Thursday, May 23, 2019

The College Board’s “adversity score” perpetuates the myth of SAT bias

[I originally wrote this for NR, but I'm reposting here because this perspective has not received enough attention.]

[Update: I wrote another piece addressing similar misinformation about the SAT.]

A common defense of affirmative action in college admissions is that it simply adjusts for difficult childhood circumstances. Under this theory, students from underrepresented groups score below their true ability level on the SAT due to poverty or discrimination or a lack of fancy test prep, but they will thrive once brought to an enriching university environment. If true, affirmative action would not involve any lowering of admission standards, but rather a fairer appraisal of each applicant’s abilities.

It’s not true. Researchers have known for decades that SAT scores predict college performance for poor and minority students about as well as they do for everyone else. To the extent there is a difference, the SAT actually over-predicts their performance. Therefore, if the goal is to find the students who will be most academically successful, colleges should not bump up applicants’ SAT scores on the basis of poverty or race.

That’s one reason why the College Board’s new “adversity score” is so troubling. By providing schools with a secret quantification of each applicant’s childhood environment, the College Board furthers the myth that the SAT is predictively biased along socioeconomic lines. According to the New York Times:

Admissions officers have also tried for years to find ways to gauge the hardships that students have had to overcome, and to predict which students will do well in college despite lower test scores. The new adversity score is meant to be one such gauge.

If so, we already know it doesn’t work. The College Board’s own data (see page 42) show that test scores and high school grades predict college performance about equally across all adversity levels. An exception is for students at the highest levels of adversity where, once again, their college GPA is slightly below expectations, not above.

In reality, there is no merit-based case for affirmative action in college admissions. Proponents should acknowledge that their chief interest is not merit, but social justice. “Diversity is so important to our schools and to broader society that lowering standards is a worthy price to pay,” they should declare. That would be a reminder that affirmative action – like all hotly-debated issues –involves inherent trade-offs, and it’s up to the public to decide how to weigh them.

Sunday, May 5, 2019

Sign the petition for Dr. Noah Carl

Free speech is about more than just the First Amendment's limitation on government power. It's a principle that should underlie all political discourse. When institutions that promote themselves as open platforms banish those with whom they disagree, it has the same kind of chilling effect as government censorship.

Academic freedom is an especially important subset of free speech. If universities place limitations on what academics can study, whole areas of knowledge could be closed off. That's why I signed the petition for Dr. Noah Carl, and it's why you should, too. 

Remember, when a mob demands censorship, it's easy to hope that capitulating "just this one time" will make the problem go away. It won't. It will only lead to more severe demands for censorship in the future. 

Monday, March 4, 2019

Video of event with Michelle Malkin

It went well. The transcript and all videos can be found here. I've embedded my section below. (If you read the transcript or watch the unedited video from Facebook, you'll note a few strange interjections. We were having a problem with the computer screen flickering.)

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Panel event with Michelle Malkin

On Friday, March 1, at 4:00 pm at the National Press Club, I'll be appearing on a panel with Michelle Malkin. We''ll be discussing high-skill immigration, and the starting point will be my new report discussed in the previous post. Admission is free, and there will be food provided, so please come.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 26, 2019) – The Center for Immigration Studies will host a panel discussion and reception Friday, March 1 focusing on the impact of immigration on skilled workers and the value of a foreign vs. domestic diploma. The starting point for conversation will be the recent report by independent policy analyst Jason Richwine which compared the skill levels of foreign-educated immigrants and native-born Americans. 
REPORT: Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders
WHAT: Panel discussion on the value of foreign college degrees and the reality behind "high-skill" immigration 
WHEN: Friday, March 1, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. 
WHERE: National Press Club, Murrow Room, 529 14th St NW, Washington, D.C. 
STREAM: Facebook Live 
WHO: 
MICHELLE MALKIN 
Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated commentator and co-author of the 2015 book "Sold Out", which explores the effects of current immigration policies on American skilled workers. In the book, which she co-authored with CIS Fellow John Miano, she writes, "There is nothing special about the hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa holders flooding our workforce. Most are sponsored by companies that specialize in outsourcing of U.S. jobs." 
JASON RICHWINE 
Jason Richwine is an independent public policy analyst based in Washington D.C. and the author of the recent report, "Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders." In it, Richwine demonstrates that supposedly "high-skill" foreign-educated immigrants drastically under-perform native-born Americans with comparable degrees in various standardized exams.

Monday, February 25, 2019

Highly-Educated Immigration ≠ Highly-Skilled Immigration

I have a new report out this week with a self-explanatory title, "Foreign-Educated Immigrants Are Less Skilled Than U.S. Degree Holders." Here's the summary chart:

Graph: Percentile Scores by Test-Takers with College or Advanced Degrees

And here's the conclusion:
Although skilled immigration may be desirable, policy-makers must be cautious in using foreign degrees as proof of those skills. This report has shown that immigrants with foreign degrees perform substantially worse than U.S. degree holders on tests of literacy, numeracy, and computer operations. In some cases, the gaps are so large that immigrants with foreign college degrees have skills that resemble those of natives who have only a high school diploma. Although poor English clearly plays a role in the disparity — and a command of English is essential for success in most high-skill occupations in the United States — the disparity persists even among immigrants who have had at least five years to learn English after arriving. 
In Congress, some proposed immigration reforms acknowledge the greater value of U.S. degrees. For example, the RAISE Act would establish a points system for high-skill immigrants that prioritizes U.S. degrees over foreign degrees. It would also go beyond educational credentials by giving extra points for English fluency, STEM specialties, and pre-arranged employment. Ultimately, policy-makers should consider making skill selection even more direct. Universities, the foreign service, and the military have been using standardized testing for decades to evaluate applicants. For example, people who want to do advanced study in important subjects such as biology, chemistry, and physics need to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) to demonstrate their knowledge and preparation. Perhaps Congress could integrate similar tests into a truly high-skill immigration system.
Please read the whole thing

