[lbo-talk] It's the IQ, stupid

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Mon Aug 30 09:24:22 PDT 2004


Miles Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, ravi wrote:
>
>> if one were to use entrance testing as a substitute for IQ, then
>> even the above may not be the case: boys do better than girls
>> (iirc) in these tests, but girls do better at college. is it
>> because girls are book-smarter? or because they don't spend so much
>> time in frat parties?
>
> Do you mean the SAT? As you might expect, SAT is strongly correlated
> with IQ score (they both measure the same kind of academic smarts).
> For both men and women, SAT (like IQ) is a reasonable predictor of
> academic achievement.
>

from various sources (PBS had a recent show, for instance, on the SAT), i had gained quite the opposite impression i.e., boys do better than girls at SAT, but girls do better in college (in terms of % graduation, average GPA too i would guess, etc).

see for instance:

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html


> The poor predictive ability of the SAT I becomes particularly
> apparent when considering the college performance of females.
> Longstanding gaps in scores between males and females of all races
> show that females on average score 35-40 points lower than males on
> the SAT I, but receive better high school and college grades. In
> other words, the test consistently under-predicts the performance of
> females in college while over-predicting that of males.

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm


> The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in
> college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although females
> earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT I scores
> were 39 points lower in 20002 (34 on the SAT-Math and 5 on
> SAT-Verbal). College Board research has shown that both the Verbal
> and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college
> performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males scored 33
> points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades
> in the same college math courses. Analyses of SAT gender bias cite
> several causes including the test's emphasis on speed over sustained
> reasoning and its multiple-choice format. Mathematics tests in other
> countries that require solutions to long problems appeared unbiased
> with respect to gender.


> Several studies show that female and minority students who are aware
> of racial and gender stereotypes score lower on tests such as the SAT
> that purport to measure academic aptitude. One study defined this
> extra burden borne by some test-takers as "stereotype vulnerability,"
> and warned that these findings "underscore the danger of relying too
> heavily on standardized test results in college admissions or
> otherwise."

http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/companyinfo_beliefs_tests.asp


> the test's advocates claim it predicts college success. In fact, the
> correlation between college performance and SAT scores is weaker than
> that indicated by high school transcripts and not much better than
> family income and other purely socioeconomic indicators.


> High-stakes tests should be unbiased. That doesn't mean that every
> demographic group should score equally well; it simply means that
> similar students should achieve similar scores. Women score 40 to 50
> points lower on the SAT, for example, than do men, though they have
> better grades in both high school and college. Since SAT scores
> determine both admissions and scholarship/financial aid awards, women
> are doubly penalized.

(though there is also this, which i found a difficult to follow: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/newsat/newsat_pred_val.pdf)

(also, i have never taken undergrad level american tests, so i am not quite uptospeed on SAT 1, SAT 2, etc)

of course there is the other issue that the SAT and academic tests might measure the same thing (and therefore correlate well) but neither may measure the actual usefulness of the education the individual received and their fitness for the workforce. that, i admit, is a different debate.

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list