From: dasaxe@milton.u.washington.edu (Daniel Perreault)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Re: Prop 48...
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:57:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul26.085754.11456
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <19585@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.082913.7452@u.washington.edu>, dasaxe@milton.u.washington.edu (Daniel Perreault) writes:
>> Now let's get a grip here GaRy, I don't believe the original writer in any
>> way implied that there are no cultural biases, in fact I believe he said
>> "People have advantages and disadvantages whereever they come from..." In
>
> Which is bullshit. The fact is, some of us simply do not suffer the same
>level of cultural bias as others do...
Which is exactly my point GaRy, people have advantages and disadvatages, some
more than others. Regardless of the activity. The issue of cultural bias is
a squirmy one to define, simply because it varies with the application.
>
>> otherwords, that some people have advantages(pick an ethnic majority) and
>> some people have disadvantages(pick an ethnic minority).
>
> Again - bullshit. This is easy for someone who falls into the
>majority to claim. The reality is that there are many individuals who
>have much greater disadvantages than you and I and most readers of this group.
>
Ahh, sorry GaRy you are talking to a second generation Korean american who
learned english as a second language and french as a third who had promising
futures in competative Tae Kwon Do and collegiate wrestling ruined due to
"cultural bias." These tests are unquestionably designed around the ethnic
majority of current choice. In fact in the early 80's there were some   
interesting papers on how Protestants vs. Catholics approached such tests
during the brief Kennedy admin, and for some time after. Some of the moral
logic questions were at issue as they were called at the time. The degree
to which a minority is affected by an exam depends on the minority but it
does exist.
>> However, we are not talking about brain surgery here GaRy, I assume you took
>> the SAT at some point in your educational career, getting a 700 total score
>> is a pretty minimal task. You may try to argue that the people taking the
>> test, say first generation asians, have a disadvantage because they don't
>> read english well, but the test can be administered in several languages,
>> and besides like it or not statistically the people that are getting nailed
>> here are predominantly black, and I suspect few of them are not native
>> english speakers.
>
> Plase give me this again - most are black and most are not native english
>speakers? Is that what you said? If so, take a look at the avg. SAT scores for
>say the past 20 years or so... it really is unclear to me what your point is
>here....
Read carefully Gary, the minorities who are doing the worst on the exams are
in large percentage native english speakers. In other words the excuse that
that they don't understand the language simply isn't the case.
>
>> So lets say, these people cannot relate to the types of questions on the
>> exam. Ok, lets assume they don't answer shit on the verbal, that gives them
>> 200 points, so they have to make up 500 points on the Math. Or about 50
>> points above the national average. This should be achievable for ANYONE
>> who takes the test seriously.
>
> I love this - the bottom line for you folks is " anyone could do it" but
>the reality of it is "anyone like *me* could do it so they must be lesser than
>I am" - I think it is you who should get a grip and realize that there are
>many individuals who come from different backgrounds and experiences
>than you do and who find the SATs a relatively foreign experience. As to the
>idea that the "math" sections of the exam being unbiased - get a grip - some
>questions are but they still require more than a simple evaluation of an
>equation or two...
In a sense GaRy yes, anyone like me should be able to do it, I practiced and
studied to get the scores that I did. But, that really isn't the issue here,
what is is the minimum qualifications for Prop. 48. I am not arguing the
possibility that such exams can be a foriegn experience, but what I said was
that those who take it seriously and prepare for it should be able to get
500 points. You see you can beat cultural bias if you try.
Further if you were to go through the test and just do the problems that
require the evaluation of equations and have no word nature to them, you
can quite easily get 500 points on the math. Look at a practice test sometime.
Count up the ones that don't require serious analysis just evaluation, I did
if you are an ace you could probably get up around 600.
>
>> If a person were so mathematically inept that
>> they lack the ability to get a 500 on the Math with concerted effort, ignoring
>> the verbal does not belong in college.
>
> Again, you assume the bias - your stmt is clear in that you are willing
>to accept the test as is simply because of annecdotal reasoning - after
>all you passed it so it must be fair and unbiased...
Nope, I stand by what I said, with a concerted effort if they cannot get 500
points they aren't ready for college. That means studying and practicing to
try to beat the test. Did you know that studying and such can dramatically
improve your score? Its called understanding the testers and in fact up
until recently East coasters did better than West coasters because the test
is written in the East around those school systems. It isn't fair and
unbiased, but can be beat with some effort and determination.
>
>> College is not a right, that is why
>> there is competative entry to 4 year institutions.
>
> Who do you think you're talking to here? 4 year universities are a dime a
>dozen - people who can't pass SATs are in universities - it just takes them a
