t involve actually having to set different essays or exams.
That would be a good question, but you can’t seriously believe that all groups have equal opportunity to learn exactly the same material, can you? If someone has been raised in a two room apartment with 6 siblings, they never had the opportunity to learn effective study skills. How then can they have equal opportunity to learn exactly the same material as someone who was raise din a 26 bedroom mansion with a private soundproof study? Even if both are currently living in the same college dorm, they have different skillsets due to upbringing. Those different skillsets mean they can never have equal opportunity to learn
Note that I’m not arguing that this doesn’t make one group worse at their profession. But I reject entirely your suggestion that the difference is genetic rather than environmental.
Just did a quick Google search, and the first result is
“a nation wide Black Bag Mentoring Program lead by NMA members for medical residents and students with funding from the Health Research and Services Administration. The overall purpose of this program is to develop a greater number of African American residents and students who will become leaders in clinical and academic medicine. Our program will enable residents and students to interact with practicing physicians to gain knowledge about the field of medicine, their respective specialty and attend the NMA Annual meeting.”
Does this program result in “coddling”? I have no idea, but its certainly not totally implausible to think that it could. For that matter mswas could argue that enabling black residents and students to interact with practicing physicians when white students have no such program is coddling all by itself.