Re: Justification for the SAT

["Dr. William C. Cala, Ed.D." <wcala@SERVTECH.COM>]

Nice job Ken.  More effort than this post merits, however.

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "kber" <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Justification for the SAT


> I don't know how you did your analysis to determine that dropping SAT was
unfair
> to boys, but I wonder if you have used all the proper controls.  I will
address
> that first, and then also raise a couple of other issues.
>
> A quick look at the list of schools provided by FairTest shows several
that are
> female only, such as Mount Holyoke and Mississippi University for women.
I did
> not  in a quick perusal recognize any male only schools on that list.  Did
you
> adjust your analysis for this?  Also, there are a fair number of art and
music
> types of schools on the list.    I   would not be surprised to find that
several
> or more of these had a disproportionate number of female students.  Now
there
> could be several reasons for such an imbalance:  many of such school never
> required SATs, not even when I was in high school back in the 1960's.  If
they
> maintained a preponderance of females, it would not be because the had
dropped
> the requirement for SATs, quite logically.  For any school that might have
more
> females than males, is the acceptance rate roughly proportional to the
> application rate?  Is the enrollment rate proportional to the acceptance
rate?
> There are LOTS of issues that you have not addressed in your post that may
well
> explain much of the differential you have "identified."
>
> But this sounds a little like some of the screeds against ANY kind of
> affirmative action.  In the past, white males have assumed they were
entitled to
> superior place or position.  Often this was because of alumni set-asides,
or
> similar kinds of programs.  Many scholarships had such restrictions that
> minorities and women were not eligible, and in some schools less qualified
> students who were white males were admitted because there were designated
> scholarship for them.  But if those restrictions were removed or if
equivalent
> limited scholarships were offered for minorities and/or women, white men
(of
> which I am one) would start to scream "reverse discrimination."
>
> So let's look at another piece of information from the FairTest web site.
Until
> a recent settlement to modify the PSAT to count the writing section,
something
> around 40% of the national merit scholarships went to females.  In the
more
> recent tests, that figure went up to 45%.  The inclusions of the writing
section
> as counting reduced the still extant bias in favor of MALES on that test.
Would
> you also have us believe that this therefore is a discrimination against
boys?
>
> Had you done a more thorough study than what you have described, might not
you
> have found that even with the bias against boys you claim you have found
in
> these schools, that is more than offset by the imbalance in their favor in
all
> the other schools?  Thus you complain about a relatively small proportion
that
> has done nothing more than a partial address of the bias in boys' favor
that is
> otherwise so wide-spread.  And all this presumes that the reason for the
> difference in enrollment is discrimination against boys, which as I think
I have
> shown up front, is not necessarily the case.
>
>
> Ken Bernstein
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.