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

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
ATOIsp07
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:53 pm

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

Postby ATOIsp07 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:04 pm

ITT: misuse of statistics, nonsensical logic and homophobia.

and to think that you will be my peers in the legal industry,

sheesh!

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

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

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:06 pm

UFMatt wrote:
Kohinoor wrote: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.

You're absolutely correct. What he should have said was we have zero consistent and useful information on the subject. I'm sure he'll be along sometime to apologize for such an egregious and unforgivable mistake and then commit ritual suicide in repentance.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

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

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:08 pm

rayiner wrote: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.
Fair enough. An answer to this would require another thousand years of philosophy and biology to determine first what is intelligence and next which genes determine which facets of intelligence and their relative frequency in the population. While it's understandable that psychologists feel the need to do something with their current limited knowledge (IQ tests), we'll one day look back at IQ tests the way that current psychologists look back on phrenology. To the extent that intelligence has to do with pure capacity rather than realized potential, it would need to be assessed at a genetic level since even at the embryonic stage, environmental factors are already influencing which genes get expressed. The earlier we go, the closer we should be able to get to that true read of intelligence, but we're laughably far away right now.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:09 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
rayiner wrote:
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... mily_Study
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 0/4978/223

The Minnesota Twin Family Study (or MTFS) is a longitudinal study of twins conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. It seeks to identify the genetic and environmental influences on the development of psychological traits. It is one of the oldest, most widely respected psychological studies in the world.


Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

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

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:10 pm

UFMatt wrote:
Kohinoor wrote: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.

We don't even have a unified theory of intelligence. Please do some research before making such claims.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

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

Postby ConMan345 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:11 pm

Just to throw another wrench in the works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

In short, the negative stereotype that AAs do poorly on standardized tests can cause them to do poorly. Also, the very act of studying race in standardized testing (asking someone's race before the test) can affect the outcome in this way. There is actually a movement among black psychology students/scholars to ask demographic information after taking tests, since an argument could be made that studying black performance over time is, in turn, hurting it.

User avatar
PhillyFan09
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:16 pm

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

Postby PhillyFan09 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:13 pm

ATOIsp07 wrote:ITT: EGREGIOUS misuse of statistics, nonsensical logic and homophobia.

and to think that you will be my peers in the legal industry,

sheesh!


+1000

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:13 pm

Kohinoor wrote:To the extent that intelligence has to do with pure capacity rather than realized potential, it would need to be assessed at a genetic level since even at the embryonic stage, environmental factors are already influencing which genes get expressed. The earlier we go, the closer we should be able to get to that true read of intelligence, but we're laughably far away right now.


To that I'd add that it must be borne in mind that even if there is a 0.7 correlation between achieved intelligence and genetics, that means it explains about 50% of the overall variation. Admitting that there might be a genetic component to achieved intelligence doesn't amount to contending that intelligence is entirely genetic or to use an extreme example "that we should relegate some people to tilling fields" as someone on this thread contended.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

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

Postby rundoxierun » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:15 pm

Ok rayiner, so I guess you just completely ignored the section in that wiki link u sent me titled "Issues in calculations" where it completely said that at a minimum level(like that experienced disproportionatelly by blacks)l there is environmental family influence and that twin studies cannot be applied to minorities because of lack of reliable samples. I didn't even read the entire section because it was clear that there wasn't a conscensus in the first two paragraphs.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

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

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:15 pm

rayiner wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
rayiner wrote:
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... mily_Study
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 0/4978/223

The Minnesota Twin Family Study (or MTFS) is a longitudinal study of twins conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. It seeks to identify the genetic and environmental influences on the development of psychological traits. It is one of the oldest, most widely respected psychological studies in the world.


Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation.

That's far more useful and on-point. The problem is that it's still vague enough that it can be construed either way; you can point to it and show that genetics does have a strong correlation to IQ, while I can likewise point to it to show that there is variation in IQ between genetically similar individuals that is attributable to other, environmental factors.

So we're not much farther along than we were, though we're getting there.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

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

Postby dudester » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:19 pm

I wonder if the ability of unqualified people to search for random articles and Wikipedia pages in order to support their ridiculous opinions is inheritable. :|

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

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

Postby Flanker1067 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:22 pm

ATOIsp07 wrote:ITT: misuse of statistics, nonsensical logic and homophobia.

and to think that you will be my peers in the legal industry,

sheesh!


The phrase nonsensical logic so close in proximity to the image of Al Sharpton made me laugh. Well done.

cr073137
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:14 pm

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

Postby cr073137 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:34 pm

.
Last edited by cr073137 on Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:34 pm

tkgrrett wrote:Ok rayiner, so I guess you just completely ignored the section in that wiki link u sent me titled "Issues in calculations" where it completely said that at a minimum level(like that experienced disproportionatelly by blacks)l there is environmental family influence and that twin studies cannot be applied to minorities because of lack of reliable samples. I didn't even read the entire section because it was clear that there wasn't a conscensus in the first two paragraphs.


