Is Math Racist?

Nope, but it seems like many Republicans are. Just see Trent Lott, Katrina, the port issue, the immigration issue, the profiling, this post, Republican's inability to understand that test written by white people will give better results to white people just as the SAT's do, or hell, just ask a Republican leader. Though he won't admit to being racist, he also won't stray far from his pasty and christ-y base.

Slip,

I hope to God you are kidding me - 1+1=2...and it doesn't matter the skin color of the person who asks the question or who answers it...math doesn't lend itself to racial disparities. You either know math, or you don't...

While you can bring forth all manner of reasons for why, on average, white applicants did better than non-white applicants, the plain fact of the matter is that the test is not at fault - the background of the applicant's is entirely determinative of whether or not he knows enough math to pass. To lower the standard is just plain and simple stupid...and, racist...it says that black people can't do math as well as white people...though, I guess you'd be of the opinion that there is "white" math and "black" math...just as in Nazi Germany there was "aryan" math and "Jewish" math...

Get yourself some help...you need it.

I don't think they ask what one-plus-one is. Think of a word problem. Say, a problem to calculate the volume of an object. Then, say that object is [insert something that only one group of people are familure with]. Which formula should be applied. The one for a sphere or a cone? This happens all the time in testing. Anyway, the point is, in general, standardized tests are not fair. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you just think black people are just dumber? How about women? Are they dumber? They do have smaller brains, you know. Really, what was the point you are trying to make by linking this article? What do you think causes the difference in test scores?

Actually, I agree with Slipgrip. When I was taking those tests they kept asking questions about chopsticks and and egg fu yung. That's why those asians scored better than me. There must some JapoChino test writers out there discriminating against us white folk. How else can you explain why asian students score better on the SAT than the rest of us (580 vs. 520).

Math is racist. It inappropriately touched Cynthia McKinney. She is a woman. And she is black.

Slipgrid,
Whomever answers more questions correctly gets a higher score! Fewer correct answers is a lower score. Asians, Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks, in that order. Those with more intelligence score higher, those with less intelligence score lower.

Could it possibly be genetic? Racial? No wait, W, the evildoer who creates hurricanes must be responsible. But why would a white man design tests that Asians perform better on? Consistently!

Again Slip, 1+1=2. Pull your head out. Simple stuff here. Racial bias, then explain the Asians.

If anyone needs a definition of moonbat, please read Slip or Sack of Lies. And please Slip, please never ever state UTAustin as your school. Please! However, might you be studying under the Ebola virus nut in the zoology department?

Remember, 1+1=2.

*Chuckles*

I do so hope Bald was being silly with that comment because it's hilarious if one takes it that way.

Honestly, Math has to be the most unbiased thing out there. My old high school teacher said it best, "There are right and wrong answers in Math." He was talking about grading tests and he said it was so much easeir to grade a math test than a social studies test for instance.

I have never understood how folks can feel a standardized test can be "racist." Hell, give me your "for black people" test and I bet I'll do just as well as a "white person" test. Give me a break!

Using race as an excuse and a shield is total BS. Riddle me this Batman, how can our newly imported friends from Asia come over here, barely learn to read and write English, and still pass and suceed at tests here? Hmm? Is it because we think like "white people?" No, I fully believe it's because Asian (and every immigrant I've met from Africa to South America) immigrants work their butts off to EARN a place in the world. They respect and understand the need for hard work and to do what needs to be done. They don't look for a cop out or an excuse to not suceed, they just work their butts off to suceed however they can.

Slipgrid:
I'd like to remind you and other people who in the United State Senate today was a former member of the KKK and while a sitting United States Senator used the "N-Word."

And guess what, it wasn't a Republican. But then again, it's okay if a Democrat does it.

Trent Lott was praising an old man on his birthday. He was not suggesting a Segregated America would have been better than what we have today.

And yes, there are social and cultural issues in the SATs. Perhaps what's more important is that schools teach that there are cultural differences around the U.S. IF you live in Texas, that's a huge different lifestyle than people who live in Washington State.

