Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:45:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
796 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong
So if the ACT is discriminatory in favor of wealth or whiteness, then
it's wrong? Fine. I agree.
What about the more complex situation where it's a fairly good predictor
of success for white males of middle class or greater, but not for
others? What's the solution when looking for fairness?
> If we test people, shouldn't everyone
> take the same tests?
No. Not if the single test is not a valid predictor for some groups.
> making
> tests easier / different simply because of the pigment in your skin is
> wrong.
Well, we're in luck because that's not what's happening. First, you
seem to be operating under the assumption that alternative testing is
easier. That is probably not so. I'd want to analyze some numbers to
be sure, but I bet that's not the goal at all. Second, the pigment in
skin is a non issue. Race is a make-believe construct. (For clarity,
sex is not.) It is almost impossible to plausibly correlate anything in
educational psychology to skin color. It is very easy to correlate
success, drive, education, etc to socio-economic status.
> If minorities can't seem to handle a test like the ACT, then the
> schools they go to are horrible,
I want to be sure that you are saying what I think you're saying. You
are certain that if minorities score worse than white males on the ACT,
that the only possible explanation is poor schooling? What about in
exemplary schools? What if the stats still hold true?
What if it's not just a matter of higher v. lower scores for certain
populations, but (as in reality) that the test is a good predictor of
success (that is, that it correlates well with college GPA) for some
identifiable groups, but not for others. It is just plain obvious that
it's a useful tool for those in the first group and a stupid tool for
the others.
I even agree with you (if this is what you think) that a single
instrument would be better than multiple ones if it were equally valid
for all subjects. It would certainly make the stats easier to analyze.
But no such universally valid instrument has come forward.
> that is why I am for school choice, so
> parents can decide the track their kids can go. I am all for education,
> finding the best people, and helping out as many individuals as a market
> friendly environment can.
Me too. It just seems that you're only in favor of finding and helping
people who have an affinity for one particular kind of assessment
instrument. Why? What philosophical justification exists for holding
the ACT (or any other test) above others. Or even for holding a single
testing method - when it is essentially proven that people think, learn,
and perform in substantially different mental methods - over multiple
testing methods?
> However, this is not the issue here (And everyone has been jumping on me
Actually it is. You can tell by the fact that this is the issue we're
arguing about.
> This whole testing thing, IMO, is
> another way to go besides affirmative action, and I think it is wrong.
What do you mean when you say "go besides?" To essentially have a
program of affirmative action, but hide in legal mumbo jumbo?
I don't think that's what is happening. All a college cares about is
finding people who will succeed and spend money at their school. And
advertising as an indirect form of the above.
> Yes, but the issue here isn't that, is it? It is adopting tests
> targeting minorities to get them in,
Which part of the article indicates that the purpose is to get
minorities admitted? I thought it was to select people missed by the
normal selection process.
> > And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
> > different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
>
> Yes. For everyone.
Yes, but the more we assess, the more it costs. And believe me, it
costs a great deal. For many people, a single simple instrument is
sufficient to determine that they'll succeed. For those for whom this
is not true, the extra expense may be justified. Would it satisfy you
if the opportunity to participate in the extra testing were open to
everyone - even if it weren't the default? That seems like it might
address both sides of the issue.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Larry & all, This whole set of posting is off from what I am arguing about, which is affirmative action. I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong, in the context of jobs, education, etc. If we test people, shouldn't everyone take the same tests? (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
