« on: November 28, 2006, 09:19:06 PM »
I'm a white guy. When I took the LSAT I didn't really think that it was racially biased. However, after thinking about the test for a while, I've changed my mind. I guess I was just hoping that society was more integrated than it actually is today. Now, I'm starting to understand how some of the questions on the RC or LR sections might be easier for people from a certain background.
My question follows: It seems people are fighting over the fact that admissions officers admit more URM's with lower scores than non-URM's. While score adjustments for admissions purposes might work as a temporary solution against the racist nature of the test, it still doesn't fix the test itself. Why isn't more being done to fix the test so that it is fair for everyone or at least more fair for the minorities it is biased against?
Seriously, is it really ok to allow a racist test to exist and fix the bias in admissions? After years of the test being racially biased in favor of white people, I would actually prefer a test that is biased in favor of other races if a 100% fair test cannot be created.
After all, how can we say that admissions officers are even correcting the inequity in the test scores? It's hard to say how students would score on a non-biased test. Obviously, those that the test is biased against would score higher. However, is higher 3 pts, 5 pts, 10 pts? more? If it's significant, then I think that AA admissions isn't doing enough. Creating a new test seems to be the best way to go.
What do you guys think?
Also, I should have probably researched the issue more before posting. Does anyone know if something significant (more than just puting one diversity passage on the test) is being done to fix the problem?