Sonia Sotomayor and Affirmative Action

Damon W. Root | June 11, 2009

In addition to the mountain of documents Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has provided the Senate Judiciary Committee in preparation for her July 13 confirmation hearings, there are also a number of videos featuring her speeches and assorted public appearances. The New York Times' Charlie Savage reports that these videos shed new light on Sotomayor's views on affirmative action and racial preferences:

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances.

"If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted," she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated "early 1990s" in Senate records....

"With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates," she said. "And that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects."

More here.

Comments

JW Gacy|6.11.09 @ 7:09PM|#

So, she did very well at Princeton, despite scoring (relatively) poorly on a glorified IQ test. Hm. Is this an indictment of the test or Princeton?

Or does it indicate that hard-work and determination are more important than raw talent? In that case, maybe too much weight is put on the tests. It doesn't mean the tests are biased, since they're not meant to measure a person's work ethic.

SIV|6.11.09 @ 7:12PM|#

There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.

Why test at all then?

johnnnn|6.11.09 @ 7:16PM|#

"Why test at all then?"

because there are too many applicants and not enough application readers. At least that's my guess. I'm sure enough faculty believe that test scores do correlate with college success too.

zoltan|6.11.09 @ 7:26PM|#

Doesn't greater IQ usually correlate with greater economic success? Neither the SAT or ACT measure IQ, though. It makes sense for colleges to verify some set of learned skills, like reading comprehension and intermediate to advanced mathematics. I imagine since formulas were written in black ink on a white page there's some kind of cultural bias though, too. Same argument in Ricci, which we all know how she ruled on.

Freefall|6.11.09 @ 7:27PM|#

There are cultural biases built into testing

Where have I heard this before.

g|6.11.09 @ 7:28PM|#

"There are cultural biases built into testing"

I'd like to hear what kind of biases are built into standardized testing in order to favor Asians over Whites.

SIV|6.11.09 @ 7:33PM|#

I'd like to thank culturally neutral testing for overcoming my "cultural bias" against actually attending class and studying in high school.Thanks to testing I was paid to seek a higher education.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.11.09 @ 7:34PM|#

I ain't never insisted that nobody got to speak the Queen's English, but Jeebus H. Christmas:

"If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted."

"[M]y test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates."

Are we really going to have to read court decisions written by a person who seems to be wholly innocent of grammar and sentence structure?

Jordan|6.11.09 @ 7:34PM|#

I'd like to hear what kind of biases are built into standardized testing in order to favor Asians over Whites.

It's the cultural bias of valuing hard work and intelligence over feelgood, multicultural bullshit. Terribly unfair.

Jordan|6.11.09 @ 7:35PM|#

Are we really going to have to read court decisions written by a person who seems to be wholly innocent of grammar and sentence structure?

Careful now. Your cultural bias is showing.

Freefall|6.11.09 @ 7:48PM|#

Are we to assume she scored at a sub-par level on the Supreme Court Justice Nominee Aptitude Test (SCJNAT)?

|6.11.09 @ 7:52PM|#

Are we really going to have to read court decisions written by a person who seems to be wholly innocent of grammar and sentence structure?

Grammar and sentence structure are creations of the white man. They must be rejected for blandness and poor structure, as those are creations of Newsweek.

|6.11.09 @ 8:02PM|#

There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought the main justification for giving inferior candidates opportunities they have not earned, pronounced affirmative action, was a lack of proportional representation of various favored groups in academics and employment. "Cultural bias" sounds like ex post facto rationalization for poor test scores. If the tests are not accurate predictors of success then scrap the tests. But lose the self-pity.

the innominate one|6.11.09 @ 8:32PM|#

There are varying degrees of inaccuracy. The tests could be accurate for one group and inaccurate (=biased, in the statistical/ measurement sense) for another group. Potentially, test scores could be mathematically adjusted for the differences in accuracy of measurement for different ethnic groups, sexes, or socioeconomic status.

sweet pea|6.11.09 @ 8:58PM|#

"Are we really going to have to read court decisions written by a person who seems to be wholly innocent of grammar and sentence structure?"

