Should it be harder for Asians to get into good schools?

[Flying Pig]

I don't really understand the idea that tests aren't a reasonably good reflection of actual intelligence. They can be studied for, sure, but everyone can study for them, and the more intelligent you are, the better you will be able to study, or to turn that study into results. It's of course not going to be completely accurate (if you fluke a test, or if someone intelligent just doesn't study), but is anyone seriously contending that some other arbitrary criteria (entrance based on interview questions, for instance) is? There are certainly problems with standardised testing, but basing university admission on academic achievement would certainly seem to be a reasonable way of reflecting intelligence.

They're an indication of how good you are at tests, which depends on how intelligent you are to a huge extent, but also how good your schooling was (which depends on where you live, whether you went to public school, and so on) and how well you've prepared for the test, which depends on your ability and dedication but also on the resources and support you've had for it. The idea is to make tests which are minimally reflective of these things (usually by asking people to apply knowledge - any idiot can learn that Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo or that secret alliances helped to lead to war, but you can't answer a question to the tune of 'was the shooting more important that the alliances?' purely on the back of what you've been taught, because there are far too many possible questions like that to prepare for them all. Interviews, which require intelligent responses to be thought up very quickly and often ask questions for which there can be no preparation, also seperate, as I've said before, great candidates from very good candidates who look great in exams.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, the idea of using facial features or something is nuts to me. In the US, it's 100% self-reported. Using anything else seems like a horrible idea.

I think we may be able to get around this problem if we stopped the silly notion that college merit = standardized test performance. I think that is increasingly a silly metric.

Self-reporting means that people will choose their ethnicity "strategically", which is an abomination in itself. You're a white guy with tan, that happens to have a black grandma? Well, as far as college admissions go you're black! You're 3/4 asian and 1/4 mexican? Eres mexicano!

Race tells nothing about someone's socio-economic background. Sure, there are concentration of some races on some backgrounds. But why not look directly at the background instead of looking at a faulty proxy?

If you give bonus to race you're likely to benefit the elite of that "race", anyway. Which "hispanic" is more likely to benefit from an AA policy in Harvard: a guy like me, who went to the very best school in Brazil and grew up in an highly intellectual and academic environment, or some poor Guatemalan immigrant with illiterate parents? How is it fair that someone as privileged as I am can even claim some bonus on US college admission because I happened to be born in Latin America?

 

[downtown]

I'd be interested in seeing more specific US data on this, because my understanding from the last journal article I read (which was a while ago) indicated that because of social pressures, very few Americans who aren't first or 2nd generation immigrants claim minority status (the exception being US blacks). My children aren't going to be putting Latino or Hispanic on any application, since their only link would be their immigrant grandmother (my mom), and are pretty unlikely to speak Portuguese at home.

I could be wrong. There could be hundreds of thousands of upper middle class kids who haven't had a Hispanic relative in 4 generations trying to game the system...but I think the "system" is more sophisticated than that, and that legions of those guys aren't gaining a significant advantage. I think I'd need to see numbers though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Considering that there are over 50 million people of Latin American origin in the USA, and that 50% of the ALL american kids belong to some ethnic minority, one wonders how well do those North American methods work in North America. There is no shortage of mulattos, asian-hispanics, and every possible mix in the USA.

The US is the third most populous Latin American country.

My point is that the monolithic conception of race entertained in the US, particularly the continuing influence of the "one-drop rule" in the understanding of blackness, doesn't necessarily translate well into the more complicated racial and ethnic systems of Latin America, which probably explains a lot of the eccentricities in the application of North American or European-derived systems of Affirmative Action. But the observation that the North American-European conception of race and ethnicity is failing to function even in those countries is a valuable point in itself.

 

[Tee Kay]

Race tells nothing about someone's socio-economic background. Sure, there are concentration of some races on some backgrounds. But why not look directly at the background instead of looking at a faulty proxy?

It's not everyday that I agree with luiz.

Good points in the above post too.

 

[warpus]

usually by asking people to apply knowledge - any idiot can learn that Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo

This was (sort of) the difference between high-school and University for me. Mind you, I went into a very tough math/computer science program, but basically high school was a joke for me. Every single answer on a test was just something you could memorize, excluding a couple grade 13 math and science courses that I took.

