<p>Regardless of whether CB says the SAT scores predict anything, there are other studies which also predict. One, from a reputable source (but still not gospel, imo,) found that kids who took calculus in hs tended to achieve better soph year gpa in college. Then, concluded that the sort of person who even chose to take calc was probably more willing to challenge himself to succeed. Yes, by a math teachers group.</p>
<p>Shaw, “a distribution of belief about their underlying capabilities” needs to be separated from pronounced assertions about undeserving and stigma. It explains preconceived notions, but is supposed to allow for continued input and update. Where it gets suspicious is when folks make sweeping, permanent assertions about other groups. Especially when based on anecdote or unexplored assumptions.</p>
<p>NewHope, sometimes you hide your humor, so closely that I can’t tell- But, I’ll take the bait. 2370, world chess finalists-- if there is nothing more in the CA, no neat combo of one’s own interests, things done with the hs group/peers, and things done simply because the community has needs…fat chance.</p>
<p>Re the IQ gap between blacks and whites which as other posters have correctly noted has been consistently found, interestingly the gap narrowed by about 30% following the advent of AA policies and then this trend appears to have stopped in the last decade or so after a pull back from AA (may just be a correlation and not causation, but still interesting to me). Per wikipedia – </p>
<p>A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the black-white gap closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,[50] which would be a reduction of about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the gap remains stable.[51] In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the gap; “Dickens’ and Flynn’s estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point”. But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.[52] Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.[53]</p>
<p>Also, per Wikipedia, the vast majority of studies attribute this gap to non-genetic factors.</p>
<p>Still, putting aside IQ tests, the SAT does not purport to be one and simply predicts the likelihood of success in college after one year. </p>
<p>Also, my experience with my two sons perhaps causes my skepticism about the SAT. Child #1 took the SAT in March 2011 and scored 1880. He then retook with tutoring in June 2011 and scored 2130. Child #2 took the SAT first in January 2012 with tutoring and scored 2050; he retook in March 2012 w/o tutoring and scored 2220; then he retook again in June 2012 w/o tutoring and scored 2290 (1540 CR + M). </p>
<p>If the SAT truly depicted IQ or even college potential, such huge jumps (which in child2’s case is the difference between maybe sneaking into UVA or W&M based on Virginia residency, and good grades and activities to being in consideration for an Echols at UVA and a Monroe at W&M and a competitive applicant at almost any school in the country).</p>
<p>Society needs mediocre accountants, teachers, and even doctors, but it does not need mediocre scientists, whose job is to expand the frontiers of knowledge. If someone could not be competitive as a science major at Brown, I wonder if he should be a STEM researcher.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to get a tenure-track position at a research university. I think only academic stars should try to get PhDs.</p>
<p>The problem appears that one of (?) the servers has a clock problem. In the situations where I have posted and the post appeared in the wrong order, the time shown at the very bottom of the page was frozen at that time. Of course, then posting another post is not allowed due to the 60 second rule which is never timed out because the clock is stuck (as indicated by the time shown at the bottom not changing when refreshing the page some time later).</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with believing things that you’ve verified as being true. I do have a problem with some of the “therefores” that some people jump to based on knowing X, Y or Z about a particular group’s average test scores or IQ. I think for one thing that using an average to make assumptions about individuals is lazy. And I think that a person’s value to society does not begin and end with his or her test scores and IQ (or even extracurricular activities). </p>
<p>Certainly, it’s foolhardy for any school not to understand and address issues a particular type of student is likely to face, which gets back to the original post. If there are issues with URMs succeeding in certain areas, but you (where “you”=administration of elite institution of higher education) feel it’s important to your mission to help them succeed, then you need to develop tools to do that. The “mismatch,” then, needn’t be seen as an indictment of affirmative action. Schools ought to look at it, though, as a reason to evaluate their on-campus resources for kids who need extra help. </p>
<p>And, look, if you’re going to say those students don’t belong there in the first place: Tell it to your admissions officers when you’re in charge.</p>
<p>For the record, I tend not to be over impressed by IQ differences, more by what a person did with whatever they have. And, I don’t feel the SATs are adequate representations of college potential or hs achievement.</p>
<p>What I do think is that kids who score well are often exhibiting the motivation to excel in these tests and similar. Sometimes, that shows a needed level of drive- sometimes, it’s simply that he’s distracted getting a better score- or hyperfocused. In it’s own way, the scores are boxy. They don’t fill out the picture of the kid’s fit or future, just his scores on those tests.</p>
