Mismatch caused by racial preferences

poetgrl · October 30, 2012, 12:54pm

One thing I would caution against, however, is the assumption, which is underlying a lot of these conversations, that IQ is a definitive test. Just to be clear, it is ONE test and it tests for SOME things. It is not definitive on someone’s abilities as a whole person, anymore than high or low SAT scores are definitive on someone’s abilities. Actually, even among those who find IQ a legitimate measure, there is a strong diminishing return above 120.

I have a lot of reasons to buy into the IQ argument and the standardized test argument, since my kids and I test very well on these things, but having volunteered at the community college with the underserved from our K-12, I am convinced that the biggest problem is with the way we are educating and not with someone’s innate ability. Innate ability is like a rock. You can use it a lot of different ways, but past a certain point, the rock used most effectively is still the better rock. I’ve worked with kids who thought they were hopeless and would never be able to do certain things. In the end, it turned out that their teachers had been hopeless and had not bothered to teach certain things effectively.

I think part of the reason this happens is that we have changed our view of what a test is “for.” A test was originally designed so that the teacher could assess whether or not he/she was getting through to the student, not whether or not the student was doing something right or wrong. We’ve turned the the telescope around and we now point it at the student. We say, “Why aren’t you learning this?”

WHAT? The nature of what we can learn is determined by what we ask. The proper question is not “Why aren’t you learning this?” The proper question is, “What do I need to do to teach you this so you will be able to understand?”

Anyway, I just want to say Philovitist, keep on going. Do not be discouraged by conversations like this. They are not relevent to you. The reality is that conversations like this are about statistics and not individuals. Once you get to the individual, even people like Bialasky will have a different opinion. Especially if you are his kid.

Everyone else-- carry on.

muckdogs07 · October 30, 2012, 1:06pm

UCBalumnus,

Could not agree with you more re K-12 being one of the major problems. But this is also why it is not obvious to universities who has the most academic potential between a URM student from a mediocre school district who has achieved leadership positions and is at the top of her class but scores say in the 1900 range on SAT versus a student from a very good school district with a lower class rank (but still top 10%) and solid ECs (but not much leadership) who has a 2200 super score on the SAT. There are arguments for either student, but I do not think the case for the 2200 SAT student here is overwhelming.

Also, when you think about the reasons for the K-12 disparity, surely parental income/education and wealth of the school district play significant roles in this disparity. Without some AA, it will be difficult to reverse this disparity.

Finally, I agree with the posts about students being individuals and know that many URMs would do fine without AA and that there is an unfounded assumption made by some students (and probably teachers) at least at some schools that a URM student is there due to AA and that there is a stigma associated with this (although as others have pointed out, I think the stigma can be reduced if the school works hard at integrating URMs both in and out of the classroom after enrollment and believe this is where many of the colleges practicing AA have fallen down).

Thus, my posts are simply addressing things at a macro level where the disparities in SAT scores between URMS and others are daunting. For example, regarding the gap in test scores between high achievers of different races, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education states that:

"Let’s be more specific about the SAT racial gap among high-scoring applicants. In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers. But only 1,132 African-American college-bound students scored 700 or above on the math SAT and only 1,205 scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT. Nationally, more than 100,000 students of all races scored 700 or above on the math SAT and 78,025 students scored 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Thus, in this top-scoring category of all SAT test takers, blacks made up only 1.1 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the math test and only 1.5 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the verbal SAT.

If we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the statistics and compare just white and black students, we find that 5.8 percent of all white SAT test takers scored 700 or above on the verbal portion of the test. But only 0.79 percent of all black SAT test takers scored at this level. Therefore, whites were more than seven times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Overall, there are more than 39 times as many whites as blacks who scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT.

On the math SAT, only 0.7 percent of all black test takers scored at least 700 compared to 6.3 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were nine times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the math SAT. Overall, there were 45 times as many whites as blacks who scored 700 or above on the math SAT.

If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation’s most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.

Once again, if we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the calculations and compare only blacks and whites, we find that 0.2 percent of all black test takers scored 750 or above on the verbal SAT compared to 2.2 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were 11 times as likely as blacks to score 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Overall, there were 49 times as many whites as blacks who scored at or above the 750 level.

