Didn't think I'd ever see Yellow Peril in my lifetime. Jingoism seems way more fun when it was promoted by those midcentury cartoons and all-American sounding announcer men with Kennedy haircuts.
if colleges want to fix inequality, they would stop admitting the retard children of their richest donors (something like 1/4 of Ivy League students). But they don't, so they try to look "diverse" enough to escape scrutiny
Lol no those schools live off of CCP money. Awfully many children of high-ranking officials study there for a country that claims its better than the west
The good thing that can come out of this though is you get to disrupt this asian nerd pipeline that currently exists that is forced by their helicopter parents in the west.
I know this sub uses this word a lot now and became pretty meaningless now, but it almost seems like many of these asian communities, including the indians basically COPE about their reality by drowning themselves in their area of study instead of, you know, assimilating with the native population.
Sure, many of them are successful because of their hard work and resilience in their chosen fields, but at what cost though? Asians (including the Chinese, Indians and the rest of developing countries within Asia) are basically on lowest of the totem pole when it comes to cultural respect, cultural development, and this should incentivize to attempt wide variety of skillsets from various other careers and fields.
ACT and SAT only enables these contingent of people to disproportionately "win" because they basically have years of experience gaming the test and getting better at it. Imagine if they used some of that brain power in non nerd fields.
TL:DR-- I want them chinks and shitters to discredit these labels and reduce its effectiveness in western countries more instead of taking it in the ass like they deserved it because they were too busy studying for exams.
Which bullshit test are they going to use now? I think they should ask for your social media account and make the tuition higher per stupid thing you've said. Will definitely weed out all the idiots.
because the correlation between IQ and success drops off somewhere around the 130's and at some point you're just left an autistic NEET who can do math in his head but can't function in society nor carry on a coherent conversation. look up what happened to child prodigies throughout history and the outcome usually is a mentally and emotionally stunted adult living off past glory.
other problems with the "classical IQ tests" is how volatile the scores are depending on environment and circumstances. if you've ever read The Blind Side or watched the movie adaptation, there's a bit about how Michael Oher was tested at an 85 IQ when he was homeless and living in the ghettos of Memphis, then once he was adopted by a rich white family and got a private tutor among other thing, he was retested and scored a 105.
lastly, an IQ test would be pretty redundant to begin with because the average among people applying to the top 100 ranked nationally universities in the country is around 110, and you probably need 115-ish to do well and graduate on time. so it's pretty much confirming what these universities already know, that the people who they admit can already perform well on an IQ test, while also admitting some jackoff gamer who'll probably end up dropping out simply because of an above average IQ scores. "smart slackers" are probably the least employable people around and won't get far in life if they don't get their act together and/or seek mental help.
because the correlation between IQ and success drops off somewhere around the 130's and at some point you're just left an autistic NEET who can do math in his head but can't function in society nor carry on a coherent conversation. look up what happened to child prodigies throughout history and the outcome usually is a mentally and emotionally stunted adult living off past glory.
OTOH Von Neumann, a solid contender for the smartest person ever, was a social butterfly.
Believe me, 99% of college students aren't IQ 130 lol I'd be surprised if it was above 101
OTOH Von Neumann, a solid contender for the smartest person ever, was a social butterfly
and statistical outliers do exist.
Believe me, 99% of college students aren't IQ 130 lol I'd be surprised if it was above 101
brah I'm unironically a data analyst (and have referenced being one many times before if you have the time and/or autism to scour my post history). you pulling something out your ass and presenting it as fact despite it being directly contradictory to what decades of evidence show is quite the clownshow
to detract from my ad hominem and dive into the meat of my argument, IQ distribution is on a bell curve with fifty percent of the population's IQ being above 100. 68 percent of the population's IQ is between 85 and 115, which makes 32 percent beyond one first standard deviation of the mean. halve that and you get 16 percent of the population whose IQ is above 115.
generally speaking, about one in four Americans attains a bachelor's degree or higher. so generally speaking there is a strong correlation between that top 16% and the 25% of Americans with a bachelor's, which grows higher once you go past noname colleges.
so I'd be happy to look at evidence that shows that the typical graduating class of a nationally ranked university doesn't have an above average IQ, because it doesn't exist to begin with. the 16 percenters are typically the ones one the honor roll/dean's list who graduate within four years and generally have little to no troubles academically speaking, while among the population of 34 percenters who have an IQ between a 100 and 115 IQ, at your typical university, they'll be the ones who take extra years to graduate and generally don't fare too well in competitive academic environments, that or they're non-traditional students who transferred in after getting a 4.0 at their local community college because they got a 2.5 in high school.
"success" is hard to quantify, it's absolutely possible that IQ is measuring something real after 130 that doesn't correlate into income or status games. If anything in the social sciences is real and reproducible then it's IQ. I'm curious what you'd even offer as an alternative for them or things meant to roughly approximate them(SAT ACT), obviously they're not perfect resolution but they're better by far than anything else we have to measure academic potential.
Not like it even matters. I got a 1550 on the SAT but I still ended up having to go to fuckin Pitt. If you’re poor you get all the scholarships in the world, and the college halves your tuition. If you’re rich, your parents pay for it regardless. If you’re lower middle class like me, the college won’t pay it and neither will your parents. No, I’m definitely not seething because some POC with millionaire parents gets an auto admission to Berkeley due to “adversity” but will never have to worry about tuition or student loans.
Just seethe that some rich kid from United Arab Emirates got into a better school than you and probably got straight A's through bribes while paying instagram thots to rim him.
As always, keep in mind that none of your smoothbrained opinions are based on the latest research in the highest echelons of Education Academia (which Jordan Memerson believes is the root of all postmodern neomarxist problems, and you don't wanna be a nazi like him, do you??). These are the best and brightest making the most objectively correct decisions, with access to cutting edge research you can't even dream of, so don't @ me with your dumb opinions about how the SAT and ACT are rigorously designed and highly researched measures that have been used as a proxy for IQ in massive portions of sociological and psychological research, and that they are extremely robust measurements that have been carefully developed to mitigate racial, sexual, cultural, and class biases with numerous improvements over almost the entire last century.
