[HOLY S**T!] Elite NYC high schools test is racist against blacks, latinos

[-Swizzy-]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

Sounds ike a school that finally just accepts kid not based on race, but based on who scores the best. .

Good for them. ..

Ohh, but noo, we have to make things "equal" by acting like a black kid who scores 70 out of 100, is the same as an asian kid who scores 95 out of 100. ..

The best, the brightest should get the seats. . . Period. . . That is "racial equality."

/ thread,,,,

[arraamis]

Originally Posted by Chinaski

some are just naturally born smart

Originally Posted by UglyPug

Aye . There is definitely an inherent, biological aspect (nature) to intelligence, and learning capacity.

Of course your upbringing, or "nurturing," if you will, plays a role as well.


If we were a true "color blind" country, and free of racism, then we wouldn't care what color people are who score the best; nor penalize those for being a certain race by not giving them what they earned.

While, I do not disagree, that some children are born with inherent mental gifts that gives them an edge in scholastic studies -- I don't think biology and or genetics are the primary determining factor to one's potential for mental growth. There are plenty of conclusive studies that clearly demonstrate the profound role environment plays in the development of the human brain.

To simply dismiss, other relevant factors in human development with a broad, vague stroke is very short-sighted, and demonstrates, more study is needed.

And speaking of biology, studies of the brain, have revealed that it is a nurtured organism, and with the right stimili, can evolve to overcome what previously was thought to be out of reach. This is to state, that a child who was previously nurtured in an unhealthy environment and stymied, can demonstrate progress thought impossible, by being placed in an environment that encourages learning.

[Xercen]

Originally Posted by paulf

I always believe these results are accurate, IMO. No offense to anyone.

I grew up poor and went to an all black high school, but because I had two intelligent parents, that both came from homes with two intelligent parents, I was miles and miles ahead of my minority classmates from my first day of school. Hell, I could already read pretty well when I started kindergarten. Way ahead of everyone else. In 7th grade, there were TONS of kids having difficulty with four and five-letter words on spelling test.

Many kids, some definitely white but a whole lot more minority, have to struggle and play catch up to their more well-off white and asian counterparts with less resources. It's difficult, and there is no real solution to the problem that schools, tests, gov't, ect. can provide.

The reason why some asian and white families are wealthier is because the previous generations of their families worked very hard. I don't know about white families but with my asian family, my great-grandfather was a multimillionaire in the 1950's but the communists pretty much took everything from our family. So my grandfather and granddad were ridiculously poor -shanty town poor. Fast forward 2 generations later and we are looking good with our family full of medical doctors, accountants and bankers.

I don't believe you need tutoring to be amazingly good. Poor families can become rich within a few generations and that happens in this day and age but it requires a superhuman effort on the part of the parents. The main reason why some kids do better than others is a combination of genetic, environmental (socioeconomics). I'll try to break it down into parts.

1) Genetics - I believe genetics does have a role. I wasn't particularly a hard worker when i was in my secondary school. I even got top 5 in my country on a biology A-level (taken at 16-18) paper after only studying all night for it. I do believe genetics helps but i also believe the environmental factor also plays a role, and it's a relatively bigger one.

2) Environment - I believe some black/hispanic families have issues such as gang influence as well as viewing hardworking individuals as being nerdy or geeky when that's obviously the right attitude to have.

Also, i've heard that some black/hispanic dads don't usually stick around and because of this, a single mother will struggle to bring up a kid the right way. A lot of asian families have a very strong family background regardless of their financial status.
So with that being said, they will work and spend all their money on their children in the hope of going up the socioeconomic ladder.

I believe if you took a poor asian family and compared that to a poor hispanic or black family then the only difference between them will be the attitude to work (it being a good thing) and the fact that the asian family will put all their monies and work in trying to culture the best environment for that child to shine in school. I've heard that some black/hispanic families tend to buy iphones and other bling items but if you are spending a lot of money on bling items and you are poor, how do u expect to buy books/tutoring for your kids?

3) what needs to change is that we shouldn't keep on crying racism when asian/white kids do better on selective tests. I do believe that black people as a whole were screwed and put behind because of the slavery issue. With that being said, i believe more things should be done to support black/latino families to culture their work ethic. Maybe an after school club/tutoring system should be financed in the worst areas.

I don't believe that black and latino people have low IQs as a genetic factor. I think the IQ scores of black/latino people will increase when they catch up eventually although that will take a few decades or more. I hate it when people say asian/white people have higher IQs and that it's genetic. It shows how ignorant/racist some people are.


OFF TOPIC (but then on topic later)

If you look at China right now. China used to be the leading force in world development with regards to inventing gunpowder, bricks etc. They had a huge developmental lead compared to the rest of the world. Then white people took over and they pretty much invented most things for many years. But now china is catching up. Hopefully in another 50 years, things will be more equal between china and the western world, so that the infrastructure will be there for chinese people to start inventing more and more things. This can only be good for the world. I dislike it when people try to use race to cause friction and reduce race relations. We are all human beings. We need to learn to live together in peace and harmony.

