Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label SAT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAT. Show all posts

Monday, December 5, 2022

The Futile Quest to Protect Racial Diversity

In June of 2023 the Supreme Court will render its decision regarding the legality of racial preferences in higher education. Considering recent rulings, the Court is likely to ban outright or at least severely limit these preferences. Will the Court thus end racial preferences? Unlikely -- the passion for “diversity” (i.e., admitting less-qualified minorities) -- seems hard-wired in today’s elite universities and, more telling, American higher education has long prepared for this dreaded day. Their strategy is straightforward:  since legal proof of discrimination depends on statistical evidence across racial groups, just eliminate tests like the SAT that expose biases.

The latest installment of messenger shooting is a pronouncement from the American Bar Association permitting law schools to drop the LSAT in the admissions process beginning in fall 2025. No doubt, other subterfuges, for example, eliminating class rankings, are being contemplated. University administrators thus resemble criminals scrubbing the crime scene for any evidence of their wrongdoing. How can you sue universities for racial discrimination if everything is murky and ill-defined? For schools prizing diversity über alles, mission accomplished, or it would seem...........To Read More...

My Take - Diversity without accomplishment is philosophy without form and incompetence without consequence. 

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

The Daily Chart: Latest SAT Scores by Race

by Steven Hayward in The Daily Chart 
 
From Mark Perry, the latest SAT scores by race. No wonder elite colleges are racing to get rid of the SAT, LSAT, and other aptitude tests (which the higher education establishment initially invented), and are turning on the idea of meritocracy itself.

 

Friday, June 11, 2021

Keep the Tests

Critics overstate the flaws of the SAT and ACT—and understate their merits. 

The standardized test has slowly lost its pride of place in college admissions over the past decade. By 2019, the number of schools going test-optional had risen to 1,050. The pandemic has catalyzed this trend, with at least 1,400 colleges in 2021 making the move to test-optional. College systems around the country are now permanently eliminating the requirement for the SAT and ACT; the University of California system is doing away with the tests altogether.

Critics argue that standardized tests are really “wealth tests” that measure affluence more than achievement. They propose a more “holistic” admissions process—assessing prospective students as persons rather than as a compilation of numbers. But the purported flaws of the SAT and ACT are overstated—often vastly so.

It’s true that test scores are positively correlated with socioeconomic status. This also holds true, however, for two “holistic” alternatives: grades and personal essays. High school grade inflation is more common in schools with affluent student bodies, and research indicates that the content of applicants’ personal essays is even more positively correlated with income than standardized tests.

Moreover, tests may be harder for the affluent to game than grades and personal essays. Wealthy students have greater access to tutors and test-prep classes to boost scores, but much of the literature shows only modest gain from these efforts; one study showed a benefit of only 10 to 20 points (out of 1,600) for the SAT, and only a single point (out of 36) for the ACT. For most test takers, this difference probably isn’t large enough to affect their admissions. (However, a 2008 NACAC survey suggests that test prep and tutoring has a greater effect for the highest-scoring test-takers.)

Wealth clearly confers advantages for some students, but these benefits extend across all admissions categories, not just test prep. Affluent students enjoy an edge in academic preparation and in teacher quality. Students at elite private schools and high-performing public schools are also likelier to benefit from more direct help from counselors and more interest from college recruiters.

Yes, colleges should judge students as more than just a compilation of numbers, but research shows that those numbers still matter a great deal. Test scores predict not only college GPA but also a student’s choice of major and future career accomplishments. The gradual shift away from meritocracy is likely to weaken confidence in the integrity of the admissions process by making acceptance to a school seem even more dependent on the subjective opinions of admissions officers—working against the stated goals of holistic admissions advocates, ironically, by further depersonalizing applicants.

A shared understanding of merit is necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the college admissions system. Standardized tests are one of the closest approximations we have to a uniform metric. Devaluing them or getting rid of them entirely will make college admissions more, not less, obscure.