Ah, the joys of Affirmative Action and race- and gender-based hiring!

MNG|6.11.09 @ 9:41PM|#

"Grammar and sentence structure are creations of the white man."

Two white men, Strunk and, ahem, White...

MNG|6.11.09 @ 9:48PM|#

To be fair, she would not be the only one on the court that has a writing style like a VCR manual...

And of course tests can be culturally biased, remember the famous SAT question "runner is to marathon as oarsman is to _____ [regatta]."

Of course, as many have pointed out, many groups favored by affirmative action do, on average, worse on the parts that should be least amendable to bias (the math as opposed to the verbal).

A stronger claim would be that groups that are on average poorer are less likely to have the same amount of a lot of things that make one test better (proper pre-natal care, sensible parenting, nutrition, tutoring, better schools, etc.).

MNG|6.11.09 @ 9:53PM|#

I can sympathize with the idea that standardized test may not be the best predictor of what a college would want from a student (and I owe a great deal of scholarship money to my test scores on them). I can't sympathize with the idea that the tests are useless and should not be used (albeit as one factor) at all. Other measures of what kind of a student someone would be have their problems too (grades? grade inflation; letters of recommendation? talk about bias; etc). These tests opened a lot of doors to a lot of once underrepresented and culturally disadvantaged groups too...

|6.11.09 @ 9:58PM|#

If the Republicans actually ask this woman questions, she is going to go down in flames. You get the feeling that this woman has never been around anyone but leftist academics and people who had to kiss her ass because she was a judge. I doubt she has ever had to justify statements like those in the infamous magic latina speech. She will fall apart.

What is sad is that there are lots of minority women who are brilliant. But instead of them, we get this woman who can't even put to sentences together.

|6.11.09 @ 10:03PM|#

"These tests opened a lot of doors to a lot of once underrepresented and culturally disadvantaged groups too..."

Yes it did. Also, they open doors to poor and middle class today. The substitute for test scores is to now look at things like volunteer work. If youre parents don't have the money to send you to Costa Rica to build homes for hurricane victims or you have to work for spending money, you are at a real disadvantage.

|6.11.09 @ 10:15PM|#

I'd like to hear what kind of biases are built into standardized testing in order to favor Asians over Whites.

Math

Norbert Sluzewski|6.11.09 @ 10:18PM|#

In our system of government, a supreme court justice is selected for a life term. There are nine supreme court justices, each yielding great power over the manner in which laws are interpreted in our country. We typically spend over a year and a half choosing our president. We spend months selecting our senators and congressmen. Compared to a supreme court justice, each of these is appointed for a relatively short term.

Why then do we rush to confirm this candidate through the confirmation process? Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy is forging ahead to complete the process by July 13, in total 2 months since her candidacy was announced as the president's pick.

Let's respect the gravity of the decision that is about to be made and give all the time to fully review judge Sotomayor's qualification, judicial demeanor and temperament. Once made it can not be un-made and there is no 30-day satisfaction guarantee if later events or discoveries make us question the decision.

Mike|6.11.09 @ 10:29PM|#

"There are cultural biases built into testing"

This statement is 100% BS. It has been debunked over, and over, and over again. The best evidence is that if the tests were biased, minorites would academically outperform whites who had the same test scores. In fact, it turns out that minorities do as well as the tests predict. Someone who is this ignorant of statistics has no business on any court, much less the Supreme Court, but I wasn't expecting anything else from an Obama nominee.

SIV|6.11.09 @ 10:47PM|#

These tests opened a lot of doors to a lot of once underrepresented and culturally disadvantaged groups too...

