New, Reasonable AA Proposal

[Miss P]

Mine are weirder.

Natch.

[Lindbergh]

I can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.

Go easy on the blacks and hispanics.  It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. 

Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school.  I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated.  Would you disagree?

[PNym]

I can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.

Go easy on the blacks and hispanics.  It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. 

Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school.  I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated.  Would you disagree?

Looks like sarcasm opens you up to being quoted out of context by leftist trolls.

[t...]

I can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.

Go easy on the blacks and hispanics.  It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. 

Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school.  I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated.  Would you disagree?

Looks like sarcasm opens you up to being quoted out of context by leftist trolls.

It's not even the sarcasm - it's the way he phrased it that comes off wrong.

The use of "the" is somewhat telling.

[t...]

It helps to read the original (and subsequent) article(s).

And yours does nothing to explain the performance gap

I know that. But I'm not willing to shell out $12 (or $24 for both studies) to prove something on an internet forum. However, if I find a copy of the article for free, I'll be sure to read it.

And the article I provided does explain the performance gap. Professor Wax suggests that the reported "performance gap" that disappeared when "stereotype threat" was removed had, in fact, been present the entire time:

The key to this study, and to its misuse, can be found in how the results were reported. The average incoming verbal SAT scores of the black Stanford students lagged about 40 points behind the white students in the experiment. In order to control for those academic disparities, the authors adjusted scores on the experimental tests to account for any background SAT score differences. Since the adjustment allowed them to compare students as if they were equally qualified, it's no surprise that black and white students were reported as achieving the same scores when the stereotype threat was removed.

But they did not in fact achieve the same scores. As noted by University of Minnesota psychologist Paul Sackett and his colleagues in the January issue of American Psychologist, the raw, unadjusted scores of African-American and white students in the Steele/Aronson paper actually "differed to about the degree that would be expected on the basis of differences in prior SAT scores." Although stereotype threat warnings widened the gap between black and white student scores somewhat, purging the threat did not close or even narrow the actual gap in scores on the experimental test.

If the gap were there all along, due to differences in prior SAT scores between the black student population and white student population, and only slightly widened when the researchers told the black students that the test judged their intellectual ability, then there is no evidence that the presence or absence of the "threat" had any conclusive effect.

Again, I'd have to look at the original study to see if Professor Wax's critique is true, but judging by her credentials and the detailed analysis she provided, this critique, at the very least, seems plausible.

I think you're misreading the article.

But even beside that, if you bother at all with the LSAC data, blacks (and Hispanics, and Native Americans) have lower mean LSAT scores than whites and Asians: 142.43 Black/African American, 148.49 Native American, 146.52 Hispanic, 152.02 Asian American, 152.47 Caucasian.

Explain how there isn't a gap.

Furthermore, there are just too few minority students scoring in the higher score band to reach the numbers schools want to be at: ~20-25% minority, ~5-10% Black/African American, ~3-6% Hispanic, ~1-2% Native American.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why some are getting a boost, irrespective of economic situation (as Goalie pointed out, can be a separate issue from race/ethnicity).


[url=http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%E2%80%931998-Through-2003%E2%80%932004-Testing-Years.htm{/url]
[url]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%E2%80%931998-Through-2003%E2%80%932004-Testing-Years.htm{/url]
[url]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf

[t...]

How exactly does being a minority, per se, affect your GPA and LSAT once educational opportunity is accounted for?  If it does not, then how is it relevant to admissions decisions?

You obviously have not read the literature on stereotype threat.

I also haven't read the Harry Potter novels.

Making up excuses for minority academic underperformance, while clearly desirable for AA supporters, seems counterproductive when the goal is (presumably) real equality between groups.

Oh come on 

Stereotype is not an "excuse," but rather an attempt at explaining the performance gap. Why are minorities scoring lower on standardized tests (among other things), than their white and Asian counterparts? There's not much else out there right now (that I've encountered, anyway). 

There are some that are at least honest in their views - to them it's just racial biology. Some races are just less intelligent than other races (never mind they are confused as to what "race" and "intelligence" is anyway, beside the other glaring problem with their view). That seems to be the elephant in the room that some groups are hinting towards, but too female private part to just come out and admit.

