From: markham@brtph600.bnr.ca (Andrew Markham P205)
Subject: Re: BAD News for Arkansas and UMass fans
Organization: Bell Northern Research Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:18:21 GMT

xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (The Crossjammer) writes:
> Russ Smith <rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com> writes:
>> xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (The Crossjammer) writes:
>
>>>I'd like to see a quote where either of these guys complained that 700 was
>>>too high.  I'll agree that both are probably in the "the SAT is biased, why
>>>use it" camp, but I'm going to call you on this particular point.
>
>> If its an exact quote then I'll fail the challenge cause I don't have
>> one, but both men are on record as saying that using SAT and ACT test
>> scores as Prop 48 does is wrong because the tests are racially biased.
>> They justify this by saying that blacks score lower than whites(in
>> fact than any racial group) and therefore using these tests discriminates
>> against blacks. To me this implies that since the most affected group
>> will be blacks, then the 700 minimum is too high. 
>
>Scratch, scratch....hmmmm. I don't quite see the logic in the last
>sentence. Why is it not possible that some coaches are saying that the test
>is biased, don't use it! This would imply, to me at least, that they feel
>that *any* minimum is too high since it's a pointless test. Lower it to
>200, I bet they would still say it's a useless test.

I must concur with the Crossjammer (I assume that's a proper noun) on
this one.  Russ, your logic seems to imply that if Prop 48 had different
levels for different races (700 for whites and 500 for blacks), then
Thompson and Chaney would be pleased.  I disagree.  Thompson and Chaney
simply want an *UNBIASED* way of determining the intelligence of a student/
athlete.

>My full point is that you tried to stick words in these coaches mouths that
>said, "We want a lower minimum for black people." I claim that neither
>Thompson nor Chaney has ever said any such thing or anything even close. You
>yourself claimed that the test is at least biased against the poor. Would
>it not be reasonable for the coaches to come to the same conclusion and
>decry the use of a test that's biased against many players, since indeed
>many do come from poor backgrounds?

Again, I concur.

>While it might seem to be a small point, inaccuracies and misinformation
>such as this tend to have a nasty cumulative effect. Sort of like Pippen
>pushing Rodman. 

And thrice, I concur.

'From them, I say, don't believe the hype.
 Yo Chuck, they must be on the pipe, right?' - PE

>xjam@cork.Berkeley.EDU  	Fiiiive Thousand Boomin Watts...... -The JBeez
>
>They can't come on and play me in prime time, 	    | Free Millipede coin op
>Cause I know the time, cause I'm gettin' mine.	    | and House music at my
>I get on the mix late in the night... -Public Enemy | place! Drop by sometime.

BTW, Crossjammer, have you seen the new rapping Barkley commercial?  There
is some discussion (on rec.sport.basketball.pro) on whether or not the 
rapper is *really* Chuck D with Barkley just mouthing the words.  I've
heard it, and it definitely has Chuck D's BASS, but then sometimes it doesn't.
Any ideas?

-- 
|_ o_O              Andrew W. Markham (markham@bnr.ca)
|W   |\               Bell Northern Research, Inc.              _        O
|   / \                       Heels in 93!                     / |_      |\
|        before...            Bulls in 93!           after... |   W  o  /|
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college