I believe the key to this debate is something Glenn mentioned as a “side note.” Schools interpret test scores differently depending on the applicant’s background.
Liberals believe the test score gap reflects environment (poverty, racism) and therefore, disadvantaged individuals with lower scores have unrealized potential. They don’t view …
I believe the key to this debate is something Glenn mentioned as a “side note.” Schools interpret test scores differently depending on the applicant’s background.
Liberals believe the test score gap reflects environment (poverty, racism) and therefore, disadvantaged individuals with lower scores have unrealized potential. They don’t view affirmative action as admitting people who are less capable.
The race realists believe you can’t close the gap through higher education, either because IQ is genetic or because it’s too late to intervene. Lower passing rates on things like medical boards and the bar seem to support the race realist position, but liberals would say the same environmental factors affect those outcomes, and they aren’t the true measure of someone’s potential in the profession.
Amy Wax talks as if liberals think, “Black people aren’t as capable, but it’s important to have 12% in every field anyway.” Liberals believe the double standard corrects for environmental factors and gives you the result you would have without racism.
Personally, I believe the disparities are due to environment, not genetics, but interventions should target younger children. Both to close the achievement gap and to cultivate interest in different professions, so that there can be a more diverse pipeline. Then use the same standard for everyone in higher ed.
I believe the key to this debate is something Glenn mentioned as a “side note.” Schools interpret test scores differently depending on the applicant’s background.
Liberals believe the test score gap reflects environment (poverty, racism) and therefore, disadvantaged individuals with lower scores have unrealized potential. They don’t view affirmative action as admitting people who are less capable.
The race realists believe you can’t close the gap through higher education, either because IQ is genetic or because it’s too late to intervene. Lower passing rates on things like medical boards and the bar seem to support the race realist position, but liberals would say the same environmental factors affect those outcomes, and they aren’t the true measure of someone’s potential in the profession.
Amy Wax talks as if liberals think, “Black people aren’t as capable, but it’s important to have 12% in every field anyway.” Liberals believe the double standard corrects for environmental factors and gives you the result you would have without racism.
Personally, I believe the disparities are due to environment, not genetics, but interventions should target younger children. Both to close the achievement gap and to cultivate interest in different professions, so that there can be a more diverse pipeline. Then use the same standard for everyone in higher ed.
I have wanted intervention at 1st to 3rd grade instead of waiting until students enter college 300 years later.