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

241–250 of 465 posts

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

#241

Post by knzhou »

adtechperson wrote: post #237
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…

SAT scores is heavily correlated with income level (the data I have is for the standard tests, not the subject ones, but I would guess they follow a similar pattern). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280232788_Race_Pove... I applaud the MIT decision in this area.

And everything else I mentioned is correlated even more strongly.

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

#242

Post by ebrenes »

SkyBelow wrote: post #189
askafriend wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do rich kids have more scholastic potential because they have better access to resources? Yes. They do. It's maybe not the answer you were looking for, but if you are better prepared, you'll do better at the task at hand. Seems fairly straightforward. The next question would be how easy are those resources to access (in the case of the SAT)? And the answer is you can do pretty well with a $20 test prep book that yo…

>Yes. They do. It's maybe not the answer you were looking for, but if you are better prepared, you'll do better at the task at hand. Seems fairly straightforward. I think you missed the point of the two questions, which is a question of what scholastic potential issue. What you are measuring is something that I might call scholastic actuality. It is how good they are with the tools they have. Potential is how good th…

But every metric used by colleges is to measure what you termed "scholastic actuality":

- School grades: if you didn't get the GPA you're already out of the running in many colleges

- Extracurricular Activities: if you didn't actually participate, then no one is going to look at how you might have done if you had participated

- College Essay: if you can't write you're not going to get any points here, no matter the potential you might have to eventually write something amazing

I don't see why the SAT should focus on some ethereal "potential" when everything else is centered on the current reality and not potential. Colleges aren't looking for the completely unrefined ore, they're looking for a diamond in the rough that needs to be cut and polished if you will. Not a bucket of rocks that are very likely to contain a diamond.

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

#243

Post by fastball »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #228
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.

Why is that depressing?

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

#244

Post by Koshkin »

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.

Problem is, hard science has been known to be difficult to articulate, and a successful researcher may lose their characteristic as being socially well-adjusted (to the point of being burnt at stake).

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

#245

Post by bsanr2 »

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…

While I agree, let's acknowledge the fair critique from the end that is not, "Keeping high-achieving Asian kids out": the part where the tests themselves cost money parents (and school systems) don't have; the part where the study guide in and of itself is not enough to prepare for these exams, leaving us the true, astronomical cost of preparation; the part where this is all begging the question of what admissions tests are for anyway (generally, the same things poll taxes and quizzes were for).

I agree that the answer is the base SAT, but with an addition of a lottery past a point threshold. Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out.

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

#246

Post by buzzy_hacker »

opportune wrote: post #157
fallingknife wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s a good point I hadn’t considered, they are fairly niche

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

#248

Post by watwut »

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.

I think that "smooth-talker" is typically not sonmeone who is articulate and socially well-adjusted who communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way.

The typical use of the word refers to manipulative people who will smoothly pretend values and opinions they don't have in order to mislead people and take advantage of them. Alternatively it is people who talk about things they know nothing about convincingly enough for those who also know nothing about the topic.

The two are much different things. People who communicate their values and opinions have massive comparative disadvantage against them.

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

#249

Post by anthm1988 »

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…

> smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people.

you mean the kind of people who have access to private tutors and SAT prep classes?

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

#250

Post by triceratops »

leetcrew wrote: post #239
triceratops wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandate that colleges accept scores from at least 3 different standardized tests, administered by different companies, and that the scores must be easily comparable. That may help break ETS's stranglehold over the market and test fees or test prep material might become reasonable.

the SAT test fee is about $65 and there's tons of free prep material (including direct from college board). what would you consider a reasonable price?

Hard to say if that's actually reasonable, given there's exactly 1 (maybe 2, if you count the ACT) test providers. Not really a competitive market.

For a multiple-choice exam, administered electronically to dozens of test-takers supervised by one proctor...is that actually reasonable? Plus they charge you $15 extra if you want more than 4 scores. Most students apply to more than 4 colleges. Are they physically mailing scores to these institutions?

For a mostly-electronic process (other than the essay grading) $65 sounds like a lot. $40 for the non-essay option sounds even more crazy.

Post reply on HN