On the math SAT, only 0.16 percent of all black test takers scored 750 or above compared to 1.8 percent of white test takers. Thus, whites were more than 11 times as likely as blacks to score 750 or above on the math SAT. Overall, there were more than 61 times as many whites as blacks who scored 750 or above on the math section of the SAT."

3togo · October 30, 2012, 1:16pm

Great question … I’ve seen all sorts of correlations to college GPAs but never this comparison … it would be interesting to see. My guess is the correlation to college GPAs is not very good in either case (which is true about all application info) but that the average SAT is better predictor than the highest SAT … totally a guess on my part.

Philovitist · October 30, 2012, 1:31pm

And Harvard gives out about 200 seats to African Americans per year.

Therefore it’s pretty likely that Harvard doesn’t really have to AA anyone. :S

muckdogs07 · October 30, 2012, 1:46pm

One last thought re stats and this is for legacies from a 2011 Harvard study that shows a much higher preference for them than anything for AAs.

"A researcher at Harvard University recently examined the impact of legacy status at 30 highly selective colleges and concluded that, all other things being equal, legacy applicants got a 23.3-percentage-point increase in their probability of admission. If the applicants’ connection was a parent who attended the college as an undergraduate, a “primary legacy,” the increase was 45.1-percentage points.

In other words, if a nonlegacy applicant faced a 15-percent chance of admission, an identical applicant who was a primary legacy would have a 60-percent chance of getting in."

muckdogs07 · October 30, 2012, 1:49pm

Philovitist,

I wish there was a study showing which schools the top scoring AAs attended. If anyone knows of one, please cite it. Agree HYPS get a good share of this pool, but I also wonder what percentage of this pool end up at their state flagship universities by choice to be with friends, due to counselors, or because they love sports or other activities more prominent there than in the ivies.

lookingforward · October 30, 2012, 1:55pm

Doesn’t it stand to reason that CB wants to validate SATs as some sort of predictor?

It would be interesting to turn away from stats-based opinions and look at the other factors that make holistic adcoms think kid X is a match and kid Y is same old/same old. What is it that makes them think X has the life skills, doggedness and vision to make more of himself during college, at that college, and over the next decades? IMO, it’s more than overcoming family/community challenges. More than a principle that a group of kids will makemore of the college experience. Many of these kids have a spark.

Muck- point is, legacies are not shoe-ins.

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 1:58pm

The relevant comparison isn’t to the pool of applicants at large. The relevant comparison is to the pool of applicants who have similar elite-legacy status. In other words, what is the acceptance rate at Harvard of Harvard legacies compared to the acceptance rate of Harvard of Yale, Princeton, etc. legacies. Because the legacy pool is not the same as the pool at large. It’s going to be more affluent as a whole, and probably attending better schools, having more opportunities, etc.

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 2:00pm

No, Philo, that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not as though the vast majority of high-white-scorers apply to Harvard; what would make you think the vast majority of high-black scorers apply to Harvard? It’s just one college. It is on some people’s radar screens and not others. Smart kids of any color in the midwest and in California choose their state flagships and don’t even think about Harvard in many cases.

muckdogs07 · October 30, 2012, 2:00pm

Lookingforward,

AA candidates not shoo-ins either (as their percentages at top schools consistently lag behind the general population. Any ways re legacies, a 45% advantage for primary legacies is huge. It turns a high reach (15%) into a low match (60%) and dwarfs any statistical advantage for AAs.

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 2:02pm

To that end, I wonder what adcoms would say if they heard the conversation of a bunch of freshmen - “oh, you’re not an athlete? or a legacy? or a URM? you must be one of the smart ones!” Do you think they would think …

a) Wow, that kid really has got it all together - he’s computing those Bayesian probabilities like mad, I can’t wait for him to contribute to our community! - or -
b) Ugh, what a jerk, he clearly doesn’t know how to play well with people - I’m kind of sorry that I didn’t see evidence of his bad attitude in his essays / teacher recs. Well, hopefully he won’t cause too much angst in his dorm.

muckdogs07 · October 30, 2012, 2:04pm

Pizzagirl,

Interesting thought. Do not know enough about the study to see if they tried to control for this factor, but likely did not. It does say “all other things being equal” which I suspect means they tried to control for income etc (but not legacy status at other Ivies). In any event, even without this control though a 45% increase in chances is huge.

