<p><a href=“http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem[/url]”>http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem</a></p>
<p>For reference on Jewish preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t forget women - they were discriminated against by official policy until what, the late 70s?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On a population-adjusted basis, the US is very very far from number 1 in virtually everything (well, on a scale where high rank indicates best).</p>
<p>
We agree on something!</p>
<p>
Being of a certain race or sex or having parents of a certain income level is not an accomplishment. Grades, test scores, and achievement in sports and music are accomplishments, and I never said they should not be considered.</p>
<p>What I have learned is that many people cannot honestly grapple with views they disagree with – they must caricature them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The U.S. ranks 8th in per-capita GDP
[List</a> of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita]List”>List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia) , and all of the countries ahead of it have much smaller populations. Among large countries the U.S. often ranks very highly. Comparing to U.S. to city-states is not meaningful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and state courts have force New Jersey to send a lot of money to the “Abbott” school districts in these towns, to little avail, as discussed in [The</a> Court That Broke Jersey by Steven Malanga, City Journal Winter 2012](<a href=“http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_nj-supreme-court.html]The”>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_nj-supreme-court.html) .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bel, if I recall correctly, you stated something to the effect that SAT scores correlate to IQ and cannot be improved significantly with test prep. If you believe that is true, then how do you categorize one’s test score as an “accomplishment?”</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>I like the factual nature of your posts and have tried not to caricature you. But I would like to know what is your bottom line with all the cites to the stats – do you attribute the difference in AA’s test scores to innate abilities, societal discrimination, something else, or a mix of factors?</p>
<p>Two of my children went up 250 and 240 points on SAT (2050 to 2290 and 1880 to 2130; ie the difference for the first between competitive applicant almost anywhere and state flagship (still applying) and for the second between maybe good state school but probably not flagship to borderline at top schools (attending UVA and wait listed at Duke, Hopkins and Chicago). The third child went up over 100 points (2040 to 2170) still applying, twins of child #1). </p>
<p>I know this is anecdotal, but these are the same kids and they did not magically get smarter over the six month period between tests. Instead, they simply gained more info about the test and processed it. Increases of this magnitude should not happen if the SAT mirrored IQ tests.</p>
<p>My child’s score went from a 26 to a 32 ACT in 5 months. I guess my urm drank some IQ boosting goo goo juice. =)</p>
<p>
I’m not in NJ. I’m in the county with the highest average property taxes in the nation. It’s a good school too. I love its diversity.</p>
<p>My college had a large Jewish presence by the early 1970s, had about as many African Americans then as now, but didn’t achieve a 50/50 M/F ration until at least ten years later.</p>
<p>Bay, my college first admitted women at all in the 70s. You can definitely see that at reunions. But there was nothing subtle there.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the anecdotes regarding increases in SAT or ACT scores are analyzed in one way, and not necessarily the best one. Here is another angle. By learning how the test is constructed and how the standard education in our schools FAILS to foster and reward reasoning and mental quickness, most anyone can score at the level of his or her natural abilities.</p>
<p>It is not the students boosted their IQ but simply that they reversed the inhibiting ways learned in school.</p>
<p>^And that would be “the achievement” that makes the student better “qualified”?</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>Interesting perspective, but even if you are right and regardless of which way you look at it, (ie teaching to the test or revealing natural abilities via processing of non-SD info), don’t you agree that those who can undergo that processing typically come from more affluent circumstances and therefore have an advantage over those less fortunate?</p>
<p>We already agree that rich people have better learning resources which translate to stronger applications when it comes to ECs, GPAs, test scores, etc. That’s not controversial.</p>
<p>I don’t know about “controversy”, but the question is whether high SAT scores are an achievement, or is increasing your SAT score is an achievement. I think there may be some cultural differences in terms of beliefs about that.</p>
<p>We have these tests and doing well is impressive. I said earlier: to some extent, doing well on them shows a kid’s motivation to do well- a hint he will be similarly motivated in college, know the ways of achieving success. But, it is just not “the be all and end all.” In a huge pool of competitive applicants, of course adcoms can cherry pick some high performing group that meets their ideals, in lots of ways.</p>
<p>I can’t explain it, where it comes from or how the spark ignites. But, there are disadvantaged kids out there who leave others in the dust. Believe it or not, like it or not, and whether or not it fits your world view. (And, whether or not they stick with STEM.) Any notion that their SATs make them ill-prepared is just looking at one of the details submitted with the Common App and supps.</p>
<p>SAT is a reflection of one’s current ability to solve mathematical/logical problems, process and interpret passages, and to compose simple essays.
Scoring well is generally a reflection of both hard work in school and innate talent. If one is making huge gains as a result of test prep, most probably they are actually improving one’s level in one of those three areas. (I am ambivalent on the writing section, but the importance of this section is besides the point.)</p>
<p>Based on this, I would say “yes”, doing well is an achievement. And the fact that innate ability helps you to do well doesn’t mean it’s not an achievement.<br>
Michael Phelps wouldn’t have been swimming in the olympics without innate ability; it doesn’t mean his gold medals aren’t an achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m just pointing out that the idea that “but rich people are advantaged in this domain” should in any way affect one’s assessment that “success in this domain is a significant achievement” is fallacious.</p>