Thursday, February 21, 2019

The threat to English

My first piece for American Greatness is out today. It deals with the issue of language assimilation. A sample:
For decades, immigration enthusiasts have offered conflicting assurances to skeptics who perceive a lack of assimilation among newcomers. Multiculturalism is a great gift to the United States, so why worry? Also, assimilation is proceeding apace, so, again, why worry? The former assurance is generally directed at liberals, and the latter is directed at conservatives, but the underlying point is the same—nothing to see here, just move along. 
Pundits repeated the same assurances last month after Tom Brokaw remarked on how “Hispanics should work harder at assimilation,” and that “they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English.” Despite the furor and his subsequent apology, Brokaw is right to be concerned. When it comes to language assimilation, neither of the standard assurances is convincing.
Please read the whole thing.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Faith in the unelected

I have a new essay out this morning on the power of unelected officials within the government. It grew out of my frustration that judges are invoking "non-partisan experts" in the bureaucracy to strike down White House policies. Here's a sample:
Take Trump’s executive order that disqualified some transgender people from military service. In halting the order (later reinstated by the Supreme Court), a federal judge declared that Trump’s justifications were “contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself.” The judge inferred that Trump must therefore be motivated by illegal “animus” toward transgender people. 
Now, perhaps the military’s studies are rigorous and not motivated at all by political correctness. Perhaps Trump’s new policy is indeed unjustifiable. Nevertheless, the danger here is obvious: The military has effectively vetoed an order by the commander-in-chief. If the military brass is owed such deference, it is easy to see how it could head off interference from the civilian leadership simply by producing a study that confirms its own beliefs.
Read the whole thing at National Review.

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

The 28 counties where a majority of school-age children speak Spanish at home

It is no surprise to see California and Texas well represented on this list, but look at Kansas, Nebraska, and Washington. Concentrations of Spanish speakers can be found farther north than most people realize.

County, State Total, ages 5-17 speak Spanish at home, 5-17: % 5-17 who speak Spanish at home

Starr, Texas

14,649

13,693

93.5%
Maverick, Texas 12,963 11,341 87.5%
Webb, Texas 64,686 54,852 84.8%
Santa Cruz, Arizona 9,665 8,170 84.5%
Zapata, Texas 3,437 2,885 83.9%
Hidalgo, Texas 201,133 157,717 78.4%
Presidio, Texas 1,480 1,143 77.2%
Imperial, California 36,611 26,724 73.0%
Reagan, Texas 818 539 65.9%
Seward, Kansas 5,124 3,353 65.4%
Cameron, Texas 95,782 61,979 64.7%
Hudspeth, Texas 692 444 64.2%
Ford, Kansas 7,240 4,596 63.5%
Ochiltree, Texas 2,408 1,520 63.1%
Kenedy, Texas 124 77 62.1%
Adams, Washington 4,768 2,936 61.6%
El Paso, Texas 168,715 103,833 61.5%
Bailey, Texas 1,530 935 61.1%
Monterey, California 81,463 49,172 60.4%
Val Verde, Texas 9,995 5,978 59.8%
Yuma, Arizona 37,866 22,630 59.8%
Miami-Dade, Florida 397,099 235,932 59.4%
Jeff Davis, Texas 352 205 58.2%
Zavala, Texas 2,636 1,493 56.6%
Colfax, Nebraska 2,249 1,227 54.6%
Franklin, Washington 21,204 11,505 54.3%
Colusa, California 4,411 2,356 53.4%
Titus, Texas 7,007 3,655 52.2%

Source: American Community Survey, 5-year sample, 2013-2017

Monday, January 21, 2019

Just say no to the two-minutes hate

When the media claimed that white Catholic Trump-supporting boys mocked an elderly American Indian at a demonstration, several of my fellow conservatives participated in the two-minutes hate against the boys, fanning the flames of Outrage Culture with over-the-top condemnations.

After the story collapsed, apologies of the “I shouldn’t have rushed to judgment” variety were issued. One could fairly ask why anyone would ever rush to judgment after so many similar reports have crumbled upon further review. But there’s an even larger problem here -- it’s that too many conservatives felt the urge to weigh in at all. Even if the initial reporting had been accurate, it should have been filed away in the vast folder labeled “people being rude at a political protest” and dismissed without comment. By contrast, accusing Catholic kids of having metaphorically “spit on the cross” is about the worst possible response. Joining the pile-on legitimizes the media’s elevation of this inconsequential event and encourages more hysteria in the future.

One might argue that it is “principled” for us to condemn all instances of conservatives behaving badly, while it would be “partisan” or “tribal” to ignore them. No. The principled response to a two-minutes hate is to reject it. Ridicule the idea that any lessons can be drawn from a single instance of some person being rude to another person in a country of 328 million. Oppose all manifestations of Outrage Culture.

Obviously, the media focused on the MAGA-hatted white Catholic boys to bolster the narrative that all four groups – Trump supporters, whites, Christians, and males – are menaces to society. By that standard, however, virtually any political narrative finds support during demonstrations. Indeed, the boys were apparently being harassed by a group of black protesters shouting epithets. In response, should we demand an apology from the NAACP? Conclude that black nationalism is a dire threat? Write think pieces about how whites are oppressed?

I’m not engaging in whataboutism. I’m rejecting the idea that any of these incidents say anything about the broader political situation. They do not deserve our attention, let alone our outrage.