"In either case, eliminating testing requirements helps the failchildren of white elites more than any other demographic."

My statement that this is not true is based on the fact that it's all a ruse. And there isn't anyway around it.

Standardized tests will always give advantage to those of higher socioeconomic position. If you/your family/your school district can afford to prep, take it multiple times, and/or seek out psych. evaluations that could grant you accommodations you're already ahead of others of lesser position.

The demographic you've identified have advantage with or without tests. Eliminating the requirement will only cause more people to apply to the elite schools and drive the acceptance rates down further, but it's not indicative of a NEW advantage, it's the same one that was always there just without the myth of test scores.

How do you separate economically advantaged areas from cognitive sorting?

Also, I agree test prep makes a huge difference for many people, myself included as my SAT went up 80 points after taking a free prep course at the local community college.

The SATs used to better correlate with IQ (pre 1996?). If test prep actually works, its probably in areas where the SAT has strayed from its original role. Also, test prep can work marginally short term, but good luck on a re-test five years later.

Regardless, testing is far less gameable than grades or extra cirruculars. Give us a better objective measure, then we'll go with with that. Don't replace an imperfect system with *whatever this is*.

For the SF school debate, one of the board members shitting on testing for Lowell has their kids in a similarly fancy public (arts) school. There the kids audition with an instrument or portfolio. No way for the wealthy or well connected to set their kids up to win that, eh?

You'll have to explain more of what you mean by "cognitive sorting" before I can answer that.

In the modern economy intelligence and economic success are highly correlated. I am not, not, not saying rich equals smart and smart equals rich in all cases. But doctors, lawyers, engineers all tend to be in the top decile of traditional measures of intelligence and more they all tend to have similar value systems which means they cluster. (The Bay Area is a great example of this phenomenon.). In essence they “sort” themselves into communities where they feel the best fit, ie cognitive similarity, like recent immigrants did in the 20th century. So which is it that makes schools in these areas perform better? That the are populated with the kids of smart people or that they are populated with the kids of richer people?

Also, this still ignores that college education and degrees are seen as distinctly "better" from an Ivy or similarly selective institution than other schools which is not true and only furthers the ruse.

Standardized tests will always give advantage to those of higher socioeconomic position.

Standardized test scores may favor rich kids (or at least those rich kids whose parents paid to prepare them, which I don't see as bad even if its unfair), but when you take them away, the remaining selection criteria favor rich kids even more. And the rich failsons with no prep sneak in. This is extremely unfair. But if we look at it not in terms of fairness, and assume that it's in society's best interests for the most able to be most rewarded regardless of background (a big assumption), then standardized tests make even more sense.

How does this is ensure equity?

How many people could opt out of a bachelors degree if not for Griggs vs. Duke Power?

If a high school diploma hadn't been so debased, that could be a reasonable sorting criteria, but instead we are stuck with a system when people need a 4 year degree when a Microsoft Office certification should suffice.

If the Google certs actually work, I expect a similar disparate impact analysis banning them, signed by Roberts.

Wow, that's way too low.

A total of 18% would dismiss an educator for saying women and other minorities perform more poorly at their jobs

“Why would he do three more years in school? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their job. They failed. They failed, that's the problem here. They failed. They failed. ”

That is brutal.

Have to believe there's more to it and mom's not being honest.