<p>But I do think that that your statement is racist because it makes a generalization by RACE</p>
<p>You * obviously* haven't learned that it is acceptable and even encouraged in some circles to make generalizations by race- only if you are making these assumptions about whites.</p>
<p>I DO think that whenever anyone frets over concern that their child's college spot is going to a URM.... or an athlete.... or a legacy..... that there is a sense of entitlement. </p>
<p>I don't think that sense of entitlement is necessarily racist -- though the perception of the reasons why one kid gets in over another may reflect a degree of race prejudice. That is, I think anyone who assumes that a racial minority at a school is a beneficiary of affirmative action and is otherwise unqualified for admission is engaged in stereotypical, race-based thinking. Even when we have affirmative action -- not all people in the class have benefitted from the boost it offers. </p>
<p>But the point is, there is no "spot" that belongs to the high achieving kid with the high scores and grades in the first place.</p>
<p>emerald -- great point. thanks. :)</p>
<p>How do you do the italics?</p>
<p>Have I made any great points yet, Jlauer? By the way, howe do you do the smiley faces?</p>
<p>Thanks, Emerald!</p>
<p>I've been posting on CC for about 2 years, first as Valpal (which for some reason, I couldn't re-register once the site changed to the current format last year), and now as Poetsheart. During that time, I've read a lot of your posts and have been fascinated by the particulars of your circumstances and involvement in your Ds' school. You've posted with dismay, chagrin, and downright outrage at times over some of the encounters you've had with some of the parents and administrators in your predominantly minority school system. Sometimes, I've just had to shake my head along with you. I know it can be hard to phathom some of the views and attitudes you've experienced, as they often just do not make sense. Do you have any theories or insights into why some of the local parents and leaders have behaved in the ways that they do? It has occurred to me more and more recently, that the cumulative effect of doing battle with some of these parents and leaders has made you increasingly angry and cynical (not that I can blame you). I'd be pretty p*ssed off by the actions and attitudes displayed by some people, if I had kids in your school district, too. I can just imagine how frustrating it is. I was wondering...Do you have any allies in your fight for reason and fairness in your district among any of the minority parents and administrators you deal with, or do you think this type of behavior and thinking is pretty much across the board?</p>
<p>A study was done of my state's universities several years back. The black SAT gap ranged from 160-210 points, as compared to whites. Hispanics were also favored, although not to the extent that blacks were. </p>
<p>I find this to be evidence of affirmative action. With these kinds of stats, who would not think that standards were being lowered for URMs?</p>
<p>No, its evidence that the test is culturally biased. One researcher found that whites tend to do better on the easy questions on the SAT, but blacks tend to do better on harder questions. So it is possible that overall scores are brought down because there are more easy than hard questions. The researcher proposed rescoring the test to eliminate the easy questions and only keep the hard questions. See: Correcting the SAT's Ethnic and Social-Class Bias: A Method for Reestimating SAT Scores, Harvard Educational Review, Fall 2002. <a href="http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/freedle.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/freedle.html</a></p>
<p>FWIW, Asians also show the same pattern - they do better on the hard questions as well. The authors of the study argue that this is because the greatest cultural bias is in the easy questions-- so any given ethnic or minority group will tend to have more difficulty with the "easy" questions than the dominant group which designed the test.</p>
<p>poetsheart:</p>
<p>to make a smilie -- do this : ) (but don't put the spaces in between)</p>
<p><<<<............>>>> = Quotes from Poetsheart:</p>
<p><<<<< I always find it interesting that people insist on saying that upper-middle class and "rich" black kids (as if the country, and elite colleges in particular, are crawling with them) are "no different" from their white counterparts, and bring nothing to an institution in the way of diversity. >>>></p>
<p>My response: EVERYONE is "special" -- EVERYONE brings a different perspective to the table. That said, I have no problem with colleges trying to make sure that a fair number of URMs are part of their college systems -- as long as they are qualified. Since there are MANY high scoring URMs of all colors, then "court" them and get them to the campuses. If that means doing some extra hard "scouting" & offering extra scholarships to make sure enuf qualified URM's are applying & accepting, then do it. :) </p>
<p><<<< Afluent blacks who live in racially diverse neighborhoods (like my sister and her family) often enjoy gratifying friendships with the many racially and ethnicly different families in their neighborhoods. In my sister's case, where all the homes are well over 4000 square ft, everyone is a high income professional. >>></p>
