Interesting that the GPA spread is a lot flatter. My cynical take is that there's just more pressure at the classroom level to make the underperformers look good, but maybe the criteria for the classroom are just significantly less indicative of IQ.
My cynical take is that there's just more pressure at the classroom level
Could be. SAT and ACT are tests, GPA is a long-term average. So if teachers are routinely going easy on some students, GPA will round out more, as you say.
Also, if problem students are in particular schools, the teachers grading them might be less than ideal too.
We already know SAT is an accurate barometer of intelligence and that it does "discriminate" based on race because plenty of previously prestigious universities stopped requiring SAT results in admissions. SAT was so on target that using it as a factor for admission made it nigh impossible to admit any blacks.
It's only with the benefit of hindsight that I realize a large part of why my college years were such a positive time in my life is because it is the only time I've ever been in an overwhelmingly White environment. Sure we had the odd non-White, but the overwhelming majority of staff and students on campus were White people. I want to recapture that and the organic sense of community that was able to flourish there.
Ah well, back to marching through the hellscape with nothing on the horizon but endless war.
The GPA curve flattens out because the obvious diversity admits flunk out in first or 2nd quarter. Those who stay after that are generally able to hack the course material, to varying degrees.
maybe the criteria for the classroom are just significantly less indicative of IQ.
I've heard that some schools give a mark for 'participation'. I can't imagine one of these professor or TAs giving lower marks to blacks on average, even if it's actually justified.
Interesting that the GPA spread is a lot flatter. My cynical take is that there's just more pressure at the classroom level to make the underperformers look good, but maybe the criteria for the classroom are just significantly less indicative of IQ.
Could be. SAT and ACT are tests, GPA is a long-term average. So if teachers are routinely going easy on some students, GPA will round out more, as you say.
Also, if problem students are in particular schools, the teachers grading them might be less than ideal too.
We already know SAT is an accurate barometer of intelligence and that it does "discriminate" based on race because plenty of previously prestigious universities stopped requiring SAT results in admissions. SAT was so on target that using it as a factor for admission made it nigh impossible to admit any blacks.
It's only with the benefit of hindsight that I realize a large part of why my college years were such a positive time in my life is because it is the only time I've ever been in an overwhelmingly White environment. Sure we had the odd non-White, but the overwhelming majority of staff and students on campus were White people. I want to recapture that and the organic sense of community that was able to flourish there.
Ah well, back to marching through the hellscape with nothing on the horizon but endless war.
Were you on the 'right' at the time?
The GPA curve flattens out because the obvious diversity admits flunk out in first or 2nd quarter. Those who stay after that are generally able to hack the course material, to varying degrees.
The GPA is indicative of high school grades.
While that's true, it's not what's being shown here. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
This is GPA on admittance, so it doesn't matter at all how they perform at NYU.
I've heard that some schools give a mark for 'participation'. I can't imagine one of these professor or TAs giving lower marks to blacks on average, even if it's actually justified.