Posted on 10/27/2015 3:39:38 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
Large and growing gaps in SAT scores, by race and ethnicity, are nothing new. The College Board and educators alike have acknowledged these gaps and offered a variety of explanations, with a focus on the gaps in family income (on average) and the resources at high schools that many minority students attend. And indeed there is also a consistent pattern year after year on SAT scores in that the higher the family income, on average, the higher the scores.
But a new, long-term analysis of SAT scores has found that, among applicants to the University of California's campuses, race and ethnicity have become stronger predictors of SAT scores than family income and parental education levels.
Further, the study has found that all three factors -- race/ethnicity, family income and parental education levels -- now predict one-third of the variance in SAT scores among otherwise similar students, up from a quarter in 1994. In other words, a larger share of SAT variance today than in 1994 may be predicted based on where and to whom a child is born.
The research was done by Saul Geiser and was released by the research center where he works, the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley.
Geiser is quick in the paper to acknowledge that his study is only of the applicant pool for the University of California and that he has not done research on the extent to which these trends play out nationally. However, his study was based on a very large pool: the more than 1.1 million California residents who applied to UC campuses from 1994 through 2011. And his study is based on the current and previous SAT, not the new one about to be unveiled.
But his findings suggest that those who hope for a closing of racial gaps on standardized tests used for college admissions may be in for disappointment.
Much of the study is based on regression analysis of different factors associated with SAT scores. By controlling for some factors, he can find which characteristics have the most influence.
And for those who wish race to play less of a role, Geiser notes that there were some years of hope. The share of score variance attributable to socioeconomic factors fell from 25 percent in 1994 to 21 percent in 1998. But in the years that followed it went back up to 35 percent.
In contrast, socioeconomic factors could not be linked in a major way to variance in high school grade point averages. Socioeconomic factors, including race and ethnicity, accounted for 7 percent of the variance in GPAs in 1994 and 8 percent in 2011.
Geiser considers several possible explanations for the increasing impact of race and other socioeconomic factors in predicting SAT scores. One that he takes seriously is the possibility that links growing rates of "intense segregation" in high schools, with more minority students attending high schools that are overwhelmingly minority and poorly resourced. For instance, the percentage of what researchers call "apartheid" schools -- those where 99-100 percent of students are nonwhite -- has doubled in the last two decades, and now represents one in 14 high schools. So the impact of race and class are, in many cases, combined for the minority students attending those schools.
Unlike some other critics of the SAT, Geiser doesn't push for its elimination as an admissions criteria. He notes that other measures don't necessarily help minority applicants.
However, Geiser does write that the SAT appears to be a poor predictor (especially for black and Latino students) of whether they will graduate from UC. A key caveat here is that the College Board has always stressed that the SAT is a tool for predicting first-year performance, not graduation. Still, Geiser writes that the consideration of the SAT depresses the chances of minority students getting in, while doing little to help admissions officers predict applicant success.
The solution, for Geiser, is to go back to what the University of California did when it adopted the SAT, but which the state's voters have barred it from doing today: considering race in admissions. He writes that if public universities are going to consider SAT scores in a serious way, they should also consider race and ethnicity.
"The continuing dominance of standardized admissions tests in American higher education is one of the most powerful arguments for affirmative action. Much of the original impetus for race-conscious policies grew out of recognition of the severe adverse impact of SAT scores on admission of students of color. Since then, that impact has not only continued but worsened, if the California data are any indication," writes Geiser.
"These findings underscore the continuing relevance of the original, remedial rationale for affirmative action. Rather than a remedy for historical discrimination, however, they show that race-conscious policies are essential to remedy unwarranted disparities in the present day. The adverse racial impact of SAT scores is far out of proportion with their limited capacity to predict how applicants will perform in college," he concludes.
Geiser makes his argument as the U.S. Supreme Court is once again considering the constitutionality of considering race in admissions.
Asked if he thought his findings could influence the justices or colleges, he said via email: "I have no idea whether my results might influence the court, but if other states were to observe the same trends, I think it might make a difference. I’m hoping that other institutional researchers will pick this up. As for the message to colleges, I think the important point is the linkage of affirmative action with standardized testing, not the emphasis on one or the other."
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action, had a different take on the study.
"If a test is unreliable for certain races -- and this has long been alleged and long been refuted for the SAT, by the way -- then a school is perfectly justified in not using it, but it should try to find other measures that are reliable," Clegg said via email. "What it should not do is admit students who are less well qualified under any measure in order to reach a particular racial result."
The gap is explained by differences in intelligence and effort.
.4 is low, though the CAGW warmists would love to be doing as well with their models.
Well now, how do you reduce the gap??
Well, current educators will want to depress those who aspire to excellence and get them closer to the underachievers.
The American way us to find ways to interest the underachievers to work harder and become closer to those who do excellent work.
These people are idiots. All their sociology is Marxist cr*pology.
The only thing which creates a Newton is a Natural Family that creates a loving, flourishing, non-stressful childhood which includes reading and human interactions—with adult role models (not a bunch of illiterate peers.) For self-initiative it is important for a child to have the freedom to CHOOSE and not learn dependency and servitude 8 hours a day—dictating what you NEED-—rather than the individual being allowed to study how and what they need to improve themselves. This “group” system is Prussian and destroys Individualism and natural curiosity and initiative (on purpose).