Memorization is easy.. and doesn't teach you anything.

 

[Pangur Bán]

"Hispanic" has to be the most bizarre racial concept ever invented. I mean, take people from all races of the world to one continent, settle them with the natives of the continent, organize socio-ethnic caste system with some races at the top and some at the bottom, and then lump them all together using a Latin name for the language that some of them speak.

Many if not most would probably be better classified as "Native American" or mixed. In Latin America all an indigenous guy needs to do is swap his thong and feather for some American clothes, improve his Spanish/Portuguese, and suddenly his "race" changes from Indian to Hispanic. All a bit silly.

 

[Traitorfish]

I get the impression that "Hispanic" originally functioned to denote Mestizos, those being the main body of immigrants who wouldn't simply be "black guy who speaks Spanish for some reason", and has ended up being stretched far beyond its usefulness. (Presumably because racial categories aren't actually very useful in describing the real world in the first place.)

 

[aelf]

They're an indication of how good you are at tests, which depends on how intelligent you are to a huge extent, but also how good your schooling was (which depends on where you live, whether you went to public school, and so on) and how well you've prepared for the test, which depends on your ability and dedication but also on the resources and support you've had for it. The idea is to make tests which are minimally reflective of these things (usually by asking people to apply knowledge - any idiot can learn that Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo or that secret alliances helped to lead to war, but you can't answer a question to the tune of 'was the shooting more important that the alliances?' purely on the back of what you've been taught, because there are far too many possible questions like that to prepare for them all. Interviews, which require intelligent responses to be thought up very quickly and often ask questions for which there can be no preparation, also seperate, as I've said before, great candidates from very good candidates who look great in exams.

Everything that you mentioned can be studied or prepared for.

I think the problem with scholastic tests is not so much that they don't measure intelligence, but that they don't really measure knowledge all that comprehensively. Tests measure the extent of your codified knowledge in the subjects being tested, as well as test-taking skills, and not the tacit knowledge that is of use in everyday situations and at work.

But, as I suggested earlier, you can't design perfect tests anyway. Interviews are a means of measuring the extent of your tacit knowledge (like 'EQ' stuff) but they can still be prepared for using methods employed to prepare for scholastic tests. That's why you meet a lot of dickheads at work who are mediocre at their jobs while some perfectly capable people remain unemployed.

 

[Flying Pig]

Everything that you mentioned can be studied or prepared for.

Yes, but you can't look much better than you are at an 'Oxbridge' interview question no matter how hard you prepare, while coming from a great school and having a great teacher means that you can look very good in a history test without actually being anything special. Here's a couple of the questions in question, to illustrate the point:

1. Can a thermostat think? (Experimental Psychology, Oxford)
2. Compare these bottles of Tesco and Timotei shampoo? (Law, Oxford)
3. Could there still be a second-coming if mankind had disappeared from the planet? (Theology, Cambridge)
4. Describe this saucer to me as if I wasn’t in the room (Economics, Cambridge)
5. Describe your school from an anthropological perspective (Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge)
6. Do you believe that statues can move, and how might this belief be justified? (French and Spanish, Oxford)
7. Do you think the Bavarian peasants of 1848 had an ideology? (History, Cambridge)
8. Does a snail have a consciousness? (Experimental Psychology, Oxford)
9. Here is a piece of bark, please talk about it. (Biological sciences, Oxford.)
10. How do you organise a successful revolution? (History, Oxford)
11. How many grains of sand are there in the world? (Physics, Oxford)
12. How many monkeys would you use in an experiment? (Experimental Psychology, Oxford)
13. How small can you make a computer? (Engineering, Cambridge)
14. How would you market a rock band? (Economics and Management, Oxford)
15. How would you measure the weight of your own head? (Medicine, Cambridge)
16. How would you poison someone without the police finding out? (Medicine, Cambridge)
17. If a wife had expressed distaste for it previously, would her husband’s habit of putting marmalade in his egg at breakfast be grounds for divorce? (Law, Cambridge)
18. If I were a grapefruit, would I rather be seedless or non-seedless? (Medicine, Cambridge)
19. If it could take a form, what shape would the novel “To the Lighthouse become? (English, Oxford)
20. If my friend locks me in a room, and says I am free to come out whenever I like as long as I pay £5, is this a deprivation of liberty? (Law, Cambridge)
21. If there was an omnipotent god would he be able to create a stone that he couldn’t lift? (Classics, Oxford)
22. If you’re not in California, how do you know it exists? (PPE – Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, Oxford)
23. Instead of politicians, why don’t we let the managers of IKEA run the country (SPS – Social and Political Sciences, Cambridge)
24. Is ‘Taggart’ an accurate portrayal of Glasgow? (English, Oxford)
25. Is it morally wrong to attempt to climb a mountain? (Theology, Oxford)
26. Is the chair really there? (Philosophy, Cambridge
27. Is the moon made of cheese? (Vet Sciences, Cambridge)
28. Is Wittgenstein always right? (French and Philosophy, Oxford)
29. Put a monetary value on this teapot. (Philosophy, politics and economics, Oxford.)
30. Tell me about your life, from the beginning to what made you sit in that chair (Natural Sciences, Cambridge)
31. What colour is that notice board? (Mathematics and Philosophy, Oxford)
32. What effect on the whole of society does someone crashing into a lamppost have? (Law, Oxford)
33. What happens if I drop an ant? (Physics, Oxford)
34. What would happen if you drilled through the Earth all the way to the other side and then jumped into the hole? (Engineering, Cambridge)
35. Why can’t you light a candle in a spaceship? (Physics, Oxford.)
36. Why is it a disadvantage for humans to have two legs? (Medicine, Cambridge)
37. Would I be justified in saying that only morons play sport? (Economics, Cambridge)
38. Would Ovid’s chat-up line work? (Classics, Oxford)
39. Would you rather be a novel or a poem? (English, Oxford)
40. Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. Discuss. (Music, Oxford)

 

[aelf]

Yes, but you can't look much better than you are at an 'Oxbridge' interview question no matter how hard you prepare, while coming from a great school and having a great teacher means that you can look very good in a history test without actually being anything special. Here's a couple of the questions in question, to illustrate the point:

Uh, people prepare like hell for Oxbridge interviews too. I mean, tons of Singaporeans get through. How do you think they do it? We're talking about robots, not people.

 

[Flying Pig]

Uh, people prepare like hell for Oxbridge interviews too.

Yes, but if they're not great they don't get in! That's my whole point! You can prepare for the bits like 'so what motivates you to study this subject?', but the slightly irrational questions will filter in favour of people who can think on their feet, which is not a skill you can just learn out of a book.

 

[Murky]

There's more to getting in a good university than passing a test. The top universities have long interview processes that they use to filter out poor candidates.

 

[aelf]

I just told you that tons of Singaporeans get through. Do you think it's because they are truly well-rounded individuals?

 

[Flying Pig]

I just told you that tons of Singaporeans get through. Do you think it's because they are truly well-rounded individuals?

I think it's because they're experts in their subject, which is the most important thing, and can show that they're actually intelligent rather than stupid and applied. Being well-rounded, unfortunately, isn't required - they don't care if you've never gone outside, provided that you're brilliant at what you do. The converse of that is if you row at national level you're in straight away.

 

[aelf]

Yeah, and tests measure expertise on certain subjects too, you know.

 

[Murky]

I just told you that tons of Singaporeans get through. Do you think it's because they are truly well-rounded individuals?

Being well-rounded isn't part of the criteria. What they want to determine is if the student going to be able to complete the course or not. Will they be able to perform at the same level as most of the peers in their field of study? If not then they should do something else or find another program that is better suited for them.

 

[aelf]

I just don't get why tests don't already do that.

 

[Flying Pig]

I just don't get why tests don't already do that.

Most 'normal' tests, as I keep saying, make it impossible to distinguish between mediocre candidates who studied very hard for that particular test and will struggle if required to maintain that standard over a two-year course, and students who will have no problem doing that. University admissions are keen to filter out the former while letting in the latter.

 

[aelf]

Most 'normal' interviews, as I keep saying, make it impossible to distinguish between mediocre candidates who prepared very hard for that particular interview and will struggle if required to maintain that standard over their course and their careers, and students who will have no problem doing that.