Killing the Sat Means Hurting Minorities
andrewsullivan.substack.com
andrewsullivan.substack.com
The SAT is class biased. The college board only offers fee waivers to folks who qualify for food stamps, and otherwise charges $55 / test. The data [1] shows strong improvements for people who take the test multiple times and weak improvements for test prep.
People take the test different numbers of times, and so the administration of the test is non-standard enough to generate these biased outcomes. If folks actually wanted to de-bias the test, we’d focus on standardizing the administration of it. Make it free for students (charge colleges instead) and make everyone take it exactly twice or something.
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
Or is it more that when you take a test, your results will naturally fall in x +- y, so the more you take it the higher the chance for a score in the high range?
There's an argument to be made that there's a vengeful element behind the movement, but the vengeance is targeted against a (largely fictionalized) class of privileged people. And of course the vengefulness has a self-serving, performative function for many who support the movement.
I suppose there also seems to be a strong anti-Asian undercurrent within the movement. Like most forms of contemporary racism the majority of people tend to be in denial about it, though I grant you the anti-Asian hostility is often so palpable that it's indistinguishable from historical expressions of racist sentiment. But in any event we're playing word games with the lede as it should be clear "hurting minorities" refers to Black and Latino communities.
For example, both blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly support vouchers. But do white progressives support them? No instead they've made up their own narratives about how these groups are best served by the very public schools that have failed them.
As a brown man in america, at some point, you look around and realize your 'allies' do not have your best interests at heart and are more interested in using your skin color as a token for social status.
So while I don't think these people intentionally are seeking to harm others, I do believe that by refusing to realize what many many many others are staying and by not thinking critically but rather accepting the predominant narrative (one that harms minorities), they bear responsibility.
It's better to be apathetic and do nothing than to advocate for these stupid plans that no one wants.
At some point, the end results is more important than assuaging the consciences of those trying to achieve mediocrity.
Tests are tests. If you don’t like the results fix the problems.
Well, at least this writer puts his personal hysteria up front so we can see it.
The new class is the most diverse class by an absolute mile, not only in terms of racial diversity but also class diversity and cognitive diversity. The feared increase in white admits at the expense of east and south asian admits did not happen. Yet I am regularly called a racist for having supported removing the test.
People in this conversation should be open to having their predictions tested.
It doesn’t help that the article insists that their political opponents are definitionally racist.
Looking on Google, the share of Asians and whites decreased: https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Education/2...
There is a reason why I bring up other metrics than just race here. Alongside greater representation of black and latino students was a much much much greater representation of students on free-and-reduced lunch and a much greater representation of students who are neuro-atypical.
This makes claims that eliminating testing "hurts minorities" really suspect, since it is more than just and specific group of racial minorities that benefit from eliminating tests. Other minority groups benefit as well. Everybody always says that "it is a class issue" when they want to avoid making changes. So here is a great way to solve this from a class perspective, if you want it.
You'll also actually find that the groups advocating for the removal of the test are the most overlapping with the groups advocating for the elimination of limited access to accelerated education in the first place, so criticisms based on the fixed share of access meaning that any drop in south and east asian representation is racist fall apart once you look at what these groups actually want to achieve.
Sure, it's valid to have the position that pursing equity over equality is more just. But don't try to ignore and paper over the reality that it will decrease opportunity for higher achieving groups.
"Achievement" is also not the same as "did well on the test". It remains to be seen whether the new class will "achieve" at the same rate as prior classes. I don't think that everybody would agree that the new policy does decrease opportunity for "higher achieving groups".
We can argue about semantics all day, but ultimately it's a change away from a race-agnostic admissions process. Plenty of people do earnestly believe that to be racist.
The new policy at TJ is race agnostic. Nowhere does the race of an applicant have any effect on the score of a student's application. This is, again, why I bring up other forms of status than just race.
I think it is fine that my worldview is not universal. That's normal. What I find frustrating is that the same arguments persist through new data.
Lawsuits are already moving forward to challenge this admissions process: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...
Regardless, TFA isn't just arguing about the details but about the very concept itself.