But I still continue to wonder how you choose to explain this gap. It seems as if it's purely economic for you (and relatedly, educational). That may be part of it, but it doesn't seem to be the whole story. For me it there are a lot more social factors and identity politics that come into play - the power and social dynamic of one "race" qua another, the formation of one's identity in and in relation to society, etc. Surely you can admit (or at least, I'd hope you can) that there is no way to simplify this issue and to nicely break it up into its constituent factors. All of this is still being hashed out.

But if you look at the data, the numbers should be glaring you in the face. And you should be concerned (but perhaps I'm being far too generous).

[PNym]

It helps to read the original (and subsequent) article(s).

And yours does nothing to explain the performance gap

I know that. But I'm not willing to shell out $12 (or $24 for both studies) to prove something on an internet forum. However, if I find a copy of the article for free, I'll be sure to read it.

And the article I provided does explain the performance gap. Professor Wax suggests that the reported "performance gap" that disappeared when "stereotype threat" was removed had, in fact, been present the entire time:

The key to this study, and to its misuse, can be found in how the results were reported. The average incoming verbal SAT scores of the black Stanford students lagged about 40 points behind the white students in the experiment. In order to control for those academic disparities, the authors adjusted scores on the experimental tests to account for any background SAT score differences. Since the adjustment allowed them to compare students as if they were equally qualified, it's no surprise that black and white students were reported as achieving the same scores when the stereotype threat was removed.

But they did not in fact achieve the same scores. As noted by University of Minnesota psychologist Paul Sackett and his colleagues in the January issue of American Psychologist, the raw, unadjusted scores of African-American and white students in the Steele/Aronson paper actually "differed to about the degree that would be expected on the basis of differences in prior SAT scores." Although stereotype threat warnings widened the gap between black and white student scores somewhat, purging the threat did not close or even narrow the actual gap in scores on the experimental test.

If the gap were there all along, due to differences in prior SAT scores between the black student population and white student population, and only slightly widened when the researchers told the black students that the test judged their intellectual ability, then there is no evidence that the presence or absence of the "threat" had any conclusive effect.

Again, I'd have to look at the original study to see if Professor Wax's critique is true, but judging by her credentials and the detailed analysis she provided, this critique, at the very least, seems plausible.

I think you're misreading the article.

But even beside that, if you bother at all with the LSAC data, blacks (and Hispanics, and Native Americans) have lower mean LSAT scores than whites and Asians: 142.43 Black/African American, 148.49 Native American, 146.52 Hispanic, 152.02 Asian American, 152.47 Caucasian.

Explain how there isn't a gap.

Furthermore, there are just too few minority students scoring in the higher score band to reach the numbers schools want to be at: ~20-25% minority, ~5-10% Black/African American, ~3-6% Hispanic, ~1-2% Native American.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why some are getting a boost, irrespective of economic situation (as Goalie pointed out, can be a separate issue from race/ethnicity).


[url=http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%E2%80%931998-Through-2003%E2%80%932004-Testing-Years.htm{/url]
[url=http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%E2%80%931998-Through-2003%E2%80%932004-Testing-Years.htm{/url]
[url]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%E2%80%931998-Through-2003%E2%80%932004-Testing-Years.htm{/url]
[url]http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997%961998-Through-2003%962004-Testing-Years.pdf

How did I misread the article? (I'm not pissed off when I ask this, but would like further clarification about how you think I misread it.)

[t...]

How did I misread the article? (I'm not pissed off when I ask this, but would like further clarification about how you think I misread it.)

The author disputes the methodology of a certain study, not that there is a performance gap. In other words, she doesn't buy that stereotype threat accounts for the "test-score gap."

Hint: she even begins by stating: "...When it comes to the long-observed patterns of black-white differences on a range of academic measures, social science purports to know the answer."

Doesn't that suggest the author admits there is a performance gap?

