T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170? Forum

[PDaddy]

I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.
We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

If someone sucked at writing poetry do we say that person cannot write? If someone can play country music but cannot rap are they less musically talented? The LSAT has a format that favors some people while disfavoring others. It just so happens that this test, created, administered, tweaked, formatted and reinvented by whites tends to culturally and socioeconomically favor whites.

There are conditions and nuances, some of which I have questioned above, that favor some whites...1) short (35 minute) bursts with interruptions...although some whites may not like that either...2) logic questions that favor people who have been drilled more thoroughly throughout their education in mathematics and sciences...3) testing that necessitates 6 months of free time that most URM's do not have.

In the same way that a black man may be much faster at running short distances than the typical white, while whites will mostly dust blacks at distance running (except for Ethiopians), the LSAT is just a test of certain skills. True, blacks have been described as having been endowed with "fast twitch muscle fiber" that may predispose them to extraordinary sprinting and jumping, but the LSAT still has very little to do with innate "intelligence". Sprinting is just one type of running; thus, blacks are NOT better runners than whites. Heck, some people just have bad eyesight and bad eye muscle movement. Some people have lower hand-eye coordination (all things that can affect test taking). The central nervous system is very complicated, yet certain types of tests affect people in different ways. Does that mean they are less intelligent? People may test differently, but that has little to do with intelligence.

[vegansistah]

I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

Please tell me this was a sarcastic remark. I managed to get through 7 pages of this thread without posting until I got to this "remark." ("we all accept..." NO- we don't all accept this.)

[vegansistah]

I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

Please tell me this was a sarcastic remark. I managed to get through 7 pages of this thread without posting until I got to this "remark." ("we all accept..." NO- we don't all accept this.)

Okay- I should have kept reading. This person cannot respond because they have since been banned.
Come on, people! It's statements like these that...

[Jay-Electronica]

TCR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHgtZaNMFdE

[Flanker1067]

I noticed that costs of prep are commonly mentioned here as the possible cause of some of the difference in LSAT scores. I would like to point out that all the PT's released by LSAC and the powerscore bibles, and possibly the Kaplan and other books (this I don't know for a fact but I don't see why not) are available for free (illegally of course) online via bittorrent. I am not here to argue how right or wrong getting them this way is, but if you truly cannot afford the books then I think this is what you should turn to to get the prep material. I think the right solution to the problem of prep discrepancy for cost reasons is not to say that schools should make up for this problem via the URM bump, but that collective action should be taken to force the LSAC to stop ripping us off.

My $0.02. Also trying to help other people who may have been unable to afford the best prep stuff.

[rayiner]

.

[rayiner]

.

[Ragged]

I just can't help but say that the idea of intelligence being (at least partly) genetic is not at all unreasonable or offensive. I mean, we do know that not everyone has equal intelligence. So, why is the concept that smarter parents (regardless of race) are more likely to have a smarter child is so unacceptable to some?

I'm not sure if there was any conclusive research done on that subject, but just because we haven't found the genes responsible for it yet, doesn't mean the idea is false or is somehow rasict.

1) This has been debunked.

2) This has been debunked because the concept of "genetic inferiority" is what was used to justify excluding minorities from access to quality education for years, the rationale being that they're too dumb to appreciate it anyway so why spend the resources on them. This became widely accepted and was used widely all the way up to the 1950s as one of the arguments against desegregation. Its vigorous debunking occurred as a way to counter these arguments.

It's highly inflammatory because of its long history of being used as a theory to disenfranchise minorities and because studies have since conclusively shown there is no discernable connection between skin color and intelligence level.

Just because it might have socially undesireably consequences it doesn't mean that it can't be true. All I'm saying is that heredibility of intelligence is a quite reasonable concept. I don't see why taller parents having taller kids is accepted, but smarter parents having smarter kids is absurd? You can't say that it can't be true just because we don't want it to be true. Thats simply not the way science works. Also, just because we don't know how intelligence is passed on from generation to generation, doesn't mean it isn't.

For all I know you are right and intelligence is not at all hereditary, but we can not rule out the possibility that it is, untill there is conclusive reasearch on the subject. If you can show me conclusive scientific evidence that intelligence is not and can not be hereditary that would be really interesting. And then you can start using words like "Debunked."

In my mind intelligence being hereditary just makes a lot of sense. I mean if we evolved from dumber spiecies with lower brain capacity into what we are now through evolution (which runs on the concept of heredibility) then it would make sense for this evolutionary process to go on in our society - evolution is probably the most rasict thing out there.

[rundoxierun]

If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716

Ill point this out again before I sleep.. one(penis size) is a HERITABLE characteristic while the other is NOT considered to be HERITABLE(level of intelligence) but is rather considered to be a LEARNED characteristic. It is very difficult to do a study on heritability of intelligence because it is very difficult to remove environment from the equation without crossing some ethical boundaries.

