Author Topic: Affirmative Action (Read 6293 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #285 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:08:28 PM »

You could argue whatever point you like, but the fact is that GPA is a much better indicator of college performance than the SAT test. I believe I have provided links to the data in this thread.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #286 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:09:44 PM »

I guess it all depends on the black man's education if his GPA is higher than mine, and yes I agree that the SAT isn't a good measure for admission to a university...

I'll take the Comm College jab, I went there and I left there with a degree. In retrospect I am somewhat thankful for going to Comm College. It allowed me to work, go to school and pay for it all easily because it is so cheap and the one I went to has one of the best Computer Science departments in the US.

I'm just saying that with the option of Community College (where you will be admitted regardless of your SATs or GPA), and can be there for 1 semester, 2 semesters, or 2 years (working halfway to your degree) with a significantly reduced price of a 4 year insitution, that it is not a bad choice, especially if you do well there, you will be guaranteed admission to any state school.
-SW

AKIron · « **Reply #287 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:19:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
You could argue whatever point you like, but the fact is that GPA is a much better indicator of college performance than the SAT test. I believe I have provided links to the data in this thread.

OK, so are you saying we could do away with the extra points given to some minorities if we base acceptance on GPA then?

midnight Target · « **Reply #288 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:38:23 PM »

It would be a much fairer situation.

AKIron · « **Reply #289 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:42:14 PM »

Not sure how representative this is, will do more looking. But based on this it looks like you might be wrong:

http://www.ccboe.com/r&a/AAA8GPA.HTM

capt. apathy · « **Reply #290 on:** January 22, 2003, 06:28:19 PM »

gpa's are very subjective.

I had many teachers who in civics based a higher percentage of your grade on a projects that required little or no knowledge of the subject.

my sons history teacher gave points based on how many pins you sold for their charitable fund raiser.

grades are often given for how hard you work or your willingness to play along. many kids who had only very basic knowledge of subjects in school got excelent grades because they where good in sports, sucked up to the teacher, or just had a good heart (tried hard, gave it their best, didn't know toejam).

another problem with gpa's is there is no real standard across the country. when I went to school a an F was 64% or less. for my kids 60% is a d-.

also there is grading on the curve. what if the best kid in a particular class had a score of 70% of total possable points. then a kid who scored 50% would have somewhere near a C. but given the exact same ciriculem and grading style but a class where the highest acheiver got a 98% then the same 50% would fail you.

GPA's don't mean anything. test show what you know. maybe there should be some sort of grade that shows how hard you work but it has nothing to do with what you know or are able to understand

mietla · « **Reply #291 on:** January 22, 2003, 06:34:06 PM »

Agreed. The idea that a certain number of top students from each school is guaranteed a spot in to colleges is the stupidest I've heard in a while. And obviously its purpose it to replace AA with something less obviously racist which would produce a similar effect, an unqualified student accepted at the expense of the qualified ones.

midnight Target · « **Reply #292 on:** January 22, 2003, 07:05:55 PM »

You guys are amazing..

So since you had a subjective experience with grades they can't be the indicator for future college success that I claim.. right? sheesh.

Read this:

Quote

SAT I: A Faulty Crystal Ball

Once again trying to defend its lucrative product, the College Board is aggressively pitching a new study on the SAT’s ability to predict college success. Though released by the University of Minnesota, the “unbiased” report was funded by the College Board and co-authored by a Board Vice President.
Despite some fanfare accompanying the release of the study, very little new information was presented. Results showed that SAT combined scores (Verbal plus Math) were moderately related to freshmen GPA (FGPA), with a correlation of .53 (hence, explaining a bit more than a quarter of the variance in grades). This level of predictive validity is actually less than that of high school GPA (.54), as indicated in several College Board publications, demonstrating once again that a student’s high school record is still the single best predictor of college performance. The study did not address the predictive validity of SAT scores combined with high school GPA.
The research also found that test scores diminish in their predictive power as an individual progresses through college, with the SAT-V and SAT-M relating only slightly to degree attainment (under .2).

Now that study was funded by the OWNERS of the SAT. Why do you keep fighting this issue?

