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

#151

Post by austincheney » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

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…

The problem with tests like the SAT is that on one hand they produce quantifiable results and the comparison of one student's score to another student's score is indeed objective, but that does not mean the test itself is an objective measure of performance.

The primary fault is that the SAT is essentially a form of convergent IQ test. A convergent test is a test of questions with the accepted answered defined before the test attempt and comparing the test takers answers to the defined answers. This is convergent, or coming together, in that performance is measured against subjective, subject based (inferred acceptance), criteria. I understand the SAT is intended to be used as a measure of general scholarly assessment, but its primarily used as a discriminatory filter to limit access to a preferential segment. As such it is essentially an arbitrary IQ test in practice regardless of its intentions.

In contrast IQ tests more generally preferred by the psychiatric community tend, almost exclusively, are divergent tests. A divergent test has questions without any prior identified answer and so there is not a simple right/wrong conclusion. Instead the tests generally seek out things like abstract reasoning, creativity, reasoning, answer diversity, and other aptitude performance criteria.

In the few psychiatric administered aptitude tests I have taken I generally test a bit below the genius level. If on a numeric IQ scale genius is 150 or 155 I would be below that at 140 to 150 depending on the test and test criteria. The SAT, on the other hand, rated me as outstanding a math and reasoning but otherwise barely literate. Those SAT scores are clearly at odds with my real world performance and other test results.

Confusing the potential for objectivity, such as comparing score results, to actual objectivity, such as whether the scores are a valid measure in the first place is a common error. The most common IQ test is the Stanford-Binet Test formed by Dr. Lewis Terman who made the same error:

* https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/2009...

* https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-05-31-bk-1247-s...

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

#152

Post by cwperkins » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

What about the College boards initiative to consider adversity? Has that initiative gone anywhere or is it dead? I would rather consider adversity of a child's upbringing in context of standardized test results then any immutable traits.

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

#153

Post by xppa » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

dawg- wrote: post #91

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…

What you call a "smooth-talker" is what someone else would call an articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others. Perhaps if this was the standard college admissions used, public schools would have more incentive to educate students as functional humans rather than test-taking drones.

functional humans ==> parasites who steal the economic output of non-smooth talkers.

The whole world is a gigantic Animal Farm, also in the West. The apparatchiks have different functions and names, but the principle is the same. The system works better though.

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

#154

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #30

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…

I'm an underrepresented minority and I increased my SAT score by 200-300 from the PSAT to SAT, depending on how you want to measure the change. This was just by doing self-study with off the shelf test prep material. The classes aren't what increases your score, its the consistent structured study and ones innate potential. For some people, no amount of study is going to get them into the 90+th percentile. While othe…

If you want a less gameable test you eventually just end up testing for IQ, but do we want to promote mere intelligence vs what you’ve done with it?

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

#155

Post by MichaelDickens » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

jzoch wrote: post #132

llcoolv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of that exam dumps are much less efficient when it comes to SAT IIs, where questions are much more diverse an subject knowledge is essential. SAT I is the one that is easy to game.

Eh its all easily game-able. The SAT (and ACT) is a joke. So are the subject tests. The only subject test that wasn't laughable are the language ones (since you can't "intuit" spanish as easily as math or physics or chemistry). Its not bad if you are a good test taker (a dumb skill but a useful one) or wealthy. My friends were tutored idiots and did well (2200+ SAT, 700+ subject tests) and i was a good test taker (sa…

If the SAT were a joke, you wouldn't expect scores to follow a bell curve with only ~0.3% of people getting a perfect score, but they do.

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

#156

Post by MichaelDickens » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #108

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…

How is this comment upvoted? MIT has not removed the requirement to take SAT tests. > We will continue to require the SAT or the ACT, because our research has shown these tests, in combination with a student’s high school grades and coursework, are predictive of success in our challenging curriculum. This is typical of a knee-jerk reaction without even understanding their policy. Let alone reading the actual post. It…

GP comment seems completely relevant to SAT subject tests to me. The point is that removing a test from consideration, even if it's not the only test considered, makes it easier for rich people to game the application process.

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

#157

Post by opportune » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #107

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…

But that's entirely the point. The people bitching about how the SAT isn't fair aren't smart poor people who are being beaten out by upper middle class losers, but rather upper middle class losers being beaten out by smart poor people. They tell themselves that the test isn't fair, but a part of them knows that they could never get into the 1500's even with all the prep in the world, so they try to get the admissions…

I think this is true about the SAT but the subject tests are kind of niche and I assume a lot of poor people actually don't know about them. If you're not in an environment where a lot of people are applying to top schools, it's unlikely to be something you are familiar with

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

#158

Post by knzhou » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #151

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…

The problem with tests like the SAT is that on one hand they produce quantifiable results and the comparison of one student's score to another student's score is indeed objective, but that does not mean the test itself is an objective measure of performance. The primary fault is that the SAT is essentially a form of convergent IQ test. A convergent test is a test of questions with the accepted answered defined before…

I'm sure the writers of the SAT are well aware of this, but full IQ tests just don't scale. How are you going to provide the same test ten million times a year, when the test has to be administered one-on-one by a trained professional over the course of hours? You're going to have to hire tens of thousands of administrators, so how are you going to keep bias from creeping in? How are you going to prevent the questions from leaking, or keep people from rehearsing scripts on the subjective parts? IQ tests have never dealt with these problems only because they haven't had to scale, not because they're immune to them.

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

#159

Post by ivalm » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #146

jzoch wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh its all easily game-able. The SAT (and ACT) is a joke. So are the subject tests. The only subject test that wasn't laughable are the language ones (since you can't "intuit" spanish as easily as math or physics or chemistry). Its not bad if you are a good test taker (a dumb skill but a useful one) or wealthy. My friends were tutored idiots and did well (2200+ SAT, 700+ subject tests) and i was a good test taker (sa…

30 years ago, the ACT test changed enough that it was no longer a valid test to use as entry for Mensa. Prior to 1990, an ACT test could be used as evidence for Mensa admission. So... the ACT wasn't always 'a joke', but doesn't have the same impact that it had decades ago.

A lot of people would argue that Mensa itself is a joke...

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

#160

Post by opportune » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

dawg- wrote: post #91

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…

What you call a "smooth-talker" is what someone else would call an articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others. Perhaps if this was the standard college admissions used, public schools would have more incentive to educate students as functional humans rather than test-taking drones.

All this would do is benefit the already-privileged and create affinity bias. Basically just affirmative action for white people from middle class and above homes.