Mean SATs, not their variance. I don't think that overcomingbias link is really adding anything to the discussion.
The paper that roguecoder referenced is just pointing out that SAT scores are not a perfect predictor, and adjusting the intake based on gender is probably a good idea if you want to maximise the real effect (academic performance), rather than the predictor (SAT scores).
The Robin Hanson blog post points out the exact same thing. Why is a positive correction for women useful, but a negative one "not adding anything to the discussion"?
If you want to use gender as a predictor, it could be positive or negative.
Comments
Mean SATs, not their variance. I don't think that overcomingbias link is really adding anything to the discussion.
The paper that roguecoder referenced is just pointing out that SAT scores are not a perfect predictor, and adjusting the intake based on gender is probably a good idea if you want to maximise the real effect (academic performance), rather than the predictor (SAT scores).
The Robin Hanson blog post points out the exact same thing. Why is a positive correction for women useful, but a negative one "not adding anything to the discussion"?
If you want to use gender as a predictor, it could be positive or negative.