Let's get back to your original claim.

tkgrrett wrote: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.


Nothing about the "Issues" section refutes the contention that IQ is considered a heritable characteristic, contradiction to your claim that it isn't. The issues simply develop the point that IQ isn't ENTIRELY heritable, which is entirely consonant with the correlation factors presented in the main part of the article. Eg: even for a 0.85 correlation, non-genetic factors are responsible for about 30% of the observed variation. Now, maybe you can say that 0.7-0.85 isn't enough to consider a trait heritable, but you seem perfectly happy to claim that penis size is heritable without even knowing the correlation factor.

As for twins studies not being applicable to minorities --- if studies show that white twins raised apart have a 0.7 correlation in IQ, why would that be different for minority twins? Unless you're suggesting that IQ is less heritable among minorities than among whites.
Last edited by rayiner on Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ATOIsp07
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:53 pm

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

Postby ATOIsp07 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:36 pm

Flanker1067 wrote:
ATOIsp07 wrote:ITT: misuse of statistics, nonsensical logic and homophobia.

and to think that you will be my peers in the legal industry,

sheesh!


The phrase nonsensical logic so close in proximity to the image of Al Sharpton made me laugh. Well done.


I do what I can!

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:37 pm

vanwinkle wrote:That's far more useful and on-point. The problem is that it's still vague enough that it can be construed either way; you can point to it and show that genetics does have a strong correlation to IQ, while I can likewise point to it to show that there is variation in IQ between genetically similar individuals that is attributable to other, environmental factors.


The implication of the statistics is that if there is a 0.7 correlation between genetics and IQ, then even if you perfectly match environmental factors you will still see a disparity in the population as a while if there is a disparity in the genetic factors. Ie: it is possible that complete equality in upbringing might reduce an achievement gap from 1 SD to 0.4 SD, but could not eliminate it.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:42 pm

cr073137 wrote:I cant believe people are bring up genetic traits into this talk. I mean, c'mon, we are smarter than this. While genetic traits matter, any 101 bio class teaches you of the thousands of genetic combination a kid can have. and IQ is not the sole factor for performing well in college. Both of my parents have PhDs, one in psychology and the other in chemical engineering. I think that they can be considered "smart" I never had any troubles with school work, not because I have a high IQ, but because I studied my ASS OFF. My brother, on the other hand, has an IQ 20 points higher than me, and was able to finish high school only because my parents hired a private tutor for him. If my high IQ brother was born into a poor family, he would be a high school drop out. The same way, if I, with a relatively low IQ, would have been born into a family that didnt make education a top priority, I would have also been a high school drop out.


Dumb post? Or dumbest post?

jrs12
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am

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

Postby jrs12 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:47 pm

Intelligence is much less of a fixed variable than was previously thought. There are two big catches, however.

First, when one increases one's intelligence through diligent work and practice, it increases in a very specific way. In contrast, baseline/genetic intelligence tends to have wider correlation between different applications. Obviously, this doesn't mean that people don't have natural intellectual strengths and weaknesses, but rather that someone who is very strong in one area is unlikely to be very weak in another.

Second, increasing one's intelligence takes hard work over a much longer time horizon than most people are willing to accept. You can work really hard in calculus for a semester and do well, but if you return to normal work levels the next semester, you will not have gained measurable cognitive ability. It takes years of consistent work in order to improve one's ability. If one can sustain these kinds of workloads, the limits of one's improved cognitive ability are actually staggering. I've seen this effect first hand. A friend of mine almost failed out of my school in junior high, but was still working 4-5 hours/night (tough, private school). He has basically continued to work like that for over a decade, and has now published academic papers in both economics and pure math. I still help him a lot with the actual writing, which continues to be a weakness for him.

Granted, these conclusions are subject to the critique that they muddle the distinction between intelligence and performance. I would counter that that distinction has always been muddled. The reason I would call the phenomenon I've described as a change in capacity (rather than just performance), is that it has limited transferability within the specific type of intelligence. One's capacity is increased when one can face a unique problem, though stilll within the discipline, and work through it quickly and artfully.

User avatar
ATOIsp07
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:53 pm

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

Postby ATOIsp07 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:01 pm

jrs12 wrote:Intelligence is much less of a fixed variable than was previously thought. There are two big catches, however.

First, when one increases one's intelligence through diligent work and practice, it increases in a very specific way. In contrast, baseline/genetic intelligence tends to have wider correlation between different applications. Obviously, this doesn't mean that people don't have natural intellectual strengths and weaknesses, but rather that someone who is very strong in one area is unlikely to be very weak in another.