Wrong (at least if we define intelligence as IQ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Also, I'm not even really sure that penis size is considered a highly heritable characteristic.

God this is stupid.. A) ok ill clarify, intelligence in the school sense is considered to be learned. That is the accepted view. B) physical characteristics are heritable. C) your penis example is like the difference between sizes of bengal tigers and siberian tigers... or samoans and members of that african pygmy tribe.

[rayiner]

If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716

Ill point this out again before I sleep.. one(penis size) is a HERITABLE characteristic while the other is NOT considered to be HERITABLE(level of intelligence) but is rather considered to be a LEARNED characteristic. It is very difficult to do a study on heritability of intelligence because it is very difficult to remove environment from the equation without crossing some ethical boundaries.

Wrong (at least if we define intelligence as IQ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Also, I'm not even really sure that penis size is considered a highly heritable characteristic.

God this is stupid.. A) ok ill clarify, intelligence in the school sense is considered to be learned. That is the accepted view. B) physical characteristics are heritable. C) your penis example is like the difference between sizes of bengal tigers and siberian tigers... or samoans and members of that african pygmy tribe.

I just gave you a link that cites multiple studies showing that intelligence is highly heritable. Where do you get the "accepted view" that it is learned?

[vanwinkle]

For all I know you are right and intelligence is not at all hereditary, but we can not rule out the possibility that it is, untill there is conclusive reasearch on the subject. If you can show me conclusive scientific evidence that intelligence is not and can not be hereditary that would be really interesting. And then you can start using words like "Debunked."

In my mind intelligence being hereditary just makes a lot of sense. I mean if we evolved from dumber spiecies with lower brain capacity into what we are now through evolution (which runs on the concept of heredibility) then it would make sense for this evolutionary process to go on in our society - evolution is probably the most rasict thing out there.

I apologize, because I apparently misspoke and created the wrong impression. Intelligence to some extent is hereditary, and there are even some correlations between genetic indicators for high intelligence and for brain disorders such as autism. There's a lot of fascinating research going on into the whole area and we still don't fully understand the role that genetics plays at the individual level yet.

What I meant to say is that it has been thoroughly debunked that intelligence, as a hereditary factor, is linked in any way to race or color. Scientists have repeatedly shown that there is no useful correlation between skin color or ethnic background and intellectual capacity on a large scale. Skin tone is something that evolved rapidly based on the positive or negative health effects it could have for living in different climates; in contrast there was relatively little evolutionary pressure to keep driving intellectual capacity further in a short time in any given race/region. This means that skin tone could change rapidly as people spread to different continents but that overall average intelligence remained fairly constant over the last hundred thousand years or so.

The problem is that evolution pushes some traits faster than others, and people tend to assume that a whole bundle of traits correlate together when they don't. Saying black people have lower intelligence is stupid because 1) the genes that control skin color have nothing to do with the genes that control intelligence level and 2) from a genetic/evolutionary standpoint, the smarter humans in Africa survived better than the dumber ones just like what happened on other continents, so there's not exactly an evolutionary pressure to make Africans dumber or anything.

We all came from Africa, but there's no evolutionary pressure that made us distinctly smarter, either. For the most part we've all been dumb people living in huts up until the last thousand years or so, and it's not like the Industrial Revolution has created that much incentive for races to evolve that much intellectually. There's still enough support for dumb people (more technically, still enough necessity for able bodies to work in factories or fields) that there's no evolutionary pressure to force that kind of intellectual growth, even today.

On an individual level intelligence is partly hereditary, but as a whole the races all have the same capacity for and range of intellects as each other. America has successful and highly intelligent people of all races, which shows that all races have at least the potential for high intellectual capacity. It also still has millions of poor, ignorant, stupid white people, too. The only difference between them and the poor, ignorant, stupid black people is that nobody goes and tells the white people they're poor, ignorant, and stupid because of their skin color.

[rundoxierun]

Umm no.. you gave me link saying that iq is inheritable. I get that accepted view from the fact that blacks are able to go to the same schools as whites now instead of working the fields because they inherently weren't as smart. There are also policies in place to increase the education of minorities with the hope that they will do better and their children will do even better and etc. If this isn't the "accepted" view it sure has a lot of momentum and money behind it for a minority opinion.

EDIT: actually your link clearly says their is no conscensus in the academic community regarding the heritability of even IQ

[rayiner]

You make a good point, but you're kind of dancing around the issue. It is entirely possible that, as a sub-population in the United States, blacks have a lower level of intelligence on average. The sociological implications of a definitive answer to that question are troubling. In fact, the very best policy might be the one we currently have: deny that any difference exists while instituting a "separate but equal" system of affirmative action that tries to compensate and minimize the non-heritable component of the disparity.