Test construction is actually something I know a little bit about. Not alot, but a little. But I'll share what little I know. When constructing a standardized test there are two basic considerations: (1) internal consistency, and (2) reliability.

Internal consistency means the extent to which the correct answer to a particular question by a particular person can be predicted on the basis of how the same person answered all the other questions correctly. To cite an obviously extreme example, if a person A answered questions 1-99 correctly and got question 100 wrong, whereas persons B - Z answered questions 1-99 incorrectly but got question 100 right, then there's something very wrong with question 100.

Reliability means that the test actually measures some real-world outcome with reasonable accuracy. For example, SAT tests are designed to predict a person's future GPA in college. Likewise, GRE tests are designed to predict a person's future GPA in graduate school. On that level both SAT and GRE do pretty well. But if you try to extrapolate beyond school into any measure of success in the real world -- earning power, job satisfaction, general satisfaction with life, or whatever -- the predictive power of those tests decline dramatically.

Given those facts, I'm wondering (a) how internally consistent the test in question is, and (b) (and this is the fundamentally important question) how reliable it is in predicting a person's job performance as a policeman. I have no idea what the answer to that question is. But one thing IS very clear to me... if math proficiency on the standardized test turns out to have no correlation with one's ability to function as a cop in any capacity whatsoever, the test is completely meaningless. So, before we start throwing around charges of racism or whatever, we need to get that question answered. Otherwise it's just one more pile of crap.

Given the cynic that I am, my guess is there isn't even a shred of relevant data. My guess is that the test is a completely arbitrary criterion based upon what somebody somewhere at some time assumed is important. However, if someone is able to point me in the direction of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, I am more than willing to eat my words. In the mean time I'm inclined to go with what I know about how the real world works, which is to say that a lot of it is totally arbitrary and based upon totally unsubstantiated assumptions.

There is a third issue involved, but if it turns out that there really is no data on whether math proficiency on the standardized test turns out to have any correlation with one's ability to function as a cop in any capacity whatsoever, it is a moot point. But just as a teaser, the issue is this: scores on standardized tests of this sort reveal much more about one's accumulation of knowledge about what society generally accepts as important than they do about one's innate aptitude.

When will the American public wake up and finally get fed up with constantly lowering the bar so that unqualified blacks and Hispanics can climb over it rather than jumping like everyone else must do?

This isn't the 1950's. There are highly qualified blacks and Hispanics who can qualify for most jobs and meet or exceed the accepted standards. There should be no need to lower the standards now, nor for those to assume that blacks and Hispanics aren't just as capable as anyone else.

Lowering the standards obviously results in the hiring of less talented applicants and often requires the hiring of more workers to do the job at more cost to the taxpayer to make up for any lowered abilities of those who are hired. I saw the exact thing in the government with "unofficial" quotas and reduced expectations.

Lowering the standards does no one any good. It results in the hiring of less qualified applicants, and when they aren't up to the standards of others who passed the tests and met the standards, it makes the blacks and Hispanics look bad as a group. It also affects the morale of those who are expected to met the standards.

If math proficiency was considered a requirement for the job, it should remain as a standard. If not, then remove it, but not because blacks and Hispanics didn't have an equal chance to meet the standards.

If the people who insist that the standards be lowered really want to help blacks and Hispanics, they would drop the idea of lowered standards and quotas entirely. Instead they would help employers and schools find really qualified black and Hispanic applicants. There are plenty out there, even if liberals don't think so. Let's find them and get them in the jobs where they can demonstrate their abilities and talents.

The blacks and Hispanics who applied would make it on their own merit. They would meet the standards because of their knowledge, skills, and talents -- not because of a quota or because the standards were lowered. They would stand out as outstanding applicants and workers. They would be more likely to advance to higher positions on their own merit, talent, and skills -- not because they are black or Hispanic, but because they are the best and most qualified. They would be more respected by their peers and supervisors. They would set an example for others to follow and standards for them to meet.

