al885@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gerard Pinzone) (04/19/91)
>>I don't know if the SAT's are biased. As a matter of fact, my question >>was that since there was such controversy over the topic of the SAT's >>being sexist, I wanted to know if anyone had some hard proof. >Okay. You asked "why are they biased," rather than "are they biased," >which is what confused me. However, if there is so much controversy >that you are aware of, what is it that people/articles/etc. have had >to say about it? How many times do I have to say this? There has been absolutley NO proof that I can find to prove the SAT's are sexist. I am pleading for ANYONE to give me ANY examples that would show this. I am willing to listen to anyone who has some proof. >This was not the case at my university; I don't know what is true for >others. They did have several different departments which offered >different levels of computer classes (CS, Information Science, >Business Information and Computing Systems), but it was a difference >of direction rather than difficulty. I'm still curious as to what the >relevance of this to the SATs is, though. You are mixing apples and oranges. In fact you said it yourself, it's not a matter of difficulty, it is just a different direction. >It didn't occur in *your* liberal arts department. My university >allowed people to test out of lower-level math and English courses (in >fact, if you got a good score on the relevant SAT test, that would get >you out). Since they did not have two different (major/non-major) >groups of classes, I would think this had a similar effect, of >allowing the people who were skilled in the subject to begin with the >more advanced classes. You are talking about introductory English 101 (or whatever it's called) which is basically 12th grade English regurgitated back up. It's not the same thing as the division in the physics department. >>You need to look at it this way. "I have read some Shakespeare" is >>basically equivalent to "I know Newton's three laws of motion". It's >>the basic common knowledge of the sciences that are absent in these >>liberal arts programs. > >It is not at all the same. "I have read some Shakespeare" is >equivalent to something like "I read a chapter of a physics textbook." >Neither of these implies that there was any knowledge or understanding >gained. If you were actually *studying* Shakespeare, or physics, you >would supposedly actually learn something about the subject. In >physics, you might initially learn some basic applications of Newton's >laws. In literature, you might study the way Shakespeare used words, >or the structure of the plays, or whatever (not having studied it, I >can't come up with too many examples, but the idea is that you don't >just look at the words, you look into the writing). Oh give me a break! Don't you think you are going a little overboard? When I said a person should know Newton's three laws of motion, I kinda hoped there was the implication that the person should also understand them! However, you don't need be a genius to understand either Newton or Shakespeare....providing you have a good enough teacher. :-) >If, as you suggest earlier, women >are steered away from math and science early on, then they do not >*choose* not to study science. Rather, their interests lie elsewhere, >so they choose to study in those areas. I find it very suspicious that there are so few women in the fields we have been talking about. I find it sad not many people seem to care. >>What I'm getting at is that I want to know what the answer to these >>accusations that the SAT is supposedly biased. > >Yes, but what is the relevance to what people later study in college? >My score on the Math SAT was slightly lower, but I chose to study >computer science (without even considering my SAT score). Other than >using it to get into college, my SAT did not affect my college career. Me too, I actually scored pretty good on the SAT's, but I really could have cared less if the collages didn't want them so badly. >>The so-called proof >>seems pretty reverse-discriminatory when you think about it. "Women >>have better grades, so the test is biased" could easily translate into >>"Women are smarter then men, so therefore, men shouldn't be doing >>better than women." > >Where was it established that that was a proof? In many feminist publications and on news reports covering the "discriminatory practices" of the SAT test makers. >>I just think there has to be a "bigger picture" to all this. >The bigger picture is the society we live in. Females are often >discouraged from math and science. Grades and tests are not fair, >especially because there isn't enough money provided for education. Well, I'm glad we agree on something! ;-) >Different schools have wildly different programs, which turn out >people with very different skills. Many (lower) schools are more >interested in people's abilities to pass standardized tests than their >ability to learn or the knowledge they have acquired. People are >fallible, including the ones who make up standardized tests. Etc. I find that (high) schools are basically all the same. They aren't designed to produce widespread creativity. They just make sure they have enough people graduating so no one can complain too much. It's a pretty cynical view, but I haven't seen any high school (at least public ones) go out of their way to help improve the masses of childern (aside from the very small departmental "clubs") to do better and use their own minds to think, and not just memorize. >What concerns me about all this is that there seems to be a consistent >pattern of differentiation on the basis of gender. What would happen >if, for example, all children logged into classes on computers, with >no teacher to bias the treatment of children of different gender? >Would more women end up studying science? Maybe it would! Providing the child's parents are as open minded as we are. ;-) -- Just on the border of your waking mind, there lies another time, where darkness and light are one. And as you tread the halls of sanity, you feel so glad to be unable to go beyond. I have a message from another time..... - ELO: "Prologue" from the "Time" album -- Daicon IV Opening Animation gpinzone@george.poly.edu