Especially don't try to argue your idiotic, half-baked ideas about how almost every other portion of your college application is more susceptible to rich white people gaming the system, such as highschool internships, your various essays, recommendations from teachers/coaches, extracurricular activities, and grade-inflations. You are not an expert in this field, and someone with a PH.D in English from YALE UNIVERSITY (that's an Ivy League school, not that I'd expect you to know anything about that) made this decision, who is definitely smarter than you and your shitty community college associates certificate written with crayon.
The growing correlation between race and test scores over the past 25 years reflects the growing segregation of Latino and black students in California’s poorest, lowest-performing schools. Statistically, race has become as important as either family income or parents’ education in accounting for test-score differences among UC applicants. Using the SAT and ACT under the constraints of Proposition 209 means accepting adverse impacts on underrepresented minority applicants beyond what can be justified by the limited predictive value of the tests. If UC cannot legally consider race as a socioeconomic disadvantage in admissions, neither should it consider scores on nationally normed tests. Race-blind implies test-blind admissions. The paper concludes with a discussion of options for replacing or eliminating the SAT and ACT in UC admissions.
In other words, the problem is that the California K-12 system is highly segregated, so black and latino students are all in shitty schools, where they don't learn anything, so they can't get good scores on the SAT. With Prop 209 still on the books, the only thing the UC system can do to keep a diverse student body is purposefully blind itself to the quality of students. It's not that the test "measures nothing", it's that the test works TOO WELL for how badly the public school system does.
This is not just an opinion some idiot had online. It's literally in the abstract of the paper they cite as their reason for doing it.
So,
1) race and test scores are statistically matched
2) schools cannot discriminate based on race
Therefore,
3) schools cannot discriminate based on test scores
I’d imagine we could come up with some other sound propositions:
4) SES and test scores are statistically matched
5) race and SES are statistically matched
Following the logic, schools shouldn’t be able to discriminate based off SES, either.
But how do you control for SES? It is opportunity and advantage. It is the dominant predictor of performance.
SES is not a factor in an environment, it is the environment.
When can we nut up as a society and admit to ourselves that schools are just sites of social stratification
You’re telling me it’s the task of institutional education to alleviate social inequity? Look around you, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Face the lie. Education is part and parcel of the whole damn system.
Lol no the SAT and ACT are trash. You realize the error for the exam is like 100 points right? Like you could literally get a 1500 the next day if you got a 1600 the day before just purely randomly? It's so trash that literal mongs and retards like myself can get 1600s. That's the real reason schools are removing them, they just add no value to the admissions. GPA is heading the same way imo.
And this actually helps Asians slightly. Every Asian gets a 1600 so it like didn't help you to score well on it since you're just conpetiting against other Asians. But if you fucked up (which happens frequently bc the error) randomly then you either have to shill out more cash or look really bad compared to the other Asians.
If SAT etc are easily gamed by prepping, what stops them from throwing money at free prep courses for minorities? I think that they have this weird doublethink superposition where on some level they strongly believe that this wouldn't help, much more strongly than I do.
Dude a prepbook costs $10. I've done these prepcourses, they're not Hogwarts, it's just simply drills. They have to blame the prep classes out of ideological necessity.
$10 plus hours of having to actually be a parent of your teenager. Rich people pay test preppers the bargain price of $50 / hour for that part, poor people have to go to their second job and hope their kid will actually do it instead of shitposting on tik tok to try to get laid.
I kind of like having them on campus, people didn't know how to treat them. On the one hand they were driving lambos and wearing $2000 print shirts but on the other hand they could kind of play the oppressed rice field worker in a conical hat card in the identity politics game. My guess is they'll be the new whiteoids when mayos go extinct.
I support whatever makes asians even angrier they didn't get into a good enough school to stop their parents from beating them or their mother from sleeping with a white dude.
People with PCOS who are too fat to defend themselves or run away are fun to abuse. I like to take a spoon, heat it up until it's glowing hot, then place it on the skin while they're asleep. The reaction when they wake up after the 25th time of being burned by a redhot piece of metal is amazing. You can literally piecemeal their mental stability down to complete insanity, then leave them in their own homes helpless and alone. :DDDDDDDDDD
At the risk of being a filthy seriousposter the schools are devaluing the value of their degree if they do away with exclusivity through ACT/SAT. It's the one metric that actually tests intelligence of some kind. What will college even be if anyone can get in? I mean most schools don't even require calculus I anymore for most grads and Algebra I is next on the chopping block from what I was reading. College used to mean that you had some core skills like being able to write professionally, knowing intermediate math, knowing the scientific method, and probably having knowledge in history through electives. That combined with exclusivity aka not everyone gets in made it valuable in the past.
She is factually correct that these tests do show inequality. The only thing she is wrong about is why. I look forward to all these silly barriers being removed. Dramacoin will pump.
I did well on my SAT. And they largely aren't about studying to begin with, but benefit from practice and repetition. It's the subject tests and AP exams that I had to actually study for.
True, but so are many of the other things used for college admissions. GPA? Anything less than a 3.8 is considered dumb as fuck at this point. Activites? Yeah I went to a meeting once or I did do that but I'm immediately going to stop when I get to college. Awards/Achievements? Looks like someone's parents have connections and or free time. Essays? Either not interesting, full of shit, or were written by someone else.
SATs are a joke, lol. It just tests how good you are at taking the SAT. My rich parents actually paid for me to take an SAT class when I was 16, and it was just weeks of the instructor teaching us how to best game the system to give us the highest chance of answering multiple choice questions right. I was mediocre in class but my SAT score was p good.
