[JustAnotherFan]

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

You keep using the word "facts" when you are peddling nonsense. 

"SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests" not because they are "highly correlated with standardized tests" but because they are racist in origin and effect. Since the tests are actually not very good predictors of anything of value why are you so wedded to them? We know why eugenicists and universities and the people peddling the tests favored them, but why are you so wedded to them? Do you think that UC or Stanford suffers from a lack of qualified applicants who have a high chance of success that they need standardized tests scores to determine who is going to have better grades as a freshman in college? That you insist that "the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear" but you cannot explain how the science is strong (weak correlations do not make strong science, strong correlations do not even necessarily make strong science) or why schools shouldn't just use family income as a measure since that "predictive value is clear" suggests to me that you are literally an anti-justice warrior. But maybe that is the point, using SATs are a way to dance around the classism and racism of explicitly basing admissions on wealth and race, allows a degree of innocent ignorance on the actual impact of using the tests, so defend the "objective measures" of the standardized tests! Because surely the richer people and the whiter people are just smarter and harder working, right?

That you continue to argue that the "core mission of the admissions office" is to "admit the students with the best chance of success" highlights that you know next to nothing about college admissions. You're just clinging onto the lies of the past.

Although I didn't expect you to answer any of the questions I raised, I was hoping you'd answer one: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

Please put in print in the most explicit terms what you claim to know about why I don't want a racist in origin and effect "very valid piece of information" to sully the admissions process at Stanford or UC. I'm super excited to hear what you know about what I believe.

-----

Reposting this because it deserves to be read twice:

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.

[JustAnotherFan]

My guess is that you can't admit the basic facts because:

• SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests that are highly correlated with standardized tests.  The science behind these tests is very strong but as we all know there are differences in results for different demographic groups.  This is just unacceptable to your social justice worldview, even if the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear.  It is a "sacred" value for SJW types.  People of all political viewpoints will throw science out the window when it conflicts with their sacred values.
  
• You don't really care about the core mission of the admissions office to admit the students with the best chance of success.  You think their mission should really be about social justice and forget the real life consequences.
  

This is it for me.  I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  When faced with very clear evidence written by a set of liberal academics you can't face reality.  At some point, further discussion is pointless.

You keep using the word "facts" when you are peddling nonsense. 

"SJWs hate standardized tests and IQ tests" not because they are "highly correlated with standardized tests" but because they are racist in origin and effect. Since the tests are actually not very good predictors of anything of value why are you so wedded to them? We know why eugenicists and universities and the people peddling the tests favored them, but why are you so wedded to them? Do you think that UC or Stanford suffers from a lack of qualified applicants who have a high chance of success that they need standardized tests scores to determine who is going to have better grades as a freshman in college? That you insist that "the science is very strong and the predictive value is clear" but you cannot explain how the science is strong (weak correlations do not make strong science, strong correlations do not even necessarily make strong science) or why schools shouldn't just use family income as a measure since that "predictive value is clear" suggests to me that you are literally an anti-justice warrior. But maybe that is the point, using SATs are a way to dance around the classism and racism of explicitly basing admissions on wealth and race, allows a degree of innocent ignorance on the actual impact of using the tests, so defend the "objective measures" of the standardized tests! Because surely the richer people and the whiter people are just smarter and harder working, right?

That you continue to argue that the "core mission of the admissions office" is to "admit the students with the best chance of success" highlights that you know next to nothing about college admissions. You're just clinging onto the lies of the past.

Although I didn't expect you to answer any of the questions I raised, I was hoping you'd answer one: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

Please put in print in the most explicit terms what you claim to know about why I don't want a racist in origin and effect "very valid piece of information" to sully the admissions process at Stanford or UC. I'm super excited to hear what you know about what I believe.

-----

Reposting this because it deserves to be read twice:

It is amusing how some folks here believe they know what is good for UC, know even more than the folks who run the place and have a stake in maintaining and growing its prestige. I happen to work there and have a relationship with the decision-makers...they are not making decisions lightly or without serious consideration.

The SATs predict first year success, but not after. Tests benefit the privileged (white, black, brown, etc.)  If you want to perpetuate elitism and benefit wealthy people, who are largely white, sure use the SAT. If you are actually interested in identifying talent or raw ability, then maybe the SAT is not what you want to use.

When you examine the undisputed racist origins of IQ tests and the SAT you might reconsider its use.

And as others noted, the University president said Stanford has a problem with racism. If you survey the students of color who went there, you will hear the same thing. Some may not want to believe and demand evidence, but that's your problem - no one needs to prove anything to you. Part of the frustration experienced by people of color is this constant demand to "prove it", as if a white person didn't see it with their own eyes, it didn't happen.  One of the key benefits of privilege is to be believed without "evidence" while you demand it of others.  Then you will say, but I had [insert URM] friends in school and they didn't complain. Why do you assume they would have told you? 

We can't take a cell phone video of everything.

The EEOC has said the rates of discrimination and harassment have not improved in 25 years...so maybe Stanford has kept pace with society.