<p>There is really nothing UC can do about that at the admissions level as long as it adheres to the baseline UC eligibility criterion of a 3.0 high school GPA (of course, most UCs are more selective than that).</p>
<p>While the target UC eligibility rate is 12.5% of the high school class, only about 6% of black high school graduates are UC eligible, compared to about 7% of Latinos, 15% of whites, and 29% of Asians. So black students are expected to be underrepresented at UC as a whole by about half.</p>
<p>The CSU target is 33.3% of the high school class being CSU eligible (actual eligibility recently has been about 36%). About 28% of black, 26% of Latino, and 41% of white, and 60% of Asian high school seniors were CSU eligible in recent years.</p>
<p>Really, the problem starts earlier, in K-12. One can argue forever about the benefits or not of diversity, the fairness or not of considering race and ethnicity or other factors, etc. in college admissions, but as long as K-12 is failing a lot of students (particularly but not exclusively URMs and those from lower SES backgrounds), not much will change on the large scale by merely playing around with college admission policies.</p>
<p>@Periwinkle: That is a good example. In my opinion, this student might have been more successful at a small LAC with better support and less outright competition (or, as you say, a less-prestigious university). Also, LOTS of students think they want to go STEM and then reconsider for other majors. In some cases, it’s the threat of the grind. In others, it’s a newfound interest in philosophy or art history that emerges once they are out from under their parents’ thumbs and start thinking about what they actually like rather than what they SHOULD like.</p>
<p>This is why FIT is so important. It seems a lot of families decide their kid should always choose the most prestigious or highest-ranked school they get into rather than the one that best fits their temperament and strengths. Of the kids who graduated HS with my son last spring, the ones who seem happiest are the ones who did the latter. I know a number of high achievers like the twins in NewHope’s example who are questioning their choice and having a hard time adjusting. If things follow the pattern of years past, I would expect to see a number of them back home at our state flagship next year.</p>
<p>Sure, as long as you volunteer to put your kids in the schools and classes with those mediocre teachers, altruistically leaving the better schools and teachers for other kids.</p>
<p>There are more than 3 million teachers in the U.S. Any occupation with that many people is going to have many mediocre practitioners. I am using “mediocre” as a synonym for “average”, not “bad”.</p>
<p>I’m curious as to how opponents of Affirmative Action who detest this policy believe its eradication will open more spots to them or their children. Isn’t this assuming that without AA the percentage of black and Hispanic students will decrease? And isn’t this assumption made operating under the premise that URMs only gained admittance due to AA, which dismisses any work done by these students whilst also upholding the generalization that URMs inherently lack qualification for entry into elite schools?</p>
<p>Many employers of college graduates hire them not because of specific things they learned in college but because of a belief that they are on average more intelligent, literate, and numerate than non-college graduates. These beliefs are true, but there are plenty of high school graduates who are smarter than college graduates. The same logic influences which schools employers recruit at. If it weren’t for judging people based on averages, the primary reason most people go to college – to get a better job – would evaporate.</p>
<p>I wish more employers did use exams rather than college degrees to filter applicants (they would still interview people).</p>
<p>But then how does that match up with your previous post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In any group of scientists (whether large or small), there are average ones among that group, so they are mediocre by your definition. Even if there were just one scientist, s/he would be simultaneously the best, worst, and average (mediocre) scientist.</p>
<p>Well, first of all, the original comparison that the above post responded to was a little odd because it is likely that Georgia Tech is harder than Brown. </p>
<p>But anyway, I disagree with the above sentiment. If you don’t have the best background, it is best to go to a place which presents material slower so that when you learn it, you are able to question concepts and then internalize them. At some of the top places, they assume you have already done this in high school for some of the basic concepts. The extreme is at MIT and Caltech. </p>
<p>I’m in STEM, and it’s my opinion that there are people who would be competitive applicants for say, MIT science grad school from a state school undergrad, that would have been totally overwhelmed by MIT undergrad.</p>
<p>So yeah, mismatch does exist, at least in STEM.</p>
<p>Just over one out of every two Black/African American applicants got accepted into med school with an MCAT of 24-26 and a university GPA of 3.00 to 3.19. In the same period, about one out of twenty Asians with these figures got accepted - did worse by a factor of 10 - not 10%. And it’s not as though the Asians had weak credentials outside of grades - I know many who had extensive experience working in labs/hospitals, had papers published. And med school admission is less influenced by other factors such as athletics.</p>
<p>I think the assumption that is suspect is that 19 out of 20 Asians who were denied all had inferior credentials, leading me to believe that the premise that the URM gained admission was primarily due to AA.</p>