Lets just surrender shall we. It's inevitable, it's a race to the bottom, lets just give a collective sigh and say, hey we tried, gave it a shot, but it's just too difficult. So design some test, any test, and then when it's finished just say
Not everyone takes the SAT or ACT. About the top 10% of admissions at USC have not taken those exams (maybe their parents paid to get them in and faked some sport activities smh). USC did not ask me to take either the SAT or ACT but they told me to take first semester calculus (which I had already taken) at Cal State from a certain professor and to get an A. I did that and was admitted after which they promptly made me take first semester calculus at USC, again, because math credits cannot be transferred into USC. Seriously, they actually did this. So I ended up taking calculus 101 three times. That is pretty messed up on its own but I did end up being super comfortable in math. People with high grades in highschool and some AP work probably don't have to take SAT or ACT most of the time.
I did not say the SAT was not correlated to race nor did I say anything about future earnings. I stated the SAT was more correlated to parental income as in the wealth of the family as it was initially designed to be as such. Further, the creator of the SAT designed it as such for the military to use it to identify / segregate the poor into the worst jobs in the military and they were concerned about the infiltration of Ethnic Minorities into public schools that were not White Anglo Saxon Protestant...it was designed by Carl Brigham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Brigham He's a Eugenicist and strongly believed in Anti-Immigration into the United States. Also, he's an Army Veteran Officer that designed his tests for the military for many purposes but its primary use was to segregate the poor because at that time in history...poor was an undesirable trait in the classes. Later, after his military service and working as a faculty member at a top elite university...he adapted the test for use in college admissions but with the same primary attentions. Identify and segregate the poor. Many of whom were Ethnic Minorities that he and other Eugenicist considered ethnic minorities to be inferior. In addition, it allowed universities to promote / encourage those they thought were superior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States As years went by...Adolf Hitler begin reading about the American Eugenicists and how they used it to identify / segregate / sterilize those that they thought had less desirable traits. https://www.pbs.org/independentlens...n-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/ More years went by...Ethnic minorities adapted too. It created a problem and more fear for the Eugenicists because the numbers of ethnic minorities that were poor...the number of them that performed well on the SATs were increasing. Even early feminist voting rights organizations were anti-immigration and supported the beliefs of the Eugenicists. Yet, more ethnic minorities enter the country as wealthy and sending their children to American universities. Also, ethnic minorities already here that were poor...begin to do well on the SATs and achieving excellence while complaining about the intended real purpose (the original hidden agenda people don't want to talk about) of the SATs. Today, less emphasis on the SATs and growing emphasis on the ACTs (designed in the late 1950s). In fact, more students have been performing well on their ACTs thru to 2018 including ethnic minorities. Personally, I have nothing against the SAT / ACT tests. All the ethnic minorities I knew including myself, we did very well on those exams...we grew up in upper class families. Unfortunately, the historical purpose and reason for its design can not be ignored nor be intentional ignorant about such because of the history of the United States to use it to identify / segregate / sterilize. Rich students get better SAT scores—here’s why @ https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html Know the history / why instead of viewing it as crap. wrbtrader
this is just trickle down thinking: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...-rigged-rules-boost-pandemic-pay-ceos-workers Report Reveals How Big Corporations Rigged Rules to Boost Pandemic Pay of CEOs as Workers Suffered "By inflating executive compensation while their workers struggled during a pandemic, corporate boards have strengthened the case for tax penalties on huge CEO-worker pay gaps." That's according to a new report (pdf) released Tuesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, which found that 51 of the nation's 100 biggest low-wage employers—including Tyson Foods, Coca-Cola, Chipotle, and YUM Brands—used numerous tactics to boost executive pay in 2020 while offering their workers few safeguards against the pandemic and resulting economic meltdown. "It's time for public policy to shift corporate America away from a business model that creates prosperity for a few at the top and precarity for so many of the rest of us." —Sarah Anderson, Institute for Policy Studies "Common manipulations included lowering performance bars to help executives meet bonus targets, awarding special 'retention' bonuses, excluding poor second-quarter results from evaluations, and replacing performance-based pay with time-based awards," the report notes. "Companies enlisted an army of 'independent' compensation consultants in an effort to give all this rule-rigging a veneer of legitimacy." For example, the board of Chipotle—a company notorious for violating worker safety and health regulations—inflated CEO Brian Niccol's total compensation to $38 million in 2020 by "toss[ing] out the company's poor financial results from the peak shutdown period and exclud[ing] Covid-related costs, a bit of financial magic that artificially boosted Chipotle's operating income and helped give Niccola 136% raise." At the companies that altered their rules to reward top executives amid the deadly pandemic, CEO pay averaged $15.3 million in 2020, up 29% from 2019. By contrast, the report found that median worker pay at those companies fell by 2% to an average of $28,187. "The 100 S&P 500 corporations we analyzed all paid median compensation under $50,000 in 2020," the analysis notes. "Some did offer frontline employees paid leave and small pay increases during the pandemic, usually around $2 per hour, but in nearly all cases this modest extra Covid-19 support was only temporary. The real largesse flowed only to C-suites."
