<p>this information about the origins of the SAT is very interesting.</p>
<p>You'll find some very interesting information about the history of the SAT (including a pracitce test from 1926) directly from TCB at <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/031306researchreport2_23504.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/031306researchreport2_23504.pdf</a></p>
<p>There was a standardized test question that read:
Bananas are to yellow as tomatoes are to _____. A disproportionat number of hispanic's listed green (the color they were when they were picked)</p>
<p>Hawaiian students missed out on a question about which breakfast product traveled the furthest to their table. The answer was supposed to be pineapple.</p>
<p>It is hard to write a national test that doesn't have biases.</p>
<p>Standardized test provide some information but they are also a cover for admission officers trying to justify their decisions.</p>
<p>I am sorry if my typo offends.</p>
<p>About the bananas:yellow::tomatoes:_________</p>
<p>Even if there was an answer choice of green, it should have obviously been incorrect, regardless of the test taker's background. Bananas are green when they aren't ripe, too. So, ripe bananas are yellow as ripe tomatoes are red. Or, bananas are yellow when you eat them as tomatoes are red when you eat them. I don't see the bias in that question, they just didn't think enough into the question. </p>
<p>Also, what type of question was the pineapple one? SC? Analogy? CR?</p>
<p>yes, but we don't really harvest bananas here in the US, so that argument is null when it comes to migrant workers from Mexico, slipstream ....</p>
<p>slipstream, there is a gaping error in your logic. Just because anyone CAN get it right when they think it through, that is not enough. It has to be EQUALLY DIFFICULT for everyone to get it, or, on average, the scores of particular groups may be affected, because some will think into it enough, some will not.</p>
<p>i guess i was having too much faith</p>
<p>Mr.B, can you please cite references for those questions? I highly doubt that Collegeboard as silly as a color question on the SAT. And the explanation for Hispanic students doing poorly on the question is very stereotypical and biased, more so than the question itself. Do you think Hispanic students in New York City pick tomatoes in their spare time? Or what about the son of the rich businessman who lives in Beverly Hills? Not enough Hispanic students would think that tomatoes are green to make the score of Hispanics significantly lower.</p>
<p>conker, there is nothing stereotypical about his explanation. If Hispanics in particular did worse on that question than the other question, that indicates an anomaly. Maybe the reason is incorrect, but statistics don't lie: it was a biased question.</p>
<p>"Maybe the reason is incorrect, but statistics don't lie: it was a biased question."</p>
<p>The question was probably biased, but Mr.B's explanation for why Hispanics did worse is more alarmingly discriminatory towards Hispanics. I am still interested to see sources for where that question came from. It simply does NOT seem like a question that would appear on the SAT.</p>
<p>If the 200-800 scale is based on standard deviation, does that mean that scoring a 700 on any given section results in the 98.5th percentile? 97% of a normal distribution falls within 2 standard deviations of the mean, and since half of the 3% that don't would fall to one end, that means only 1.5% of all test takers would get above a 700...that doesn't seem right.</p>
<p>Yeah, that does seem off. I think, though, that scores are numerically much higher now than they used to be, partially due to the fact that people now study for the test, and partially because of rescaling.</p>
<p>I think that the real number is closer to 96% falling within two standard deviations. When the SAT was re-scaled in 1995, the College Board reset the mean to 500 with a standard deviation of 110 points. That means that only about 2% of test takers would score above 720 on any section. Since then, performance has improved slightly, so that the mean is no longer 500. I <em>think</em> it was around 510 on math and 505 on verbal for the old SAT with a standard deviation still close to 110 points.</p>
<p>I don't know if they'll re-center the scores for the New SAT.</p>
<p>If you find the averages, I believe for males that the math average is approx. 530 (534 i think) and the verbal is 510 (512 i think) if anybody can confirm, that would be great.</p>
<p>you cant get below a 200 on either half.. i remember a web page where a guy (ivy league grad) went and took the SAT with the intention of getting every problem wrong. he tried but got like 2 right on accident, but still got 200s on each section.</p>
<p>They didn't want to scale it from 1-100 b/c it would be related to grades. And the larger numbers make it sound more important. What sounds better based off numbers: a 36 on the ACT or a 1600 (now 2400) on the SAT?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Hispanics in particular did worse on that question than the other question, that indicates an anomaly. Maybe the reason is incorrect, but statistics don't lie: it was a biased question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a LIE.
Okay - so, on average, take any question on the SAT. On Average, Blacks do worse on the question than Asians. Therefore, it was a biased question? NO.</p>
<p>It just represents the fact that blacks are generally at an economical and social disadvantage compared to most Asians based on their location, social enviornment, and income.</p>
<p>This is fixed by affirmative action, which will consider a black with as much potential as an Asian but who was simply not allowed to express it due to his condition.</p>
<p>The only part of affirmative action I disagree with is the race based part - while giving BLACKS or HISPANICS an advantage is wrong, applicants should be considered for their economical background and where they were raised - people who were giving disadventagous conditions throughout their youth deserve a little boost in their applications.
It just happens that blacks are more often at a disadvantage compared to other races, due to their history.</p>
<p>I totally agree, socioeconomic factors need to be priority when discussing affirmative action. Giving a rich black man the acceptance in place of the poor white guy seems to me not why affirmative action is in place.</p>
<p>Each section was designed to be centered at 500 and then "measure" plus or minus 3 standard deviations in this way (100 point SD), much like an IQ test, originally designed with 100 point mean and 10 point SD. The scores have shifted over the years, yet the scores remain.</p>