An organization could have a one month program which only admits those who get a high score on the SATs or some other intelligence test.
This would indeed be profitable, but only for unsuccessful applicants and their lawyers. Search for “disparate impact” if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
There is of course also the issue of signaling weirdness that another commenter has already raised.
But colleges use SAT scores in admittance and don’t get frequently sued. My program could always have an affirmative action admittance component to compensate for the harm negative childhood environments can inflict on an applicant’s ability to perform well on the SATs.
But colleges use SAT scores in admittance and don’t get frequently sued.
The legal precedent in this area is very complex and by no means characterized by objective, clearly formulated, and uniform standards. You definitely cannot assume that the same standards apply to different institutions so that it’s possible to reason by such straightforward analogy. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that according to the existing U.S. law, a private employer cannot evade the liability for illicit means of employee screening such as IQ tests just by outsourcing them to another institution that’s in the business of providing them, or otherwise these requirements would have no teeth in practice.
Now, some people argue that universities and other official accredited educational institutions are in reality to a large degree in the business of providing such outsourced services, only in an obfuscated, roundabout, and inefficient way, and you seem to agree with this to some extent. However, this is indicative of the privilege enjoyed by these institutions, not of an opportunity for others to attempt innovative alternatives to what they do.
It’s hard to prove that the alleged bias in the SATs contributed to an applicant’s rejection when the admissions process also includes factors as subjective as an admittance committee’s reaction to a personal essay. But it’s much easier when the admittance criterion is the SAT or an equivalent intelligence test and nothing else.
But colleges use SAT scores in admittance and don’t get frequently sued.
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Like the academia, the U.S. armed forces also use what are de facto IQ tests in recruiting, but it doesn’t mean that private employers would be allowed to do it. This whole field of law is a complex muddle that takes experts to navigate safely, with legal standards based on vague phrases that can be twisted to reach almost any desired conclusion in any particular case if one is so inclined. (How would you objectively determine what counts as “demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance,” and what doesn’t?) In such a situation, it’s not surprising that high-status institutions can get away with much more than others.
James_Miller:
This would indeed be profitable, but only for unsuccessful applicants and their lawyers. Search for “disparate impact” if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
There is of course also the issue of signaling weirdness that another commenter has already raised.
But colleges use SAT scores in admittance and don’t get frequently sued. My program could always have an affirmative action admittance component to compensate for the harm negative childhood environments can inflict on an applicant’s ability to perform well on the SATs.
James_Miller:
The legal precedent in this area is very complex and by no means characterized by objective, clearly formulated, and uniform standards. You definitely cannot assume that the same standards apply to different institutions so that it’s possible to reason by such straightforward analogy. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that according to the existing U.S. law, a private employer cannot evade the liability for illicit means of employee screening such as IQ tests just by outsourcing them to another institution that’s in the business of providing them, or otherwise these requirements would have no teeth in practice.
Now, some people argue that universities and other official accredited educational institutions are in reality to a large degree in the business of providing such outsourced services, only in an obfuscated, roundabout, and inefficient way, and you seem to agree with this to some extent. However, this is indicative of the privilege enjoyed by these institutions, not of an opportunity for others to attempt innovative alternatives to what they do.
It’s hard to prove that the alleged bias in the SATs contributed to an applicant’s rejection when the admissions process also includes factors as subjective as an admittance committee’s reaction to a personal essay. But it’s much easier when the admittance criterion is the SAT or an equivalent intelligence test and nothing else.
The Davidson Institute for Talent Development only admits children with IQ test scores in the 99.9th percentile. If they are not getting sued then my program should be safe.
James_Miller:
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Like the academia, the U.S. armed forces also use what are de facto IQ tests in recruiting, but it doesn’t mean that private employers would be allowed to do it. This whole field of law is a complex muddle that takes experts to navigate safely, with legal standards based on vague phrases that can be twisted to reach almost any desired conclusion in any particular case if one is so inclined. (How would you objectively determine what counts as “demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance,” and what doesn’t?) In such a situation, it’s not surprising that high-status institutions can get away with much more than others.