Also, i'm aware of the chinese stereotypes that exist today. Such as chinese people being rude and being short etc. You can quote me on this in a few decades time, but china was 50 years behind development wise compared with the western world and most of the country (90%) were peasants.
This is a fact. A lot of peasants don't care about manners. But as china improves it's wealth, it's citizens will improve their manners and they will also eat better and get bigger. Nowadays with the internet, it has influenced the young chinese population since they get to read about western stories and culture etc. This is the same as what will happen with black/latino families as more and more start to realise that even poor families can become rich with a generation as long as the child is given book and a good environment to nuture his or her talents. Nowadays with the internet, it has influenced the young chinese population since they get to read about western stories and culture etc

Hopefully in several hundred years, China and India, and most countries will be on an even level and then we'll see a huge rise in inventions and good things will come to the human race.

[#1Assassin]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

Sounds ike a school that finally just accepts kid not based on race, but based on who scores the best. .

Good for them. ..

Ohh, but noo, we have to make things "equal" by acting like a black kid who scores 70 out of 100, is the same as an asian kid who scores 95 out of 100. ..

The best, the brightest should get the seats. . . Period. . . That is "racial equality."

you missed the point completely (like most posters).

ofcourse whoever gets the best scores should be offered a seat, thats obvious. the problem lies within the content of the test.

there are various forms of intelligence not to mention diffrences in the ways ppl express their intelligence most effectively. these things differ from person to person and things like culture, upbringing and sex is a factor. ppl from similar backgrounds are more likely to be like one another, learn the same, express themselves the same and be strong in the same areas.

a good test should show diffrent kinds of intelligence and allow ppl to show of their knowledge however they are most comftorable. but thats not the case here, its biased towards ppl of a certain background. the tests dont cover all bases and alot of ppl dont get the chance to show what they know even if they might be smart enough to get in had the been given a fair chance.

[Russian Crushin]

Originally Posted by #1Assassin

you missed the point completely (like most posters).

ofcourse whoever gets the best scores should be offered a seat, thats obvious. the problem lies within the content of the test.

there are various forms of intelligence not to mention diffrences in the ways ppl express their intelligence most effectively. these things differ from person to person and things like culture, upbringing and sex is a factor. ppl from similar backgrounds are more likely to be like one another, learn the same, express themselves the same and be strong in the same areas.

a good test should show diffrent kinds of intelligence and allow ppl to show of their knowledge however they are most comftorable. but thats not the case here, its biased towards ppl of a certain background. the tests are too narrow and alot of ppl dont get the chance to show what they know even if they might be smart enough to get in had the been given a fair chance, had the tests covered all bases.

its not an IQ test, bro

Its a math and english test very similar to the SAT. I took it myself 6 years after moving to the US and passed it to get into one of those schools

What "bases" should the test have covered?

[#1Assassin]

Originally Posted by Russian Crushin

its not an IQ test, bro

Its a math and english test very similar to the SAT. I took it myself 6 years after moving to the US and passed it to get into one of those schools

What "bases" should the test have covered?

i havent seen the test myself so i dont know if the claims are correct, i dont think i ever said they were. all i said was ppl on this site misunderstood the point of the article.

they thought ppl were mad bcuz blacks and hispanics werent being bumped ahead of whites who performed better just bcuz of their race. thats not the case. the article was saying that the tests were racially biased and blacks and hispanics were at a disadvantage, again i dont know if its true or not but thats where the critisism is from.

btw is the test really just omath and english? if so that obviously doesnt cover all bases, alot more subjects than english and math should be included. geography and history in particular but everything (or close to it) really, the racial bias holds true as well. if i was to name two subjects that blacks and hispanics tend to perform at their worst in it would be english and math. its a cultural thing and if thats all the tests cover its very culturally biased.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by arraamis

While, I do not disagree, that some children are born with inherent mental gifts that gives them an edge in scholastic studies -- I don't think biology and or genetics are the primary determining factor to one's potential for mental growth. There are plenty of conclusive studies that clearly demonstrate the profound role environment plays in the development of the human brain.

To simply dismiss, other relevant factors in human development with a broad, vague stroke is very short-sighted, and demonstrates, more study is needed.

And speaking of biology, studies of the brain, have revealed that it is a nurtured organism, and with the right stimili, can evolve to overcome what previously was thought to be out of reach. This is to state, that a child who was previously nurtured in an unhealthy environment and stymied, can demonstrate progress thought impossible, by being placed in an environment that encourages learning.

I think that pretty much like 80% of all people are born with a similar learning capacity, and *nurturing will determine exactly how *smart that person will become. Of course there's slight variations within this - but you know what I'm getting at - the bell curve. Then there are 10% of people who are just born really, really smart with incredible learning capacities, and 10% of people who are born "simple," for lack of a better term, and no matter how hard they try, will simply not be able to keep up with the average joe.

There have been numerous studies done, and both seem to indicate it's a combination of both nature, and nurture. Literally too many to begin to discuss. It's probably been one of the more studied subjects in the past hundred years. I definitely think that nurture plays a larger role. Obviously a child who grows up with a parent reading to them as a baby/toddler, and working with them will have a huge advantage. I still think if the child who did not get that extra attention as a toddler, can still catch himself up through high school (I've know too many kids who had parents who didn't give a ****, yet still did great in school, college, on the SAT, etc.)