[rayiner]

Umm no.. you gave me link saying that iq is inheritable. I get that accepted view from the fact that blacks are able to go to the same schools as whites now instead of working the fields because they inherently weren't as smart. There are also policies in place to increase the education of minorities with the hope that they will do better and their children will do even better and etc. If this isn't the "accepted" view it sure has a lot of momentum and money behind it for a minority opinion.

--ImageRemoved--

EDIT: actually your link clearly says their is no conscensus in the academic community regarding the heritability of even IQ

In the same sense that there is no consensus in the academic community regarding climate change.

[Kohinoor]

On an individual level intelligence is partly hereditary, but as a whole the races all have the same capacity for and range of intellects as each other. America still has millions of poor, ignorant, stupid white people, too. The only difference between them and the poor, ignorant, stupid black people is that nobody goes and tells the white people they're poor, ignorant, and stupid because of their skin color.

You make a good point, but you're kind of dancing around the issue. It is entirely possible that, as a sub-population in the United States, blacks have a lower level of intelligence on average. The sociological implications of a definitive answer to that question are troubling. In fact, the very best policy might be the one we currently have: deny that any difference exists while instituting a "separate but equal" system of affirmative action that tries to compensate and minimize the non-heritable component of the disparity.

It is also entirely possible that white people have a lower level of intelligence on average. We have zero data on the subject. The link you provided suggested that blacks do very poorly on the LSAT. Pretending for a moment that IQ predicts what we conceptualize as intelligence, the LSAT isn't even a good traditional IQ test far less a good intelligence test because you can practice for it and improve drastically. Now, if you consider long term tenacity and capacity for improvement to be valid metrics for intelligence assessment, then the LSAT might be a decent IQ test after all, but that just goes back to the fact that IQ tests remain a blunt tool intended to get at an extraordinarily ill-defined concept known as 'intelligence.'

[rayiner]

It is also entirely possible that white people have a lower level of intelligence on average. We have zero data on the subject. The link you provided suggested that blacks do very poorly on the LSAT. Pretending for a moment that IQ predicts what we conceptualize as intelligence, the LSAT isn't even a good traditional IQ test far less a good intelligence test because you can practice for it and improve drastically. Now, if you consider long term tenacity and capacity for improvement to be valid metrics for intelligence assessment, then the LSAT might be a decent IQ test after all, but that just goes back to the fact that IQ tests remain a blunt tool intended to get at an extraordinarily ill-defined concept known as 'intelligence.'

That's certainly a fair point, and not really one that I disagree with. On the flip side, though, there is a ton of data showing achievement gaps in standardizes tests, grades, etc, even when adjusting for socio-economic factors. There is almost no data showing achievement gaps in the opposite direction.

I'm not trying to contend that there is a definitive consensus one way or the other on this issue, but rather refute the claim that there is a definitive (scientific) consensus against the idea that there is no racial component to the phenomenon of underachievement of certain minority groups in school and standardized tests. That idea seems to me as silly as claiming there is no racial component to the phenomenon of there being almost no asians in professional sports.

[vanwinkle]

It is entirely possible that, as a sub-population in the United States, blacks have a lower level of intelligence on average.

The thing is, I believe that this is actually true, but not as a result of genetics. Brain chemistry and intelligence function are very interesting things. The brain is designed to respond to stimulus, and observable and rapid changes in the brain occur as new information is learned. It is also affected by external stimuli such as nutrition and sociological factors such as emotional response (a depressed emotional state can actually lower the responsive IQ of an individual).

Given all this, doesn't it make sense that if a population is relatively poor, lacking self-esteem or societal respect, and receiving less intellectual stimulation in primary education to drive brain activity, that as a whole it would grow up to demonstrate a lower level of intelligence on average even without genetics as a factor?

Michael Oher (whose life inspired the movie The Blind Side) makes for a rather interesting example of this. He had a relatively low measured IQ while living with various foster families and getting little consistently positive attention. He was then taken in by an affluent (white) family that spent considerable time and money on him to help him stay in school including private tutoring in high school which helped him ultimately go to college. His measured IQ while in college was actually 20-30 points higher than his relatively low and stable IQ while he was in foster care and the public school system.

Obviously it wasn't genetics that held him back on those 20-30 points, because if it was he wouldn't have been able to make them up later in life.

[rayiner]

Given all this, doesn't it make sense that if a population is relatively poor, lacking self-esteem or societal respect, and receiving less intellectual stimulation in primary education to drive brain activity, that as a whole it would grow up to demonstrate a lower level of intelligence on average even without genetics as a factor?