<p>My response: Does you sis live in my neighborhood??? You've described my street (about 30% black). All live in all brick homes greater than 4000 sq ft. Since I am close to ALL my neighbors B & W -- they're in my home, I'm in theirs -- we all party together. Their kids play & go to private schools - some with my kids. My Catholic church is about half black - so we worship together, too. (By the way, statistics say that Black Catholics are the highest income group among blacks.) Each one of us can bring a new and different experience to share but I wouldn't say that my black neighbors have such incredibly different experiences that somehow trump anyone elses. And, I think that they would take offense if someone suggested that they did. Because of our closeness, they know that their white neighbors and church friends have had tragedies, horrors, and, yes, unfair actions taken against them, too. We've wept together when loved ones have tragically died, we've prayed to gether when loved ones are ill, we've celebrates promotions and other achievements. Every group and every person have had crosses to bear -- everyone -- no one is exempt from the harsh realities of the world. :(</p>
<p><<<< "Did you object to the Saint Patrick's day parade?", >>></p>
<p>Your friend was rude. However, it might interest you that our annual St. Patrick's Day parade is run each and every year by my neighbor, who is a black man -- a diehard ND fan and graduate. And the attendees of the parade and those who march are B & W. On St. Paddy's day EVERYONE is Irish. ;)</p>
<p><<<<< Would you say that there are no note-worthy differences between a black kid whose family makes $25,000 per year living in inner city Baltimore, and a white one whose family pulls down the same income living in a West Virginia Holler? >>>></p>
<p>My response: Frankly, if both kids were white (or asian or black or whatever) they would have diverse backgrounds. An Italian kid from the Bronx has a very different story to tell than the Swede from Minnesota. The Polish kid from L.A. has a different story than the Jewish girl from Miami. A black kid living in the suburbs has a vastly different experience then the black kid living in downtown Chicago. My "small town" mom had very different experiences than my "big city" dad. Anytime you look at any two people from different parts of the country and also mix in the differences between urban and rural you will have differences. :)</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>I'm not doubting your stats on SAT bias. I am just wondering... why would/could there be bias against URM's in "easy" questions but not in "hard"?</p>
<p>BTW: My s and I chuckle when we go over his SAT practice tests and we see which ones the "experts" think are easy or hard. We often disagree with their opinions on what is easy or hard.</p>
<p>Jlauer, its best to go to the research article that I linked to for the theory/explanation as to the easy/hard dichotomy. The hypothesis is explained there in depth and I only skimmed it, so I probably won't do justice to it. But the basic idea is that it has to do with language and linguistic complexity. Easy questions tend to use common, high-frequency words, but the most common words in a language also tend to take on multiple meanings - so there is more room for misunderstanding based on cultural differences. The author cited words like "horse" but I have an easy example from my own life. As a young lawyer I was confused once when interviewing witnesses for a case who told me that an event happened in the "evening" -- but other witnesses said it happened in the "afternoon". I realized that to me, "evening" refers to the time after dusk, but to my black witnesses the "evening" meant the same as "afternoon". (I don't know if this was a black thing or a southern regional thing - but the point is that we were using a common word but attached very different meanings to it.)</p>
<p>Also, from the article:
[quote]
The extensive work of Diaz-Guerrero and Szalay (1991) illustrates the different implications of common vocabulary use. They report on the different associations of African Americans, Whites, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, mainland Chinese, and Hong Kong Chinese for a wide array of commonly used words, such as "friend," "love," "sex," "religion," "education," and "money," as well as an array of less commonly used words, such as "communism" and "capitalism." .... For example, the African American and White groups disagreed strongly in their responses to frequently used words such as "goals," "desires," "valuable," "justice," "progress," "society," and "class." On the other hand, African Americans and Whites agreed strongly on other terms, which happened to be words with low frequency of occurrence, such as "capitalism" and "communism."
[/quote]
You can see from those particular words how connotations may be associated with cultural experience.</p>
<p>They go on to explain that lower frequency words tend to have more specialized meanings -- less room for misunderstanding or disagreement.</p>
<p>The study also reports that the score gap between blacks/whites is lessened for written essays when the topics are harder -- that is, whites do better on easy topics, blacks better with more difficult topics. But I am less clear on why this would be -- and I wonder whether that may reflect inherent bias of the grader/reader rather than the actual quality of the writing. On an easier topic the writing might tend to be less formal, so stylistically the grader might favor the writing that fallowed a more "white" speech pattern; maybe tougher essays also produce a more technical, formal style and the graders are more likely to focus on factual content than on the tone. Anyway, that's my theory. </p>
<p>Some of the changes to the "new" SAT were actually done with these studies in mind -- for example, that's why they eliminated the analogies section, which would have a strong cultural bias if certain words have very different connotations to different groups. But I don't think there has been enough experience with the test yet to have hard data on this issue.</p>
<p>You wrote:
[quote]
We often disagree with their opinions on what is easy or hard.