Photo by Carlos Chavez/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

 

Friday, June 14, 2019

How Bill Gates Destroyed the SAT

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Wednesday, June 12, 2019 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Standardized testing is the engine of meritocracy. When the College Board standardized testing through the SAT, it introduced merit to an educational system where status was determined by family history.

A poor immigrant who studied hard and worked hard might have a shot at the best schools in the
land.

Over a century later, the College Board has announced that the Scholastic Assessment Test will include an adversity score based on zip codes that purports to measure the social environment of the student.

After nearly a century of trying to measure intelligence, instead of class, the SAT will collude in a college admission system where class overwhelms merit to a degree unseen since 18th century Harvard.

The latest assault on standardized testing assumes that the individual student should be defined by the income, education and family averages of his zip code, more than by his actual skills and learning in a complete reversal of the entire purpose of the SAT and the meritocratic work of the College Board.

Ironically, the College Board fell victim to the success of a college dropout from a wealthy family.

William Henry Gates III, more commonly known as Bill Gates, has wielded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a tool for wrecking education with Common Core and has hijacked the College Board, which began as a conclave of elite college leaders, into pursuing his radical social and political agendas.

The downfall of the College Board began when it picked David Coleman, a Gates alumnus who had played a significant role in writing Common Core standards, as its new president. Coleman, a Rhodes Scholar, the son of a Bennington College president and New School dean, had degrees from Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. By the age of 25, he was working at McKinsey as an educational consultant.

The rest of the story was an escalator ride through the consulting industry that destroyed education.

Coleman’s interviews are littered with claims of wanting to teach in public school, but instead he built a consulting firm that scored contracts with public schools. The consultancy was acquired by the McGraw-Hill behemoth, and Coleman moved on to founding a non-profit, with funding from the Gates Foundation, where he played a key role in creating the Gates-approved Common Core standards.

In 2012, Coleman became the president of the College Board. Even though the professional educational consultant had never actually taught, he had been put in charge of school and then college standards.

A year later, Stefanie Sanford, the Gates Foundation’s policy director, was brought on as the Board’s head of policy, erasing the distinctions between Gates and the College Board, already funded by Gates.

Stefanie’s official mission was pursuing “equity” in education on behalf of minority students.

The collapse of SAT standards began with the official Gates hijacking of the College Board. The new dumbed down test reduced the number of multiple-choice answers, eliminated penalties for guessing, disposed of many vocabulary words, and made the essay portion optional.

And, most importantly, from the Gates Foundation perspective, it integrated with Common Core.

“It was a bad year, and I’m sorry,” Coleman admitted in 2016. “It is no good to have vision if you don’t deliver.”

The new SAT rollout had been a disaster, but Coleman ricocheted from one disaster to another. A year later, the College Board wrapped up testing its Overall Disadvantage Level, or the adversity score

The level or score is a bad idea implemented in the most ridiculous way possible.

The adversity score uses high school and zip code information to depict students as advantaged or disadvantaged based on statistical averages. The number of students getting free lunches, literally and perhaps metaphorically, at a high school, tells administrators nothing about this individual student.

Crime rates and housing prices are even more useless, especially in dense urban areas where good and bad neighborhoods can overlap. A white student growing up in a gentrified part of Manhattan or the Bronx could be rated as disadvantaged. Meanwhile a middle-class black student moving into a decent neighborhood would be rated as advantaged. And, worst of all, the ratings are hidden from everyone.

Qualities like adversity are inherently unquantifiable. No test can measure the life you’ve lived or the challenges you have overcome. Instead they measure the skills and discipline you have learned.

We don’t measure people’s achievements by their bios, but by what they can actually do.

Beyond the terrible implementation of a terrible idea, a staple of the educational disasters wrought by Bill Gates, who has done for education what he did for operating systems, and David Coleman, is the larger philosophical problem. And Coleman, who has a degree in ancient philosophy, ought to be able to understand that, even if he doesn’t seem to understand how students learn or how tests operate.

The core criticism of the SAT is that wealthy parents can afford to spend more on test prep.

(Despite the College Board’s supposed hostility to test prep, its leadership is filled with Kaplan vets.)