Excuse me, but I don’t believe we have the intimacy for this type of banter. I don’t come to drama to be insulted. Please retract your statements you stupid fucking cunt.
Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8]
Individual components of the iq test can be trained but aren't regularly trained and the training doesn't transfer which is why real IQ tests have several different t components
Any system you bring for admission will be gamed by the rich. No exceptions. Atleast they have to do some work to crack SAT. It is not perfect but still is the least worst amongst other options.
A lot of try hards very mad. If these internet users can’t brag about made up scores how are they gonna land chicks? Muscles? Jaw line? I think not hence all the downvotes
Yes, they really are a joke and this seems like another case of rightoids not knowing what they are talking about looking for something to be outraged over.
He’s told me before, but I won’t say unless he was to give the okay. It was mid tier and he didn’t graduate iirc. He also unironically thinks math is racist.
As far as I know, they're extremely well correlated with both intelligence and several measures of success (in college and beyond). Does that mean they're impervious to being gamed? Of course not.
However, if you look at the research that this decision is made on, it's such a ridiculous argument that I can't imagine being swayed by it: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580807
In short, the SAT scores that the UC system is being more and more connected to the race and socioeconomic class of the student, and the reason for that is described in the fucking abstract as "The growing correlation between race and test scores over the past 25 years reflects the growing segregation of Latino and black students in California’s poorest, lowest-performing schools"
The abstract ends with "If UC cannot legally consider race as a socioeconomic disadvantage in admissions, neither should it consider scores on nationally normed tests. Race-blind implies test-blind admissions." In other words, it's not that the SAT/ACT don't measure anything... it's that the SAT/ACT measure too well for the administrators' comfort.
This is an overt attempt to purposefully blind the UC system to the current skill-level of the students they are admitting, in order to allow them to accept higher rates of disadvantaged students. It's an admirable and progressive goal, but from their own research, by their own public admission, it has nothing to do with a lack of validity of SAT measures on how well students are prepared for college.
What is it that I'm missing here? Why are you so sure that the SAT is a joke and that everyone who disagrees is a rightoid who doesn't know what they're talking about?
This is why there's a movement to move away from these scores for college admissions.
As the other post says:
To maintain a high GPA, you need to put consistent and dedicated effort into your coursework over a long period of time, and skill in this area will be invaluable as you move on to college. Standardized test scores are based on a smaller amount of data, collected at only a few test sittings, so they may not reflect as accurately your ability to keep up a high level of performance throughout your college experience and in your future career.
Like this isn't some SJW propaganda. This has been coming for a long time - it's becoming increasingly obvious that the SAT can not actually predict success in college as well as GPA can.
So basing college admissions on the SAT is weird. Especially considering for years college admins have been claiming the SATs predict college grades in the first year, and if another metric exists which is superior - we should use that.
Your an idiot grades are subjective to the communist teacher giving them. The SATs are not. You want a good indicator of who does well their first year of college. Just see who grew up with a father
This. GPAs can be ruined by literally anything. Due to how most schools weigh homework, class work and tests in the grade portal, you can’t really study to get a higher GPA. If you switch teachers halfway through the semester that can bring you from an A to a B. If you called the teacher a boomer and it just so happens he’s grading the midterm open endeds, he could mark down a 0 for all of them and bring you down another letter grade. There’s a reason why most colleges don’t give much weight to the GPA, and that’s because it isn’t standardized at all. Colleges focus on how many AP classes you take, extracurriculars and of course, your SAT scores.
If you called the teacher a boomer and it just so happens he’s grading the midterm open endeds, he could mark down a 0 for all of them and bring you down another letter grade
tbh that's just academia in general, I TA'd for an analytics class while doing my master's and would conveniently "lose" homework and quizzes of people I didn't like.
Name one fucking school that uses SAT but not GPA.
No matter how much of a good predictor (of whatever) GPA is, that says literally nothing about using GPA + SAT as an even better predictor. Nobody is saying that the UC system should throw out GPA and only look at SAT. This conversation was never about using SAT instead of GPA. This was only ever a conversation about SAT + GPA vs GPA alone, and the UC research says specifically that SAT + GPA was found to be more powerful way back in 2001, but they want to get rid of it because the SAT carries a lot of racial baggage with it that introduces bias against black and latino students that they don't consider worth the extra predicitve power.
Anyway, I've been making my way through that paper and found some neat stuff. Don't worry, their citation makes a way better argument than you do:
High school grades are a far better predictor of both four-year and six-year graduation rates than are SAT/ACT test scores—
a central finding that holds within each of the six sets of public universities that we study . . . Test scores, on the other hand,
routinely fail to pass standard tests of statistical significance when included with high school GPA in regressions predicting
graduation rates . . . (Validity studies conducted at UC similarly show that SAT/ACT scores are very weak predictors of graduation rates (Geiser & Santelices, 2007 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502858.pdf). )
Later, they go on to say that the latest 2008 study for the UC system shows that with all the data, 21.7% of the variance in first year GPA was explained, dropping to 19.8% when they removed SAT score from the model. so, uh, so much for that.
While skimming through that one, I was suddenly struck by the realization that they say the Math section of the SAT only has a .1 regression coefficient and I realized what a fucking idiot I am. All of these measures lump the communications majors in with people that actually learned something at college beyond how to chug a beer. All of this research is practically meaningless when there's almost no reason to believe that "success in college" is a meaningful outcome.
Either way, you're arguing against something that nobody is arguing for... unless you can find me a school that really is considering throwing out highschool GPA and only looking at SAT score. If you find that, I will gladly call that school retarded with you.
And their own research paper still explicitly says, in many places and ways, that the only reason they're cutting SAT score is that the bias against black and latino students isn't worth the increase in predictive ability, especially since EVERY measure (including HS GPA) is kinda shit. The highest number mentioned is 22.3% of the variance in first year grades being predicted with HSGPA + SAT II Subject Tests + SAT, with HSGPA alone being 15.4% and HSGPA + SAT being 20.8%.