[/quote]
I think that can reflect a language/cultural thing too. Sometimes what we think is "easy" is based on some common cultural reference or assumption -- but that may not be the underlying assumption the reader is working with. </p>
<p>Here are some other articles about cultural bias in testing:
<a href="http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/home/government_375/sp97/Race&Testing/rt4.html%5B/url%5D">http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/home/government_375/sp97/Race&Testing/rt4.html</a></p>
<p>I have to agree with the original poster. I believe in fair equality for all. I don't think it's right that an URM could live in the same situation as might a Caucasian and have the same income, yet be considered more because of the fact the person is an URM.
If one works hard, it shouldn't matter what color, race, gender or what-have-you they are. But of course since racism still exists today, this notion can't easily be incorporated into today's society.
If only the Constitution spoke the truth...</p>
<p>Some private schools value various forms of diversity (economic, cultural, geographic, athletic, racial, religious, ethnic, musical, international, gender, artistic, etc., etc.) and fairness just isn't a factor. An example for one category: If a school needs an oboe player, the top oboeist may be admitted, as long as minimum qualifications are met, even if a rejected trumper's other credentials are better, because there are far more trumpet-playing applicants. Each school perceives its own needs, resulting in a particular mix of student body, giving the school its own culture and reputation. If fairness in being admitted by the numbers is a student's primary concern, s/he can apply to schools which admit accordingly. If, over time, the pool of applicants places increasing value on numeric fairness, schools may have to change their policies to attract top students.</p>
<p>I see the bottom line this way: We have schools which promote fairness, and we have schools which promote diversity, and students can make their choices, according to what is important to them.</p>
<p>And then (naively) we can all live in peace.</p>
<p>Vossron, I agree entirely with what you said, except that I don't think numbers-based admission is "fair" either -- it is just substituting an arbitrary and very unfair numerical standard for a more subjective one.</p>
<p>It is "unfair" because the students in the applicant pool are not on equal footing:
1) They come from different high schools with very different educational quality and grading standards and methods of computing grades and GPA.
2) Some students have access and opportunity to private tutors and test preparation services, while others don't. Some students have retaken the exam multiple times, whereas others haven't. </p>
<p>I think the appropriate word to describe a completely numbers-based process is "arbitrary". "Fairness" would require the decision-maker to take into account all relevant circumstances bearing on the determination of the value of GPA, class rank, and test scores in context. You could have a "fair" process that excluded consideration of factors like cultural background, athletic ability, and what musical instrument the applicant plays -- but it would still need to consider the context in which the numbers were set in order to be "fair".</p>
<p>Sorry- I don't know the lingo- what is a URM?</p>
<p>urm = under represented minority</p>
<p>Calmom, good points, and I agree with you. Nonetheless, I think there are <em>some</em> who consider "by the numbers" to be fair by denfinition, such that <em>any</em> subjective intervention decreases fairness.</p>
<p>I think what is more important than fairness (which carries a particular ideology, depending on viewpoint) is to identify (or at least discuss) our long-term educational goals as a society. Sure, we want to do all we can to get our own children into the best schools possible, but beyond that we need sound policies which work toward reasonable group educational goals. I know, easy to say.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with you, Vossron -- I just thought it needed to be kept in mind that there really is no completely "fair" standard. I suppose the most "fair" way to decide college admissions would be by lottery - or at least a lottery among all those who met whatever articulated minimum standard existed-- then everyone would have an equal chance, but of course it would be then impossible to maintain any sort of quality standard. </p>
<p>The problem that leads to feelings of anger or frustration among those who see their child's "spot" given to someone "less qualified" comes from misconstruing the process and the standards actually being employed. The truth is that grades, class rank & test scores are merely some of many variables that go into the process of competitive admissions -- including the admission of a URM. It is really impossible to objectify the process because there is also a mix of chance factors, such as timing. That is, if 3 oboe players apply to a college in need of an oboist, it may be that the first application that gets read gets in; while the third applicant, who may actually have better overall stats than the first, gets waitlisted because at that point the college already has more oboists than it needs.</p>