Second, increasing one's intelligence takes hard work over a much longer time horizon than most people are willing to accept. You can work really hard in calculus for a semester and do well, but if you return to normal work levels the next semester, you will not have gained measurable cognitive ability. It takes years of consistent work in order to improve one's ability. If one can sustain these kinds of workloads, the limits of one's improved cognitive ability are actually staggering. I've seen this effect first hand. A friend of mine almost failed out of my school in junior high, but was still working 4-5 hours/night (tough, private school). He has basically continued to work like that for over a decade, and has now published academic papers in both economics and pure math. I still help him a lot with the actual writing, which continues to be a weakness for him.

Granted, these conclusions are subject to the critique that they muddle the distinction between intelligence and performance. I would counter that that distinction has always been muddled. The reason I would call the phenomenon I've described as a change in capacity (rather than just performance), is that it has limited transferability within the specific type of intelligence. One's capacity is increased when one can face a unique problem, though stilll within the discipline, and work through it quickly and artfully.



Because there aren't plenty of cases (and studies) proving that people who are "very strong" in mathematics/sciences struggle with humanities...and vice-versa.

This thread is pure entertainment crap.
Last edited by ATOIsp07 on Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UFMatt
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:59 pm

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

Postby UFMatt » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:12 pm

Kohinoor wrote:We don't even have a unified theory of intelligence. Please do some research before making such claims.


That is akin to saying that since both sailboats and speedboats exist, that a race consisting solely of speedboats is invalid. IQ is one arbitrary measure of intelligence, but it is a measure of intelligence nonetheless. I make no judgment on the matter in this thread, but IQ should not be dismissed so readily as a means of explaining it.

I am going to jettison myself from this thread as it heads toward its inevitable downward spiral.

jrs12
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am

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

Postby jrs12 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:19 pm

This is straight from my cognitive psychology textbook.

In general, the verbal/quantitative divide is bigger than others. (You do realize that there are more types of intelligence than just verbal and quantitative?) Still, people who are VERY strong in one and VERY weak in the other generally have either a cognitive disability, or they have accentuated the difference through hard work already. Normally, kids who are stronger verbally are likely to read a lot when they are young, which makes the difference dramatic by the time they're 10 or 12. Kids who are stronger in math tend to also be fairly strong in language skills. The ones who are MUCH stronger quantitatively are often the ones with mild autism. I've also had kids (as a teacher) who had ear infections when they were young which seriously slowed down their language acquisition.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

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

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:21 pm

UFMatt wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:We don't even have a unified theory of intelligence. Please do some research before making such claims.


That is akin to saying that since both sailboats and speedboats exist, that a race consisting solely of speedboats is invalid. IQ is one arbitrary measure of intelligence, but it is a measure of intelligence nonetheless. I make no judgment on the matter in this thread, but IQ should not be dismissed so readily as a means of explaining it.

I am going to jettison myself from this thread as it heads toward its inevitable downward spiral.

Saying that IQ measures intelligence doesn't make it measure intelligence.

User avatar
ravens20
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Postby ravens20 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:29 pm

Deleted.
Last edited by ravens20 on Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

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

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:35 pm

ravens20 wrote:I'm a big proponent of diversity and I feel that URMs add significantly to the academic and social environment of a university...being exposed to a variety of perspectives can only improve one's knowledge. For this reason, I think that any university is well within its rights to add students from a variety of backgrounds regardless of test scores/backgrounds. If a school feels that a student is qualified enough to be admitted, then that is all that really matters.


That being said, while affirmative action has desirable results and is perfectly legitimate, I don't think it is FAIR:

Some argue that socio-economic factors are the driving force behind affirmative action and the reason that URMs perform relatively worse on standardized tests. The problem with this is that not all URMs come from impoverished backgrounds and not all non-URMs come from privileged backgrounds. Where I grew up, people were relatively well off - the town was not affluent but there weren't too many people that were poor. The URMs that grew up with me had access to the same teachers at the elementary and secondary levels of education, the same facilities around town, etc. After 12 years of growing up in relatively the same circumstances, did those URMs deserve an AA boost that the non-URMs didn't get?

Conversely, I have volunteered in some of the inner city schools in Washington DC several times. I could quickly see that these schools were filled with trying circumstances that I never had to endure. And there were certainly more URMs in these schools than where I grew up. But its false to say that ONLY URMs went to these schools...there were people of every race and creed. Where is the affirmative action for the poor East-Asian or Middle-Eastern kid that went to such schools?

If the intention of affirmative action is to control for socio-economic differences in applicants, then schools should focus on those conditions (level of economy, quality of school one attended, etc) instead of just using race as the sole criteria.

You should create a thread not in the URM sub-forum and discuss AA there.

User avatar
ravens20
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Postby ravens20 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:10 pm

Kohinoor wrote:You should create a thread not in the URM sub-forum and discuss AA there.


Sorry about that...I assumed the topic was AA and didn't realize that this was part of the URM sub-forum (just responded to what was on the main page). Post deleted.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest