Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 465 posts

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

#61

Post by hoka-one-one »

Spivak wrote: post #35
aliston wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As someone who has used similar accommodations (though not specifically on the SAT), yes. Dyslexia will hold you back in college. SAT is intended to measure odds of success in college.

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

#62

Post by scythe »

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 isn't "can the SATs be gamed?", though. The question is "can the SATs be gamed more than whatever other criteria you use?". Simply analyzing one half of the equation won't produce a correct answer.

Rich people can game standardized tests. They can also game grades. They can game admission essays. They can game interviews. If colleges admitted students based on brain fMRI data, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that rich people managed to exploit that, too.

Are the SATs unfair? Absolutely. Are they more unfair than the alternative? I'm not convinced. I usually prefer the devil I know.

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

#63

Post by knzhou »

Dalrymple wrote: post #13

This is indeed a strange decision for MIT. The conventional wisdom has long been that the SAT subject tests are MORE predictive of future success at MIT, because the influence of test prep, cramming, test coaches, etc. is minimal for the subject tests. While there are reports of people raising their scores artificially on the non-subject tests by hundreds of points through these short-term methods, the subjects tests…

If the reason is benign, I'm guessing it's just because AP tests have gotten so watered down that they're just a stand-in for the SAT subject tests at this point.

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

#64

Post by bermanoid »

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…

That's a fair criticism of the general SAT - I used to teach those classes, and the test is very gameable in the sense that there really are "A FEW SIMPLE TRICKS!" to learn that have nothing to do with actually knowing the material in a useful way.

But at least some of the subject SATs are not like that at all, specifically the math/science ones. There really aren't many tricks or traps, they really are like normal school tests (if multiple choice) where doing well on them requires you to know the material they cover. Nobody who is "good at tests" is going to 800 the physics one without knowing physics well enough that they'd do well in a freshman mechanics course, and someone who gets a 400 either slept through class or is going to struggle at college level.

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

#65

Post by NeverFade »

knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

Agree completely. SAT isn't perfect or perfectly objective. No test is. As long as a test controls admission to a highly desirable school, there will be exorbitantly expensive courses for it.

However, it is a far more objective test than the rest of the admission packet, and it's being dropped with no alternative.

This will make admissions less fair, precisely because SAT is still a test that you can ace with discipline and hard work without much monetary investment, and it will be replaced by other criteria that actually requires more capital.

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

#66

Post by whymauri »

Dalrymple wrote: post #13

This is indeed a strange decision for MIT. The conventional wisdom has long been that the SAT subject tests are MORE predictive of future success at MIT, because the influence of test prep, cramming, test coaches, etc. is minimal for the subject tests. While there are reports of people raising their scores artificially on the non-subject tests by hundreds of points through these short-term methods, the subjects tests…

>The conventional wisdom has long been that the SAT subject tests are MORE predictive of future success at MIT, because the influence of test prep, cramming, test coaches, etc. is minimal for the subject tests.

Citation needed? The admissions office has much better data on this stuff, but in my experience, MIT students who performed well on these tests did so because their schools offered AP exams that were relevant. For students like me, we were S.O.L. and had to teach ourselves a year's worth of test material entirely by self-study while still maintaining top grades in school, doing research, and studying for the SAT.

To clarify: not disputing that there's less cramming, just that it's a better predictor.

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

#67

Post by swiley »

knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

>mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people.

The whole point of the American University is to produce these kind of people so that shouldn’t be surprising. Otherwise you could earn a degree via self study proctored exams. Lack of objectivity during the application is a symptom not a cause.

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

#68

Post by dwaltrip »

NeverFade wrote: post #65
knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

Agree completely. SAT isn't perfect or perfectly objective. No test is. As long as a test controls admission to a highly desirable school, there will be exorbitantly expensive courses for it. However, it is a far more objective test than the rest of the admission packet, and it's being dropped with no alternative. This will make admissions less fair, precisely because SAT is still a test that you can ace with discipl…

To clarify, this announcement is only about the SAT subject tests.

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

#69

Post by quotemstr »

knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

> Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people.

Absolutely right. Standardized testing become popular in the first place as an egalitarian measure, a way to combat inherited wealth and privilege. But wealth and privilege always want to propagate themselves to the next generation. Nowadays, we see rich parents paying crazy amounts of money to get their mediocre children into high-end schools, sometimes to the point of straight-up bribery [1]. They bribe crooked doctors into lying about their kids needing extra time on exams. After they get their mediocre kids into "top" schools, parents demand grade inflation. Once the kids graduate, they spend years supported by their parents in unpaid internships smarming their way into positions of power and influence unavailable to anyone who has to get paid to live. We have a thoroughly corrupt system that promotes stagnation, corruption, and incompetence.

Standardized testing is extremely inconvenient for the kind of person who uses these dirty tricks. It's hard to buy a university enough libraries to cover up your kid's 1100 on the SAT. This whole push to deprecate standardized testing is just corruption justified with twisty self-serving rhetoric about fake justice.

Only standardized testing should count toward university admission, because the only thing that matters is the competence of the next generation of decision-makers. We can only have a functioning society because good decisions get made, and status corruption damages society's ability to make good decisions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber...

Post reply on HN