It won’t affect the gender balance significantly, but as everyone in this thread was pulling things out of their rear, I had to step in.
Also, do be advised that the slightly lower SD for Asian males is due to the low ceiling that the SAT math section measures. Someone could very well be extremely talented in math, but he’ll score the same as the less bright student who’s just “good” at math, which will skew the SD downwards.
Sorry, one last post.
In case anyone is having trouble understanding what a Z-score is, I think it’ll be easier for you to understand if I converted them to percentiles.
A 1.445555 Z-score is at ~92.6 percentile using a left-tail Gaussian Distribution.
A 1.63952 Z-score is at ~ 95 percentile.
So 7.4% of Asian males score at or above the 99th percentile in SAT math while only 5% of Asian girls do.
That is almost a 50% difference in the chance that an Asian individual selected at random scores in the 99th percentile.
So to reiterate, @notigering 's article said that in the 4th and 8th grade, the ratio was .91 Asian boys to girls for scoring in the 99th percentile in math.
At the age of 16-17, that ratio is now 1.5.
I suspect that ratio would be even higher if the SAT math section tested people more than just on simple logic problems.
I’d say the 2x ratio that @SAY mentioned for genius males vs. genius females looks about right, and the numbers don’t show that the environment plays a significant role at all.
“This particular tangent of the thread is about admissions admitting by gpa & test scores only and how that would affect the gender balance at selective colleges.”
I don’t think it would be unchanged, in fact Asian men would benefit the most from this and could increase the number of men at the top-20 schools. Consider the averages of the ethnicities and gender:
Asian men - 1133
Asian women - 1103
Black women - 856
Latina women - 896
If it was just SATs and GPA, it would be mainly Asian men and women (and both will have excellent transcripts).
While that may be true, do you think it’s healthy for the population if so many people were studying so hard and long?
We would be a better and happier country if Asians took it easy and studied less. We have to stop being so academically-focused.
I’m of the belief that studying should be done strictly at school from 8 - 3. There should be no homeworks or after school projects. No one should be studying outside of class.
The reason it matters is because it does no one any good to ignore the real reason why most mathematicians, physicists, Field Medal winners, hard science Nobel winners, and world chess champions are men. But again we are not talking about regular high end doctors, lawyers, of business people. One has wonder why Larry Summers and the guy at Google were fired for simply telling the very obvious truth. As for SAT scores an 800 in math doesn’t remotely mean you are truly good and certainly not gifted in math. Virtually every non-hooked student admitted to HPYS, MIT,Cal T, Harvey Mudd etc has an 800 in math and very few of them are gifted in math.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-only-two-of-the-world-s-top-100-chess-players-women
Tech corporations have been trying fruitlessly to flood the STEM labor market with females so they can lower wages.
If the mindset that girls aren’t as smart as boys becomes mainstream, the few girls who are actually competent in STEM will leave the field, leaving men with more salary bargaining power.
Lower wages: The true reason for “Women’s Liberation”.
So start a thread about it. It has nothing to do with this one.
I think you are over stating things a bit. The vast majority of the very top people at Google , Apple, etc are men but you can’t expand this out to the entire field of STEM. At the absolute most rigorous top most of the scientists will be men but for instance that is not true for medical school(though these are merely normal smart people.) As for a plot to lower wages I have no opinion.
While that may be true, it’s pretty obvious (but kept hush-hush) that in those companies, ‘weaker’ females get hired because there isn’t any other female to hire.
I’ve seen the work by those female google software engineers who outed James Damoore, and believe me when I say that their work isn’t impressive.
The primary reasons why this policy is employed are:
-
To get feminist organizations, Dept. of Labor and other “progressive” organizations off their radar
-
Better salary negotiation when they’re recruiting men.
Because females don’t negotiate and work for lower salaries, it becomes a good argument when managers tell prospective male employees that a female is working for only 50% of what they want.
Obviously, they never mention the productivity of the female.
