From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:15:26 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Sep30235017@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>
>["Rich" indicates payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne).]
>["Hans" indicates hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen).]
>["John" indicates zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski).] 
>
>>>[discussion of "intelligence tests" (whatever that means, here) being used
>>>to evaluate a person's qualifications for a job, etc.]
>
>*John said:*
>If they are not worth much to measure intelligence (and I personally agree
>that they're not), then why are they used so much?  And why are they
>"overlooked" by admissions officers at most universities when it comes to
>blacks and Hispanics?  
>
>*Then Hans said:*
>The real problem with intelligence tests is that they are poor cross
>cultural predictors of intelligence, therefore this type of policy is
>(on the surface) quite reasonable. The problem is that race and culture,
>while related, are not equivalent.
>
>*Then Rich said:*
>Wait a minute, I though SAT scores were used. I have been in many colleges
>and universities, and never took an IQ test. And my understanding is that
>SAT scores do correlate well with college/university performance.
>What am I missing here?
>
>*Then I (Julie) said:*
>>>	I think they *are* talking about SATs and the like, although it
>>>is worth noting that the SAT is not supposed to be an intelligence test
>>>like the IQ test(s?).  
>
>>That -was- my point.  
>
>	Yes, Rich, I know that.  I was *agreeing* and, I thought, clarifying
>your point that SATs are not only not IQ tests, they aren't even intelligence
>tests.  Believe it or not, I sometimes agree with people who don't identify
>themselves as feminists...

I was overly defensive here, please accept my apology. My only excuse is
that after responding to certain other posters, I need to calm down a
bit before responding to others. Life goes on...
  
>>>	I also understood that SAT scores correlated at least somewhat
>>>with college/university performance.  However, it is apparently a consistent
>>>pattern that girls score lower on SATs (I think this is total score; not
>>>sure whether girls do better on the verbal section or not) than boys do,
>>>and yet they get better grades in college on average than boys do. 
>
>>Now this I have problems understanding. The SAT is just another test where
>>students "fill[ing] in little circles in answer to trivial questions", is
>>it not? So how then could it undervalue/overvalue any group?
>
>	I haven't the foggiest idea why it undervalues female students'
>future academic performance or overvalues male students'.  I don't think
>anyone can say for sure, or they'd fix the thing and make a lot more money,
>because colleges want more accurate predictions.  So I have problems
>understanding it too.  I also have problems understanding why taking a
>timed multiple choice test gives a guide to how well you'll do in college
>courses.  But I'm willing to accept that there's a demonstrated statistical
>correlation (as there is with high school grades) between performance
>on the SAT and performance in college.  The SAT is _used_ because of this
>statistical correlation, not to test whether or not you know what misogynist
>means or whether you can answer a bunch of math questions fast.  So if
>it's statistically flawed in some noticeable way, admissions officers
>will (on average) get a group of students who perform better academically 
>if they correct for this skew. 
>	I have full confidence that the ETS people are not deliberately making
>female students look bad, and I haven't the faintest idea of whether
>the test would be a better predictor if only women wrote it (say).  
>I'm not grinding a political ax here; I have nothing against the
>ETS personally; but they haven't got all the kinks worked out, and the
>people using the tests as a predictor adjust for that.
>
>>BTW, your use of the term "girls" would be flame-fodder had I used it.
>
>	What am I supposed to say to this?  

Whatever you wish, or nothing. In light of the recent threads on this
topic, it rather stood out. 

>                                           Shall I point out that if I'd
>described a bunch of 16-year-olds as women and men, people would have
>criticized me  (probably correctly!) 

I've noticed that one gets criticized just for posting, regardless of
content. But in this netgroup, even the smallest non-PC stuff gets jumped
on. To avoid this, I have used full names whenever I referred to anyone.
Not that it made any difference overall.

And I would like to point out at this junction that the both of us have
been overly defensive. Can we call a truce? 

[...]

>>>I
>>>don't know whether the same pattern applies to blacks and Hispanics -- that
>>>SATs are not an ideal predictor to evaluate their abilities and potential
>>>in college compared to WASPs, say -- but it certainly wouldn't surprise
>>>me to find out that that's the reason admissions officers act as described
>>>above, as Hans seems to indicate.  
>
>>If the SAT deals with academic subjects taught in schools only, then how
>>can group performance be a measure of bias? Why would one expect every
>>group to do equally as well? This is just as unfounded as assuming that
>>some group (fill in your favorite) will naturally do better. 
>
>	I'm *not* assuming all groups will or should do equally well.  I'm 
>*telling* you, in the case of male vs. female groups, and guessing, in the 
>case of minority-group-of-your-choice students, that the SAT isn't as good a 
>predictor as it is within a group of all female white students, for 
>example.  I never claimed to know why it isn't as good a predictor, and
>I really don't care much.  The point is, if one is using a test because
>of a *statistical* correlation between performance on that test and 
>performance in college, and the test has a *statistical* pattern of
>overrating men or underrating women, one will get better *statistical*
>results if one takes this into account.  I'm *not* saying I expect any
>fair test to end up with females and males performing equally, and any
>test that doesn't give this result is unfair.  I'M TELLING YOU THE THING
>DOESN'T WORK PERFECTLY!  Big surprise!  

Please, calm down. I was not trying to get you worked up. You have raised
some good valid points, and I understand what you are saying now.

The only thing that occurs to me is that the living enviornment often
changes when one goes to college. Perhaps this can account for a change
in performance. I doubt that it would apply in all cases, but perhaps in
enough to skew the averages? How much is the skew?

>	It really pisses me off that you're twisting my words around 
>like that.  It seems like you expected me to say one thing, and assumed
>I was saying it, without reading very closely.  

I'm getting mildly upset at your claims that I am twisting your words.
Either show -explicitly- where your words were twisted, or drop it, OK?
Keep in mind that my comments need not follow -directly- from yours, and
that I have quoted your words whenever I used them. And I can state my
own thoughts/observations on the subject, and this in no way misrepresents
your post. I have in fact done so, and you claim that I have twisted your
words. Perhaps you have some emotional attachment to the issue? If so,
you have every right to it, but that does not justify your yelling at me.
Can we have peace?
 
>>>	The point is, if SATs are being used as a predictor of future 
>>>performance because there's a high statistical correlation between SAT
>>>scores and future performance, rather than because colleges demand that
>>>their students be talented at filling in little circles in answer to 
>>>trivial questions, and if SATs are found to underrate the future performance
>>>of girls/black students/whoever, it seems reasonable to make some corrections
>>>in the way the tests are evaluated.  
>
>	I like that paragraph better than the stuff I've said today; 
>it was shorter.  But I hope I've at least made my meaning clear to you with 
>all the verbiage above.

Alright, your point is taken. Just out of curiosity, do you have any
figures? Where did you come by this information? Wonder if my Almanac
would help here?

[...] 
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>--- Julie

Rich again