I won't try to say exactly how much more important nurture is than nature, but it definitely is more important.

* - to keep things simple, I just categorized all factors that are not inherent at birth (or biological) as "nurture"; when defining "smart" I meant in the conventional way - as in subjects covered on standardized tests. Since we're discussing intelligence in relation to standardized tests of some sort to get into a school.

[Russian Crushin]

Originally Posted by #1Assassin

i havent seen the test myself so i dont know if the claims are correct, i dont think i ever said they were. all i said was ppl on this site misunderstood the point of the article.

they thought ppl were mad bcuz blacks and hispanics werent being bumped ahead of whites who performed better just bcuz of their race. thats not the case. the article was saying that the tests were racially biased and blacks and hispanics were at a disadvantage, again i dont know if its true or not but thats where the critisism is from.

btw is the test really just omath and english? if so that obviously doesnt cover all bases, alot more subjects than english and math should be included. geography and history in particular but everything (or close to it) really, the racial bias holds true as well. if i was to name two subjects that blacks and hispanics tend to perform at their worst in it would be english and math. its a cultural thing and if thats all the tests cover its very culturally biased.

Basically the article is report a story about how a civil rights group said the test discriminates against blacks and hispanics. But how does it do this, by being too hard for them? Why doesnt it discriminate against asians or whites?

And heres what the test consists of

The SHSAT is a timed multiple-choice test with two sections, verbal and math, that must be completed in a total of 2 hours and 30 minutes. In the first section, students demonstrate their verbal reasoning and reading comprehension by ordering sentences to form a coherent paragraph, answering questions of logical reasoning, and analyzing and interpreting texts. In the second section, students demonstrate their math skills by answering computational and word questions that require arithmetic, algebra, probability, statistics, geometry, and trigonometry (on the Grade 9 test only).

So lemme get this str8. The test is culturally biased against blacks/hispanics and not asians because they "arent as good". What part exactly makes it biased? Heres a little fact of life, no matter what subjects are on the test, we will see the same exact results.

[UglyPug]

Originally Posted by #1Assassin

you missed the point completely (like most posters).

ofcourse whoever gets the best scores should be offered a seat, thats obvious. the problem lies within the content of the test.

there are various forms of intelligence not to mention diffrences in the ways ppl express their intelligence most effectively. these things differ from person to person and things like culture, upbringing and sex is a factor. ppl from similar backgrounds are more likely to be like one another, learn the same, express themselves the same and be strong in the same areas.

a good test should show diffrent kinds of intelligence and allow ppl to show of their knowledge however they are most comftorable. but thats not the case here, its biased towards ppl of a certain background. the tests dont cover all bases and alot of ppl dont get the chance to show what they know even if they might be smart enough to get in had the been given a fair chance.

Oh no, I got the point; I knew the excuse could have been something along these lines. I simply don't see how standardized testing subjects can be "racist," or "culturally biased."


Again, can you show me examples of this? I've taken a lot of standardized tests over the years - SAT, ACT, LSAT. . . IQ tests. .


You haven't even seen the tests, and you're claiming it's racist?


If you want to get into a school, there needs to be some kind of test that is basic, and does not address specific areas one might be more "smart" in: Mathematics, reading, and writing. Obviously the test cannot try to accommodate for how certain kids of different races might, or might not be more comfortable with. Or how different races might, or might not learn, and express themselves. Just basic knowledge that a student has been taught in school. That's the only way it's fair.

Can you give me an example? Perhaps I will be swayed if you can make a compelling argument (but then you haven't even seen this test). . .

Now, if a kid is trying to get into, say, engineering school, then yes, it should test a specific area, or "type" of intelligence. That makes sense, and is very understandable.

[Russian Crushin]

Originally Posted by UglyPug

I think that pretty much like 80% of all people are born with a similar learning capacity, and *nurturing will determine exactly how *smart that person will become. Of course there's slight variations within this - but you know what I'm getting at - the bell curve. Then there are 10% of people who are just born really, really smart with incredible learning capacities, and 10% of people who are born "simple," for lack of a better term, and no matter how hard they try, will simply not be able to keep up with the average joe.

There have been numerous studies done, and both seem to indicate it's a combination of both nature, and nurture. Literally too many to begin to discuss. It's probably been one of the more studied subjects in the past hundred years. I definitely think that nurture plays a larger role. Obviously a child who grows up with a parent reading to them as a baby/toddler, and working with them will have a huge advantage. I still think if the child who did not get that extra attention as a toddler, can still catch himself up through high school (I've know too many kids who had parents who didn't give a ****, yet still did great in school, college, on the SAT, etc.)

I won't try to say exactly how much more important nurture is than nature, but it definitely is more important.

* - to keep things simple, I just categorized all factors that are not inherent at birth (or biological) as "nurture"; when defining "smart" I meant in the conventional way - as in subjects covered on standardized tests. Since we're discussing intelligence in relation to standardized tests of some sort to get into a school.

You guys are over thinking this. its a Highschool entrance exam. Best way to do good on just about any test is to study hard.