Assuming GPAs are equal - it seems women would have the edge there, maybe enough for Asian women to pass Asian men stat-wise if both were given equal weight.
But, other than “probably a lot of Asian kids”, what does an admit-by-stats-only college look like? Academically? Socially? Athletically? How does it handle those top stats kids’ major preferences (like Berkeley has majors that are hard to get into and majors that are easy to get into, because of space and institutional priorities). Eliminate those that are not popular with that top 1% or whatever of students?
“But, other than “probably a lot of Asian kids”, what does an admit-by-stats-only college look like? Academically? Socially? Athletically?”
I agree with what you’re implying.
We should not be encouraging people who had to struggle hard to reach the top. Working hard should be discouraged, as it promotes people who don’t deserve to be promoted.
We should be encouraging the natural geniuses who ace everything with minimal effort.
Nobody EVER says that they regret not working hard.
My own background is running a company that employed large numbers of MD’s and some PhD’s but not at the level of Google or Apple. We certainly did not hire women with that in mind though it is true that overall they choose to work less hours and hence make less money and far fewer chose the fast track to advancement. In many ways the women were more balanced about the different aspects of their lives.
When you’re running a much smaller company than google, you’re not concerned about trivial things like racial diversity.
You’re more focused on the actual productivity of your employees, so your hiring process becomes more meritocratic.
It’s only when your company gets bigger that it gets the attention of Feminist Orgs and the government looking to sue your ass for discrimination. Then hiring token females and minorities becomes more of a bribe to get these leftists orgs off your back than it is about being productive.
You may be right but it’s time to move on since this topic will likely be considered off topic by the moderator.
I want to see a future where Americans are all 200+ IQ geniuses, 6+ ft tall, and good-looking.
I want to see Americans ace everything with minimal effort while 3rd worlders had to study 24/7 just to score half of what we score.
That can only happen when actual smart people are promoted and procreate with multiple women.
If you had to study at all to get a 2200+ on the SAT and get straight As in high school, you probably aren’t smart.
By promoting people who work hard to score just a bit better than the natural genius who slacked-off, we’re ensuring that “weaker” genes survive and procreate.
“The reason it matters is because it does no one any good to ignore the real reason why most mathematicians, physicists, Field Medal winners, hard science Nobel winners, and world chess champions are men. But again we are not talking about regular high end doctors, lawyers, of business people. One has wonder why Larry Summers and the guy at Google were fired for simply telling the very obvious truth. As for SAT scores an 800 in math doesn’t remotely mean you are truly good and certainly not gifted in math. Virtually every non-hooked student admitted to HPYS, MIT,Cal T, Harvey Mudd etc has an 800 in math and very few of them are gifted in math.”
I kind of agreed with Summers if I recall his comments - that on average women (avg IQ of 102) are smarter than men (average IQ 98) but at the edges, IQs above 160 and below 40, there are more men and therefore more men who win the awards we’ve been discussing. But also there are more men who are mentally challenged than women.
The Google guy made a lot of comments on women physiology that scientists said were flat out wrong. And as I said in an earlier post the issue with him was that peers (assuming both men and women) went to their manager and said they cannot work with someone who will give them peer reviews with that type of stereotypical and sexist thinking. So he was done there. I mean if has these views about women, what does he have about minorities, Asians, people not like him?
Your guess about my implication is wrong. Everyone should work hard, obviously.
I’m ASKING how this merit-only system, defined here as "GPA/test score " works. How are majors/departments handled, what’s the social situation, are there athletics? If legacy and donor kids are out, how might that affect finances? And actually, how might financial aid be affected? How might this proposed merit-only college look compared to the top colleges now?
For example, I’m guessing athletics go to a club/recreational model without recruitment of especially talented but lower academically achieving athletes.
No need to try to read into my question things that aren’t there. Just address what I actually asked if it interests you.
Who are the “smart people” who aren’t male supposed to procreate with? Sperm banks?