The rare occasion in which I agree with MNG.

sweet pea|6.11.09 @ 11:04PM|#

The idea that some groups are smarter than other groups, just like some people are smarter than other people, is unfortunately still anathema to most people.

I want to know what "cultural biases" are keeping my people (Jews) so under-represented in professional sports.

|6.12.09 @ 12:23AM|#

"ou get the feeling that this woman has never been around anyone but leftist academics "

Just the same was you've never been around anyone but rightwingers, John?

Seward|6.12.09 @ 12:39AM|#

MNG,

Well, the tests are basically gamed by anyone with the resources to do so (and we aren't talking about oodles of boodle here), and of course for most colleges the requirements for what one must score are so low that it is difficult to see what the purpose of the tests are.

g4m3th30ry|6.12.09 @ 12:41AM|#

Doesn't greater IQ usually correlate with greater economic success?

No

Brian Despain|6.12.09 @ 12:58AM|#

Well at the time Sotomayor took the SAT (some 37 years ago) that cultural bias claim was certainly true about the test. The SAT has been adjusted since then. She did graduate summa cum laude from Princeton (women were first admitted to Princeton in 1969) so that's pretty impressive.

JB|6.12.09 @ 2:03AM|#

So she benefited from Affirmative Action just like Obama did.

It's time for both of them to release their standardized test scores. C'mon Obama, where is that transparency you squawked about?

hmm|6.12.09 @ 2:07AM|#

A lawyer playing statistician. I'll bet she couldn't find r if someone drew her a fucking map and did the math for her. Hell I'll bet she doesn't even know what the hell r stands for.

I have a great plan for her confirmation. Since one side wants to rush it through and the other is screaming they don't have time, release all the information, tapes, papers, surveys, questionnaires and so on to the press and internet. Who wants to bet the important items surface in 1-2 days.

|6.12.09 @ 2:31AM|#

One thing the SAT doesn't measure, of course, is one's eligiblity for FUTURE affirmative action. The SAT, for example, may accurately predict a future low score on the LSAT. But it doesn't predict the future law admissions officer's willingness to overlook this low score--unless race is taken into account.

In other words, Sotomeyer's ability to "overcome" low scores might just be that her whole career has been politicized and race-normed. Perhaps she never really succeeded at anything--except--being an affirmative action baby.

I am continually amazed at how many affirmative action babies can later on specialize in affirmative action law, or in human resources as an affirmative action director--thereby becoming an "expert" in nothing OTHER than racism. It's not affirmative action for the purpose gaining access to a new career. For many "professionals," affirmative action IS the career.

Sotomeyer seems very proud of her low SATs and poor grades. I can almost hear her saying--I only regret that I didn't score even lower--just to prove how arbitrary measurements such as test scores and grades are. What really matters is one's race and political orientation--and here I am, a hispanic woman, who, proudly, hates white people.

Or as all the other affirmative action babies love to say, "I got in. Whatever. Don't hate on me just because my test scores sucked."

Elemenope|6.12.09 @ 2:38AM|#

Since I've heard all this whining about how Democrats are rushing this thing, I'm wondering, does anyone know offhand how long the average SCOTUS nomination period is (from announcement to Senate A&C vote)?

Elemenope|6.12.09 @ 2:39AM|#

In other words, Sotomeyer's ability to "overcome" low scores might just be that her whole career has been politicized and race-normed. Perhaps she never really succeeded at anything--except--being an affirmative action baby.

Yeah, professors will just roll over and grade inflate because they love the color of your skin. That's how she graduated summa cum laude, right?

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 5:53AM|#

Today, that's not so far from right on.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 5:54AM|#

I mean in college.

Once they're out of school and on the job, that most definitely *is* right on. Nobody dares touch a minority and especially a woman. The best you can hope to do is funnel them off somewhere that they can't do too much damage.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 6:05AM|#

Tim,

Are we really going to have to read court decisions written by a person who seems to be wholly innocent of grammar and sentence structure?

