<p>Philovitist,</p>
<p>If we all agree that resources and opportunities = better test scores, then why do you want to be so dependent on test scores and take away colleges discretion in admissions?</p>
<p>Um…I don’t.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, I agree. In addition, this is an issue that is grossly ignored in academic and philanthropic circles. The lack of support and guidance of the less fortunate in terms of standardized tests mimics a similar lack in our public schools as well as the expectation of failure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think differences in innate ability explain a large part, probably most, of the difference. A paper looking at this question is “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” by Rushton and Jensen . This meta-analysis and some responses to it were published in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2
<a href=“http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/[/url]”>http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/</a> .</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia, Jensen wrote over 400 scientific papers published in refereed journals and was rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.</p>
<p>It is commonly argued that the higher SAT scores of whites and of the affluent are explained by better test preparation. Blogger Education Realist refutes this contention in [Why</a> Chris Hayes Fails](<a href=“http://educationrealist.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2012/06/19/why-chris-hayes-fails/]Why”>Why Chris Hayes Fails | educationrealist) </p>
<p>“Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use test prep than whites. […] The idea that blacks and Hispanics dont have access to test prep is some sort of delusion that all the reality in the universe cant shake out of progressives.”</p>
<p>Could anything be learned by studying individual cases of high achieving, high IQ, lower income black and Hispanic students? I remember reading a book, _And Still We Rise: The Trials and Triumphs of Twelve Gifted Inner-City High School Students _, which chronicled gifted Black students from difficult backgrounds. It was a sobering, informative read.</p>
<p>I just think there are a complex set of circumstances that explain successes and failures of minority students but Philovitist hits the nail on the head, IMO, when he talks about the family and neighborhood culture being one of the strongest influences on achievement. (Apologies if I didn’t get that quite right, Philovitist)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I reply to this in #1305.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>I am not asking you to do my research for me, but I wonder if you can share the names of some of the reputable scientists who disagree with Jensen’s conclusions? I am not discounting his conclusions (because I’ve not read his work, and after I finish making dinner and such, I might have time to poke around the 'net a bit more!). But I have to assume there are scientists who disagree with him and that, as you are so up on his work, you must also be familiar with the arguments against his position.</p>
<p>My own intuitive (and based on experience) position is in line with the following (from Wikipedia):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any comments on the the conclusions of this international scientific society? I would imagine the group (1,700 worldwide members) includes some people who have impressive lists of publications to their names (although I’ve not checked any of their bona fides).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two books dissenting from “Jensenism” are </p>
<p>Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count by Richard E. Nisbett (2010) </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>The Mismeasure of Man (Revised & Expanded) by Stephen Jay Gould (1996).</p>
<p>I don’t see much substance in the [AAA</a> Statement on “Race”](<a href=“http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]AAA”>404 Page Not Found - The American Anthropological Association) .</p>
<p>Thanks for the info and perspective, Beliavsky. Now I shall return to my coq au vin.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, the anecdotal positions in your post 1305 do not really do much to contradict my prior comments. The universe of your realist blogger might be a lot different from others’ and hardly not as universal as you may think.</p>
<p>If one is improving test scores, is he improvng in his intellectual skills, ability to seek out and apply knowledge, apply critical thinking, analyze within his field? Or, improving on that SAT, as designed? That set of tests. </p>
<p>Plenty disagree with Jenson. Can be googled for more. There is also a serious, respected academic trend that states race is a social construct- most of you have probably heard of that. Idea is genetic differeces among what we perceive as races, are insignificant. Differences are superficial- skin color, facial characteristics, etc. </p>
<p>You can find “proofs” of nearly any stand you want to take. You can analyze them within your own preconceived frameworks. Yup.</p>
<p>We’re having meatloaf. Not a socio-political statement.</p>
<p>“I think differences in innate ability explain a large part, probably most, of the difference.”</p>
<p>If so Beliavsky, how much should be counted as “an achievement”? And if someone starts out with less “innate ability”, and does much better than expected, lets say the top percent of their “similar abilitied group”, why is that not ALSO an achievement?</p>
<p>“Could anything be learned by studying individual cases of high achieving, high IQ, lower income black and Hispanic students?”</p>
<p>Yes, but I don’t know that we need to limit it by income. I think the highest “achieving” underrepresented students of all incomes are still underrepresented. I think college board was looking at that in the past. They asked some students to enroll in some study group. Don’t know what became of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The blogger is a high school teacher of math and social studies. He not only writes of his experiences but cites several papers. One reason to doubt that racial differences in test prep cause differences in test scores is that test prep has not been shown to raise scores much on average. The NACAC paper [Preparation</a> for College Admissions Exams](<a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/research/PublicationsResources/Marketplace/Documents/TestPrepDiscussionPaper.pdf]Preparation”>http://www.nacacnet.org/research/PublicationsResources/Marketplace/Documents/TestPrepDiscussionPaper.pdf) by Derek C. Briggs states that “contrary to the claims made by test preparation providers of large increases of 100 points or more on the SAT, research suggests that average gains are more in the neighborhood of 30 points.” The studies refer to the older, 2-section SAT.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, again, there is nothing in your last rebuttal that contradicts what I wrote. If you believe that the experiences of that math teacher/blogger is supported by evidence, power to you. Your arguments are over the place, and to such extent that I am not certain what it is that your are argueing about. </p>
<p>Sorry, but this is not worthy of a further discussion.</p>
<p>Agreed. Beliavsky has tried again and again to gain consensus for his belief that Asians are superior (both via innate intelligence and hard work), whites are next, and URMs (especially blacks) lag significantly behind. First it’s all about the SATs; then it’s not. Then it is again. Then it’s not. When we learn MIT doesn’t discriminate between a 730 on the math portion and an 800, he turns to CalTech because another poster inadvertently supported his views. Then he offers biased articles to support his position–whatever it takes. This is a person with an agenda (remember, he started this thread) and he won’t rest until we all agree with his “facts.”</p>
<p>For the record, there was no “mismatch” at MIT for the international URMs from Africa and Latin America. They were clearly very strong academically as a group.</p>
<p>I don’t believe we were ever talking about international students. If so, we’d have to open up the question of whether their credentials were valid. (Not saying anything about Africa or Latin America…I know there have been problems with Asia.)</p>
<p>Well, we weren’t talking about internationals, but it is relevant to the “innate ability” argument.</p>
<p>“Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use test prep than whites. […] The idea that blacks and Hispanics don’t have access to test prep is some sort of delusion that all the reality in the universe can’t shake out of progressives.” </p>
<p>Wow! That sounds crazy in my neck of the woods ( or hoods, as the case might be). Most don’t even TAKE the SAT. I can’t seem to find the “N” or where the author got her sample.</p>
<p>“Well, we weren’t talking about internationals, but it is relevant to the “innate ability” argument.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t THAT complicate things! What could THAT mean? </p>
<p>I am watching KCRA’s version of the issues.</p>