are you saying they can't even explain how to do a quadruple bypass in 30 seconds, given the patient has diabetes, HIV, a nail stuck in his head, and is the other half of a perfectly healthy conjoined twin?
Current indicators, however, suggest that this disparity is not due to minority students 'not being up to snuff' or some other such ridiculous argument, but rather due to these students being placed into institutions where their academic credentials put them at a significant disadvantage, relative to their peers. It's really a difficult issue, because these students are not likely to be able to attain high GPAs and LSATs (or MCATs) due to the myriad obstacles they face in obtaining a higher education. So they are given a 'bump' in the caliber of institution they attend, but as a result they all too often place very poorly in their class. Again, no easy answer.
It appears that the www.lagriffedulion.com people as well as the authors of such books as The Bell Curve and IQ and the Wealth of Nations have concluded that there is a difference in IQ between people of different races.It is already clear that there are other difference between people of different races. Here is one obvious example: skin color. There may well be many other differences between the races as well.Why should we assume, a priori, that all races have the same average IQ? Also, how is it racist or prejudiced to come to this conclusion after conducting various studies and statistical analyses?Prejudice means to "pre-judge" -- i.e., to arrive at a conclusion before doing your homework. Prejudice does not mean "to think anything negative about".Here is an example: if after doing several large scale studies and a lot of statistical analysis you conclude that smoking causes lung cancer, you are not prejudiced against smoking. In fact, you have an intelligent and informed opinion. Your opinion is that there is a negative attribute associated with smoking, but just the fact that it is negative doesn't make you prejudiced.Prejudice has to do with your methadology (i.e., not having a good one), not your conclusion.In the case of race and IQ it appears that the people who have arrived at their conclusions without doing their homework are those who blithely assume, a priori, that there cannot be an IQ difference between the races. Those who actually do the analysis and conduct the studies and arrive at their conclusions in a rigorous manner are labelled "prejudiced" by the very people who are in fact more prejudiced. How ironic.
It appears that the www.lagriffedulion.com people as well as the authors of such books as The Bell Curve and IQ and the Wealth of Nations have concluded that there is a difference in IQ between people of different races.It is already clear that there are other difference between people of different races. Here is one obvious example: skin color. There may well be many other differences between the races as well.Why should we assume, a priori, that all races have the same average IQ? Also, how is it racist or prejudiced to come to this conclusion after conducting various studies and statistical analyses?In the case of race and IQ it appears that the people who have arrived at their conclusions without doing their homework are those who blithely assume, a priori, that there cannot be an IQ difference between the races. Those who actually do the analysis and conduct the studies and arrive at their conclusions in a rigorous manner are labelled "prejudiced" by the very people who are in fact more prejudiced. How ironic.
Also, not to change the subject, but the studies done have only foused on black and white students, not minorities in general. Given the disparate origins, history and economic standing of the ethnic groups that benefit from AA, I can't go as far as to say that such a study can be generalized. Not picking on you, it just seems that the majority of these recent AA threads are solely locked into that B&W construction of AA policies.
Quote from: maricutie on January 18, 2005, 12:58:30 PMOk, now this has got to be flame. Have you read the book? have you read any of the criticms against it? For all of its claim as a scientific book, it sure does assume alot. First, what Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. Second, they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence. Third, while most of The Bell Curve's analysis was devoted to proving that IQ has more predictive power than parental "socio-economic status," the method that Herrnstein and Murray used to figure socioeconomic status seems designed to low-ball its influence. I won't continue because there seems to be a lot more involving hardcore stats that I cannot claim to fully understand myself, but suffice to say: use a better example next time. There are a lot of people who want to discredit this stuff because they don't like the conclusions. For many people, the studies and the methadology used in The Bell Curve, etc., just HAVE TO BE WRONG -- because they already know what the answer is. They will do anything, say anything, make up anything, and blow the tiniest flaw or inconsistency out of all reasonable proportion.They don't approach the subject objectively, instead they go on a witch hunt to discredit these conclusions at all costs.
Ok, now this has got to be flame. Have you read the book? have you read any of the criticms against it? For all of its claim as a scientific book, it sure does assume alot. First, what Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. Second, they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence. Third, while most of The Bell Curve's analysis was devoted to proving that IQ has more predictive power than parental "socio-economic status," the method that Herrnstein and Murray used to figure socioeconomic status seems designed to low-ball its influence. I won't continue because there seems to be a lot more involving hardcore stats that I cannot claim to fully understand myself, but suffice to say: use a better example next time.
Discussion
Resources