Perhaps, but twins studies suggest otherwise, although they are hardly definitive: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... study.html

[rundoxierun]

Ok at this point it is painfully clear that some people are saying whatever they want and just pretending that they are facts. FWIW there is a clear conscensus on climate change with the major academies of science for every developed nation endorsing it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Regardless, my personal experience with high achieving urms leads me to believe that it isn't as simple as an issue of genetics. I don't want to be that guy who uses anecdotes for arguments so I'm just going to leave i it at that and end my participation in this thread to actually pay attention in class.

[Shot007]

On an individual level intelligence is partly hereditary, but as a whole the races all have the same capacity for and range of intellects as each other. America still has millions of poor, ignorant, stupid white people, too. The only difference between them and the poor, ignorant, stupid black people is that nobody goes and tells the white people they're poor, ignorant, and stupid because of their skin color.

You make a good point, but you're kind of dancing around the issue. It is entirely possible that, as a sub-population in the United States, blacks have a lower level of intelligence on average. The sociological implications of a definitive answer to that question are troubling. In fact, the very best policy might be the one we currently have: deny that any difference exists while instituting a "separate but equal" system of affirmative action that tries to compensate and minimize the non-heritable component of the disparity.

It is also entirely possible that white people have a lower level of intelligence on average. We have zero data on the subject. The link you provided suggested that blacks do very poorly on the LSAT. Pretending for a moment that IQ predicts what we conceptualize as intelligence, the LSAT isn't even a good traditional IQ test far less a good intelligence test because you can practice for it and improve drastically. Now, if you consider long term tenacity and capacity for improvement to be valid metrics for intelligence assessment, then the LSAT might be a decent IQ test after all, but that just goes back to the fact that IQ tests remain a blunt tool intended to get at an extraordinarily ill-defined concept known as 'intelligence.'

+1

[UFMatt]

It's all about IQ. Unfortunately, this topic is political poison, so differences in achievement are always discussed in the framework of socio-economic factors.

[rayiner]

Ok at this point it is painfully clear that some people are saying whatever they want and just pretending that they are facts. FWIW there is a clear conscensus on climate change with the major academies of science for every developed nation endorsing it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

You claimed that IQ was not heritable. I gave a link citing multiple sources that show substantial heritable components to IQ. Quoting:

Throughout the developed world, specific estimates[clarification needed] in the academic research into the heritability of IQ have varied from high, such as over 0.9 in a 1994 report,[6] to intermediate, such as below 0.5 in a 1997 report.[3] A general range of 0.4 to 0.8 was given by the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", a 1994 declaration of 52 scientists in the field.[7] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[9] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[10]

You then claim there is "no consensus", without offering any basis for that contention, btw, and there is nothing in that article that can be construed as suggesting the lack of consensus on the basic point of inheritability of IQ.

Regardless, my personal experience with high achieving urms leads me to believe that it isn't as simple as an issue of genetics.

My personal experience with well-endowed asian men leads me to believe that it isn't as simple as an issue of genetics. The term you're looking for is "sampling bias".

[vanwinkle]

Given all this, doesn't it make sense that if a population is relatively poor, lacking self-esteem or societal respect, and receiving less intellectual stimulation in primary education to drive brain activity, that as a whole it would grow up to demonstrate a lower level of intelligence on average even without genetics as a factor?

Perhaps, but twins studies suggest otherwise, although they are hardly definitive: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... study.html

All that study shows is that intelligence level is influenced by genetics, which I agreed with earlier. That study is also very poor at debunking what I suggested, because it was comparing twins who shared the same environment with each other. All it does is show that genetics is one indicator of intelligence, it doesn't even attempt to measure what role environmental factors play.

To prove/disprove my argument, what you would need to do is take two identical twins, raise them in different environments, and then compare them. For what I'm suggesting to be correct, you'd see two twins (who are genetically the same and have roughly the same IQ in the same environment) end up with divergent IQs as a result of their divergent environments. The study you presented doesn't address the issue one way or the other.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

blah. fixed for political correctness. plus maybe this wasn't unintentional?

[UFMatt]

It is also entirely possible that white people have a lower level of intelligence on average. We have zero data on the subject. The link you provided suggested that blacks do very poorly on the LSAT. Pretending for a moment that IQ predicts what we conceptualize as intelligence, the LSAT isn't even a good traditional IQ test far less a good intelligence test because you can practice for it and improve drastically. Now, if you consider long term tenacity and capacity for improvement to be valid metrics for intelligence assessment, then the LSAT might be a decent IQ test after all, but that just goes back to the fact that IQ tests remain a blunt tool intended to get at an extraordinarily ill-defined concept known as 'intelligence.'

It is not true that there is zero data on this subject. Please do some research before making such claims.