<p>For a more accurate conversion to todays M and V score, use this chart:</p>
<p>[SAT</a> I Individual Score Equivalents | Research and Development](<a href=“http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual]SAT”>http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual)</p>
<p>The systemic reason Blacks have always been on the bottom has never been dealt with.</p>
<p>Over the last fifty years, the distribution of income in our nation has become progressively worse. As a result, Blacks’ access to college preparatory education is as bad as ever, so the future is equally bleak.</p>
<p>African American culture has been developing for decades under the well-founded assumption that the system is rigged against them, that success is gained on the stage, through music and on the basketball court rather than in school. We now (and for a while) have this thing that might be called “ghetto chic”, where the thug life is glorified and book sense is looked down on in favor of common sense (to the neglect of the former).</p>
<p>Smart black kids have to overcome an entire culture to succeed academically.</p>
<p>Re black poverty between 1940-70. </p>
<p>It is correct that the poverty rate went done some for AA’s as a result of the huge US economic boom after WW2 and then the resulting couple decades of a strong economy. But during that period the cities also became a huge problem. Recall Moynihan’s/Johnson’s war on poverty in the 1960s as well as the 1965-69 riots in places such as Detroit (twice), Newark, Watts etc. This period was hardly a time of AA peace and satisfaction.</p>
<p>An interesting article re Sanders “mismatch” theory noting that none of his work has ever been peer reviewed or published in such a journal and that several peer-reviewed studies contradict his findings that AAs are disadvantaged by attending universities purportedly beyond their capabilities and would do better attending lower tier universities more suited to their purported abilities. </p>
<p>[All</a> hat, no cattle? Mismatch and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin : SCOTUSblog](<a href=“http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/all-hat-no-cattle-mismatch-and-fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/]All”>All hat, no cattle? Mismatch and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - SCOTUSblog)</p>
<p>“I don’t see you howling about it like you do day and night about Black preferences.”</p>
<p>The reality is that “black preferences” displace very few whites and certainly no more than athletic or legacy preferences per Espenshade’s study on the opportunity costs of AA. Also, several briefs filed by Asian think tanks in the Fisher case make a pretty good case that the victims of any “Black preferences” are Asians and that if anything whites get a boost in the admissions process via a vie Asians.</p>
<p>
What was the drop in the overall poverty rate?</p>
<p>
Did I say that?</p>
<p>[SAT</a> Reasoning Data Tables](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/sat-reasoning/scores/sat-data-tables]SAT”>SAT Suite of Assessments – Reports | College Board)</p>
<p>In 1995, the section means were set at 500 with a standard deviation of 110. That is where I got the number from. For each section, from 13 to 17, my score improved by one standard deviation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But blacks have NOT always been on the bottom. From 1890 to 1950, they had higher labor force participation rates than whites. They had higher rates of marriage than whites. I am not saying that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow ended when they were abolished. I am asking why it is that on these outcomes, blacks are worse off now than they were 100 years ago, when some slaves were still alive and when Jim Crow still existed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did this dysfunctional culture first develop?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have data from before 1960. But in 1960, the overall rate was ~23%. By 1970, it was 13%. So the rate at which blacks got out of poverty from 1960 to 1970 (47% to 30%) exceeded the overall rate. I have no reason to doubt that the same was true from 1940 to 1960, though I cannot prove it.</p>
<p>Like I said, most people improve about 1 std. from 13 to 17. You were average in high school, unless you demonstrated you were a national champion by senior year at something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There has never been a time in American history where African Americans were not on the bottom. These statistics are misleading. What, did they have higher labor participation rates in the sharecropping business? And since when are marriage rates a measure of socioeconomic progress?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Awhile after WWII, I’d guess. :/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not offended if you want to say that I was average in high school. I am laughing that you once again assume that my score at age 13 could have been improved by more than one standard deviation.</p>
<p>I do not disclose my stats to you now because honestly, it feels tacky to talk about what I did five or ten years ago. That you seem so sure of your ability to “read” me doesn’t spur me in the slightest to post them as I find it funny how wrong you are despite your certainty.</p>
