"Bock also notes that such general intelligence tests discriminate against non-white, non-male test takers."
I'm sorry but I cannot wrap my head around this. This sentence tries to discourage discrimination, but ends up being totally racist and sexist at the same time?
Experienced software and UX guy. Over 20 years making professional software. Lots of tech/tools/languages. Father of 7. Armchair philosopher. Currently focused on full stack dev with React, Node..
I presume the offense taken here is an inference that non-white, non-male individuals are somehow inherently less intelligent, which I assure you is not Bock's intent at all. The point is that there is something wrong with the tests that biases against non-white, non-male test takers such that the tests inaccurately reflect their actual intelligence.
To quote:
'...most standardized tests of this type discriminate against non-white, non-male test takers (at least in the United States). The SAT consistently underpredicts how women and non-whites will perform in college. Phyllis Rosser's 1989 study of the SAT compared high school girls and boys of comparable ability and college performance, and found that the girls scored lower on the SAT than the boys. Reasons why include the test format (there is no gender gap on Advanced Placement tests, which use short answers and essays instead of multiple choice); test scoring (boys are more likely to guess after eliminating one possible answer, which improves their scores); and even the content of the questions ("females did better on SAT questions about relationships, aesthetics, and the humanities, while males did better on questions about sports, the physical sciences, and business."). These kinds of studies have been repeated multiple times, and while standardized tests of this sort have gotten better, they are still not great.
As a proof point, Pitzer College, a liberal arts college in Southern California, made reporting test scores optional for applicants who had at least a 3.5 GPA or were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Since then, their average admitted-student GPA has grown 8 percent and they've had a 58 percent increase in students of color."
So that's where I took that from. If you want to see the citations, he has them in the book. This was last reported in his citations in 2014, and he notes in the end notes that they are working to fix these problems. So who knows, maybe they have since been fixed (at least in the SAT). I know my daughter recently did very well, so maybe so.
"Bock also notes that such general intelligence tests discriminate against non-white, non-male test takers."
I'm sorry but I cannot wrap my head around this. This sentence tries to discourage discrimination, but ends up being totally racist and sexist at the same time?
I presume the offense taken here is an inference that non-white, non-male individuals are somehow inherently less intelligent, which I assure you is not Bock's intent at all. The point is that there is something wrong with the tests that biases against non-white, non-male test takers such that the tests inaccurately reflect their actual intelligence.
To quote:
'...most standardized tests of this type discriminate against non-white, non-male test takers (at least in the United States). The SAT consistently underpredicts how women and non-whites will perform in college. Phyllis Rosser's 1989 study of the SAT compared high school girls and boys of comparable ability and college performance, and found that the girls scored lower on the SAT than the boys. Reasons why include the test format (there is no gender gap on Advanced Placement tests, which use short answers and essays instead of multiple choice); test scoring (boys are more likely to guess after eliminating one possible answer, which improves their scores); and even the content of the questions ("females did better on SAT questions about relationships, aesthetics, and the humanities, while males did better on questions about sports, the physical sciences, and business."). These kinds of studies have been repeated multiple times, and while standardized tests of this sort have gotten better, they are still not great.
As a proof point, Pitzer College, a liberal arts college in Southern California, made reporting test scores optional for applicants who had at least a 3.5 GPA or were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Since then, their average admitted-student GPA has grown 8 percent and they've had a 58 percent increase in students of color."
So that's where I took that from. If you want to see the citations, he has them in the book. This was last reported in his citations in 2014, and he notes in the end notes that they are working to fix these problems. So who knows, maybe they have since been fixed (at least in the SAT). I know my daughter recently did very well, so maybe so.
Thanks for a thorough answer. I don't yet know how I think about that, but I can see where Bock is coming from.