Feeling poetic today so here is some Nietzsche on the subject.

“Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of EQUALITY! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones!

But I will soon bring your hiding-places to the light: therefore do I laugh in your face my laughter of the height.”

“Their jealousy leadeth them also into thinkers’ paths; and this is the sign of their jealousy—they always go too far: so that their fatigue hath at last to go to sleep on the snow.”

“Every enhancement of the type “man” has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—and it will be so again and again—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man, and that needs slavery* in some sense or other.”

*dont misinterpret this, it means slavery = the opposite of equality.

That’s sure a creaky translation of Zarathustra! Try The Portable Nietzsche with Walter Kaufmann’s translation.

The curse of the asterisk can cut both ways as fans of Roger Maris can attest. I can certainly agree that to compare the scores of two different candidates who took a test under different circumstances is not particularly useful. But do we also consign the test scores of those who took numerous practice SAT exams, took special SAT courses or hired special SAT coaches to the dreaded asterisk as well? Certainly a SAT score in the 90th percentile by a candidate who took the test with little or no preperation suggests a higher level of aptitude then the same score posted by one who spent a year in preparation.

It is true that there is no easy way to control for the preparation variable, so two candidates with identical scores might require radically different levels of effort in order to achieve that score. Furthermore, diligent plodders do better at some things and geniuses at others. There are many other things that the standardized tests don’t tell us, in addition to whether a particular candidate is a diligent plodder or a genius. But so what? The point to a standardized test is to measure something, not to measure everything.

But of course measuring anything at all is an assertion of substantive inequality so removing the asterisk accomplishes what every step forward for equality accomplishes: it removes factual information from legitimate purview. One way of expressing the political requirement for equality is as a requirement to ignore the facts in general to avoid discrimination.

I’m not sure I would agree with Matt that every step towards equality seeks to remove information. If we attempt to subordinate discrimination by an increase in the reporting of variables, then a keener measure of substantive inequality is thus rendered and arbitrary considerations vetted. Since the preparation variable is unknown, as is an unending list of personal data as Matt has pointed out, then one might argue that usefulness of standardized testing is inherently limited. If standardized test scores are given a weight in the selection process beyond which they can reasonably be considered useful then the issue of an asterisk, or lack thereof, is quibbling.

Having said that, one would think that given the current enthusiasm for inclusion and diversity of student body on today’s campuses, that an asterisk denoting some impairment of faculty could only help a candidate. One might envision an increase in visits to physiologists in order be diagnosed as disabled and then subsequent litigation in order to get the asterisk put back on the transcript.

I did not say that equality always requires the facts to be epistemically suppressed and completely unknown, only that equality requires — always, in every conceivable case — that the facts be ignored (treated as irrelevant). Ignoring something factual on purpose doesn’t mean that it is not a known fact. Mr. DeMent is correct that sometimes we make sure that the facts are known really, really well so that we can be really, really actively sure that they are kept irrelevent. But my original statement that every invocation of equality without exception involves ignoring facts remains true.

Mr. DeMent is right that information is always limited in actuality. That is why stereotypes are so important. To deny the validity of stereotypes is ultimately to deny the validity of any practical information at all. So liberal categorical rejection of stereotypes entails categorical rejection of rationality. Mr. Kalb’s writings on stereotyping and its value make this eminently clear.

It is an interesting observation I think that a standardized test is in fact a form of quantitative stereotype. For those who don’t like stereotypes standardized tests, if valid, represent a reductio-ad-absurdam. So those who don’t like stereotypes and think that they contain no useful information (or perhaps that morally they _shouldn’t_ contain useful information) will naturally come down against standardized tests.

Matt, if equality always seeks to suppress facts then on what basis do you argue that the asterisk should remain in the transcript? Fairness, level playing field, equality perhaps?

Is there value in stereotypes? No question. I would add that concepts such as prejudice also have validity for what I would assume are similar reasons; to argue otherwise is absurd. Equally absurd is to insist on the validity of stereotypes and prejudice continues its utility in the light of contradictory facts or additional information. The issue is not that standardized tests have no value, to the contrary. Rather that the value is likely overstated given the impossibility of knowing all the variables some of which you pointed out. We understand the utility of stereotypes but we don’t use them to make nuanced decisions. Saying that liberals categorically reject stereotyping is like saying that conservative categorically embrace a simplistic two-dimensional world in light of evidence to the contrary. And while isolated examples of both behaviors can be identified, citing them as representative is clearly not useful.

