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

#221

Post by mehrdadn » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #137

dawg- wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> an articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way Yes, that's me. > and who is comfortable making connections with others And that will never be me. Leadership is inherently nepotistic. You simply aren't permitted to lead if you have the wrong class background or the wrong ethnicity. (There's a reason all Senators look exactly the same.) You're literall…

> You simply aren't permitted to lead if you have the wrong class background or the wrong ethnicity. (There's a reason all Senators look exactly the same.)

In what sense did, I dunno, Obama and McConnell look exactly the same?

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

#222

Post by aitait » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:44 PM UTC

quartzite wrote: post #205

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…

This is exactly correct. Those who fight for fair admissions on the basis of intellectual ability and academic potential should hold up the SAT and standardized testing as a cornerstone of the admissions process. Standardized testing significantly levels the playing field for students across income brackets. Returns on study investment quickly diminish, and reaching a plateau on returns doesn't require much investmen…

"Admissions should disregard such superficial peacocking and focus on metrics like the SAT that disentangle intellectual and academic potential from wealth."

Why? Not trying to troll here but you assume that intellectual potential leads to success. I remember reading an article - unfortunately I am not able to track it down/google it - that looked into exactly this issue.

There were free US high school selecting on just intellectual ability and when they looked at the careers of the students they were far less successful in their careers than you would expect from such a selection. (What stood out was that they seem to be much happier than average persons).

The counter example was Harvard that selected on many criteria. The article mentioned a guy getting rejected because he had "pig ears" (not the official rejection but a note taken in an interview or something). The unfortunate fact is that rich, famous, driven, well connected people will be the better selection of success than intellectual ability. George W Bush was unlikely a brilliant intellectual. Yet he went to the top schools and him becoming president showed that this was the right decision by the schools that took him.

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

#223

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:45 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 you're reading the position a little wrongly.

People are upset when being rich means you can be prepared for a test and so get a higher score than someone who is equally able.

Supposedly, in a properly operating university, once at the uni the background of the students shouldn't matter [as much], those who came from schools where they couldn't afford equipment should now have equal access as those who could buy anything they needed and more. Simply having access to facilities makes a massive difference to what can be achieved and that feeds in to intellect growth.

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

#224

Post by Animats » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #185

austincheney wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure the writers of the SAT are well aware of this, but full IQ tests just don't scale. First of all its generally faulty to presume what others are thinking. Secondly, standardized admissions testing in its current form should be eliminated and there is a fair amount of data to support this[1][2]. If schools really want to discriminate on performance they should test for originality, composition, and decision…

Sorry, but I write tests and I have absolutely no idea how you propose to measure these things objectively and automatically, without producing exactly the kind of "convergent" test you said you didn't like. For example, take "decision capacity". I don't even know what you mean by that, and I don't know how this will be assessed automatically without fixing a pre-designed correct answer. Incidentally, the GRE has a s…

For example, take "decision capacity".

For that, there's an "inbox test", a set of incoming messages to be dealt with in order. Such tests are widely used to screen candidates for manager jobs.

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

#225

Post by outlace » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:51 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…

I think the courses mostly help with discipline in studying for the test. There’s nothing magical about them. I’ve taken many standardized exams with and without prep courses and it’s quite possible to do very well with inexpensive self study material if you’re incredibly disciplined about studying.

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

#226

Post by tssva » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #165

dawg- wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that "articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others" is (a) highly subjective, and (b) only a means to an end. The end is to have a productive civil society where people do not prey on other people. Unfortunately, all these highly subjective characteristics are used by people to prey on…

How exactly do standardized tests identify those who will or won't prey on other people?

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

#227

Post by olalonde » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:52 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.

> 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

If there's any correlation with this and academic success, it's not necessarily a positive one. There's a grain of truth to the stereotype of "nerds" not having great people skills.

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

#228

Post by CapmCrackaWaka » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:52 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…

I work for a company that collects aggregated SAT data. I was pretty upset when I discovered there is a very strong, direct correlation between family income and SAT score, with a credible spread of several hundred points between the average scores of the highest and lowest income groups. I knew that there would be a correlation, but seeing how strong it was was pretty depressing.

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

#229

Post by leetcrew » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #199

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…

IMO, the subject tests are kind of a niche environment. You can't prep for them with the $20 official book and there are like 20 of them. (Also Amazon lists it for 30 but we get the point). You basically need to go to a school where they offer AP coursework, and pay something close to $100 bucks to the College Board to take subject tests. When I was doing college search, the only college I recall that requested these…

note that the SAT subject tests are actually different from AP tests. when I was applying to college, a smart kid from the regular section of could expect to do fairly well on the SAT subject test for that topic. the AP tests ask questions on material that isn't typically covered in the regular classes, so it's hard to do well on them if you haven't taken the AP course or done a lot of extracurricular study.

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

#230

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #44

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…

These advantages are more subtle than even that. I was shamed by some older fellow alums when I told people that my parents had hired someone to go over my application and essays. Their stance was that my parents gave me an unfair advantage (note, both of my parents are immigrants who did not even finish high school). My retort to them was point out that most of them didn't exactly grow up in the crime ridden rural p…

>coming from a more advantageous social-economic background grants you so many benefits in many ways //

It's not all benefit: you can be taught to be lazy, not to be self-reliant, you can lack tenacity and resilience, you can have perverse expectations and a sheltered view of the World. Such things can turn out to be a hindrance to self-fulfillment.