Jay Rosner,3/26/01 2:28 AM -0500,RE: SATs, what else?
From: Jay Rosner <[email protected]>
To: Deborah Meier <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: SATs, what else?
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 02:28:56 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Deb, Not yet, but I just sent it. He'll probably respond, & I'll forward
his machinations to you. He's actually trying to come to grips with this
stuff, poor thing.
Jay
P.S. The best two descriptors for the SAT? Goyishe mishegas.
-----Original Message----From: Deborah Meier [mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 1:15 AM
To: Jay Rosner
Subject: RE: SATs, what else?
So--has Trachtenberg ever responded?
It's spectacular stuff. AND INTRIGUING TOO.
DEB
>Deb, I'll send more soon, but I thought you'd enjoy the substance of an
>email I recently sent to President Trachtenberg of George Washington U. in
>DC (we've had an interesting exchange of emails after having an on-the-air
>argument as guests on a local PBS call-in radio show):
>President Trachtenberg,
>I' limit my comments here to one wonderful question of yours, "What do
you
>say to people when they ask about the quantitative section of the SAT I?
>Surely there is no racial preference when it comes to this subject." I
>actually don't say anything at first - I just show them some SAT questions
>and some data. And I don't use any psychometric pyrotechnics - the only
>concepts I employ are percentages and simple subtraction.
>Here are two algebra questions which ETS deemed acceptable enough to
pretest
>(ETS puts potential SAT questions into unscored sections of the SAT to get
>preliminary statistics):
>Question #1: (note: I can't show square root signs or exponents in this
>email program)
>If the square root of 2x is an integer, which of the following must be an
>integer?
Printed for Deborah Meier <[email protected]>
1
Jay
>a)
>b)
>c)
>d)
>e)
Rosner,3/26/01 2:28 AM -0500,RE: SATs, what else?
square root of x
x
4x
x squared
2 times (x squared)
2
>The correct answer and an explanation is in the P.S. to this email. Is
>there a racial preference in this question? Well, it happens that 7% more
>BLACKS that whites answered this question correctly.
>Question #2:
>If the area of a square is 4 times (x squared), what is the length of a
>side?
>a) x
>b)
>c)
>d)
>e)
2x
4x
x squared
2 times (x squared)
>The correct answer and an explanation is in the P.S. to this email. Is
>there a racial preference in this question? Well, it happens that 11% more
>WHITES than blacks answered this question correctly.
>If you had the above statistics from pretesting (which ETS has) and had to
>choose one of these questions to use on the SAT, which one would you
choose?
>ETS selected and used the second question, and rejected the first question.
>My testimony in the U. of Michigan Law School case documented how ETS
>systematically rejects for use virtually every question that favors blacks
>in pretesting; furthermore, ON AVERAGE, 15% more WHITES than blacks answer
correctly
>the math questions selected for use on the SAT. So, Question #2 above,
with
>an 11% differnce, is slightly less than the average difference. I chose it
>for its content similarity to Question #1.
>The white/black test score gap is a cumulative result of the individual
>questions that are chosen. I have data on 240 math questions used on 4
real
>SATs - exactly 1 question "favored" blacks (by 3%), and all the other 239
>"favored" whites (by an average of 15%, with a range of 1% to 32%). Sound
>fair to you? Black audiences, for some reason, find this unsettling.
>When you say, "Surely, there is no racial preference (on the math
section),"
>you certainly express what is commonly accepted wisdom. There is no patent
>bias, no bias that I can show you in the content of these or any other
>questions (with exceptions so rare that they're not worth discussing). But
>your perspective requires a lack of awareness of data like mine, which
shows
>that a massive, unconscionable white preference is injected into the test
>through question selection. I'd be happy to show you (and your admissions
>officers) more data if there's interest on your end, though you'd probably
Printed for Deborah Meier <[email protected]>
2
Jay Rosner,3/26/01 2:28 AM -0500,RE: SATs, what else?
>all sleep more comfortably if you didn't see what I have.
3
>Regards, Jay
>P.S. The answer to Question #1 is c. To get the correct answer, you must
>substitute 1/2 for x. The answer to Question #2 is b. Squaring a side of
>length 2x produces the correct answer.
>-----Original Message---->From: Deborah Meier [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:35 PM
>To: Jay Rosner
>Subject: RE: SATs, what else?
>Yes yes re CES. Let's remember to put it in. Can you send me more stuff
>on your study--stuff I can cite in my own work?
>Thanks, Jay.
>Deb
>>Deb, I caught the second hour of your 2-hour session at ASCD - you were
>>terrific. I would have come up and said hello, but of course you were
>>mobbed afterward.
>>I did an SAT workshop at ASCD the day before, where I showed some of my
>>black preference questions, etc. I hope you're still on for co-ordinating
>a
>>presentation at the CES Fall Forum.
>>Jay
>>P.S. I've submitted short op-eds to the NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle,
>>etc. No bites yet. The book is going slowly, but that's because I have
no
>>time. One thing keeping me busy is that I'm writing a GEAR UP grant
>request
>>with Bob Moses and the Algebra Project!
>> ----- Original Message---->>From: Deborah Meier [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 5:12 PM
>>To: Jay Rosner
>>Subject: RE: SATs, what else?
>>YES, I LOVE THE IDEA. Great. Thanks. Deb
>>Deborah, Might you and I collaborate on a major presentation on
>>>standardized tests at next year's CES Fall Forum? I'd love to see my
>>>black-preference SAT questions on a giant screen in a hall with 2,000
>>people
>>>...
>>>
>>>You could provide your inimitable commentary and flesh out context as I
Printed for Deborah Meier <[email protected]>
3
Jay Rosner,3/26/01 2:28 AM -0500,RE: SATs, what else?
>>>display my "stuff." I think together we could lift the testing
discussion
>>>to a whole new level, and have great fun doing it.
4
>>>
>>>Jay
>>>
>>>----Original Message---->>>From: Deborah Meier [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 5:17 PM
>>>To: Jay Rosner
>>>Subject: SATs, what else?
>>>
>>>
>>>Our conversation at the FF was stunning, starling, stupendous...
>>>
>>>You have some terrific data. You must must publish it. And, after you
>do,
>>>I want to be able to use your data. If you aren't going to public soon,
>>>can I have access in some way to this stuff.
>>>
>>>Amazing.
>>>
>>>It would be fascinating to interview a sample of kids on these items and
>>>get a sense of what lies behind it.
>>>Deb
Printed for Deborah Meier <[email protected]>
4