| ▲ | JCTheDenthog 32 minutes ago | ||||||||||||||||
>In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc. So you claim, but in reality proponents of equity instituted a system that gave Black students a roughly 450 point advantage over Asian students on the SAT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un... Note that the NYT, in their pure, non-partisan spirit of fairness and equity, somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ceejayoz 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students Make up your mind? If their having to score higher than Black students is unfair, how is "Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites" not also unfair? What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, wealth (translated to parenting time, tutoring access, better schools, etc.) can help do better on the SAT. How does one account for that? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||