[The F-cktard Express]

Whites aren't facing the same obstacles as blacks, despite how similar their economic or educational situation may be. Likewise, whites aren't facing the same obstacles as Hispanics. Or Hispanics the same as blacks, or Asians the same as Puerto Ricans.

It's just all so confusing, isn't it? I mean, looking at each racial and ethnic situation differently. And then on top (or bottom?) of that, looking at each educational situation, in regard to each racial/ethnic situation, differently?

And OMIGOSH, don't tell me we have to start considering every economic situation differently as well? And geographic, too?

And then looking at them all in context with one another?

I think I'd rather go study quantum physics. I'm glad you have all of this sorted out, Limburger.

[PNym]

How did I misread the article? (I'm not pissed off when I ask this, but would like further clarification about how you think I misread it.)

The author disputes the methodology of a certain study, not that there is a performance gap. In other words, she doesn't buy that stereotype threat accounts for the "test-score gap."

Hint: she even begins by stating: "...When it comes to the long-observed patterns of black-white differences on a range of academic measures, social science purports to know the answer."

Doesn't that suggest the author admits there is a performance gap?

Oh, I see where the source of the confusion is. The article says that part of the observed performance gap was due to the choice of test subjects, while the study attempts to argue that it was entirely due to the presence of a "stereotype threat."

According to Professor Wax's description of the study in her editorial, the study compared the effects of a proctor saying that "the test measured your native intelligence" on two groups of students: one group of black students and one group of white students.

When the study compared the scores of black students taking the administered test who heard this comment to scores of black students taking the test who didn't hear this comment, it noted that the black students hearing this comment scored lower.

The study then compared the scores of white students taking the administered test who heard this comment to scores of white students taking the test who didn't hear this comment. From that experiment, it noted that the white students in both groups scored about the same.

The study links the two groups by showing that when the administered test's scores were adjusted for the student's average SAT scores. Students who received a lower SAT score had their score on the administered test bumped up to what it would be expected to be had their SAT score matched the average for the study's participants, and students with a higher SAT score had their administered test score similarly adjusted.

After this adjustment, there was no difference in the control groups (that is, the non-comment black test-takers and the non-comment white test-takers). Therefore, the control groups were valid; that is, the two groups of test-takers who didn't hear the comment were the same.

As such, the gap that appeared in the experimental group must be purely attributable to the proctor delivering the comment.

The study attempts to argue that the reason why blacks hearing this comment scored lower while whites did not was because black people are stereotyped as stupid, while white people are not.

However, the group of black students did, in fact, have lower mean SAT scores than the white students. The adjustment of the administered test score hides this pre-existing gap. And several psychologists have noted that the average test scores on the administered test for the white group were largely in line with what they would be expected to get given their SAT scores. Ditto for the black group.

This fact is important because, as Professor Wax notes, if the pre-existing gap in test scores is taken into account, the gap that appears after the comment is made to the black students only represents a widening of a few percentage points, rather than the larger amount it appears to be if the pre-existing gap is hidden.

That is, if, for the administered exam:
White control group's true mean: 100
Black control group's true mean: 60
White experimental group's true mean: 100
Black experimental group's true mean: 58

Then the net increase in gap is (44-42)/100 = 2%

However, if you adjust the means of the control group so they are equal by multiplying the Black control group's true mean by (5/3), and adjust the experimental group's true mean by that same score, you get this result:

White control group's adjusted mean: 100
Black control group's adjusted mean: 100
White experimental group's adjusted mean: 100
Black experimental group's adjusted mean: 96.67

Then the net increase in gap is (100-96.67)/100 = 3.33%

In this example, by adjusting the mean of the control groups, we've inflated the gap by 66%.

If the performance gap were already present between the two control groups, then attributing the entire difference in post-comment performance between the black and white groups to the comment exaggerates the effect of the comment, because the two groups did not perform at the same level even without the comment.

You could say that study's comparison of the two control groups didn't compare apples to apples, as control groups are supposed to do.

It may very well be that if the two control groups were equal in SAT test scores, the comment would make no difference in their performance on the exam. If this were so, it would disprove the "stereotype threat" theory.