Gunthr · « **Reply #293 on:** January 22, 2003, 08:57:02 PM »

We are not just talking about SAT scores here, or just about entrance to college. Affirmative Action is a lot more than just that... consider race based set asides, race based hiring, race based housing, race based awards in public contracts, etc...

Quote

Martin Luther said that humanity is like a man mounting a horse who always tends to fall off on the other side of the horse. This seems to be the case with Affirmative Action.

Attempting to redress the discriminatory iniquities of our history, our well-intentioned social engineers now engage in new forms of discriminatory iniquity and thereby think that they have successfully mounted the horse of racial harmony. They have only fallen off on the other side of the issue. - Louis Pojman

capt. apathy · « **Reply #294 on:** January 22, 2003, 09:01:16 PM »

it's very simple, statistics can be manipulated to show anything you want.

all I ask is to show a question that would be biased against someone from a certain race. not biased by region of the country. not biased by how much money your daddy made. not biased by rural, urban or somewhere in between residence. but a simple racial bias. where a question is biased and that bias is based on the color of the persons skin.

in near 300 posts this hasn't been done.

the reason this hasn't been done is that it can't be done. it is ludicrous that the very people demand equal rights turn around and say they can't be as good at something because of the color of their skin

midnight Target · « **Reply #295 on:** January 22, 2003, 09:40:46 PM »

Quote

bias is based on the color of the persons skin.

That is impossible unless there is an actual difference in the mental abilities of the races. Like I said before, the bias may be due to cultural or geographical or linguistic reasons, but the affect is racial due to the general makeup of the race in those regions or cultures or languages. It is very simple really.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #296 on:** January 22, 2003, 09:52:54 PM »

quote- That is impossible unless there is an actual difference in the mental abilities of the races.

thank you. exactly what I've been saying all along. it is not posable to bias a test based on race. by giving points to blacks when the issue is more where they live not their race then you are making racist stereo types. not all (and not only) blacks live in run-down urban areas. and you are saying we should base social policy on these types of racist stereo types? this is why, as someone who finds racism moraly wrong, I find AA moraly wrong.

AKIron · « **Reply #297 on:** January 22, 2003, 10:17:02 PM »

From Education Week Online:

Would eradication of standardized admissions tests produce a more ethnically diverse freshman class? Recent evidence from several sources indicates the answer is no. Consider:

University of California studies of high school student records showed that eliminating standardized-test requirements would not increase minority representation. Failure to complete required courses was found to be the main barrier to eligibility for admission in all ethnic groups.
An exceptionally thorough College Board analysis supported the long-standing finding that the SAT tends to predict higher college grades for African-American and Latino students than are actually attained. This result undermines the claim that SAT elimination would promote greater diversity.
Studies confirmed that high school grade point average tends to follow the same ethnic-group patterns as standardized-test scores. Therefore, relying on high school achievement in place of test scores cannot result in a dramatic change.
Let's take a closer look at each of these points.

Would eliminating the SAT foster diversity on California campuses?
In December 1997, the University of California office of the president reported on a study designed to determine the effect of various admissions policies on the rates of "UC eligibility," which is based on the completion of college-preparatory courses, GPA for those courses, and, if the GPA is below 3.3, scores on the SAT or ACT. The data for the study, which were collected by the California Postsecondary Education Commission, came from a random sample of 1996 graduates of California public high schools.

Here's the whole article:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=22zwick.h18

Here's the conclusion of the article:

Individuals of every political stripe agree that, ultimately, we must fix the K-12 "pipeline" (or "river," to adopt the Bowen-Bok metaphor). But this will take years. What can we do in the meantime? The honest and direct way to achieve diversity is by considering an applicant's membership in an underrepresented group to be a "plus" in the admissions process. Eliminating admissions-test requirements as a form of covert affirmative action is not sound policy. Instead, we should focus our efforts on eliminating the legal obstacles to affirmative action programs.

NUKE · « **Reply #298 on:** January 22, 2003, 11:09:43 PM »

Al Sharpton is running for President. You think we ought to give him a few states and votes automatically in order to be fair to him?

Kanth · « **Reply #299 on:** January 22, 2003, 11:42:54 PM »

lmao Nuke