I have watched with great interest the events that have unfolded regarding Sotomayor's nomination and the case of the white fireman in New Haven, CT. What irritates me most about the cases are the Republican talking points regarding what qualifies someone for a position on the Supreme Court, or in the fireman's case for promotion.
This was most evident in the excellent diary posted yesterday. Pat Buchanan implies that what "qualifies" each person for a given position is their performance on test scores. I watched the video with Rachel Maddow, and Pat Buchanan's main talking point was that Sotomayor was a affirmative action pick b/c, dating back to her college years. He reminds us that she "didn't have the test scores" to get into the elite schools she was accepted to. Scores, he suggests that the other students did have, inferring that their test scores somehow made them more "qualified".
Sadly, he returns to this line of attack multiple times in the course of the interview. He doesn't mention grades, nor does he dispute her performance in classes while attending Princeton and Yale. Instead, he belittles her performance at these schools by lying about the the percentage of people who are honored with the label Cum Laud. He also returns to the issue of test scores when he discusses the Supreme Court case of the firefighters in New Haven, CT.
Here's my problem. I teach test preparation for a company that is well recognized in this country. I know for a fact that these test scores do not indicate the "quality" of student nor do test scores indicate whether students are ultimately "qualified" for a job.
First, there is an absolute correlation between test scores and income.
This should not be surprising to many. Those with more money can afford the incidentals that make a difference. First, the wealthier the students are, the more likely they can afford things like expensive calculators, tutors if they are struggling on a particular subject, additional books and materials to give them a leg up on the subjects, test preparation courses, and even the ability to attend a private school with better, more attentive teachers. Finally, they have the resources to provide their children with a stress free life during high school
Let's be clear what I mean by stress free, because I know of parents that put a lot of pressure on their children to achieve academically. Sometimes that pressure has unfortunate consequences with higher rates of depression and increased incidences of suicide. That said, I have only my own experiences to explain my meaning. When I was younger my father worked at a grocery store and my mother taught voice lessons. We were a lower middle class family that occasionally struggled to make ends meet. On more than one occasion we were booted from our house, forced to quickly find new places to live. As a consequence I was pressed to work when I was a teenager to help pay for things like food and housing. I was forced to do this while balancing my studies at school.
Regardless, I was a good student, performing in the top of my class in high school. I was ranked 26th out of about 500 students. Sadly, my work and my families lack of resources meant I wasn't adequately prepared to score well on the SAT. Though I didn't score poorly, I scored lower than those who got into the elite schools. It was good enough for the University of Colorado, but not for Yale or Harvard.
This story is bolstered by studies that have been conducted on academic performance, SAT test performance and parental income. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study (NLS) of the high school class of 1972 one study found:
If the SAT is an extremely weak predictor of academic potential it is a moderate predictor of family income. Average scores are proportional to family income: students from families with higher incomes tend to receive higher scores. Estimates of the correlation between SAT score and family income vary from 0.23 to 0.40 (Crouse & Trusheim and Doermann, respectively). This ranking by income prevails not just when large groups are averaged together but also among applicants within the same institution.
A recent analysis of parents income and SAT performance confirms that this dynamic is still very much in play 35 years later. According to The College Board test score performance on the SAT is strongly correlated with the income level of student's parents.
(btw - if someone could tell me how to center images and increase their size, I would appreciate it. I just couldn't figure out how to make the image any larger.)
Another important observation is the percentage of students taking the test by income group. It is sobering to know that the highest identified income group, which accounts for about 15% of the total population, accounts for a quarter of all test takers.
Second, people can be taught to do better on tests
According to several studies, SAT performance has only a minimal effect on the performance of students in college.
Crouse and Trusheim, in their book The Case Against the SAT, conducted the most detailed statistical analysis of the SAT's predictive shortcomings. They calculated the number of additional correct admissions using high school rank (HSR) alone and with the SAT. With four different measures of undergraduate success, they calculated that using the SAT in admissions adds between 0.1 and 2.7 additional correct forecasts per 100 applicants (see Table 1).
It may not surprise you, however, to discover that the SAT adds to the performance of students most when they are in their Freshman year, and least over the course of their entire college career.
One study found that the ability of college admission tests to predict grades declined consistently from one semester to the next throughout eight semesters (Humphreys). The virtual disappearance of the aptitude tests' ability to predict beyond the freshman year has been explained by some commentators as a result of the nature of advanced study. Multiple choice testing predominates introductory courses, they argue, but intermediate and advanced courses demand a broader range of performance.
These study I cited attributes part of this performance to the ability of wealthier parents to obtain the services of test preparation courses. As a teacher for a test preparation company I expand on that idea.
To earn extra income, I have taught test preparation for almost 12 years, and have helped prepare thousands of student to take the SAT, GMAT, GRE and sometimes even the LSAT. Though I scored no better than average on my SAT, I used my access to resources later in life to prepare better for the GRE and scored about a 2200 on the then 2400 scored GRE. As you might guess, this was one of the reasons I was employed to teach test prep.
In a nutshell, I coach students on how to beat the test, and I'm very good at it. On average students who take the course can improve their scores 10%, sometimes more depending on their commitment to the course. Furthermore, as I am quick to point out, rarely do the tests ever test you on skills you will need to use in college, other than your ability to take multiple choice tests. Not only do we tutor students on what they need to know, we also teach them how to avoid wrong answers by teaching them how to avoid standard traps employed by the ACT and ETS.
Third, tests have little practical value in determining what makes us "qualified"
Consider the GMAT, half the test is math skills you will never employ. Is there a single Business School graduate out there that can tell me they used algebra or geometry in business school. Even if you did statistics, it was probably done using a computer. This is important to note b/c students taking the GMAT are not allowed to use even a calculator.
Furthermore, everyone who is not a medical, law, or business student is required to take the GRE. That means your graduate school admissions is partly dependent on the same test that veterinary school students, mathematicians, psychologists, Political Science majors, physical scientists, and English majors all take. It's the same test for everyone. The bulk of the math portion of the test is algebra and geometry. Why does someone studying to get a PhD in English or Anthropology need to know algebra or geometry?
The verbal is a joke. Those with excellent vocabulary skills are most likely to perform better on the test. In fact, most of our coaching is directed at teaching students how to deal with problems where they only marginally recognize some of the vocabulary. Anyone remember Analogies? Well the GRE adds Antonyms.
I once taught test prep to underprivileged kids and the biggest problem I encountered was their vocabulary skills. They performed poorly on the Verbal section, not b/c of a lack of intelligence, but because they didn't know many of the vocabulary words that were tested on in the SAT.
In conclusion
This returns me to Sotomayor and the white firefighters. Why do Republicans put so much emphasis on tests that play no role in your qualifications. Since when does being a good test taker make you a good Supreme Court nominee, or deserving of a promotion to captain as a firefighter. I agree that New Haven should throw out the test, b/c it is inherently discriminatory whether that can be proved or not. Those that have access to resources will do better.
In the case of Frank Ricci, he was understandably upset to have the test thrown out b/c he had used thousands of dollars to prepare for it. More importantly, why was New Haven using a test as 60% of the basis for someone's "qualification" to be promoted. How does your aptitude at taking tests determine you ability to perform well as a firefighter or your ability to lead those firefighters during a crisis situation?