The_Walrus wrote:
You seem to be making some unsupported claims about my political position. I'm only slightly left-of-centre, and I don't endorse most of the policies and/or views you credit me with (though I would be interested in knowing how you think college admissions should work to be completely meritocratic. Standardised tests seem a better idea than interviews, buy-ins, or a lottery).
You weigh in on American politics often, so it would be good to read about it:
fairtest.org wrote:
Recent debate in college admissions has centered on a critique of the SAT I in favor of the SAT II and/or ACT. Proponents of these alternatives argue that the SAT I is primarily an aptitude test measuring some vague concept of "inherent ability," while the SAT II and ACT are more closely tied to what students learn in high school. However, while the origins of the exams and the rhetoric test-makers offer may differ, the SAT I, SAT II, and ACT present many of the same flaws and shortcomings. All three exams have a weak ability to predict academic performance in college, making high school grades/GPA and rigor of classes taken the best measures of student potential. All three exams are highly coachable, advantaging students who can afford to spend $800 or more on test preparation classes. All three exams have a similar format, disadvantaging groups such as females and English as a Second Language learners who tend not to perform as well on timed, multiple-choice exams. All three exams show large gaps in scores between students of different racial groups, leading to racial bias in admissions and financial aid formulas that utilize rigid test score requirements. All three exams place the financial and time burden on students rather than universities, making them low-investment sources of information for colleges but high-investment hurdles for students. Finally, all three exams assess students on a narrow range of topics, covering only a small portion of the learning students engage in over four years of high school.
(Links:
1,
2)
Quote:
Like I said in my post that you quoted, and like Dox said in his post, this isn't primarily about inequality.
Where did you say that?
Quote:
It's about an incredibly corrupt police force who do all kinds of sh***y things. If you want to make a thread about how men have it worse under the legal system then by all means. Don't start playing Oppression Olympics.
Given that I've never been arrested, and have had exactly one moving violation in my life (expired license tabs on a car that I borrowed while staying with a friend out-of-state), how is my concern for condemned or incarcerated men 'about me', as you
originally claimed? My odds of being on the wrong end of the system are very, very low.
30 Mar 2015, 6:17 am