Truth be told I agree that information regarding the conditions under which the tests were administered ought be revealed. I also agree with your observation of the standardized test as categorical stereotyping and as such its utility is clear but only in a limited context.

I haven’t expressed an opinion about the asterisk per se, I have merely dispassionately discussed the mindset behind removing it. I am not familiar enough with standardized test issues in detail (except as a sometime taker of them I suppose) to have much of an opinion about the asterisk specifically. Certainly the asterisk makes the test less standardized, though.

Since standardized tests tend to be used in automated candidate screening from populations (either literally with machinery or through policy) I expect the process to be imperfect from any sort of radical individualist’s perspective. But I don’t care much about what radical individualists think, since the perspective is so perverse and anti-human that it is difficult for me to extract anything objective from it. I do expect that overall the opposition to standardized tests has more to do with utopian liberalism than anything else. That is just my expectation based on general cultural conditions rather than a result of any specific knowledge of standardized testing though.

On the more abstract subject of course it is the nature of stereotypes that they are inductive generalities and not categories per se, so of course applying a stereotype is guaranteed to produce errors with respect to particular instances. I suppose one can call those inevitable errors “prejudice” if one wants to, but the term is too emotionally loaded and associated with liberal thinking in general for me to take it too seriously.

There are parts of Mr. DeMent’s post that I simply can’t parse. I don’t know what “Equally absurd is to insist on the validity of stereotypes and prejudice continues its utility in the light of contradictory facts or additional information” means, for example. Also I think that “we don’t use them [stereotypes] to make nuanced decisions” can be thought of as true by definition, but Mr. DeMent seemed to be saying something prescriptive. Perhaps what he means is that it is unfair - that it treats people unequally - for us to make too many decisions that are not nuanced. It is hard to reply to such a general assertion but I tend to think that we have created a nanny state specifically because we have worried too much about making our decisions comprehensively nuanced. So in general I think “down with nuance!” would be a better prescription for our social circumstances. But again Mr. Kalb’s writing on stereotypes already says all of this better than I could.

Clarification: I should have said “the asterisk and the exceptional circumstances behind its use make the test less standardized”. In order to make the test more standardized one would have to eliminate both the special circumstances and the asterisk.

I do apologies for my typo; the sentence should have read;

Equally absurd is to insist * that * the validity of stereotypes and prejudice continues its utility in the light of contradictory facts or additional information.

In other words if the value of stereotypes is to offer a framework for interaction, in absence of comprehensive information, then the utility of the stereotype diminishes as additional information is gathered. The use of standardized test in evaluating candidates for admission to a university is generally but one part of a broad portfolio of considerations. The entrance essay, the application, the high school transcripts, the personal interview and the curriculum vitae are all parsed to determine the suitability of the candidate for admission.

Matt points out that the asterisk and the exceptional circumstances behind its use make the test less standardized, and I would agree. The question now becomes, is the standardization differential large enough to effect the decision making process given all the other factors that are considered by collage admissions officers? My guess it that the litigant in the article doesn’t get admitted regardless off his asterisk status. It is in this context that I find the anxiety of the asterisk little more then political hand ringing.

If equality requires that information be suppressed in the interest of fairness then standardization is also a political expression that requires exactly the same thing in the name of utility. If Matt’s prescription of “down with nuance!” is widely accepted then the nanny state simply shifts focus from issues of equity and fairness to issues of standards and utility.

It is true that a stereotype is a substitute for comprehensive knowledge, but that is because comprehensive knowledge is not possible. I suppose one could say that doing one thing instead of another because the former is possible and the latter not is a matter of “utility”. But Mr. DeMent is wrong that “down with nuance” in the sense I mean it represents an increase in investment in suppressing information. In the (nuanced!) sense it means that we ought to refrain from utopian efforts to make information comprehensive. In that sense my “down with nuance” slogan is anti-totalitarian and expense reducing while liberal efforts to eradicate stereotypes are totalitarian and expense incurring.

Play Poker for Free.com offers a
variety of Online Poker Games and
Tournaments . Just choose which online multiplayer poker game you want to
play, and start playing against real people around the world .
Play Poker for Free.com 
incorporates the finest Online Poker
Rooms , as well as hundreds of other interesting and fun
Poker Games . Our website has
card games like blackjack, poker, baccarat, and the
Free Online Texas Holdem Poker ! 
Play Poker for Free.com is the
newest cardroom on the Internet, offering the widest selection of
Online Poker Games .