Not that I have any sympathy or admiration either one for this -- female candidate. Nor do I have any love for the whole concept of affirmative action. But wasn't she talking when she said this stuff you quoted?

To be fair, lots of people don't use correct grammar when they talk.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 6:05AM|#

There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

I spent enough years in grad school surrounded by people from China and India, who systematically kicked my ass when it came to math. Until I'd had a couple of years to learn from them that is, because they'd had better math training than I did.

You want to talk about people who are outside the US cultural mainstream? Talk to someone who just got here from China. Our home grown minorities have a huge cultural leg up on Chinese and Indian immigrants. Yet the Chinese and Indians consistently out perform our minorities.

People from India and China routinely knock the tops off all the standardized test scores. Why? Because they go study their asses off to prepare for them. Why? Because they want to go to college so they can get jobs that matter. Or at least, jobs that pay.

I have far, far more admiration for the things I've seen out of Indians and Chinese people, than I do for any of our politically appointed "minorities".


I have nothing against letting our polticially appointed minorities into "the system". I'm not even against giving them a little extra help, at least in principle. But you CANNOT lower the bar on performance and still expect to achieve any modicum of justice -- and lowering the bar is what Affirmative Action is all about.

So what does it say about the Surpreme Court once she's in?

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 6:05AM|#

John,

You get the feeling that this woman has never been around anyone but leftist academics and people who had to kiss her ass because she was a judge.

Or because she's female and hispanic, would be more like it.

If you put her under a fraction of the pressure they put some of Bush's picks under, I expect she'd turn into crumbs right before their eyes. Which is why they probably won't put her under any real pressure.

SIV|6.12.09 @ 6:39AM|#

Well at the time Sotomayor took the SAT (some 37 years ago) that cultural bias claim was certainly true about the test.

Bastards at ETS took out the word analogies.

Abdul|6.12.09 @ 7:43AM|#

On the charges of cultural bias in the SAT, I think Brian Despain has it right. In 1965, when sotomayor would have taken it, psychometricians were not tackling the cultural bias problem in testing yet, leading to the famous "oarsman regatta" problems.

Psychometricians did eventually create a more culturally fair test, but the persistent belief that cultural bias contributed to low minority test scores was too attractive an explanation to be disregarded just because it wasn't true.

Fat Freddie\'s Cat|6.12.09 @ 8:05AM|#

The best you can hope to do is funnel them off somewhere that they can't do too much damage.

It sounds like you've been on union construction sites.

|6.12.09 @ 8:08AM|#

Sotomeyer seems very proud of her low SATs and poor grades.

Test Test, where are you getting the stuff about her poor grades. Her comment was With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates, which suggests that her grades were good.

Do you have some reason to believe otherwise, or are you a test with cultural biases that make it hard for you to read the words in front of you?

MNG|6.12.09 @ 8:27AM|#

I agree with SIV, the word analogies were where I shined! It let this poor working class first generation white boy get all kinds of scholarships...

"Someone who is this ignorant of statistics has no business on any court"

Well, if you read up on the research on standardized testing they certainly don't overwhelmingly conclude that they do a great job in the predicitive validity department. Of course, other potential measures (grades, volunteer work, letters, etc) don't do so great either. But it's not as clear cut as "hey, the tests do a fantastic job of predicting college completetion and success."

"Yet the Chinese and Indians consistently out perform our minorities."

Yeah, but it's not like you've got as representative of a sample there. The kind of person with the ambition to go across the globe and settle in another nation probably has some characterstics that are conducive to success.

DADIODADDY|6.12.09 @ 8:47AM|#

Hardest thing about Ivy League schools? Getting in. after that it's all bs and ass kissing. In 1969, these schools we're turning themselves inside out to "diversify" As for academic excellance...I give you Gore & Bush.

|6.12.09 @ 8:58AM|#

"Test Test, where are you getting the stuff about her poor grades. Her comment was With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates, which suggests that her grades were good.