For this reason, norm-referenced admissions tests are ill-suited to the mission of public universities like UC. Public institutions
have a special obligation to expand opportunity for able students from disadvantaged backgrounds. SAT/ACT scores create builtin deterrents to that mission. Only by making special accommodations to compensate for disparities in opportunity to learn, such
as admissions preferences for low-income or first-generation college students, can their use be justified.
Conclusion: Eliminating the SAT and ACT in UC Admissions
National standards for fairness in testing oblige test users to be vigilant about the differential impact of test scores on racial and
ethnic minorities, beyond what may be warranted by test validity. Until 1998, UC met this obligation by means of a two-tiered
admissions process. The top half of the pool was admitted based on grades and test scores only. The bottom half was admitted
using a combination of academic and supplemental criteria, including race. Though far from ideal, two-tiered admissions did allow
sensitivity to the differential validity of SAT/ACT scores for underrepresented minority applicants.20
All of this changed with SP-1 and Proposition 209, barring use of race as a supplemental admissions criterion. But that change
has also effectively barred consideration of how other admissions criteria, like SAT/ACT scores, are themselves affected by race.
The correlation between race and test scores has grown substantially among UC applicants over the past 25 years, mirroring the
growing concentration of Latino and black students in California’s poorest, most intensely segregated schools. Statistically,
underrepresented minority status is now a stronger predictor of SAT/ACT scores than either family income or parents’ education.
UC is thus faced with a choice of some consequence. One is to continue to employ a selection criterion with known collateral
effects on underrepresented minorities, even while admissions officials are prevented by law from acting on that knowledge.
Continuing to use the SAT and ACT under the constraints of Proposition 209 means accepting adverse impacts on black and
Latino applicants beyond what can be justified by test validity.
The alternative is to eliminate use of SAT/ACT scores in UC admissions. If the university cannot legally consider race as a
socioeconomic disadvantage in admissions, neither should it consider scores on nationally normed tests. Race-blind implies testblind admissions.
Name one fucking school that uses SAT but not GPA.
I stopped reading here because this is just such a profound misunderstanding and ignorance of the subject you couldn't have possibly typed anything of value after.
Far too much weight is put in the SATs. Which is the entire point. Which is, you know, exactly why this was posted here.
Personality, not raw intelligence, is a better judge of lifetime success, new research shows.
Here we go - lmao
Let's look closer...
Three of the four studies followed the students over a decade or more, and examined how they did on a variety measures of life outcomes, like wages, arrest rates, body mass index, and whether or not they voted. Together, the studies show personality and grades correlate more strongly with later measures of success and happiness than IQ.
Jesus -fucking- Christ!
And, for the final punch...
None of the four studies perfectly demonstrates the results—not all measured the same traits, or had other flaws—but together they send a clear signal
In other words, individually, "studies" are pure shit. But together, it's the sweetest cheesecake ever tasted.
He’s told me before, but I won’t say unless he was to give the okay. It was mid tier and he didn’t graduate iirc. He also unironically thinks math is racist.
138 comments
31 babybacklogic 2019-11-24
You got to appreciate how much effort progressive colleges are putting in to fucking Asians over.
15 HodorTheDoorHolder_ 2019-11-24
The Chinese menace is a real thing. All other Asians are okay but not the Chinese.
13 ashleychudd 2019-11-24
Genghis khan did nothing wrong.
5 Thereal14words 2019-11-24
This but unironicly
3 TrailerParkRide 2019-11-24
Didn't think I'd ever see Yellow Peril in my lifetime. Jingoism seems way more fun when it was promoted by those midcentury cartoons and all-American sounding announcer men with Kennedy haircuts.
-1 aqouta 2019-11-24
As far as governments go I could agree, but Chinese people are fine.
3 XhotwheelsloverX 2019-11-24
Chinese =/= people
1 Dramatictuna 2019-11-24
Sounds like somebody could use a stay at the camps.
13 TheLordHighExecu 2019-11-24
if colleges want to fix inequality, they would stop admitting the retard children of their richest donors (something like 1/4 of Ivy League students). But they don't, so they try to look "diverse" enough to escape scrutiny
9 foureyednickfury 2019-11-24
Lol no those schools live off of CCP money. Awfully many children of high-ranking officials study there for a country that claims its better than the west
7 TrailerParkRide 2019-11-24
You need an American job to steal American tech, and it's easier to get an American job with an American education.
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[removed]
2 taapy234 2019-11-24
The good thing that can come out of this though is you get to disrupt this asian nerd pipeline that currently exists that is forced by their helicopter parents in the west.
I know this sub uses this word a lot now and became pretty meaningless now, but it almost seems like many of these asian communities, including the indians basically COPE about their reality by drowning themselves in their area of study instead of, you know, assimilating with the native population.
Sure, many of them are successful because of their hard work and resilience in their chosen fields, but at what cost though? Asians (including the Chinese, Indians and the rest of developing countries within Asia) are basically on lowest of the totem pole when it comes to cultural respect, cultural development, and this should incentivize to attempt wide variety of skillsets from various other careers and fields.
ACT and SAT only enables these contingent of people to disproportionately "win" because they basically have years of experience gaming the test and getting better at it. Imagine if they used some of that brain power in non nerd fields.
TL:DR-- I want them chinks and shitters to discredit these labels and reduce its effectiveness in western countries more instead of taking it in the ass like they deserved it because they were too busy studying for exams.
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[removed]
12 10inchblackhawk 2019-11-24
Which bullshit test are they going to use now? I think they should ask for your social media account and make the tuition higher per stupid thing you've said. Will definitely weed out all the idiots.
3 aqouta 2019-11-24
Just do a traditional IQ test lol. Why even bother with anything else?
