1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Athletes have lower test scores

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by novelist_wannabe, Dec 28, 2008.

  1. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    If you click on the link, it provides access to many studies, some of which say it is and others of which say it isn't. That's why I said there isn't a consensus.
     
  2. And here's the frustrating thing. Standardized tests could work to a poor student's advantage, if he/she only had the maturity and the support system to realize it.

    I came from a semi-disadvantaged background - nowhere near poverty, but dad lost his industry job, etc., etc. And now my LSAT score will pretty much change the course of my family history. All because I gamed the system. These tests are learnable. That's the beauty of it.
     
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    At what point do test scores stop being culturally biased?
    I've taken SATs, LSATs and passed the bar.

    What if I told you that the LSAT and bar passage rate is racially skewed? Does that the exams culturally biased? Of course not.
     
  4. Grimace

    Grimace Guest

    How would you know?
     
  5. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    A few things...

    Poor school receive more funding for technology than rich schools because of government grants. What they are given is just destroyed.

    If you have a decent GPA and SAT scores as a poor minority student, you have many, many more opportunities than a white middle class student with the same grades and GPA.

    I know one black football player who will be attending a top, top, top college (think Duke, but it's not Duke) because he can play a little football, but has a 3.8 GPA. His score keeps the team GPA high and all he will be is a practice player. He would not have this opportunity if he were white.

    My daughter is 11 months and can hold a book and turn the pages. Some kids will hold their first book the first day of kindergarten. They will be playing catch up their entire academic career.

    CollegeJourno, go into a inner city school and tell those teachers they are not trying.

    I think Obama will move education in the right direction, and starting at home before they even reach school is the start.
     
  6. Yes! It does! And law schools account for that in admissions, with the blessing of the United States Supreme Court.

    I get your frustration. I do. And I think saying that the tests are "culturally biased" can be code for a kind of liberal paternalism that is the last thing that black youth need.

    BUT! I hate to keep returning to the same example, but let's do this admissions test - we'll drop off a kid from South Central in the middle of the inner-city. And we'll drop off a kid from Beverly Hills. And let's see who can get from one side of the city to the other. Hell, I'm 31, and I get lost on city bus systems. But I see black kids 5 years old bus-hopping like it's second-nature. Clearly if they can get all that down, they have some innate intelligence.

    That, of course, was part of the heartbreak of a TV series like "The Wire." Characters all over the place who were clearly intelligent and savvy enough to succeed in legitimate society. But they grew up with every barrier possible preventing their entry.

    Maybe I come off like a bleeding heart. So be it. But it's not just altruistic paternalism that makes me feel so strongly about this. It's the fact that our society, our country, is letting contributors slip through the cracks, and part of the reason - even if it's just 1 percent of the reason - is because the tests we design for college admissions are geared to kids with money. I've worked with these kids in an urban mentor program. Sharp as a tack in some ways. So much potential. But it's all the teachers can do every day to keep the roof from coming off the place.

    My friend's wife is an inner-city teacher. This year, they tried something new - gender specific classrooms. Seems great, right? Without the opposite sex there, no flirting to get in the way of learning.

    Well, it is for the girls. But for the boys, now it's no holds barred. No more girls to impress, no more boundaries. A kid farts as loud as he can and there goes the next two or three hours of learning. A kid makes a dick joke, and you can forget about teaching for the rest of the day, because chaos follows.

    The inner-city in America is fucked up.
     
  7. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    I understand your argument about innate intelligence. And it's a good point.

    But isn't the lack of book learning going to flatten a young person in college if they haven't mastered it in high school? I guess I'm saying, at some point they're going to have to reach society's yardstick, whether it's a fair yardstick or not.

    Perhaps society has established that they hold knowing how to take a test in higher regard than being able to make the four transfers necessary to get across the city. For right or wrong.
     
  8. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    My paternal grandparents arrived on a boat and could not speak any English.

    Their grandchildren (two generations removed) are a doctor, engineer, college professor, school administrator, successful pizza shop owner, doctor of psychology, a handful of other Master's degrees. Two of the girls never went to college and are single mothers.

    It's about a 90 success rate. Not bad to go from nothing but work ethic to pretty much the American Dream in 60 years.

    If I was a parent in a terrible situation, I would just leave. Struggle somewhere safe, but I would leave.

    It's all about improving the quality of life for your children. That's what every generation should focus on.
     
  9. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    How are they biased?
    Do some research, for goodness sakes.
    check out this article:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200311/mathews
    Check out the FairTest web site.
    This argument has been going on for three decades and the best you can do is, "How are they biased?"
     
  10. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    Shotty, I know of two kids who went to a Big East school as star basketball players in the 80s, before Prop 48. Neither scored high enough to be eligible if that standard had been in place.
    Both graduated from the university where they played. One has been a successful businessman for nearly three decades in the city where he played collegiately. The other played in the pros and subsequently became a significant figure in the game.
    That difference can be smaller than you think.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    As I understand it, the SAT is meant to be an aptitude test. That means it should not be a measure of achievement. To put it another way, it should not be testing students on what they have learned at all.

    If limited achievement is hurting the ability to measure a student's aptitude, then the test is not valid.
     
  12. Goldeaston

    Goldeaston Guest

    I ask because if 2+2=4 in the suburbs, it also equals that in the city. the quadractic formula is the same in the city as in the burbs. Because one set of kids is in a tough learning environment has no bearing on the test. The test is not biased toward a race or culture. It's biased toward kids in good learning environments. Should we dumb it down for the city kids, so it's easier for them to get into colleges, where they will then sink like lead, because there will be nobody to hold their hand at that point?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page