>longer route to get there - just look at UCLA...
Then how does this help your position? I mentioned CC's later, people can
still prove their way into college, why shouldn't we require a minimum
standard, which is far below any school's actual requirement, for athletes.
If they can't get there they have other avenues to reach the same goal.
>
>> But lets go back to the test GaRy, lets look at the verbal section for a
>> minute. Even those people who contend the test is biased argue that the
>> questions that are so are primarily ones involving reading conprehension and
>> interpretation. That leaves several sections on simple vocabulary that are
>> not significantly biased. Certainly not enough to keep someone from getting
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Tell me what do you base this on other than your own impressions? Anything?
>Anything at all?
Hmmm... First on a House hearing on education where educators from all over
the country testified as to the effectiveness of such tests in gauging
success rates at various educational levels, I think it was in '86. Second
on a research project for a graduate course I took dealing with effective
means of desegregating and equalizing public educational institutions, and
third on statistical analysis done by one of my professors on national
test scores for the State bureau of education. Again GaRy we are not talking
about brain surgery, just about being able to answer maybe ten questions
correctly on the whole test. Not all of the questions are violently culturally
biased, and enough of them are not for someone to get a total of 700 if they
spend the time to prepare.
>
>> Besides GaRy, those experts who claim the tests are biased do not contend
>> that the injured party is at such a disadvantage that they cannot get a
>> 700
>
>Really? What do they say - please tell me - I'd appreciate the references
>if possible...
Ok, see above, and various other sources which are in Educator Today on testing,
but essentially the contention is that in cases of competative scoring, certain
groups average significantly higher in various catagories than others. However,
no ethnic groups on the average failed to average better than a 700 on the
SAT. In other words, anyone can reach that minimum score, select groups do
significantly better.
>
>>So what is the problem? Is it the myriad people who pander to these athletically
>> gifted youth in junior high and convince them the only place they need to work
>> is on the court? Or the teachers and systems that let them get as far as
>> high school graduation without the ability to get 700 on an SAT? Or idiots
>> on computers who tell them that they are being racially discriminated against
>> by a test so it isn't fair and thus they don't have to do shit?
>
> The racism in the above is so blatent that I need not respond. Give Rush
>Limbaugh a call and maybe he'll agree with you.... that's right the problem
>with blacks is thaqt we tell *them* that they have things tough and so
>they don't need to do "shit"...
No GaRy, here you better respond, because the racism in that remark is against
people who make no effort to improve from their position in life, and then
complain because their life sucks. It isn't an issue of color, it is one of
attitude. The problem with the specific group of people we are talking about,
high schoolers with the athletic talent to go on to a higher level of sports
but cannot get by a minimal score on a national exam, is related to what I
said originally. All of those positions exist, soft teachers and coaches, a
weak system, and people who tell them that the system isn't fair so they
ought to be exempt. There are plenty of blacks, hispanics, asians and any
number of other races who get squashed by the system we are under, but try
to find ways to beat it. I teach classes to those people, and they aren't
at issue here.
>
>> Take your pick GaRy, but you tell me you honestly believe that someone with
>> a high school education, no learning disability and a concerted desire to
>> get at least 700 on an SAT who speaks english as thier native language
>> couldn't do so. I don't believe it, tell me why you do.
md 5
> Because I've lived it. I came from the inner city - I went to school
>with African-americans, hispanics and was in fact a minority in my
>inner-city high-school. I did well on my exams but it had little to do with
>my real-life experience and had much more to do with my family and
>their views of what was the "norm" and acceptable. Beyond that, I've had
>too many years of Sociology and Higher Education courses - many of which
>looked at *scientific* studies of this issue and came to the conclusion that
>tests such as the SAT are biased in terms of culture (perhaps not the intention
>but biased none the less)....
>

>                       gln
>


Well, GaRy, I lived there too, I went to a series of schools that had the
responsibility to educate the minority groups with various language and
educational deficiencies as well as developmentally handicapped. No one
ever claimed that SAT's and such are unbiased, only that the specific issue
of a Prop. 48 minimum requirement such as it is is not unreasonable to
anyone. A Prop. 48 that was competatively based would be, but a flat
minimum score is not. I did well on my exams too, and it didn't have shit
to do with the social culture in my house. It had to do with what was
accepted and the things that I learned in school and my own researches
in my deficiencies. Incidentally my use of accepted does not mean culturally,
it means from a performance standpoint.

Those people with a whole brain and a high school education who want a
700 on their SAT can get it if they work at it and want it. Maybe they will
have to work harder than you or I, but that isn't the issue. The issue is
wether they CAN do it or not. From that standpoint it is not an unreasonable
rule.

Dan