standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT.
yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.
Obviously many people who are in favor of this hateful divisive racism will try to gaslight you into believing it somehow isn't racism, or try to redefine the meaning of words such that they are innocent and you are guilty. But that doesn't change what it is.
So at the end of the day these institutions will bring in whatever policies they want, and they don't really give a crap about actual racism. All they care about is money, PR, etc.
I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in.
I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that.
I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.
Just wanted to note that this is partly why the SAT was stopped from being used at MIT and other universities - because it tend to score lower for people who are considered to be under disadvantage. In other words, I'm not sure that this approach necessarily leads to a more positive outcome.
Edit: Looks like HN resolve this and it's ranked properly now (no offense meant to the OP).
The most defensible explanation that folks who claim standardized tests are racist is that the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into the argument, many with which I disagree, but it’s an interesting idea.
Much of the data supports the idea that most of the differences in test scores are due to socio-economic status. When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores
Iirc, race is the largest contributor to variance when SES is controlled for, but folks within the same SES perform much more similarly than same race folks in different SESes.
This is a good example of what I meant by "they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism". If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion you have to explain why races don't have similar ranges while also accounting for the core belief that "we are all equal and race doesn't matter."
The "socio-economic factors" argument is easier to argue and also more widely accepted, yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race.
In my experience:
- Race-based arguments seem to be easier for folks in general to understand than SES-based arguments. Race-based oppression is something that all Americans learn about in school, while SES-based oppression has been occurring non-stop since the start of the country, and it is not covered nearly as much in schools.
- It’s easier to get social support, political support, and/or funding for race-based projects, while SES projects are tougher.
- One possible reason the above two are true is that highlighting SES discrepancies reveals that the concept of American “equality”, even for the majority race, is a myth. This idea of Americans being equal and having equal access to institutions is, imho, an American value that many Americans hold dear and believe to be true, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
Just my 2 cents…
This is sadly not at all the case. See the below famous charts about SAT results split by race and SES (proxied by either parental income or parental education). The lowest SES segments of the white/Asian population score as well as the highest SES segments of the black population.
This then makes it obvious that colleges need to choose between either (a) equality of opportunity where SAT matter and that gets you more Asian kids and fewer black students or (b) equality of outcomes where extracurriculars and 'personality' matter and get rigged until racial balance is the same as in the general population, disregarding the maximisation of talent or ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Educa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Incom...
That said, I think two charts that try to summarize the data should probably combine the two if they actually want to measure SES rather than just SS or ES.
I like this study and summary:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280232788_Race_Pove...
Note that there definitely still is a statistically significant difference based on race, but I am fairly certain it’s not as large as the charts you linked to seem to suggest.
Specifically, I think it has to do with generational efficiencies in optimally using the opportunities that higher education presents.
Simple examples: knowing the hows and whys of relationship cultivation in college, knowing how to avoid or navigate potential educational pitfalls, knowing how to optimally use university resources, etc.
“In addition, the differential direct and indirect effects of income on high school achievement and, in turn, high school achieve-ment on SAT scores may also be explained in terms of residential racial and economic segregation which are, through property values and taxpolicies, related to the quality of schooling. Moreover, the poverty effects reported here suggest the lack of social and educational resources in the larger community that are needed to supplement and complement the learning taking place in schools.”
You’re taking poorly summarized opinions and pretending that combination of opinions are held by a group of significant size.
Just my observation as an outsider looking into America. Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman or whataboutism.
I'm just seeing this from an objective data driven view and puzzled why ppl would react so harshly.
You are taking two different points of views which are made by two different groups, reducing their arguments down to practically nothing, and pretending they’re being made by the same group.
You are mutating the arguments and inventing a boogie man. Textbook straw man argument.
> Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman
There’s a reason for that. It has nothing to do with following a mainstream narrative or not. It has to do with the false assumptions in the basis of your questions.
Yet the standard test does not differentiate the race of the test taker. If race was factored into the test scores somehow then what you are claiming makes sense, but the SAT/LSAT/MCAT/PCAT do not, cannot know the race or socioeconomic status of the test taker because as society we benefit from placing people of merit, who have the aptitude.
Are you comfortable with a lawyer/doctor who is responsible for you because they fit a certain affirmative action profile but scored low on their aptitude test and low gpa to meet a certain quota for that demographic group vs someone who were hired because of their high score on standardized aptitude test and consequently high gpa (that does not discriminate the test taker based on their race or socioeconomic class)?
Would you trust the latter or former if it meant your life/bank account depended on it and is it racism if you do not choose the former?
> What do you think about the argument that standardized tests are systemically racist?
Thanks for asking! IMHO, a couple of ways:
1. Your original asked what GP thinks of people that make the argument. Mine asks about the argument itself. It's subtle but important difference, and to have productive discussion about sensitive topics it's imperative to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Even if one's answer might be "those people are stupid" it doesn't help. By addressing the claim/substance rather than the person, it will likely be a more productive conversation.
