
Speaking Truth to Test Scores, 10/7/08:

I hate Harvard so much.
...Lucy Caldwell has written some egregious shit in her career, but this shit is among the most egregious of all. Go read it and you'll see what I mean. Her reasoning is just wrong -- anyone with any sense could tell Lucy Caldwell that poorer people get lower SAT scores because they have less access to quality education (not just test prep) and live in less intellectually hospitable environments. It is not, in fact, because they's just dumb. The level of innate elitism and perversity it must take for Caldwell to reach that conclusion -- the mind reels.
Why does the Crimson think it's acceptable to continually publish this tripe?
BONUS CRIMSON TRIPE: Read David Golding arguing, I am not making this up, that Democrats aren't going to win Virginia1 because it's full of "inbred yokels," even though -- this is a direct quote -- "I've never actually met any Appalachian Virginians." And then Golding pronounces that the way to win these mythical yokels' votes is lunatic-libertarian "radically reduced federalism." Do these people listen to themselves when they talk?
1. Contra Golding, Pollster.com's estimate has Obama leading in Virginia by 2. But God forbid the Crimson should print, you know, facts.
Since when is it acceptable to cite Charles Murray as a legitimate authority on, oh, anything?
why do i click when i know it will only make me angry? why? why do i do this to myself, every damn time?
I feel the strong urge to write an angry anonymous comment, but unfortunately my comp sci pset is restricting my urge to waste time.
hey, I've been "working on" this Stats pset for over 90 minutes now and I haven't even started Question 1. FREE YOURSELF WILL
Haha Martin Sheen and Paris Hilton are much more entertaining though.
Markus, you are remarkably adept at finding ways to bring me ever closer to having an aneurysm at my desk. Thanks, I think.
Haha, this LMC-takedown
Haha, this LMC-takedown makes me excited at the lack of a similar diatribe against my column (so far). ;)
Lucy's writing is certainly controversial... I'm not sure I entirely disagree with her here, though. IQ does matter, and while I don't think IQ is predominantly genetic (it's hugely environmental -- that is, your brain grows if you're cultivated as a kid), the evidence leans on the side of IQ having a correlation with test scores.
What I'm wondering is this: is the SAT II more socioeconomically equitable than the SAT? After all, the SAT tests "test skills," but also inherent aptitude, while the SAT II really just tests your educational background.