MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#31

Post by graeme » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #25

Symmetry wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAT prep courses advertise that they can increase scores by 100 points but generally they're lying in order to sell more test courses. But the real number is closer to "11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal."[1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Lin...

As a former SAT tutor (and a guy who gamed the hell out of the SAT) I have trouble believing that. There are only a few classes of questions they ask on the test, and if you master them the whole test is a walk in the park. Maybe the problem is most students just don't give a damn about the classes their parents make them take? Can someone explain the findings in this paper?

My impression as a former SAT instructor is a lot of students don’t spend that much time prepping. And if they have no good reading/math background it can take some effort to master things.

That said, typically saw increases well above that in my classes. Even with zero instruction I’d expect a self studying student to improve more than that from familiarization.

It did say upper class people improve more.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#32

Post by asdfman123 » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #27

asdfman123 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as an SAT prep tutor and I've worked in the oil industry. Actually, I felt way more guilt about my SAT tutoring work than the oil industry. The world runs on oil, but no one needs expensive SAT tutoring to give rich kids an edge over the poor ones.

This seems like such a weird stance since pretty much all formal education isn't free. Even without SAT prep rich families can still afford better schools, private tutors, set up apprenticeships. It's a weird world where people are mad that those with means are using them to educate themselves and their children. As an adult I choose to pay for lots of different forms of education that gives me "advantage" -- bleh --…

I'm not angry at the people who want to help their kids, but at the system that we're making. Our "meritocracy" has become a caste system in which a small group of people are doing very well and everyone else is scrambling to make it. It's a big social problem. Look at how suicide rates in middle America has skyrocketed, look at how much more divisive our politics have become.

I have no idea what the solution is, and can't say for sure where we should place the blame, but I have an innate distaste for the passing along of inherited advantages.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#33

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #15

yardie wrote: post #8

I used to think the SATs were fair. Until I found out how much money was being spent on SAT prep. And those expensive prep courses had the potential to increase scores over 100 points. I took the recommended SAT prep course through my high school. It was 2 weekends of going over material that might be on the exam and a workbook recommended by The College Board. Imagine my surprise going to university and meeting stud…

SAT prep courses advertise that they can increase scores by 100 points but generally they're lying in order to sell more test courses. But the real number is closer to "11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal."[1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Lin...

>Students were able to indicate if they had prepared through the use of school courses, commercial courses, tutoring, or a variety of preparatory materials. In what follows, a coached student is defined as one that reported participating in a commercial preparatory course.

Is there any indication that they actually broke down any further, or is this just limited to the impact of average coaching and thus not a good representation of those who receive the top tier coaching?

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#34

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #14

askafriend wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but at the same time it's a standardized test so anyone can replicate those prep courses. There's tons of prep books with practice questions, tips, etc. It's a matter of awareness and taking it seriously (obviously a simplification, but hope you get my point).

I mean, it's not really true. People spend a lot of money on test prep, but this isn't even a case where the evidence hasn't come in yet. We know perfectly well that test prep has negligible influence on SAT scores.

Those studies were mostly funded and influenced by the college board, and they needed that to be true, so that’s what they found. But there is prep and there is prep!, they are different with different influences. Studying the former (say a few weekend long prep course) to make conclusions about the latter (intensive cram school for a couple of years) is criminal.

I’ve seen an SAT cram school in China, and yes...it will influence your scores significantly because they pull out all of the stops.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#35

Post by Spivak » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

aliston wrote: post #20

yardie wrote: post #8

I used to think the SATs were fair. Until I found out how much money was being spent on SAT prep. And those expensive prep courses had the potential to increase scores over 100 points. I took the recommended SAT prep course through my high school. It was 2 weekends of going over material that might be on the exam and a workbook recommended by The College Board. Imagine my surprise going to university and meeting stud…

The real scandal that I can't believe hasn't gotten more attention is that wealthy families are hiring psychologists to claim their child has a learning disability. They can then get more time to take the test and due to a policy change a few years ago, this information is hidden from the schools when students report their scores.

Look, faking a disability is deplorable but this stance is bonkers. I wish my parents had the money when I was growing up to get me checked and diagnose my ADHD.

And of course you wouldn't want to report to the college if a person has a disability, are you trying to scarlet letter everyone who needs a little more time to read from dyslexia?

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#36

Post by gnicholas » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #6

codingslave wrote: post #5

Most of this is to obscure their admission criteria. Harvard has come under fire for actively discriminating against Asian applicants. By removing a standard test, these colleges can actively discriminate whilst making it more difficult to prove admissions bias from a numerical and arguably more objective standard.

They are removing the extra optional tests, not the main SAT test. Sounds great to me, as these extra tests just show you have the money to take them. Your comment is an unfounded opinion, please do not present it with the certainty of a fact.

The SAT IIs are not extra/optional if you're applying to most selective colleges/universities. They aren't the main SAT, but they are far from optional for students who would be considering MIT.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#37

Post by kaibee » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #27

asdfman123 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as an SAT prep tutor and I've worked in the oil industry. Actually, I felt way more guilt about my SAT tutoring work than the oil industry. The world runs on oil, but no one needs expensive SAT tutoring to give rich kids an edge over the poor ones.

This seems like such a weird stance since pretty much all formal education isn't free. Even without SAT prep rich families can still afford better schools, private tutors, set up apprenticeships. It's a weird world where people are mad that those with means are using them to educate themselves and their children. As an adult I choose to pay for lots of different forms of education that gives me "advantage" -- bleh --…

I think the difference is that, better schools and private tutors, are at least in theory, teaching useful skills and ultimately creating a better person at the end. Being good at the SATs doesn't have the same excuse, so its much more obvious when you're basically just paying to get a better score.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#38

Post by sushid » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #8

I used to think the SATs were fair. Until I found out how much money was being spent on SAT prep. And those expensive prep courses had the potential to increase scores over 100 points. I took the recommended SAT prep course through my high school. It was 2 weekends of going over material that might be on the exam and a workbook recommended by The College Board. Imagine my surprise going to university and meeting stud…

This reads more like a humblebrag to me than a thoughtful criticism against standardized testing.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#39

Post by Spivak » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #29

yardie wrote: post #8

I used to think the SATs were fair. Until I found out how much money was being spent on SAT prep. And those expensive prep courses had the potential to increase scores over 100 points. I took the recommended SAT prep course through my high school. It was 2 weekends of going over material that might be on the exam and a workbook recommended by The College Board. Imagine my surprise going to university and meeting stud…

The question shouldn't be is the SAT unfairly biased towards families with money, since of course it is, but is the SAT less biased towards families with money then other criteria. Having parents with money and connections lets you get tutoring to increase your GPA, tutoring to write essays, connections to get internships, the free time to do clubs, training to excel in sports, and so many other things.

Right! I don't understand why people in this thread are apparently mad rich families for this? Like a family with means is doing all the things to raise a socialized, well rounded, experienced, well-read and tutored, worldly person. Like god damn I can't think of a better use for the money as a parent.

I get that college admissions is a contest and performative but hot damn this thread is full of people mad at other people's happiness.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#40

Post by HarryHirsch » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

It isn't exactly a surprise. Back then, in school, we toured the national synchrotron facility, and the same question came up: if didn't have much physics at school can you still study physics? The answer was: if you study physics they'll teach you physics just fine, where you'll run into trouble is the adjacent subjects, chemistry, biology, computing. You'll need to take care of that yourself.