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[deleted]
-3 taytaybraps 2019-11-24
because the correlation between IQ and success drops off somewhere around the 130's and at some point you're just left an autistic NEET who can do math in his head but can't function in society nor carry on a coherent conversation. look up what happened to child prodigies throughout history and the outcome usually is a mentally and emotionally stunted adult living off past glory.
other problems with the "classical IQ tests" is how volatile the scores are depending on environment and circumstances. if you've ever read The Blind Side or watched the movie adaptation, there's a bit about how Michael Oher was tested at an 85 IQ when he was homeless and living in the ghettos of Memphis, then once he was adopted by a rich white family and got a private tutor among other thing, he was retested and scored a 105.
lastly, an IQ test would be pretty redundant to begin with because the average among people applying to the top 100 ranked nationally universities in the country is around 110, and you probably need 115-ish to do well and graduate on time. so it's pretty much confirming what these universities already know, that the people who they admit can already perform well on an IQ test, while also admitting some jackoff gamer who'll probably end up dropping out simply because of an above average IQ scores. "smart slackers" are probably the least employable people around and won't get far in life if they don't get their act together and/or seek mental help.
/seriouspost
dude bussy lmao
5 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
4 QWERT123321Z 2019-11-24
OTOH Von Neumann, a solid contender for the smartest person ever, was a social butterfly.
Believe me, 99% of college students aren't IQ 130 lol I'd be surprised if it was above 101
5 taytaybraps 2019-11-24
and statistical outliers do exist.
brah I'm unironically a data analyst (and have referenced being one many times before if you have the time and/or autism to scour my post history). you pulling something out your ass and presenting it as fact despite it being directly contradictory to what decades of evidence show is quite the clownshow
to detract from my ad hominem and dive into the meat of my argument, IQ distribution is on a bell curve with fifty percent of the population's IQ being above 100. 68 percent of the population's IQ is between 85 and 115, which makes 32 percent beyond one first standard deviation of the mean. halve that and you get 16 percent of the population whose IQ is above 115.
generally speaking, about one in four Americans attains a bachelor's degree or higher. so generally speaking there is a strong correlation between that top 16% and the 25% of Americans with a bachelor's, which grows higher once you go past noname colleges.
so I'd be happy to look at evidence that shows that the typical graduating class of a nationally ranked university doesn't have an above average IQ, because it doesn't exist to begin with. the 16 percenters are typically the ones one the honor roll/dean's list who graduate within four years and generally have little to no troubles academically speaking, while among the population of 34 percenters who have an IQ between a 100 and 115 IQ, at your typical university, they'll be the ones who take extra years to graduate and generally don't fare too well in competitive academic environments, that or they're non-traditional students who transferred in after getting a 4.0 at their local community college because they got a 2.5 in high school.
thank you for listening to my ted talk
3 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 QWERT123321Z 2019-11-24
NGL this shit's impressive as fuck thank you mr data man
1 self_safety_advocate 2019-11-24
Feynman fucked
2 QWERT123321Z 2019-11-24
In the most autismo way possible tho that beautiful bastard
1 aqouta 2019-11-24
"success" is hard to quantify, it's absolutely possible that IQ is measuring something real after 130 that doesn't correlate into income or status games. If anything in the social sciences is real and reproducible then it's IQ. I'm curious what you'd even offer as an alternative for them or things meant to roughly approximate them(SAT ACT), obviously they're not perfect resolution but they're better by far than anything else we have to measure academic potential.
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-11-24
Combination paper bag test and automated scanning of all social media
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-11-24
No tests. Personal essays are the key.
8 RBLXTalk 2019-11-24
Not like it even matters. I got a 1550 on the SAT but I still ended up having to go to fuckin Pitt. If you’re poor you get all the scholarships in the world, and the college halves your tuition. If you’re rich, your parents pay for it regardless. If you’re lower middle class like me, the college won’t pay it and neither will your parents. No, I’m definitely not seething because some POC with millionaire parents gets an auto admission to Berkeley due to “adversity” but will never have to worry about tuition or student loans.
9 rto2508 2019-11-24
Just seethe that some rich kid from United Arab Emirates got into a better school than you and probably got straight A's through bribes while paying instagram thots to rim him.
8 RBLXTalk 2019-11-24
I seethe at all richoids every day. I am radical centrist until someone is better than me in any way, whether they earned it or not.
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[deleted]
5 itsnotmyfault 2019-11-24
As always, keep in mind that none of your smoothbrained opinions are based on the latest research in the highest echelons of Education Academia (which Jordan Memerson believes is the root of all postmodern neomarxist problems, and you don't wanna be a nazi like him, do you??). These are the best and brightest making the most objectively correct decisions, with access to cutting edge research you can't even dream of, so don't @ me with your dumb opinions about how the SAT and ACT are rigorously designed and highly researched measures that have been used as a proxy for IQ in massive portions of sociological and psychological research, and that they are extremely robust measurements that have been carefully developed to mitigate racial, sexual, cultural, and class biases with numerous improvements over almost the entire last century.
Especially don't try to argue your idiotic, half-baked ideas about how almost every other portion of your college application is more susceptible to rich white people gaming the system, such as highschool internships, your various essays, recommendations from teachers/coaches, extracurricular activities, and grade-inflations. You are not an expert in this field, and someone with a PH.D in English from YALE UNIVERSITY (that's an Ivy League school, not that I'd expect you to know anything about that) made this decision, who is definitely smarter than you and your shitty community college associates certificate written with crayon.
Tweet is linked for drama. People trying to argue should direct themselves to the news article version: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-23/uc-officials-recommend-dropping-sat-admission-requirement to arm themselves with FACTS and LOGIC.