Teenagers of wealthy families have access to more resources including access to optional ways to have a dramatic difference in their SAT scores in comparison to the poor as explained in an earlier link I posted in this thread... Below info from the link posted above. Simply, as ethnic minorities adapted and their score results improved with higher parental income in their families... It became more competitive (challenge) to the wealthy families resulting them adapting too via the below...preserving the social inequalities. ---------- Costs One reason wealthier students get higher SAT scores is because they can afford to take the test several times, which has been known to increase a students’ score. The cost to take the SAT during the 2018-2019 school year was about $47.50 for the basic test and $64.50 to take the test with the full essay section. To take an SAT subject test, students must pay a $26 registration fee, $22 for each additional test and $26 for each language test. These costs can be prohibitively expensive for many students. Many low-income students are provided fee waivers that cover two free SATs, with or without the essay, and six free SAT subject tests. But wealthy students are still more likely to have taken standardized tests like the SAT more than once. Academic support Students who live in wealthy school districts typically attend better-funded schools. These funding disparities mean that wealthy students are more likely to attend high schools that will give them advantages in the college application and standardized test-taking processes. Wealthy students are more likely to attend high schools with a significant number of AP classes, more likely to have access to tutors and more likely to have taken standardized test preparation classes — all advantages that have been tied to higher standardized test scores. Extra time Students from high-income families are also more likely to get additional time during standardized tests than their lower-income counterparts. The Wall Street Journal analyzed data from 9,000 public schools and found that students in affluent areas are most likely to get special “504 designations,” typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD, which allow special academic accommodations, like extra time or a private space when taking exams of all sorts — including the SAT. The technique is so effective that Singer himself advised families to do so. “Singer counseled parents to seek extended time on the exams, including by having their children purport to have learning disabilities in order to obtain medical documentation that ACT, Inc. and the College Board typically required before granting students extended time,” reads the indictment from the Massachusetts Department of Justice. “Test optional” The indictment also states that “most selective colleges in the United States require students to take a standardized test, such as the ACT or the SAT, as part of the admissions process.” Most schools do require students to take tests such as the SAT, but a growing number of schools — including the University of Chicago, Bowdoin College and DePauw University — that have started to move away from requiring applicants take standardized tests. FairTest, an advocacy group that draws attention to the biases in the current standardized testing processes, lists as many as 330 test-optional and test-flexible schools in the U.S. According to a study titled Defining Access: How Test-Optional Works, colleges that are considered “test optional” enroll — and graduate — a higher proportion of low-income students, first generation-students and students from diverse backgrounds. Still, some say that standardized testing is one of the most objective measures currently at schools disposal for assessing student achievement and potential. “Standardized tests can level the playing field for low-income and rural college applicants,” writes Rich Saunders for the Chronicle of Higher Education. “Making those tests optional may blunt that benefit.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html ---------- wrbtrader
‘Woke madness’: California to consider mathematics as inherently racist https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6255604541001 The California state education panel is considering whether mathematics is inherently racist and rooted in white supremacy which is just another symptom of “woke madness,” according to Sky News host Rita Panahi. The education panel is set to review framework which argues current mathematic standards which focus on the existence of one correct answer perpetuates white supremacy and further disadvantages minorities. “This equity drive in mathematics is another symptom of woke madness,” Ms Panahi said.
Princeton doesn’t even consider SAT ACT scores in admissions and the reason is because those tests and IQ tests don’t mean anything when you are considering people that perform at high levels. Some people are just geniuses, born with great abilities and some people are not but are driven or motivated. In the end, when you find yourself in those circles, you notice some of the most accomplished people don’t have the highest IQs, they just work hard. The point is these tests and IQ tests mean Jack squat. Somebody with a 90 IQ can be building nuclear reactors while someone with a 140 IQ can be bouncing at your local bar.
Princeton DOES require the ACT/SAT to get into Princeton. They merely paused the requirement for Fall 2022 -- since many test centers were closed and not allowing students to take the test. ACT/SAT scores have a direct correlation to success at a university. This is well established. High School students who took the time and effort to study & do well on the ACT/SAT are the high achievers who will do well in college since they are motivated. I will agree that IQ scores have little relevance to success in college -- on the other side of the coin universities don't use IQ for admissions so this has never really been studied in-depth.
Now... if you could only find a way to mathematize the market... Shelving the SAT and ACT test requirements are not aimed at achieving students but rather non-achievers. So... what's the use of letting kids into college who need to take remedial math and reading... and then go on to earn a virtually useless degree while racking up huge college loan debt?