From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Re: Prop 48...
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:47:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Jul25.234739.69078
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <19584@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.055019.18628@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, u_nique@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jerray Wei) writes:
>> In article <19556@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>
> Let's see - you said "I don't buy this "cultural bias stuff"" right? Now
>tell me what that sounds like to you Jerray...

But, if you read what else he said, it implied that the meaning was more that
he didn't buy the "cultural bias stuff" in the sense of being largely 
significant in a player not making 700 on his SATs.


As for the subject at hand, I don't really think that it is the fault of the
tests as much as the fault of our public school systems.  The tests were 
designed in an attempt to test analytical skills in an effort to predict
collegiate compatability.  They are standardized in the sense that they 
attempt to test fundamental skills that all collegiate bound students should
be aware of, such as correct English and Mathematical skills.  As pointed
out, it is hard to introduce "cultural bias" into mathematical tests, as they
test a skill/ability, where the English comprehension tests involve 
interpretation of ideas. In this area, I can easily see the bias, as the 
questions and interpretations needed can depend on relevance to the 
individual.
However, I think the problem is not really in the tests, but in the schools
and the upbringing/conditions the individuals came up through.  Inner city
schools, due to many factors such as lack of funding, crime, lack of 
teaching and such, combined with the more personal problems of drugs, gangs,
peer-pressure, crime, and financial problems often lead to students who 
do not have the interest in overcoming the obstacles facing them to 
take advantage of what is there.  Most "white middle american" schools have
the advantage of superior teaching and materials, as well as the individuals
having fewer serious outside/inside obstacles to learning.  In my years of
school and out I have noticed that many of the inner-city, often african
american, people I have met that have made it out of the problems of their
upbringing are more focused and driven than most "white middle american" 
people, at least on average.  This makes sense to me as in many cases, for
an inner-city youth to acquire comparable training and education, as well 
as to overcome the problems that prevent them from getting that education, 
they usually have to fight harder for it.  However, more often than not, 
people in this situations are not able to adequately overcome the hurdles,
and their education suffers.  This is not to be interpreted as a reflection
on their intelligence, as I think it is everybit as high as "white middle
americans", but intelligence and education are seldom the same thing.

And, I think this process continues through college.  Once in college, an
inner-city youth has more opportunities for learning than they did before, 
and because of it, oftentimes, they succeed in getting a good collegiate
education.  But, it should be realised that the tests in questions are 
predictors of success based on understanding of basic skills.  Though biased
in many ways, a college-level student should have the basic skills and
desire to do what it takes to get the minimum 700 on the SAT.  If someone 
such as the kids in question cannot do everything possible to study and get
the education to succeed in this small task, what chance do you give them
to succeed in college?  Many times athletes are "helped" through school
as opposed to educated.  And oftentimes, this way of life is learned and
expected by them.  A college athlete should not be an athlete alone, but
rather, a student capable of acquiring a collegiate education.  It is the
students choice whether they deem it important to finish and get a degree, 
but it should be their responsibility, biases or not, to do whatever 
necessary to meet the requirements to stay in school.

Again, it makes me wonder..  Is it fair for an inner-city basketball player
to score 700 on his SAT and get the opportunity to get an collegiate education
(which could open up the world for the person), where another inner-city
student, who overcame the obstacles, and scored 1000+ on this culturally
biased test, may not ever get the chance???  Why should the minimum for an
athlete be 700, where in some schools, a student with the financial means
to go to the school is turned away due to his/her lack of appropriate 
athletic skills???
-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college