9 eva_remastered 2019-11-24
damn son, go off
9 itsnotmyfault 2019-11-24
If you read the reasearch this decision was based on, they're completely explicit about what they're doing and why: https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/norm-referenced-tests-and-race-blind-admissions-case-eliminating-sat-and-act-university
In other words, the problem is that the California K-12 system is highly segregated, so black and latino students are all in shitty schools, where they don't learn anything, so they can't get good scores on the SAT. With Prop 209 still on the books, the only thing the UC system can do to keep a diverse student body is purposefully blind itself to the quality of students. It's not that the test "measures nothing", it's that the test works TOO WELL for how badly the public school system does.
This is not just an opinion some idiot had online. It's literally in the abstract of the paper they cite as their reason for doing it.
5 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 even_more_sausages 2019-11-24
So, 1) race and test scores are statistically matched 2) schools cannot discriminate based on race
Therefore,
3) schools cannot discriminate based on test scores
I’d imagine we could come up with some other sound propositions:
4) SES and test scores are statistically matched 5) race and SES are statistically matched
Following the logic, schools shouldn’t be able to discriminate based off SES, either.
But how do you control for SES? It is opportunity and advantage. It is the dominant predictor of performance.
SES is not a factor in an environment, it is the environment.
When can we nut up as a society and admit to ourselves that schools are just sites of social stratification
You’re telling me it’s the task of institutional education to alleviate social inequity? Look around you, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Face the lie. Education is part and parcel of the whole damn system.
1 RedNumber_40 2019-11-24
I have an even easier solution for your contrived dilemma. But instead, I'm going to say the word BUSSY Lmao
4 artemis_m_oswald 2019-11-24
Lol no the SAT and ACT are trash. You realize the error for the exam is like 100 points right? Like you could literally get a 1500 the next day if you got a 1600 the day before just purely randomly? It's so trash that literal mongs and retards like myself can get 1600s. That's the real reason schools are removing them, they just add no value to the admissions. GPA is heading the same way imo.
And this actually helps Asians slightly. Every Asian gets a 1600 so it like didn't help you to score well on it since you're just conpetiting against other Asians. But if you fucked up (which happens frequently bc the error) randomly then you either have to shill out more cash or look really bad compared to the other Asians.
9 Ill_Regal 2019-11-24
Isn’t 1600 the max? I forgot how they keep changing the score but I think you’re making it out to be easier than it is.
5 rbsh123 2019-11-24
If you’re not smart enough to game the system you shouldn’t be smart enough to go to college.
Stop bitching and get 100 points higher
7 artemis_m_oswald 2019-11-24
Collegeboard shill detected ^
1 rbsh123 2019-11-24
If keeping retards out of college makes me a shill then sign me up
0 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[deleted]
2 artemis_m_oswald 2019-11-24
You're right on both counts but I still got into a good college with a full ride so it proves my point
2 rto2508 2019-11-24
I don't really have time to read all of that sperging but good job! Remember to upvote the lolcow.
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[deleted]
1 bloodfort_andromeda 2019-11-24
Someone’s mad!
5 big_papa_stiffy 2019-11-24
"inequality" meaning "only smart people get in"
i swear some of these places are deliberately trying to trash their own reputation
5 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
If SAT etc are easily gamed by prepping, what stops them from throwing money at free prep courses for minorities? I think that they have this weird doublethink superposition where on some level they strongly believe that this wouldn't help, much more strongly than I do.
1 RedNumber_40 2019-11-24
Dude a prepbook costs $10. I've done these prepcourses, they're not Hogwarts, it's just simply drills. They have to blame the prep classes out of ideological necessity.
1 itsnotmyfault 2019-11-24
$10 plus hours of having to actually be a parent of your teenager. Rich people pay test preppers the bargain price of $50 / hour for that part, poor people have to go to their second job and hope their kid will actually do it instead of shitposting on tik tok to try to get laid.
1 RedNumber_40 2019-11-24
I guess the poor are just big retards. What can I say, it can't be helped.
1 simplicity3000 2019-11-24
that's the obvious solution.
most likely they tried that in the 90s already and found out it doesn't help.
4 Comrade_Natalie 2019-11-24
This is making the insectoids mad so i guess it's a good thing
3 rto2508 2019-11-24
I kind of like having them on campus, people didn't know how to treat them. On the one hand they were driving lambos and wearing $2000 print shirts but on the other hand they could kind of play the oppressed rice field worker in a conical hat card in the identity politics game. My guess is they'll be the new whiteoids when mayos go extinct.
4 wm20123 2019-11-24
I support whatever makes asians even angrier they didn't get into a good enough school to stop their parents from beating them or their mother from sleeping with a white dude.
5 TheLordHighExecu 2019-11-24
yeah I went from getting a 2400 to posting in arr drama, thanks college admissions
4 FearOfBees 2019-11-24
Being smart is keeping people from being accepted into something that revolves around being smart
1 SnapshillBot 2019-11-24
People with PCOS who are too fat to defend themselves or run away are fun to abuse. I like to take a spoon, heat it up until it's glowing hot, then place it on the skin while they're asleep. The reaction when they wake up after the 25th time of being burned by a redhot piece of metal is amazing. You can literally piecemeal their mental stability down to complete insanity, then leave them in their own homes helpless and alone. :DDDDDDDDDD
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[removed]
1 pm_me_ur_butthole420 2019-11-24
Burgers love their standardized testing
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[deleted]
1 rto2508 2019-11-24
At the risk of being a filthy seriousposter the schools are devaluing the value of their degree if they do away with exclusivity through ACT/SAT. It's the one metric that actually tests intelligence of some kind. What will college even be if anyone can get in? I mean most schools don't even require calculus I anymore for most grads and Algebra I is next on the chopping block from what I was reading. College used to mean that you had some core skills like being able to write professionally, knowing intermediate math, knowing the scientific method, and probably having knowledge in history through electives. That combined with exclusivity aka not everyone gets in made it valuable in the past.
2 greyham11 2019-11-24
Legacy admission screens for intelligence because intelligence is heritable. Checkmate poorcels.
1 pm-me-your-covfefes 2019-11-24
People in here having a meltdown over college admissions.