Do you have some reason to believe otherwise, or are you a test with cultural biases that make it hard for you to read the words in front of you?"

Well, you can easily read and deduce from this piece, that here grades were NOT comparable to those of her classamtes, meaning that she was on the lower end, perhaps even the low point.
And the only reason she had the opportunity to go to college/university was because of AA.

It doesn't state that she had bad grades, but worse than her classmates, which makes the grades below avarage.... So, yes, you just have to read the words, but I guess that's something not very often done in American high schools...

MNG|6.12.09 @ 9:03AM|#

"here [sic] grades were NOT comparable to those of her classamtes"

You mean in high school? Because she graduated with honors from the college, right?

Guy_Smiley|6.12.09 @ 9:07AM|#

Tests of knowledge are biased against cultures that don't value learning.

libertarian democrat|6.12.09 @ 9:10AM|#

Not sure overall, but there was a good article that showed that SAT scores for black males underpredicted their performance. It was a statistically significant finding with pretty good power and effect size.

And that was on the recent, (IMO) unbiased SAT. The old ones were ridiculously biased, and probably were well into when she took them. I think the authors argued stereotype threat as the reason, but I don't remember well.

libertarian democrat|6.12.09 @ 9:11AM|#

*college performance

libertarian democrat|6.12.09 @ 9:12AM|#

Also, the SAT is pretty strongly correlated with IQ, in many studies. Someone said it doesn't measure intelligence, but its not a bad measure for it anyway.

|6.12.09 @ 9:14AM|#

I think a lot of you are missing the point, though it isn't your fault. You simply lack the wisdom of a latina.

|6.12.09 @ 9:23AM|#

This kind of statement cries out for fact-checking. Were her high school grades and test scores bad? Were they lower than her classmates at Princeton? Ditto for LSATs and Princeton grades at Yale.

I wouldn't rule out for one second that she's just lying here in support of affirmative action, a policy she favors.

Forty-Two|6.12.09 @ 9:32AM|#

These tests opened a lot of doors to a lot of once underrepresented and culturally disadvantaged groups too...

Disagree. What opened doors was academic institutions' decisions to admit more underrepresented types. There was a cultural and philosophical shift. Once that was in place, schools could have used any assessment method to choose applicants.

Giving credit to the test for the change in admissions culture is like giving credit to the hammer for a well-built home.

creech|6.12.09 @ 9:36AM|#

Look, the woman is plenty smart. If she held libertarian legal views, we'd all be worshiping her. So let's examine her views on constitutional law and individual liberty and be content with that.

|6.12.09 @ 10:16AM|#

"This kind of statement cries out for fact-checking. Were her high school grades and test scores bad?"

This quote,

"With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,"

suggests to me that she had good grades but less than stellar test scores.

But I'm afraid her writing is rather murky so I may not be getting it right.

|6.12.09 @ 10:23AM|#

Also, the SAT is pretty strongly correlated with IQ, in many studies. Someone said it doesn't measure intelligence, but its not a bad measure for it anyway.

Of course, there are real questions about how useful IQ and IQ tests are, and whether they aren't culturally biased.

A good article here on the subject.

|6.12.09 @ 10:41AM|#

Left logic: if we get rid of the word stupid, stupidity will vanish.

MNG|6.12.09 @ 10:59AM|#

Naw Solana, don't worry, we'd still need that word for the likes of you and others that make such dishonest and lazy misrepresentations of their opponent's arguments

|6.12.09 @ 11:09AM|#

Her comment was With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates, which suggests that her grades were good.

I believe she was valedictorian of her high school and graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, so the low grades argument definitely doesn't fly.

Richard Hoste|6.12.09 @ 11:10AM|#

Statistically, the odds of a Latino woman being qualified in her position is very low.