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 2:07pm

It’s not my original thought. It’s been discussed here on CC many times before. Many colleges are also transparent about their legacy acceptance rates compared to their regular acceptance rates. There is no selective / elite college at which the legacy acceptance rate came in at over 40% if I am recalling properly (which I may not be). Several multiples of small is still small.

lookingforward · October 30, 2012, 2:09pm

Muck, I know and agree. But, legacies serve institutional pruposes. It’s not a gimme and it’s tied to alum giving and engagement.

Oh, plus the fact that, in a sea of kids who want to attend Great College because it is “Great” College, there can be an assumption legacies at least know what the school is about, what growth their alum family achieved and how. Same with siblings, though managed a bit differently. Etc.

The U is like a mightly big ship. Lots of factors keep it afloat.

Beliavsky · October 30, 2012, 2:13pm

Have you read the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Kahneman? It documents that statistical models usually predict better than the global judgments of experts. Has an admissions committee ever tried to validate its decisions by seeing if its ratings of applicants correlated better with student success than a statistical model using measures of test scores and grades would? The definition of student success could include, in addition to grades, such things such as participation and leadership in extracurricular activities in college. There is a “censoring” problem – colleges have no information about how rejected applicants would have done. But applicants are given numerical ratings for their academic and personal qualities by the readers of applications. Do the ratings for matriculated students better predict student success than a composite of grades and test scores?

lookingforward · October 30, 2012, 2:35pm

All the statistical modelling couldn’t tell me where that darned storm was going to turn toward land and what next.

Bel, yes colleges follow up on performance. Yes, Institutional Research digs into all sorts of things, depending on priorities and interests. And money. Sometimes, you can find these studies online, if you know how to get into the body of what a college posts (ie, beyond clickable links.) Smaller colleges/LACs might band together with a few very similar others, to afford these studies or provide a sufficient data pool.

Whatever access to info (and don’t forget, adcoms tend to stay abreast of all sorts of info,) it can appear in admissions reactions. It can shift yearly (the moving target that affects kids.)

But, from an institutional perspective, an applicant’s potential for engagement on campus is very important. MITChris touched on some of this in his posts.

hebegebe · October 30, 2012, 2:56pm

“My twin boys each got 2370 on their SATs (first sitting!), and I wondering if they should retake. The problem is that the next two test days coincide with the World Peace Conference in Gstaad (where they are representing the United States), and the Under-18 World Chess Championships in Rio de Janeiro (they’re 1-2 in the world currently).”

I think you mean Maribor? It was supposed to be in Rio last year but was moved to a suburb.

Yes, I knew you were joking. However, we really considered attending…

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 2:57pm

Exactly. Who CARES if someone has 2400 SAT’s, if they are going to be bumps on a log? The college wants someone who starts or joins clubs, attends or performs in theater, organizes interesting events, writes for the newspaper, shows up to sporting events, and most importantly builds bridges to others over shared interests, whether academic or extracurricular – not just sit in the library and / or lab and / or dorm room. And that’s what the the one-dimensional “but 2400 is better than 2200, always and foreva!” thinkers don’t seem to get.

Pizzagirl · October 30, 2012, 3:00pm

Yes, they do. And … if they weren’t getting the results they wanted, they’d change their metrics. The thing is - they ARE getting the results they wanted. The elite colleges have highly intelligent, engaging, diverse classes with stellar stats, which form a “stew” of kids who go and do great things - and high graduation rates to boot. Just because it doesn’t fit some people’s stated desires of rack-and-stack-the-highest-SAT-scores doesn’t mean that the colleges haven’t gotten what they want. And at the end of the day - their interest is in creating the “stew” THEY want. Not the “stew” YOU want. If you don’t like it, you can start your own college that is SAT-only.

NewHope33 · October 30, 2012, 3:01pm

“NewHope, sometimes you hide your humor, so closely that I can’t tell- But, I’ll take the bait.”

Lookingforward - I’ve thought about appending /sarcasm/ to my posts. But friends tell me “sarcasm” would be a woeful understatement in many cases. Rule of thumb? “If it sounds too odd to be true … it probably is.” Sorry for the confusion. I’m the guy who would welcome a 13th Knight to the Round Table, even if I did have to slide my chair over a couple inches to make room. I have little patience for the “no one’s worthy but me” crowd.

Mismatch caused by racial preferences

CONNECT WITH US