From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:35:06 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

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:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>>>>zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski) writes:
>>
>>>[stuff stored in /dev/null]
>>[discussion of "intelligence tests" (whatever that means, here) being used
>>to evaluate a person's qualifications for a job, etc.]
>>
>>>>>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
>>>>This is a good question, to which I have no answer.
>>
>>>>>"overlooked" by admissions officers at most universities when it comes to
>>>>>blacks and Hispanics?  
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>	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.  
>
>>	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?
>
>BTW, your use of the term "girls" would be flame-fodder had I used it.

Probably not.  He is consistent and balanced throughout the whole paragraph.
He is also talking about, what, Juniors and Seniors in high school?  While they
probably should be referred to as men and women, I worry about it a lot less
when the persons referred to are younger (esp. much younger) than the speaker.

>>                                                                         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. 

You are correct that one should not assume that all groups *should* do equally
well.  In fact, it was clearly stated above that women do worse on the SAT and
better in courses.  The point is that SAT scores are NOT the only criteria and
are NOT looked at equally across race and gender because there is a significant
body of data that shows that the scores do NOT correlate as well.

>>	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. 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?

Because later performance indicates that the lower-rated group did better!
What more do you want?
And yes, if later data indicates that the WASPS do better, they are under-rated
related to the Asians.

>Are people (of any stripe) who fail tests underrated? 
>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? 

Indeed, it is entirely possible.  In any given test of any decent size sample,
there are bound to be people who score lower that are actually better at the
skills/knowledge/whatever that the test is puported to evaluate.

>>                                            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. 

Other factors that admissions officers look at are work history and extra-
curricular activities.
I have seen studies that account for the difference in number of applicants
throughout the calculations.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu