Many universities explicitly want policies of institutional, systemic racism.

Obviously many people who are in favor of this hateful divisive racism will try to gaslight you into believing it somehow isn't racism, or try to redefine the meaning of words such that they are innocent and you are guilty. But that doesn't change what it is.

So at the end of the day these institutions will bring in whatever policies they want, and they don't really give a crap about actual racism. All they care about is money, PR, etc.

When the effects of actively racist institutions and policies is not even a generation away. I Don't think leveling the field that should be level in the first place isn't racism. what is real racism to you honest question.

I can't really understand what you're saying there. There are actively racist institutions now, their systemic racism is affecting people today, and they are continually pushing for more racism. The racists are becoming more emboldened and blatant -- look at California prop 16, there was a push to explicitly repeal the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination! And it was only narrowly defeated! Does that not ring any alarm bells with you?

I oppose all racism. "Oh but we can just be racist in this case because..." - nope. Doesn't cut it for me. Racism is non-negotiable. Racism can never be a tool for improving anything, because it hurts the individual in in unjust way, that's the problem with it. "It's fine Asians are privileged they can easily get into college" doesn't help the Asian kid from the poor family who came as a refugee, didn't speak English and was picked on at school for not fitting in.

I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example. And if that consideration turns out to benefit some races more than others that's perfectly fine. "We have too many Asians at our college, increase the cutoff for them" is just disgusting vile discrimination though. I don't care what justifications I hear, what gaslighting, or how much people falsely accuse me of being the racist, I will never accept or agree with that.

I know some people think they can use racism "for good" as it were (isn't that always the story?). They need to own it though. Rather than accuse other people of being racist for opposing their racism, if they believe racism is the best tool for the job they should just be honest and admit it.

> I have no problem with institutions giving consideration to people who have experienced certain disadvantage. The income their parents made, for example

Just wanted to note that this is partly why the SAT was stopped from being used at MIT and other universities - because it tend to score lower for people who are considered to be under disadvantage. In other words, I'm not sure that this approach necessarily leads to a more positive outcome.

Edit: Looks like HN resolve this and it's ranked properly now (no offense meant to the OP).

Here's a hint. The real anti-racists are the people who are against actual racism. The people who are instituting racist policies and trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racism are not anti-racists. They're the opposite.

Hint, Thanks to Critical Race theory your children will learn to think about race in a way that has been accepted by academics for a long time and eventually we'll make a lot more progress since we won't waste time with parrots like you. Goodbye.

We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Bye, get well soon.

You also broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of how bad someone else's comments are or you feel they are. We had to warn you about this once already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29085513.

I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted good comments on unrelated things, but if this pattern continues, we're going to have to, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.

I'm trying to understand how Scantron can be racist. It does not know the identity, race, demographic or the economic class of the test taker. It literally just scans the test takers responses and scores it based on a preset solution. You are not given extra time because of your demographic nor are certain demographics punished or given extra points, everybody has access to the same learning resources, and one can take mock exams in preparation based on previous Scantron exams. The test producers do not know the race, demographic of the test taker or think about race when creating exam questions. They write questions to filter out those who demonstrate the best aptitude. Do you feel that this is unfair? What alternative do you forsee that could measure the aptitude of the test takers? Is this attitude limited only to academia or does it apply to professional sports? Do you think knowledge of game theory and physics should be an important part of aptitude tests for atheletes? Should pianists be subject to athletic requirements to measure their aptitude to enter Carnegie Hall?

I don't know if this is the case, but presumably the questions themselves could advantage or disadvantage people from a particular background.

Are you saying you support racial discrimination?

I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist". While I never got a direct answer, I could infer or "read between the lines" that they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism, its just that when it comes to equality--the ends justify the means. Groups whom have previously enjoyed privilege with college admissions (whites and Asians) may endure some injustices and discrimination during this transition phase to equality. Other minorities dealt with this for so long, it's no big deal if some applicants with perfect SAT scores get cut because they are Asian.

> I've asked similar questions to people who hold this view of "standardized testing is racist"

The most defensible explanation that folks who claim standardized tests are racist is that the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races.

There are a lot of assumptions baked into the argument, many with which I disagree, but it’s an interesting idea.

Much of the data supports the idea that most of the differences in test scores are due to socio-economic status. When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores

Iirc, race is the largest contributor to variance when SES is controlled for, but folks within the same SES perform much more similarly than same race folks in different SESes.

> ...the range of scores are not approximately equal across races. In theory, a “fair” non-racist test would have similar ranges of scores for all races.

This is a good example of what I meant by "they are not oblivious to the seemingly glaring contradiction to some of their solutions to racism". If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion you have to explain why races don't have similar ranges while also accounting for the core belief that "we are all equal and race doesn't matter."

The "socio-economic factors" argument is easier to argue and also more widely accepted, yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race.

> yet this doesn't explain why these folks focus primarily on race

In my experience:

- Race-based arguments seem to be easier for folks in general to understand than SES-based arguments. Race-based oppression is something that all Americans learn about in school, while SES-based oppression has been occurring non-stop since the start of the country, and it is not covered nearly as much in schools.

- It’s easier to get social support, political support, and/or funding for race-based projects, while SES projects are tougher.

- One possible reason the above two are true is that highlighting SES discrepancies reveals that the concept of American “equality”, even for the majority race, is a myth. This idea of Americans being equal and having equal access to institutions is, imho, an American value that many Americans hold dear and believe to be true, despite significant evidence to the contrary.

Just my 2 cents…

> When SES is controlled for, everything else (like race) just has a minor impact on scores

This is sadly not at all the case. See the below famous charts about SAT results split by race and SES (proxied by either parental income or parental education). The lowest SES segments of the white/Asian population score as well as the highest SES segments of the black population.

This then makes it obvious that colleges need to choose between either (a) equality of opportunity where SAT matter and that gets you more Asian kids and fewer black students or (b) equality of outcomes where extracurriculars and 'personality' matter and get rigged until racial balance is the same as in the general population, disregarding the maximisation of talent or ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Educa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#/media/File:1995-SAT-Incom...

Thank you for the charts.

That said, I think two charts that try to summarize the data should probably combine the two if they actually want to measure SES rather than just SS or ES.

I like this study and summary:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280232788_Race_Pove...

Note that there definitely still is a statistically significant difference based on race, but I am fairly certain it’s not as large as the charts you linked to seem to suggest.

Specifically, I think it has to do with generational efficiencies in optimally using the opportunities that higher education presents.

Simple examples: knowing the hows and whys of relationship cultivation in college, knowing how to avoid or navigate potential educational pitfalls, knowing how to optimally use university resources, etc.

Choice quote which does a good job of summarizing what I have seen:

“In addition, the differential direct and indirect effects of income on high school achievement and, in turn, high school achieve-ment on SAT scores may also be explained in terms of residential racial and economic segregation which are, through property values and taxpolicies, related to the quality of schooling. Moreover, the poverty effects reported here suggest the lack of social and educational resources in the larger community that are needed to supplement and complement the learning taking place in schools.”

I’d say you’ve got more straw men in that loaded question than farmers have in their field.

You’re taking poorly summarized opinions and pretending that combination of opinions are held by a group of significant size.

I don't think so ivy league discrimination of asian american applicants despite high standardized test scores is very much a published statistic one that is often met with emotional fervor by groups that seek to continue it.

Just my observation as an outsider looking into America. Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman or whataboutism.

I'm just seeing this from an objective data driven view and puzzled why ppl would react so harshly.

People who claim “standardized test is systematic racism” are not necessarily the same people who think “asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.”

You are taking two different points of views which are made by two different groups, reducing their arguments down to practically nothing, and pretending they’re being made by the same group.

You are mutating the arguments and inventing a boogie man. Textbook straw man argument.

> Often sensitive debates that don't follow a certain mainstream narrative are brushed off as strawman

There’s a reason for that. It has nothing to do with following a mainstream narrative or not. It has to do with the false assumptions in the basis of your questions.

You are trying to argue that the people who claim standardized test is systematic racism is meritocracy and against affirmative action. Then following your logic, the people who aren't claiming standardized test is systematic racism is anti-meritocracy and pro affirmative action.

Yet the standard test does not differentiate the race of the test taker. If race was factored into the test scores somehow then what you are claiming makes sense, but the SAT/LSAT/MCAT/PCAT do not, cannot know the race or socioeconomic status of the test taker because as society we benefit from placing people of merit, who have the aptitude.

Are you comfortable with a lawyer/doctor who is responsible for you because they fit a certain affirmative action profile but scored low on their aptitude test and low gpa to meet a certain quota for that demographic group vs someone who were hired because of their high score on standardized aptitude test and consequently high gpa (that does not discriminate the test taker based on their race or socioeconomic class)?

Would you trust the latter or former if it meant your life/bank account depended on it and is it racism if you do not choose the former?

No, that’s not what I’m trying to argue.

You must write stack overflow responses. Not addressing the root questions, just insult the question and the asker.

I think your question would have been a lot better if it was just:

> What do you think about the argument that standardized tests are systemically racist?

how is it different? there are people that make that exact argument, after all it isn't some tabloid paper claiming it as such.

> how is it different?

Thanks for asking! IMHO, a couple of ways:

1. Your original asked what GP thinks of people that make the argument. Mine asks about the argument itself. It's subtle but important difference, and to have productive discussion about sensitive topics it's imperative to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Even if one's answer might be "those people are stupid" it doesn't help. By addressing the claim/substance rather than the person, it will likely be a more productive conversation.

2. By omitting your opinion portions, it keeps the conversation more focused. When you introduce "standardized test is the only way to measure somebody on their aptitude for doing well like the LSAT", you move the conversation away from systemic racism and toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well. These seem to me like completely separate topics/discussion.

Think you are being overly pedantic with syntaxes here to warp my intended context. I did not care about the people, if not clear from my previous comment, that it was intended to raise attention to the idea of standardized testing being perceived as systematic racism, one which is obviously held by some people. It's to be construed as part of everyday speech, not witchhunting on the character of people believing in the said idea that standardized test is systematic racism.

The examples I added of standardized aptitude test for law school entry and the very real biases against Asians in American institutions requiring standardized testing quod erat demonstrandum was designed to set the context in which you are to understand the implicit spirit of the question (not the people rather the focus on standardized test = systematic racism).

Anything else you derived ad litteram to accuse me of malo animo by "moving the conversation away from systemic racism toward a debate about whether there are any other ways to measure aptitude for doing well" is exactly what you are doing here.

However, I am curious to hear what other possible scalable medium you think exists for an institution to properly vet millions of applicants every year and evaluate one's aptitude for law school that does not involve unbiased standardized testing that measures ability to think logically and work under timed pressure? Do you mean to say then that physically active professional sports must properly test a candidates aptitude from their understanding of game theory and physics through a written examination or is that somehow exempt from alternative means to detect aptitude? Shall law schools instead pit candidates in a simulated combat environment like Navy Seal's hell week to test their mental grit? Where does this end?

How does this constitute as systematic racism in your view when the test taker's scantron is measured against a pre-configured solution? Does the scantron system take account the race, socioeconomic background of the exam taker to invalidate and validate their exam responses at the time of scanning? Are test takers given penalties or extra time based on their demographic?

Did you really accuse me of being overly pedantic and then you used the terms "ad litteram" and "malo animo" (lol)

If you want to have productive conversations, you really need to read and write more carefully. Please point out where I did any of these things you're accusing me of doing:

1. Warped your intended context by accusing or even suggesting that you actually only care about people. If I thought that was your intent, I wouldn't have offered you constructive feedback to help improve the conversation. You were getting downvoted, in my opinion unfairly, and I was trying to help you see some potential reasons why. You literally asked about what GP thinks of "the people" and if I thought that's what you actually meant, why would I have suggested that you change it to something else? I would have just downvoted you and moved on like most others did.

2. Suggested in any way that I think SATs are systemically racist

3. Suggested in any way that I have any of the answers to any of the questions here.

Since you seem to care what I think on the topic (even though I didn't offer any opinion on it), let me first disclaimer this by pointing out that if I were going to advocate for a position on this, as a responsible person I would want to do a lot more research because I always try to maintain a healthy volume of Socratic Ignorance, and I recognize that I know very little on this subject. But anyway, I am pro-standardized testing. I think there are real flaws to it that should be admitted, just as there are with any quantitative analysis of something as complex as "likely to succeed," but I think the pros of testing outweigh the cons. I think that standardized testing is one of the few things that give people with less than ideal home situations a chance at a good education and a pedigree (which undoubtedly helps set people up for success). I think the focus on race that discriminates against Asians absolutely is systemic racism. I think it fits the definition of systemic racism better than almost anything else I can think of.

I'm not trying to be a pedantic prick who corrects your grammar, as I said before, I was trying to improve the conversation by giving you a tip (something your downvoters did not do I might add). People on the internet (especially in written forums) are not mind readers. They're not going to magically know that you didn't mean what you literally said (asking about "people"). If you're lucky, they'll do exactly what I did: Give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the best possible interpretation of what you wrote, which is that you didn't mean it literally. As you yourself just illustrated wonderfully, there are serious limits to written communication and it behooves us all to remember that and give each other the benefit of the doubt. From the HN FAQ: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Now, please stop being so defensive, and please start reading more carefully, especially if you're going to get this offended and go off on the attack against people that care about you and are offering you kindness. I think if you re-read everything I said but this time do it with the idea that I'm a friend trying to offer you help to improve your writing and to get less downvotes, I think you'll come away with a much different impression.

Finally, welcome to Hacker News! This is a great community that I think you'll enjoy, but do please review the posting guidelines, especially the section "In Comments": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apparently you are not even remotely self-aware of your patronizing tone. I really don't know what you are trying to fish for here but I am well familiar with the HN rules, I just wish you took the time to read them ;)

> Apparently you are not even remotely self-aware of your patronizing tone.

Thank you that's helpful feedback! I certainly didn't intend to be patronizing.

It took a bit of restraint to look past what felt like a personal insult and extract the useful part of your comment though. In the future it would have been a lot better as just a simple informative statement that assumes good faith:

> Your tone comes off as patronizing.

Re:

> I just wish you took the time to read them

Which rules would you like me to read? Can you either provide more information, or give a link and section header so I can know what specifically you're referring to?

Standardized test largely reflect reality, and reality has racial inequities.

They don't measure human potential at Birth and don't try to.

the inequalities could be caused by racial discrimination (bring born in a black household, you're more likely to have issues than a white household, statistically). Inequalities could also be caused by other factors, unrelated to racism.

The tests measure certain cognitive capabilities. Genes have an effect, nutrient intake has an effect, nurture has an effect. Trying to fix racism via test scores (or disregarding it) isn't going to help fix racism.

I agree.

To be blunt. You can look at life expectancy for black and white americicans. Whites live longer. Measuring the difference is not systemic racism. We should not avoid measurements for this reasons.

Some minorities perform worse on SAT. This is a fact. SAT predicts performance in college, this is also a fact.

The question becomes, how do we select college students. Those most likely to succeed, or other values.

> yet somehow asian americans being discriminated at ivy leagues even with good standardized test score is not seen as systematic racism.

People throw this out as though it is fact, when in reality:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions...

“In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies do not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.”

“In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and ultimately ruled in late 2020 in favor of Harvard, concluding that Judge Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.”

Elite admissions is more than great grades and great standardized test scores. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but that doesn’t make it less true, and it doesn’t (necessarily) make it racist.

Judge Burroughs was wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn, especially given the explicit promise by (likely to be confirmed) Justice Jackson to abstain.