The most aggressive users of test prep courses are the ‘Tiger Moms’ who spend fortunes to see to it that their children get into the best possible schools. Between 15% and 30% of Asian students took test prep courses and experienced significant gains. Only 10% of white students, the whipping boys of standardized testing, took test prep courses, and they only gained 12 points. Meanwhile 11% of Hispanic and 16% of black students took test prep courses and posted larger gains than the white students.

The SAT isn’t rigged by wealthy white students taking test prep courses. Instead Asian students aggressively compete for a limited number of slots due to discrimination in higher education.

Chinese students are paying as much $60,000 just for a shot at getting into an elite college.

Opponents of standardized testing helped take the test prep industry to a new level when they insisted on making copies of old SAT tests public. Transparency has made it a lot easier to game the system. If lefties are unhappy that Chinese students can get the lay of the land before they fly to Hong Kong to take the SAT, they have Ralph Nader and their own campaigns against standardized testing to blame.

Opponents of standardized testing, teachers’ unions, social justice activists, and Coleman, claim that such tests are unfair because wealthier students have more resources. That’s true. Like democracy, standardized testing is the least fair admissions criteria for higher education, except for all the others.

The alternative to measuring merit through standardized testing is a system of admissions based on class, group and political connections. That’s what the adversity score, like affirmative action, does.

The College Board was meant to open higher education to students based on their level of ability. The Gates/Coleman version of the College Board seeks to dole out admission to the right sorts of people.

That takes the educational system back in time to an era when admission was a test of group membership, and being a member of the right group came with the assumption of qualifications.

If you could trace your family tree back to the right sorts of people, you would succeed.

These days, if you can find a trace of minority status in your family tree, even if it’s as dubious as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s, you will get a leg up in an educational system once again based on group and class.

“We’ve tried to move beyond giving tests to delivering opportunity," Coleman declared last year.

But the College Board makes $77 million a year, with as much as a billion in assets, and Coleman earns his $900,000 salary, from giving tests.

He, and the College Board, are just bad at it.

Coleman doesn’t want to give tests. In the words of one article, he wants to save the world.

This sense of messianic entitlement infects progressive policymaking so that instead of making the world better by doing their jobs, leftist leaders insist on rigging the outcome to make themselves feel good.

The progressive nobles dispense college access like medieval barons throwing gold coins to beggars.

The SAT exists because nearly a century ago, the College Board understood that giving tests was giving opportunity. The attacks on standardized testing is an attempt at deciding who truly deserves them.

A free country can only be maintained as a meritocracy. Anything else lapses into the same game of charitable nobles and hopeless peasants that Coleman and the College Board are playing with the SAT.

Standardized testing brought into being a meritocracy by reaching into decrepit ghettos and impoverished valleys to discover and educate Thomas Jefferson’s “aristocracy of virtue and talent”.

Jefferson opened a door. Bill Gates is welding it shut.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Friday, May 24, 2019

Racism Disguised as Altruism – The College Board Adversity Score

May 22, 2019 by

White liberals think black people are incapable. Controversial and politically incorrect statement, right? But it must be true if they’re proposing the insanity which is the new College Board SAT ‘Adversity Score’, a metric based not on merit, achievement and excellence, but zip codes, illegitimacy and poverty. And when I say poverty and illegitimacy I’m not denouncing those who grow up in those situations, but rather the idea of giving them an elevated status as the basis for evaluating a test score. A test crucial in determining whether they gain entrance into colleges and universities. 
 
In the latest round of ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’, the Social Justice Warriors of The College Board, which administers the SAT, have announced that they will now take into consideration a student’s social and economic background to produce a separate ‘adversity score’ for the test. The adversity score will make assessments based on 15 factors, divided into three environments: home, neighborhood and school. ‘Home’, will measure things like family income and whether the student’s parents are married: the second will assess the student’s neighborhood, including home prices and crime rates; and the third will measure ‘academic environment’ such as how many students are eligible for free lunch and how many advanced-placement classes were offered at the school..........To Read More.....