The distribution of the bell curve means that because of the difference in average intelligence between the races when it comes to law schools the proportion of qualified whites to qualified blacks is enormous. That's why a defender of affirmative action admits that if law schools simply went by undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores statistics from one year show that almost 4/5 of blacks, 2/3 of Puerto Ricans and 1/2 of Mexicans and Native Americans admitted to law school wouldn't have been accepted. Even Asians get a slight edge. Of those blacks who ended up going to law school only 8.9 percent belonged there. At the top sixth of law schools 17.5 times more blacks were admitted than would've been based on UGPA and SAT. That's another reason why mentioning that there are smart blacks in discussions about affirmative action misses the point. It's not just that a few are getting a break; if you meet a high status black and you assume that he got his position at the expense of a more qualified white or Asian the vast majority of the time you'll be right. The further he's gotten in life, the less likely he is to have earned it by merit.

Also, there is such a thing as affirmative action grading.

Affirmative Action grading doesn't have to be official policy or even conscious. Ken Harber wrote an essay filled with grammatical and content errors and gave it to 92 white college students to grade. They were given different biographies of the author and some indirectly revealed that he was black. On a scale of 7, papers that the white students thought were written by a black person got a grade of 3.5 and papers they thought were written by a white person got 2.7. On the essays supposedly written by a white some students wrote things like "when I read college work this bad I want to lay my head down on the table and cry." The comments written on the essays supposedly written by a black were overwhelmingly positive. The mystery of how Michelle Obama could graduate from Stanford while not mastering basic English is solved.

White people are so wrecked with guilt that minorities can get away with anything.

These incompetent minorities in high places are told that they're oppressed and end up with a huge chip of their shoulders. They also develop contempt for the whites who they walked all over on the way to the top.

|6.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#

Naw Solana, don't worry, we'd still need that word for the likes of you and others that make such dishonest and lazy misrepresentations of their opponent's arguments

Naw, Solana, don't worry. We'd still need that word for the likes of you, and others, who make such dishonest and lazy misrepresentations of their opponent's arguments.


Just for you, genius. Now it's an actual sentence.

Kerry Soileau|6.12.09 @ 11:51AM|#

What does she mean by cultural bias? Do we need to test for "Hispanic math" rather than "dead white man math"? Puhleeeze.

Abner macGillicuddy|6.12.09 @ 11:53AM|#

"The mystery of how Michelle Obama could graduate from Stanford"

Michelle Obama was an undergrad at Princeton and went to Harvard law.

But then the rest of your post shows how important accuracy is to you.

|6.12.09 @ 12:27PM|#

OK, so her grades were good. What were her test scores? Would a white male with her numbers have been kept out?

Was she in fact an affirmative action baby, or is she just lying to us about it? I still don't know.

Richard Hoste|6.12.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Michelle Obama was an undergrad at Princeton and went to Harvard law.

You're right. The correction has been made.

But then the rest of your post shows how important accuracy is to you.

If that were so you should've been able to find something wrong relevant to the point.

Richard Hoste|6.12.09 @ 12:56PM|#

Yikes! And I didn't even see this

Two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children's classics and study basic grammar books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of Chicken Little and The Troll Under the Bridge?...

Indeed, the White House itself leaked that the final four court candidates were all women and Sotomayor was picked because she was a Latina. One wonders how many superior students and judges have been passed over to advance Sonia Sotomayor's career?

Welcome to affirmative action America! Or Amerikkka, as the blacks still call it.

Abner MacGillicuddy|6.12.09 @ 1:36PM|#

Richard Hoste

Bell curves and group averages give us absolutely no instruction on how to deal with individual members of a group.

Thomas Sowell are Walter Wiliams both members of a racial group that does very poorly on standardised tests. I think it would be very wrong to dismiss them with some talk like, "Statistically, the odds of a [black man] being [a competent economist] is very low.

And while there remain questions about whether Clarence Thomas was the most qualified candidate for the SC few people dismiss his intellect.

