Barbelith Underground > Laboratory

Guinier uses data and intelligent analyses to back up her arguments. I suggest you do the same. Here's a good summary of the wide array of studies that reach many of the same conclusions that Guinier does.

Many of Guinier's conclusions are based on the research of Crouse and Trusheim, who, the second (Elert) link explains,

conducted the most detailed statistical analysis of the SAT's predictive shortcomings. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study (NLS) of the high school class of 1972, they calculated the number of additional correct admissions using high school rank (HSR) alone and with the SAT. With four different measures of undergraduate success, they calculated that using the SAT in admissions adds between 0.1 and 2.7 additional correct forecasts per 100 applicants (see Table 1).

I.e., they found it's not statistically-significantly better at calculating correct admissions than random selection. And, if you read the entire article, it's even sometimes worse than random selections would be on predicting academic or career success.

What they found SAT did correlate fairly well to was family income and parents' professions:

If the SAT is an extremely weak predictor of academic potential it is a moderate predictor of family income. Average scores are proportional to family income: students from families with higher incomes tend to receive higher scores8. Estimates of the correlation between SAT score and family income vary from .23 to .40 (Crouse & Trusheim and Doermann, respectively). This ranking by income prevails not just when large groups are averaged together but also among applicants within the same institution.

A table from Crouse & Trusheim's book The Case Against the SAT (reprinted [on the Elert site linked above]) indicates that SAT scores differentiate people not only by income but also by their parents' role in the economic system. The average scores of the children of professionals are higher than the children of white collar workers, which in turn, are higher than the children of blue collar workers. High school rank, which is a better measure of academic achievement than SAT scores, shows no such correlation.

If SAT scores really measure a person's scholastic aptitude, then that aptitude is distributed according to parental income.

Some have used such studies to indicate the academic superiority of the upper classes. Further investigation reveals the folly of such assumptions. An American Council on Education study of 36,581 students in 55 colleges concluded that: "The income of a student's parents has no relationship to freshman GPA, either before of after controlling for high school grades, academic aptitude, and college selectivity" (Astin; 1971: 14).

This was, in fact, largely why the SAT had to be revised recently--even people at ETS (Educational Testing Services) eventually had to deal with what the data were showing. It will be interesting to see if the new SAT does do a better job of doing what it's supposedly good for. But, again, if you actually read these articles rather than simply denouncing conclusions based on some gut instinct of yours, you'll see that there are other modes of prediction that work fairly well and without discriminating on the bases of both income and race as the old SAT demonstrably did.

IQ testing