FYI - 99.9% of the world doesn’t care where you went to college.
If you’re smart enough and hard working enough to get into those schools, you’re going to be successful no matter where you go to college.
1 aqouta 2019-11-24
Is this discussed elsewhere? Want more drama
1 RedNumber_40 2019-11-24
She is factually correct that these tests do show inequality. The only thing she is wrong about is why. I look forward to all these silly barriers being removed. Dramacoin will pump.
1 texanapocalypse33 2019-11-24
Imagine not getting at least a 2300
0 kermit_was_wrong 2019-11-24
SATs really are fucking worthless tbh
2 rto2508 2019-11-24
Your whole life would be different if you'd learned to study. You blew it.
3 kermit_was_wrong 2019-11-24
I did well on my SAT. And they largely aren't about studying to begin with, but benefit from practice and repetition. It's the subject tests and AP exams that I had to actually study for.
Anyway, SATs are shit.
1 Fo-bobba 2019-11-24
True, but so are many of the other things used for college admissions. GPA? Anything less than a 3.8 is considered dumb as fuck at this point. Activites? Yeah I went to a meeting once or I did do that but I'm immediately going to stop when I get to college. Awards/Achievements? Looks like someone's parents have connections and or free time. Essays? Either not interesting, full of shit, or were written by someone else.
-3 Shubard75 2019-11-24
SATs are a joke, lol. It just tests how good you are at taking the SAT. My rich parents actually paid for me to take an SAT class when I was 16, and it was just weeks of the instructor teaching us how to best game the system to give us the highest chance of answering multiple choice questions right. I was mediocre in class but my SAT score was p good.
15 Pepperglue 2019-11-24
So if any idiot could do it, what does that mean for the idiots who couldn't do it even if it is so easy?
2 Shubard75 2019-11-24
It means they're poorfags
-1 pm_me_ur_butthole420 2019-11-24
It's easy if you have rich parents who have the time and means to wrangle you in to an SAT prep course.
12 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
Last I read there was something like a 0.7-0.8 correlation between SAT/ACT and IQ.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
IQ testing very much can be trained, so that a retarded answer to a retarded comment.
10 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
So you could train a 75 iq person to get a 150 on an iq test?
Or is it more like SAT prep courses that only give you a small boost to your SAT score?
-2 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
No but you could train them to get 100 or so. Which is a significant boost.
10 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
Source to the claim that you could raise someone's IQ test score by almost 2 standard deviations?
0 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
I have a recorded genius level IQ.
6 ashleychudd 2019-11-24
If you had a genius IQ you wouldn’t be a cat person.
0 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
Yes, that's my point you absolute retard.
5 ashleychudd 2019-11-24
Excuse me, but I don’t believe we have the intimacy for this type of banter. I don’t come to drama to be insulted. Please retract your statements you stupid fucking cunt.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
I do what I want nerd
1 I_Shah 2019-11-24
Lmao. You post on r/drama
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
Imagine being so fucking stupid you don't understand such a basic joke
1 simplicity3000 2019-11-24
that wasn't the question thou
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
Yes, yes it was. You dumbass.
1 simplicity3000 2019-11-24
lol you should have used your genius level IQ to figure out what the question was
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
You are aware the joke was that I am not actually that intelligent you fuck nugget ?
1 simplicity3000 2019-11-24
yeah i know what you were trying to say
6 Pandeemia 2019-11-24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Oh yes, that's why it's 80% to 86% heritable.
0 Woolgun 2019-11-24
What's ur favorite brand of skull calipers?
3 Pandeemia 2019-11-24
What's ur favorite brand of soy?
1 Woolgun 2019-11-24
I don't eat soy, smart people who only use facts and logic told me I'll have low T if I do :(
1 aqouta 2019-11-24
Individual components of the iq test can be trained but aren't regularly trained and the training doesn't transfer which is why real IQ tests have several different t components
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2019-11-24
Are you retarded ? If you can train different portion you can train the whole.
7 praboi 2019-11-24
Any system you bring for admission will be gamed by the rich. No exceptions. Atleast they have to do some work to crack SAT. It is not perfect but still is the least worst amongst other options.
5 Corporal-Hicks 2019-11-24
Lmao cope
1 Shubard75 2019-11-24
What would I even be coping about?
2 collectijism 2019-11-24
A lot of try hards very mad. If these internet users can’t brag about made up scores how are they gonna land chicks? Muscles? Jaw line? I think not hence all the downvotes
TLDR drama madx86
2 Shubard75 2019-11-24
I'm guessing it's just people who haven't accomplished anything since their parents bought them a high SAT score. Sad.
1 RBLXTalk 2019-11-24
I am seething. Fuck you
1 [deleted] 2019-11-24
[removed]
1 rto2508 2019-11-24
Just because you lie on the internet doesn't mean people believe you.
1 Shubard75 2019-11-24
this is literally the first time I've told the truth on r/drama
-1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Yes, they really are a joke and this seems like another case of rightoids not knowing what they are talking about looking for something to be outraged over.
11 boyoyoyoyong 2019-11-24
I see somebody didn't do well on the entrance exams
-1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Lol if this sub knew which school I went to they'd be completely shocked. We'll leave it at that.
14 boyoyoyoyong 2019-11-24
Everyone gets into community college
8 ashleychudd 2019-11-24
Oklahoma state isn’t a good school.
-4 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Oh child.
5 Kaiser-romulus 2019-11-24
Okay so tell us why school you go
8 Kat_B0T 2019-11-24
He’s told me before, but I won’t say unless he was to give the okay. It was mid tier and he didn’t graduate iirc. He also unironically thinks math is racist.
4 ashleychudd 2019-11-24
This sounds like pizza.
2 Kaiser-romulus 2019-11-24
Okay so why would we be shocked by any of this?