Like with Ben Carson——it wasn’t “school” that made him a genius——it was reading BOOKS-—GREAT BOOKS-—not dumb “shades of gray immoral books which excite base, evil desires instead of building character.
Most literature for children now is Neo-Freudian cr*p which manipulates emotions in artiificial evil ways and forces the mind to descend to the sewer. True art (Classical) elevates the Soul with beauty/harmony and elevates the Mind to the Sublime. Classical Education creates Excellence (virtue). Common Core destroys virtue (intentionally) and drags the brain to hate (in the Marxist sense-—it groups to marginalize).
ALL real scientists understand the importance of one-on-one interaction and not the “group think” factories that they designed to destroy individualism and make children hate to “learn” by forcing them to “think” inside a box, and feel “bad” or dumb, if they don’t think like their peers. (Now, most of their peers are neglected and immoral, and raised by puerile warped cartoons like spongebob anyhow).
Virtue is habituated and embedded in early childhood-—and without Virtue you can NEVER have excellence.
Too many of the “minorities” are deprived of a Natural Family and the home life that embeds morality (virtue/excellence) so they will develop bad habits which destroy the possibility of learning anything of importance. They will be lazy-—hate work (like Booker T. W. stated) and will never amount to anything.
Of course-—the Marxists know how to create dummies so they destroyed the Black family (on purpose) and now are destroying the White family (on purpose) by promoting Vice in our “Just Laws” and creating Marxist systems of indoctrination (lies and misinformation which vilifies all heroes) so there is NO possibility of a Newton or Founding Father. They need SLAVES only.
We need to take back education-—local schools ONLY and put back Classical Education (true education) (which includes memorization of the Bible (exercise of the braiin) and restore this Republic.
Remember-—all ideas contain a faith. Only Christianity was banned in our schools as paganism/naturalism/humanism, etc. is promoted. We have a RIGHT to promote our beliefs which include the ideas and Traditions which created this country.and the ideology embedded in our Constitution (Christian Ethics only).
Race has nothing to do with IQ-—you can get a Clarence Thomas or a Thomas Sowell or a Booker T. Washington with a Classical Education and a home life which promotes Virtue (excellence). Same with a Ted Cruz. It is the FAMILY-—it is moral ROLE MODELS——and parents who LOVE and spend time READING to their children and teaching them how to flourish.
gubment schools be gravy train fo black edcators
This is the generation in which ethnic teachers are the products of inferior schools. In the past, minority teachers were dedicated to doing their best to give their students a good education in spite of a lack of funds and supplies. It was remarkable what they achieved.
Today, the teachers’ unions tell minority teachers that Black children are victims of discrimination and can’t learn. So they don’t try.
The SAT IS an IQ test, however much ETS denies it. The "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude", before aptitude became a dirty word.
Take yours truly.
HS average 88%. NYS Regents average 85%. HS GPA 2.99. Stanford Binet 4th grade = 144. (OK, yes, that = lazy).
SAT=1526 (old norm). MCAT = 788.
The only thing I ever did that correlated with my S-B IQ was the SAT (and the MCAT).
Thank you, ETS!
It would, however, be a lot simpler, and a lot more honest, to IQ test 11 year olds and track them for college or vocational school at that point.
Years ago the authors of the Bell Curve described how the gap between the bright and not-so-bright was increasing. The smart kids were marrying other smart kids and so on down the line. This is no surprise.
The comment that the SAT is a poor predictor is probably correct. The SAT predicts that the low scorers on the test will do better than they actually do. That's because of regression to the mean.
Extremely well.
This article makes about as much sense as trying to correlate Asian height "underachievement" in high school with income.
I think they did that when I wuz a kid....
SAT scores are simply another measure of the importance of the family (no unwed women with children aren’t families). It’s not a surprise that liberals never bring this up when complaining about the results.
From 2012:
72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock;
66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives;
53.3 percent of Hispanics;
29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and
17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329432/latest-statistics-illegitimate-births-roger-clegg
True. Asian students generally score high on the SAT.
These men were either born into slavery or born shortly thereafter and managed to develop their minds with nothing but their persistence, will. and curiosity.
It is such a shame how little things have progressed for the black community. In the past slaves would risk death if they were found trying to learn to read. In the present black children risk the same dangers, only now it's not white slave owners wanting to keep blacks uneducated.
Money isn't the problem... Bill Gates came to a city - one county over from where I live - and gave the school system an extra 200 million dollars... the city matched the 200 million. It made not one bit of difference. The money might as well have been thrown off a bridge.
Black culture is a large part of the problem. Until that changes 'solutions' will be temporary and expensive...and padded with corruption.
Sitting next to a white kid isn't the answer - white doesn't rub off...(and even if it did, isn't that insulting?) Schools have been integrated for almost 50 years. College graduation for black men is worse than it was in the 70's.... We're going backwards.
Not to sound sound counter-intuitive but maybe offering black kids exactly the same as white kids will wake them up to the reality that education is THEIR responsibility.. Not the society's, not the village, not other racial groups... but THEIR responsibility. Natural consequences of choice is a strong teaching tool. It works.
Did you manage to be racist, sexist and homophobic all in one post? You da man!
;-)
Country IQ ranking bump.
Occam, I think your razor is missing!
:)
Common sense appears to liberals as what you described.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.