From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.185259.28364@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <JULIE.92Sep30113950@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> >julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:

>>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.


These are good questions.  I think the answer depends on how
broadly you can interpret the results of the SAT or similar test.
If it is applied blindly across gender or ethnic lines and is not
as good a predictor of future achievement for one group compared to
another then it could be under-rating some of these students.  Say,
a score of x1 on the SAT reveals y1 in terms of achievement for
group A (and y generally increases with x).  If group B
demonstrates y1 in terms of achievement but scored x1-300 then x is
not a consistent predictor for y between groups.  In this case the
test is biased toward group A.  Note that within a group the SAT
could still be a valid predictor of performance (y increasing with
x).

On a separate issue.
The SAT is supposed to be a measure of how well certain processes
have been learned.  It does do that to some degree (the phrasing of
certain questions notwithstanding).  It is also influenced by the
teaching environment and motivations of the students during the
time they were learning.  Currently, these things are not equal
among all groups of students.  For instance, it is noted that
scores on the SAT increase along with family income.  The
implication is that access to good schools is easier for those who
are more affluent than those who are not.  It seems reasonable
that lots of other environmental factors are at work as well.
(btw, if anyone has the reference where these statistics are
analyzed in detail could you post it or e-mail it to me?)


>>       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.

>What I would like for you to explain to me how one jumps from 'different
>group performance' to 'underrates certain groups'. I do not see that the
>first implies the second.

The first does not automatically imply the second but it should be
considered under certain circumstances.
If the test, applied blindly across gender or ethnic lines, is not
an accurate predictor of future achievement for one group compared
to another then it could be under-rating some of these students.
See the (simplified) example in the first part of the post.

>I would imagine that the Asian group (is that
>allowed?) does better than the WASP group. If this is the case (I
>am reasonably certain that it is), would you then say that the
>WASP group is underrated?

Possibly.  One would have to determine whether a given value on
the SAT predicts the same level of achievement for both groups.  In
addition one would have to control, if possible, for confounding
factors that affect the scores on the SAT and the meausurement of
achievement. 

>Are those who get C's and B's underrated as compared to the A students?
>Is it possible to note any difference at all and not claim bias?

As I suggested above it depends on the context in which those C's
and B's were earned.  Of course there can be a difference without
the need to claim bias.  I think that we should be aware that bias
is possible but not assume it without some reasonable evidence.  If
we suspect that something is wrong shouldn't we look into it?


>>It would be terrific if someone
>>would make a test that could perfectly predict future performance, or ability,
>>or something, but since the people at ETS are not deities, they haven't 
>>managed to do that.  Admissions officers are presumably doing the best 
>>they can to evaluate the information they're given in order to try to get
>>the best possible class (not that THEY'RE infallible either), and if they
>>went strictly by SATs, they'd screen out a lot of girls who would have done 
>>better in college than the boys they would let in.  (And keep in mind that
>>SATs are hardly the only thing they evaluate.)

>So what other factors are involved? And you are also assuming the same
>number of male and female applicants above. If there are more male applicants,
>then they will probably get more admitted. And as I understand it, this is
>the case.

Some other factors are school gpa and performance in specific
classes coupled with an understanding of the quality of the school.
Another factor is the teacher recommendation.  These are all
difficult to work with but what else is there to work with?

In practice, I believe, some schools use a cutoff value of SAT, GRE
or MCAT scores then look at the other criteria.  Some, I am told,
use a formula using the total gpa, science gpa and MCAT scores to
determine who gets interviewed for a certain medical school (not
the U of I, btw).

The ratio of girls to boys accepted are not the issue.
If some of the females who had a score of x-200 were not accepted
but would have performed academically as well as some of the males
who scored x and were accepted then there is a problem.  This
assumes that the females were refused for reasons related to these
scores and not other factors.


So, after all this writing, if you have been patient, what does
this mean?  It means that the system is not perfect (may never be
perfect) and when we discover that the interpretation of the
numbers are demonstrably falliable we should attempt to correct
that.  Given that significant weight in admission is attributed to
these tests we should continually ask and test whether if applied
in the same manner irrespective of a student's ethnicity or gender
they are reasonable predictors of future performance.


I noticed one of the problems discussing this issue requires the
separation of two ideas. 1) That SAT scores applied across gender
and ethnic lines do not predict the same achievement  2) Certain
groups may perform poorly on the SAT because of problems that
hindered them relative to other groups.  In the second case the SAT
may not have the problem described in 1).  It accurately predicts
achievement.  If that is so then we should be looking at how to
change the way the students recieve their education.


>>---Julie
>>--
>>| BODY IMAGE GROUP SELF-APPRECIATION DAY.  "uhm... take your legs for    |
>>| example.  why if it weren't for your legs, your genitals would be down |
>>| there in the dirt."               ----- cartoon by Diane Germain       


-=] Steve [=-    SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
I do not speak for the University of Iowa, etc.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism