|
|
|
|
|
by yummyfajitas
3849 days ago
|
|
It's true - black people tend to underperform relative to their SAT. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2010/09/the_underperformance... Your source agrees with this if you scroll down to the data tables. Note the sign on the black and hispanic coefficients. So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics. Consequently, if we wanted to have the most accurate predictor possible, we'd include negative weights for black people. Is this really the critique you are making of using SAT and GPA? One of the many reasons for admissions preference for traditionally disadvantage groups is advocated is that many of the measures used as signals to admission disadvantage those from traditionally disadvantaged groups... That's simply incorrect. If it were true, then blacks would overperform relative to SAT rather than underperform. |
|
Its actually a lot more complicated than that; the degree to which each objective factor predicts grades (and the degree of difference in expected college grades each unit change in the factor represents) differs by race, income, and other factors. (In the case of SAT scores, higher SAT scores mean more in terms of better college grades than they do for whites.)
So the average black student underperforms based on their SAT scores -- but that is less true (and eventually the opposite of the case) for blacks with higher SAT scores.
> So your real critique seems to be that SAT is unfair because it gives a non-predictive boost to blacks and hispanics.
No, my real critique is that the assertion that without AA, existing admissions would be meritocratic is unsubstantiated, and that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of it.
And I will maintain it until someone presents a coherent definition of the merit sought and evidence that supports the claim based on that definition.