2. By omitting your opinion portions, it keeps the conversation more focused. When you introduce "standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT", you move the conversation away from systemic racism and toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well. These seem to me like completely separate topics/discussion.
The examples I added of standardized aptitude test for law school entry and the very real biases against Asians in American institutions requiring standardized testing quod erat demonstrandum was designed to set the context in which you are to understand the implicit spirit of the question (not the people rather the focus on standardized test = systematic racism).
Anything else you derived ad litteram to accuse me of malo animo by "moving the conversation away from systemic racism toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well" is exactly what you are doing here.
However, I am curious to hear what other possible scalable medium you think exists for an institution to properly vet millions of applicants every year and evaluate one's aptitude for law school that does not involve unbiased standardized testing that measures ability to think logically and work under timed pressure? Do you mean to say then that physically active professional sports must properly test a candidates aptitude from their understanding of game theory and physics through a written examination or is that somehow exempt from alternative means to detect aptitude? Shall law schools instead pit candidates in a simulated combat environment like Navy Seal's hell week to test their mental grit? Where does this end?
How does this constitute as systematic racism in your view when the test taker's scantron is measured against a pre-configured solution? Does the scantron system take account the race, socioeconomic background of the exam taker to invalidate and validate their exam responses at the time of scanning? Are test takers given penalties or extra time based on their demographic?
If you want to have productive conversations, you really need to read and write more carefully. Please point out where I did any of these things you're accusing me of doing:
1. Warped your intended context by accusing or even suggesting that you actually only care about people. If I thought that was your intent, I wouldn't have offered you constructive feedback to help improve the conversation. You were getting downvoted, in my opinion unfairly, and I was trying to help you see some potential reasons why. You literally asked about what GP thinks of "the people" and if I thought that's what you actually meant, why would I have suggested that you change it to something else? I would have just downvoted you and moved on like most others did.
2. Suggested in any way that I think SATs are systemically racist
3. Suggested in any way that I have any of the answers to any of the questions here.
Since you seem to care what I think on the topic (even though I didn't offer any opinion on it), let me first disclaimer this by pointing out that if I were going to advocate for a position on this, as a responsible person I would want to do a lot more research because I always try to maintain a healthy volume of Socratic Ignorance, and I recognize that I know very little on this subject. But anyway, I am pro-standardized testing. I think there are real flaws to it that should be admitted, just as there are with any quantitative analysis of something as complex as "likely to succeed," but I think the pros of testing outweigh the cons. I think that standardized testing is one of the few things that give people with less than ideal home situations a chance at a good education and a pedigree (which undoubtedly helps set people up for success). I think the focus on race that discriminates against Asians absolutely is systemic racism. I think it fits the definition of systemic racism better than almost anything else I can think of.
I'm not trying to be a pedantic prick who corrects your grammar, as I said before, I was trying to improve the conversation by giving you a tip (something your downvoters did not do I might add). People on the internet (especially in written forums) are not mind readers. They're not going to magically know that you didn't mean what you literally said (asking about "people"). If you're lucky, they'll do exactly what I did: Give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the best possible interpretation of what you wrote, which is that you didn't mean it literally. As you yourself just illustrated wonderfully, there are serious limits to written communication and it behooves us all to remember that and give each other the benefit of the doubt. From the HN FAQ: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Now, please stop being so defensive, and please start reading more carefully, especially if you're going to get this offended and go off on the attack against people that care about you and are offering you kindness. I think if you re-read everything I said but this time do it with the idea that I'm a friend trying to offer you help to improve your writing and to get less downvotes, I think you'll come away with a much different impression.
Finally, welcome to Hacker News! This is a great community that I think you'll enjoy, but do please review the posting guidelines, especially the section "In Comments": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thank you that's helpful feedback! I certainly didn't intend to be patronizing.
It took a bit of restraint to look past what felt like a personal insult and extract the useful part of your comment though. In the future it would have been a lot better as just a simple informative statement that assumes good faith:
> Your tone comes off as patronizing.
Re:
> I just wish you took the time to read them
Which rules would you like me to read? Can you either provide more information, or give a link and section header so I can know what specifically you're referring to?
They don't measure human potential at Birth and don't try to.
The tests measure certain cognitive capabilities. Genes have an effect, nutrient intake has an effect, nurture has an effect. Trying to fix racism via test scores (or disregarding it) isn't going to help fix racism.
To be blunt. You can look at life expectancy for black and white americicans. Whites live longer. Measuring the difference is not systemic racism. We should not avoid measurements for this reasons.
Some minorities perform worse on SAT. This is a fact. SAT predicts performance in college, this is also a fact.
The question becomes, how do we select college students. Those most likely to succeed, or other values.
People throw this out as though it is fact, when in reality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions...
“In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies do not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.”
“In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and ultimately ruled in late 2020 in favor of Harvard, concluding that Judge Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.”
Elite admissions is more than great grades and great standardized test scores. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but that doesn’t make it less true, and it doesn’t (necessarily) make it racist.