Where do I see the real racism today? From the blacks and liberals. To them everything is made to be a race issue. They set and assume lower standards for blacks and Hispanics. They may think they are helping them, but they aren't. I think they are more interested in maintaining their own personal control and influence over minorities rather than really helping them as they should!

And you liberals, don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I faced the issue many times as a supervisor. I lived with implied quotas. I personally saw the results of hiring less qualified persons to meet these quotas.

It did no one any good except those who were tracking the quotas and statistics.

AAR

Ricorun,

I don't see how math, though, can be easier or harder based upon any sort of purely ethnic issue - you either know how to do it, or you don't...that math was preventing some minorities from passing the tests - and thus becoming cops - cannot be related to any accidental or intentional anti-minority policy. It is just that they can't do math real well.

We can work diligently to improve math education among blacks and hispanics, but the concept of lowering the standards is just stupid

Oh, to repeat myself here as well from GOP bloggers.

Since they've lowered these requirements so the "Black and Hispanics" can get a chance at the jobs now does that mean they've allowed the white/asian/Native Americans or what have you who failed that portion at the old standard to re-try as well? I mean, we are trying to be "fair" aren't we?

Sheesh...

Mark,
"I don't see how math, though, can be easier or harder based upon any sort of purely ethnic issue"

It is clearly not a purely ethnic issue. The fact is, success in math (or scholastic success in general) tends to follow demographics. Although there are notable exceptions (and the exceptions are important laboratories pointing to the future -- they should be roundly applauded in no uncertain terms), the fact remains that inner city schools remain woefully deficient in general. Different districts in different areas in different states suffer different specific deficiencies, but the fact remains that we, as a nation, are nowhere close to the "presumed" ideal of equal opportunity for all students, regardless of means, ethnicity, or anything else. I put "presumed" in quotes because I don't know how many people here identify with such a presumed ideal.

Mark (again),
"We can work diligently to improve math education among blacks and hispanics, but the concept of lowering the standards is just stupid"

In general I agree with you. In other words, I have no doubt that math proficiency is important to one's ability to function in the modern world in general. But success in that regard will take time. Moreover, I suspect that the barriers to success are not exactly what you think they are. In fact, I'm willing to suggest that the barriers are not exactly what I think they are either. Effective education strategies are so very difficult to come by. People are inclined to think that NCLB is somehow a panacea. I truly hope it is. But so far I am unconvinced. I'm a reality-based cynic. What can I say?

But all of that is quite afield with regard to the subject of the original post. The more specific issue is this: your original argument was that math scores on this particular standardized test predicted a person's ability to function as a cop.

Okay, show me the data. Show me any fragment of data that might, even possibly, suggest that you might be the least bit accurate. I am more than willing to be wrong. In fact, I HOPE I am. But, quite sadly, I don't think you can. I mean no personal aspersion in saying that. It's not just you, it's anyone. As far as I can tell, the data are not there. NOT AT ALL. I'm sure you have far more internet resources that I, so go at it. But until you can come up with even a semblance of a result, I hope you realize that to call me stupid without any modifiers at all is, well, itself stupid.

Rico,
You are correct insofar as you have taken your argument to the idea that the standardized test must have a causational relationship with the employment. I doubt the designers of the test took the kind of mathematic analysis a police officer might encounter and put those calculations on a test.

However, testing in this manner is not simply a regurgitation of random facts and/if/therefore/ else scenarios; these type of tests are normally developed with critical thinking skills analysis as the ultimate goals. Like you, as a schoolteacher and as a corporate trainer I assisted in the development of these types of tests.

Let me speak to the test that was developed for a merchandising position for which we recruited. The psychological team first queried us as to the nature of the position, the types of situations the candidate might encounter on the job and the level of education we feel would be necessary to adequately do the basic functions of the job. They then developed an “assessment” that would predict the probable success of the candidate, a minimum score was established based on the relative probability of failure on the job, we approved the test.

One last point, not to be a smart-ass or anything, but you cannot cast an aspersion without it being personal; it is personal by definition.