Posted on 05/17/2019 7:23:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Few people have the audacity to speak the truth about the underlying problem with the efforts to engineer “diversity” – which in practice means that blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans receive a share of jobs, college admissions, income, and other products of achievement at least proportional to their share of the population. Fortunately, Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has a lot of guts.
Last night, Ms. Mac Donald appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and discussed the newly-announced “adversity score” adopted by the College Board publishers of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). As explained by the New York Times:
The company announced on Thursday that it will include a new rating, which is widely being referred to as an “adversity score,” of between 1 and 100 on students’ test results. An average score is 50, and higher numbers mean more disadvantage. The score will be calculated using 15 factors, including the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s neighborhood.
The rating will not affect students’ test scores, and will be reported only to college dmissions officials as part of a larger package of data on each test taker.
The Wall Street Journal expresses the decision factors in this graphic:
Source: Wall Street Journal
In his introduction Carlson outlined many problems with the whole idea:
It’s kept a secret. “Trust us,” in effect, they say. There is no appeal possible. And as a black box whose inner workings are secret, it becomes an ideal vehicle for engineering the racial results admissions offices desire.
It is easily gamed – fake addresses, even possible income manipulation by claiming a lot of depreciation,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This is just a test. Colleges don’t have to use the results. Some colleges aren’t looking at SAT scores. Isn’t that correct?
This could backfire on the diversity proponents. A college might, without saying so, consider a high diversity score as a negative for the applicant.
Well, there is not only the SAT, there is also the ACT.
So, I am not sure whether they are looking only at SAT or not.
Truth: it’s bogus.
How much credit is realized for killing a White male?
The asylum of our era. Un-think is worshipped. Un-do is done.
Meanwhile, negro “doctors”, “judges”, “stockbrokers” and high society members fill up my TV screen, cavorting with the jet set and buying $80,000 sedans while their perfectly-clad and groomed children romp around happily on the lawn of their multi-million dollar estate, as the gorgeous blond “mommy” looks on approvingly.
Is this why Al Sharpton visited the White House so many time during the Obama years?
May I politely disagree with you? Standardized tests are the only objective way to measure actual educational achievements and level of intelligence, provided of course that they are well designed and validated tests.
How else are you going to do it? Please describe what subjective means can possibly be uniformly and consistently fair and honest?
“The threshold I.Q. level for a diagnosis of mental retardation has been progressively lowered over the years, in part because of awareness of the damaging social prejudice suffered by those labeled “retarded.” In 1959, the American Association on Mental Deficiency set 85 as the I.Q. below which a person was considered to be retarded.In 1992, the renamed American Association on Mental Retardation lowered the mental retardation “ceiling” to an I.Q. of 70-75,but many mental health specialists argue that people with I.Q.s of up to 80 may also have mental retardation. Flexibility in the I.Q. standard is important because tests given at different times may show slight variations due to differences in the tests and because of testing error — the standard error measurement on I.Q. tests is generally three to five points.”
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm
Finally, someone else said it.
Yes, Italians were considered "not quite white" for a long time, and many people still see us that way. But, when I was young, we saw ourselves as different from everyone else. The point is, "white" has always been a subjective term.
With that said, nothing in this new policy says anything about "race." The College Board should not be awarding any extra points based on a social justice agenda. However, many different kinds of people fit the parameters for these points.
Agree with your comment in favor of state and county college students, by the way. One of mine scored high but went to a state college. He graduated and has a great job. I raised my children to expect to start at a county college and then transfer, just to save money. Many people do just that and do well in life. All the crying here about college seems ridiculous.
Read the article to see how the UCLA Law School faculty created its racial admissions program: https://www.allanfavish.com/index.php/affirmative-actionracial-preferences/134-ccri-and-hopwood
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.