So no, just because latinos do poorly on tests as a group does not make Sotomayer unqualified.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.12.09 @ 1:58PM|#

MNG,

"Yet the Chinese and Indians consistently out perform our minorities."

Yeah, but it's not like you've got as representative of a sample there. The kind of person with the ambition to go across the globe and settle in another nation probably has some characterstics that are conducive to success.

So what does that mean? That we aren't particularly looking for people who are motivated?

It would be far easier for a motivated American Minority to prep themselves for standard tests and do well, than it is for native Chinese and Indian students.

Which is why I have a really hard time with the whole "cultural bias" bullshit line. I've seen right up close what can be done to overcome "cultural bias", by those who actually want to succeed.

You don't see the Chinese and Indians asking for special treatment, come time for grad school admissions.

zoltan|6.12.09 @ 2:53PM|#

Well at the time Sotomayor took the SAT (some 37 years ago) that cultural bias claim was certainly true about the test.

Bastards at ETS took out the word analogies.

English language bias!

Can someone please provide me with some examples of how the SAT was culturally biased 20 or 30 years ago? I'm pretty sure the SAT tests skills, not knowledge, so any questions of what were the Duke boys' first names or such would probably not have shown up.

Mike|6.12.09 @ 3:10PM|#

"'Doesn't greater IQ usually correlate with greater economic success?'

No"

Actually, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

"Not sure overall, but there was a good article that showed that SAT scores for black males underpredicted their performance."

Actually, the SAT slightly overpredicts black performance

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26620

Sweet Pea|6.12.09 @ 3:59PM|#

@Richard Hoste: That Michelle Obama senior thesis is a real eye-opener. She never should have got into Princeton, let alone graduated. And I bet her semi-literate screed got high marks too, for the reasons you illuminated.

wayne|6.12.09 @ 8:16PM|#

Culturally biased? Yeah, right.

As an Appalachian Immigrant (hillbilly) growing up in the ghettos of Chicago I, naturally, knew all about Regattas; I mean we had Regattas every fucking Saturday down by the wide open fire hydrant.

Too bad my painfully alabaster skin prevented me from getting some of that affirmative action swag. But, to be fair, there are only so many slots available, so it seems entirely reasonable to let the rich kids in... well, as long as they are the "right" color.

baldanders|6.13.09 @ 4:30AM|#

I'm sorry Wayne, but... are you speaking English? I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Wayne, heh. That's kind of a redneck name isn't it?

wayne|6.13.09 @ 7:36PM|#

baldie,

Yeah, Wayne is a redneck name. If you have seen the movie, "Deliverance" then you know what us rednecks do to meek little baldheaded pussies.

Oh, and keep working on your reading comprehension skills. You may never make it all the way up to mediocre, but you can improve.

Now squeal, bitch!

</|6.13.09 @ 11:19PM|#

Black youth go to prison while white folks go to Harvard.How is a brother or sister supposed to know all that shit about yachting,polo and foies gras forks? The SAT is culturally biased to all that white shit.

|6.14.09 @ 5:42AM|#

The SATs are most certainly a test of innate intelligence. The students for whom coaching works are those that were likely to do well in the first place. For the overwhelming number of students who try to prepare via coaching, their scores essentially remain the same.

ABC|6.15.09 @ 7:35PM|#

"John | June 11, 2009, 10:03pm | #
"These tests opened a lot of doors to a lot of once underrepresented and culturally disadvantaged groups too..."

Yes it did. Also, they open doors to poor and middle class today. The substitute for test scores is to now look at things like volunteer work. If youre parents don't have the money to send you to Costa Rica to build homes for hurricane victims or you have to work for spending money, you are at a real disadvantage."

Then volunteer at the local nursing home or homeless shelter or thrift store. Kids don't need to go to Costa Rica in order to do volunteer work.

No problem with universities who decide to engage in affirmative action on a voluntary basis, the legacy system exists after all, but federally mandated affirmative action is hokum by golly.