<p>Lastly, you shouldn’t believe that your son is above average merely because he improved his SAT score by four standard deviations from 13 to 17. Given that he has at least one educated parent who cares, in all likelihood, he would’ve scored at (or higher) than what I scored when I was 13 had he had the fortune of attending “borderline average” schools as I did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair questions. But employment is employment, children are better raised with two loving parents, and you still cannot explain why blacks have fared worse on these outcomes than they did 100 years ago. The effects of slavery and Jim Crow must recede as time passes. Or do you disagree with that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dont know if he would have scored at or higher than you at age 13 (You may have had helicopter parents raising you from the cradle for all I know, that my son obviously did not). In addition, I am not sure how this discussion would be relevant to the point I was making. </p>
<p>All I am saying is, given his performance on the PSAT, SAT, SAT Subject Tests, 12 AP courses, Lexile test scores, TX benchmark scores etc at age 17, I believe he should have scored higher than he did at age 13. I am also saying that since his academic profile was very similar to the other top 5% at his middle school, they also had the potential to do equally well as my child.</p>
<p>Since you are unwilling to concede the significant difference between a school that has NMSFs v one that does not, call your mid school and find out how many Duke TIP recognized students come out of their classes each year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not contradict what I wrote. My main counterpoint to your comments is that ultimately, there are (almost) no “less brilliant blacks” at elites. The vast majority of them come from “mainstream competitive high schools”; few come from “ethnic schools.” So you’re supporting a policy that grants preferences to students who attended good schools and come from well-to-do households.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s hollow for you to fancy yourself an enlightened defender of blacks’ “interests” when you view “less brilliant blacks” as mere tools to be used for the development of “brilliant black kids.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The effects of leaving a plant in the hot sun for three days without water don’t really go anywhere until you provide them enough moisture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You either do not know or pretend to not know the difference between an academic star student and other students at ivy and other elite schools. There is a small central core of academic stars at an elite university. These are the 3rd std deviation variety that cannot be measured by tests such as the SAT. One has to win national championships to demonstrate one belongs to this (1/1000) class and show one did not just have helicopter parenting. The rest are brought to socially make the experience balanced and enjoyable for that core. Obviously, these are academically strong students too but more of the 2nd std dev variety. They benefit from the experience with the stars and do not mind being at an Ivy. Life is give and take, they work as members of the team. Whether a college is racist or sexist depends on the type of core a college develops. All stars would be dreary and could scare away some stars if there is not a proper social balance. So, some of the stars are rejected so they can go to some other top school. Ultimately, all the stars go to some top university. The bickering is among the 2nd std deviation who may or may not get in and do all the finger pointing. You know, the Black got in with a 2000 I had a 2090 type of petty stuff. As if the 2090 was going to discover solution for cancer and a major injustice took place by bringing in the 2000.</p>
<p>
Do you not understand statistics?
If the general population had a poverty rate of 23 which improved to 12%, while that means that 10% more of the whole population moved out of poverty, that is not a significant figure. The important figure is the percentage of those IN poverty who moved out.</p>
<p>thus for every 23 that were in poverty, 11 moved out or about 48%</p>
<p>Now look at the change in the black poverty rate you quote:
43% in poverty improved to 30%. That means 13% of the whole black population moved out of poverty, but if you look only at those that were in poverty to begin with, we see the rate of improvement as 13 out of 43, or only 30%.</p>
<p>Thus the rate that blacks climbed out of poverty was not in fact better than the rate of the general population, but significantly worse. So, are we equally entitled to assume the changes from 1940-1960 were similar?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this neglected and abused plant seemed to be doing alright on its own, even though no one helped it, for the next couple of weeks. Why, then, after someone decided to help it, has its condition worsened? Perhaps the help, though well intentioned, is not appropriate?</p>