> I would challenge if ACT/SAT is much about pure intellectual merit, considering how much one can boost their score with dedicated tutors and so on, but I digress. How to show intellectual merit other than standardized tests without relying on rich parents:
I don't think the difference between dedicated tutors and individual studying with Khan Academy is a large difference. The majority of low scorers score low because they're either lower on the intelligence scale or didn't spend time individually studying.
I think I know when I'm being disingenuous, thank you very much, and that was not it. Mistaken, perhaps, but not disingenuous.
Even so:
> In any case, even small effects can be unfair. Let’s assume the effects of short-term coaching are really just a 20- or 30-point jump in students’ scores. That means they ought to be irrelevant to college admissions officers. Briggs found otherwise, however. Analyzing a 2008 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, he noted that one-third of respondents described a jump from 750 to 770 on the math portion of the SAT as having a significant effect on a student’s chances of admissions, and this was true among counselors at more and less selective schools alike. Even a minor score improvement for a high-achieving student, then—and one that falls within the standard measurement error for the test—can make a real difference.
Test prep, even if it's as rudimentary as taking the test multiple times (thus, being able to afford to take the test multiple times), is an advantage that matters.
In extremely competitive situations, the slightest edge matter. Arguably test prep is less of an edge than spending a summer on some community project would be but even a relatively small point jump is an edge for someone on the bubble. And, of course, elite schools have become hyper-competitive. I have very few illusions that I would have the school choice I had when I went to college--especially given that that about an eighth of my class went to the school in question.
The real problem [edit: with scores] here is that scores are reported on a 200-800 scale. If they were reported in terms of standard deviation from the mean, then those 20-40 point differences wouldn't matter to admissions officers. As it is, a 30 point difference looks significant, even though it's only around 0.15 SD.
I'd hope that admissions officers are sophisticated enough to know that. Having said, there's some band in which you're basically flipping coins given overall criteria so you flip coins based on statistically insignificant numbers rather than complete random number generators.
This conversation seems to be geared towards upper middle class, dual income professionals that usually have $150,000+ household income. It's difficult for me to sympathize and see these issues as more than entitlement.
First, since household income is a combination of the mother and father's incomes, women still have the same household income and spending power as men. The remaining complaint is worse work fulfillment for women. I don't think people are entitled to work fulfillment. It's a minor issue in my eyes. There are advantages and drawbacks to this issue. While mothers have a more difficult time with work fulfillment and climbing the corporate ladder, mothers also have an easier time avoiding the corporate environment and work pressure. Women who don't find fulfillment at work can more easily not work than the equivalent men.
Second, ignoring gender and seeing this from a gender-neutral parent perspective, many of these upper middle class parents are lamenting the tradeoff between living an upper middle class lifestyle and being parents. I don't think there is a problem when upper middle class parents have to downgrade their living standards when becoming parents. I don't think people are entitled to an upper middle class lifestyle.
> Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise that value and purpose is derived from work?
Men aren't presented with this false promise. Men are influenced to work through negative reinforcement. A man who doesn't have a career is judged harshly, much more so than women, by society and has a difficult time dating and finding a partner.
Men also have a higher economic need to work. Women have much higher social mobility, so women are less economically motivated to work. A low income man will stay poor unless he works himself out of his social class. A low income woman can much more easily marry a man with higher income than her to propel her social class and household income up.
Women are more often presented with the positive reinforcement of value and purpose from work because women deal with less negative reinforcement when not working.
Women that come forward with iron proof are still branded problematic or difficult to work with, ending their careers and launching direct personal targeted harassment of the sort you clearly have never experienced. The idea that women have nothing to lose by making allegations is entirely at odds with what happens in reality.
I’m familiar with Susan Fowler, and I’m sure she represents many other such victims; however, I’ve also read a number of stories like TFA, and presumably they equally represent a contingency of victims. Moreover, I don’t understand why these things need to be pitted against each other as though we have to choose one horrendous injustice or another. Victimizing innocent men doesn’t help victimized women, and contrary arguments are abhorrently sexist.