1 whenweriiide 2019-11-24
based
4 yourdeadwife 2019-11-24
Whatever elementary school playground you jerk off in at night is your own business.
1 WhiteTearsForFears 2019-11-24
D.Z.C.F.K.W.C.R.G.A.W.W.L.T.D.O.S.G.T.?
1 JustAThrowaway4563 2019-11-24
No one would be shocked that you went to a junior college for the mentally disabled
1 simplicity3000 2019-11-24
clown college
9 TotesMessenger 2019-11-24
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 itsnotmyfault 2019-11-24
Redpill me on SATs being a joke.
As far as I know, they're extremely well correlated with both intelligence and several measures of success (in college and beyond). Does that mean they're impervious to being gamed? Of course not.
However, if you look at the research that this decision is made on, it's such a ridiculous argument that I can't imagine being swayed by it: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580807
In short, the SAT scores that the UC system is being more and more connected to the race and socioeconomic class of the student, and the reason for that is described in the fucking abstract as "The growing correlation between race and test scores over the past 25 years reflects the growing segregation of Latino and black students in California’s poorest, lowest-performing schools"
The abstract ends with "If UC cannot legally consider race as a socioeconomic disadvantage in admissions, neither should it consider scores on nationally normed tests. Race-blind implies test-blind admissions." In other words, it's not that the SAT/ACT don't measure anything... it's that the SAT/ACT measure too well for the administrators' comfort.
This is an overt attempt to purposefully blind the UC system to the current skill-level of the students they are admitting, in order to allow them to accept higher rates of disadvantaged students. It's an admirable and progressive goal, but from their own research, by their own public admission, it has nothing to do with a lack of validity of SAT measures on how well students are prepared for college.
What is it that I'm missing here? Why are you so sure that the SAT is a joke and that everyone who disagrees is a rightoid who doesn't know what they're talking about?
6 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
6 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
You know we have a decent chunk of research showing they aren't all that relevant in predicting success in college, yeah?
A pretty good run down of the research can be found here:
For example, the evidence is stronger than GPA predicts success in college more than the SAT:
This is why there's a movement to move away from these scores for college admissions.
As the other post says:
Like this isn't some SJW propaganda. This has been coming for a long time - it's becoming increasingly obvious that the SAT can not actually predict success in college as well as GPA can.
So basing college admissions on the SAT is weird. Especially considering for years college admins have been claiming the SATs predict college grades in the first year, and if another metric exists which is superior - we should use that.
3 collectijism 2019-11-24
Your an idiot grades are subjective to the communist teacher giving them. The SATs are not. You want a good indicator of who does well their first year of college. Just see who grew up with a father
2 RBLXTalk 2019-11-24
This. GPAs can be ruined by literally anything. Due to how most schools weigh homework, class work and tests in the grade portal, you can’t really study to get a higher GPA. If you switch teachers halfway through the semester that can bring you from an A to a B. If you called the teacher a boomer and it just so happens he’s grading the midterm open endeds, he could mark down a 0 for all of them and bring you down another letter grade. There’s a reason why most colleges don’t give much weight to the GPA, and that’s because it isn’t standardized at all. Colleges focus on how many AP classes you take, extracurriculars and of course, your SAT scores.
1 taytaybraps 2019-11-24
tbh that's just academia in general, I TA'd for an analytics class while doing my master's and would conveniently "lose" homework and quizzes of people I didn't like.
1 collectijism 2019-11-24
You sir are a patriot
3 itsnotmyfault 2019-11-24
... WHAT?
Name one fucking school that uses SAT but not GPA.
No matter how much of a good predictor (of whatever) GPA is, that says literally nothing about using GPA + SAT as an even better predictor. Nobody is saying that the UC system should throw out GPA and only look at SAT. This conversation was never about using SAT instead of GPA. This was only ever a conversation about SAT + GPA vs GPA alone, and the UC research says specifically that SAT + GPA was found to be more powerful way back in 2001, but they want to get rid of it because the SAT carries a lot of racial baggage with it that introduces bias against black and latino students that they don't consider worth the extra predicitve power.
Anyway, I've been making my way through that paper and found some neat stuff. Don't worry, their citation makes a way better argument than you do:
Later, they go on to say that the latest 2008 study for the UC system shows that with all the data, 21.7% of the variance in first year GPA was explained, dropping to 19.8% when they removed SAT score from the model. so, uh, so much for that.
While skimming through that one, I was suddenly struck by the realization that they say the Math section of the SAT only has a .1 regression coefficient and I realized what a fucking idiot I am. All of these measures lump the communications majors in with people that actually learned something at college beyond how to chug a beer. All of this research is practically meaningless when there's almost no reason to believe that "success in college" is a meaningful outcome.
Either way, you're arguing against something that nobody is arguing for... unless you can find me a school that really is considering throwing out highschool GPA and only looking at SAT score. If you find that, I will gladly call that school retarded with you.
And their own research paper still explicitly says, in many places and ways, that the only reason they're cutting SAT score is that the bias against black and latino students isn't worth the increase in predictive ability, especially since EVERY measure (including HS GPA) is kinda shit. The highest number mentioned is 22.3% of the variance in first year grades being predicted with HSGPA + SAT II Subject Tests + SAT, with HSGPA alone being 15.4% and HSGPA + SAT being 20.8%.
4 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
I stopped reading here because this is just such a profound misunderstanding and ignorance of the subject you couldn't have possibly typed anything of value after.
Far too much weight is put in the SATs. Which is the entire point. Which is, you know, exactly why this was posted here.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2019-11-24
Haha
2 newcomer_ts 2019-11-24
From your qz.com link
Here we go - lmao
Let's look closer...
Jesus -fucking- Christ!
And, for the final punch...
In other words, individually, "studies" are pure shit. But together, it's the sweetest cheesecake ever tasted.
Social "science" should be outlawed.
Like, shoot on sight or something.
1 gunowner63 2019-11-24
Please confirm