From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:25:44 GMT
	<1992Sep30.185259.28364@netcom.com>
	<JULIE.92Sep30235017@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>
	<1992Oct1.191526.16364@netcom.com>
Organization: The Cultural Elite


	Aack!  I have tried to post a reply to this twice, blithely assuming
the first time and _even_ the second time that it was working, but there is
some kind of bug here.  (Did you sabotage our machines, Rich?? :) )  Sorry
about the delay in ending (I hope!) this thread.

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>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?  
[Hans' comments deleted]
>>*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...

OK, fine.  Thanks for apologizing (really!).

>>>>[...] 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'. 
[etc. etc.; you've all seen it before...]

>>>BTW, your use of the term "girls" would be flame-fodder had I used it.

>>	What am I supposed to say to this?  
[followed by several possibilities, expressed in high dudgeon]

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

	I disagree.  All the recent threads concerned the appropriateness
of addressing *adults* as girls, or describing male and female people 
by unequal terms in the same context.  No one proposed eliminating the
word "girls" entirely.  I also thought your comment was unfair, because
it was impossible for me to demonstrate that you were wrong, no matter
how strongly I feel that you are.  I assumed you meant to draw flames
with it, so I obliged.  If it was merely an offhand opinion, not meant
to express any derogatory views of other posters, I suppose I should have
just let it stand.

>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.

If you call a group of minors girls and boys, and people flame you for
it, I will jump to your defense.  Anyone who makes their intellectual
and political decisions based on their "political correctness" will eventually
be revealed as an idiot, so let that comfort you.  If you don't want
me to call you "Rich", please let me know.  Since I sign myself "Julie,"
by the way, I certainly don't mind if people call me that.

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

	Sure.  I have a lot more fun things to do than to get into a flame
war with you :) .  I made all my major points vehemently the first time
so I'd only have to make them once.  
	(Isn't that "at this juncture"...?  Sorry, I get into these things.)

[...]
>>>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.  
[etc., expressed in, uh, forceful terms]

>Please, calm down. 

But anger is so ... EMPOWERING!!
(Just kidding!)

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

Hooray!

>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?

I don't know; sorry.  I don't have anything new to contribute to the
original thread.  I'm just trying to make sure my original points came
across.  Then I'm bailing.

>>	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. 

	Well, we've each had our say on this.  Anyone who hasn't already
drawn their own conclusions can go look up my previous post if they
really want to.  I don't have anything new to add.  I do appreciate your
quoting my words, by the way.

>Perhaps you have some emotional attachment to the issue? 

	No; actually, now that I think about it, the ETS has always 
overestimated *my* academic performance... :)  But anyway, I try hard to
be a rational, fair person, and to be seen that way by others.  If
I feel that someone is threatening my credibility, even unintentionally,
I tend to react strongly.  I felt that being associated with a set
of views I did not espouse was threatening my credibility, although I
realize that was not your intent.

>If so,
>you have every right to it, but that does not justify your yelling at me.
>Can we have peace?

	Yes.

>>>Rich
>>--- Julie
>Rich again
---Julie again