Our best data on the subject suggests that very few innocent men are being victimized, to use your falsely equivalent language. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence makes clear that a non trivial fraction of men in power are serial abusers who get away with these behaviors habitually. Your argument boils down to "people pointing out the sexism are the REAL sexists" which as you might expect, is not convincing to the rest of us.
What are “our best data”? The #metoo era only began in the last couple of years, and I’m unaware of a rigorous academic effort to investigate its victims to the degree that we have investigated female sexual victimization over the last several decades. And this makes sense given the portrait of fear on university campuses—no one wants to look like they’re not “part of the team” lest they be subject to their own Ordeal. We do have a number of very convincing cases of excesses which certainly persuade me about the need for further investigation.
> Your argument boils down to "people pointing out the sexism are the REAL sexists" which as you might expect, is not convincing to the rest of us.
Innocent men by definition aren’t sexists, and my point was that arguments to treat them as such (based on the idea that innocent men are responsible for the violations of guilty men by virtue of their common gender) is patently sexism. Maybe that’s not the point you were making; I just wanted to head that off in advance because frankly I’m sick of these disgusting lines of argumentation.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be incendiary, but there's exactly zero supporting evidence to back your assertion beyond wishful thinking. And there's innumerable counterexamples where women have had their careers ruined by men who have had an unfair power dynamic over them, after making claims of sexual harassment or unprofessional behavior, and more. The suggestion that only HIS career is vulnerable ignores the actual claims of tens of thousands of women coming forward in the last few years as part of the #metoo movement.
I think jbarciauskas said this better than I can, but how is it at all dishonest? Yes, there may be specific inputs that cause these rates to be what they are, and those inputs may be obvious. But the conclusion seems equally obvious, and perfectly honest: insurance costs more in Black neighborhoods. Acknowledging the inputs only makes a stronger argument for institutionalized racism.
It's dishonest because non-black people in those "black neighborhoods" are also paying the "racist" premium. It's not like non-black people are paying 10% less while living on the same block and purchasing the same insurance.
Car insurance varies by how many miles you drive on average, because, shocker, driving more miles means a higher risk of a driving accident. What happens if the data reveal that black people drive more on average and subsequently have to pay more for auto insurance?? Relatedly, is it sexist that men pay more than women for the exact same policy on the exact same car in the exact same zip code? Since men get into more serious accidents, it doesn't appear to be sexist to me..
Univariate analyses like this need to mump off and die.
> non-black people in those "black neighborhoods" are also paying the "racist" premium. It's not like non-black people are paying 10% less while living on the same block and purchasing the same insurance.
Yes, of course this is true, no scare quotes necessary. I don't see the article making any claims to the contrary either, so again, where is the dishonesty? To use your example, if there was an article claiming that men pay more for car insurance, would you call that dishonest?
The point is not that insurance companies are directly looking at people's race and charging them differently based on it. The point is that all of those covariate factors that make the insurance more expensive in Black neighborhoods are themselves the result of institutional racism, unless you think it's just coincidence that Black neighborhoods have higher crime rates, lower employment, etc.
It follows fairly directly that if predominantly Black neighborhoods pay more for insurance, then Black people pay more for insurance. Yes, if a white person moves into a Black neighborhood, they will also pay more for insurance; this is no less the result of institutional racism.
The dishonesty is presenting this as a racist thing. The dishonesty is also in the implication that insurance companies are racist rather than simply responding to the market. The article is trying to drum up outrage at well established insurance companies in order to direct money to their business.
Institutional racism. Systemic racism. Oh bother.. You seem pretty confident about it without presenting any evidence. You haven't even identified which institution. I hate racism, it's useless and frankly stupid. Just because groups have different outcomes doesn't make it racist. You probably think that Google is systemically sexist because it is largely male in STEM departments. Google might be, but simply having male dominated departments does NOT warrant that conclusion.
NOTE: I used scare quotes around "black neighborhoods" because they are just American neighborhoods. Contrary to popular opinion/belief, we aren't (still or yet) living in a country where your skin color allows or prevents you from living in any particular neighborhood. Those that claim otherwise, or even suggest it through veiled implication, ought to present some actual evidence or STFU.
60% of 750 - 800 math SAT scorers are Asian
https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
I looked through the list of USAMO finalists in recent years and > 80% have Asian surnames.