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

351–360 of 465 posts

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

#351

Post by barry-cotter »

ummwhat wrote: post #346
thebradbain wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tests don't not work (I believe that within the middle of bell-curve they accomplish their goal well), but at the extremes they are prone to gamification, especially to those in the know. For example, the pre-2017 SAT had some well known (and some lesser known) tricks that you would only know by studying the test, rather than the material: - ALL sections (and sub-sections) have questions that strictly increase in…

Maybe this is will be seen as radical but I think the best way to end all this gaming is for collegeboard to not release their previous tests to the public. There simply shouldn't be enough data out there to study the test rather than the material. All that should be known in advance is the topics, format (multi choice v. Open ended) and point system. I'm sure the cottage industry of test prep companies would hate it…

You don’t need examples of previous tests to prepare. Even if there was perfect enforcement of no recording devices, no corruption, no breaking in and stealing test papers people would talk about what the test was like, sitting to sitting. Some people retake the test multiple times. This would probably become normative in this case because the practice effect on IQ tests like the SAT is small but real. If people were really motivated you can just pay 100 people to do the test and get them to memorize parts of it, then stitch the parts together afterwards.

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

#352

Post by underpand »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #292
quartzite wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is not entirely true. SAT scores can be used as ways to admit more privileged students, as they tend to have access to more test prep along with privileges such as extra time: > In 2010 three College Board researchers analyzed data from more than 150,000 students who took the SAT, and they found that the demographics of the two “discrepant” groups differed substantially. The students with the inflated SAT scores…

GPA is already scaled based on income because poor schools give higher GPAs for the same level of knowledge and skill. The study is useless.

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

#353

Post by brlewis »

benchaney wrote: post #303
brlewis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The point about replacing a test with more subjective criteria is completely invalidated when, instead, multiple tests are replaced with a single test. EDIT: Instead of completely invalidated, I should say irrelevant to MIT's change. In another context it could be an important point.

This is completely incorrect. The SAT is not changing to incorporate the skills that would have previously measured by the subject test. As a result we are simply going to have fewer objective metrics.

When I say "replacing" I mean in terms of the weight they carry in admissions.

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

#354

Post by frequentnapper »

barry-cotter wrote: post #348
mekoka wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of your answer is that MIT wants good "students" and "test takers". What if that's not what they want so much anymore? A test is supposed to be a metric, an indicator of something. But metrics tend to become target as soon as they're exposed. Maybe then they still remain an indicator of something, but not necessarily what they were originally intended to filter for. I understand that it might feel like th…

Good test takers are people who have learned things and know them well enough to pass a test on it. There are many kinds of test. The SAT is the kind designed by psychometricians, experts with Ph.D.s building on millions of man hours of research to make tests that are both valid and reliable, that predict success in college and are as close to ungameable as possible. MIT could drop the real SAT tomorrow and still fil…

>Good test takers are people who have learned things and know them well enough to pass a test on it.

Tell that to the massive test prep industry. Many many years ago I took a trial SAT and scored around 1000. Then I took a Kaplan SAT prep course, and lo and behold after learning all the tricks scored a 1300 on a test SAT. Back then the test prep course cost > $1000. I had a car in high school, so I could drive to the test prep school in the evenings.

Seems to me that people who prep for the tests (not necessarily learned things through high school) and are willing to spend time and money have a great margin of benefit.

It's the same thing for tech interview prep industry. The ones who prep well for the interview, do well in the interview.

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

#355

Post by whotheffknows »

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…

As someone who went to a boarding school on scholarhsip after moving from a bad public highschool and couldn't afford the $1600 SAT prep classes that preprogrammed in solvers in your calculator, I agree with you in general and deeply resonate with this argument.

However, my initial thought was that MIT maybe has so many perfect scores it's useful at this point and not really a differentiating factor.

For example they can afford to have a perfect 1:1 ratio of men to women for a tech school and I don't think they lower their standards for that.

On the contrary, I went to a highly ranked engineering school of the same limitations (limited other genres of degrees) and it was 30% females overall roughly, but actually in general it was more like 6%-8% females in the actual engineering degrees.

I worked in the admissions office one summer and was hard pressed to find a B on any Q4 report cards which was one of my summer tasks to ensure no early admission students entirely flunked out. I got to see other things like scores and in general I have to say even at a lesser well ranked school, and reading the averages of every incoming class, my notion is not that there is a difference between the scores of smart hard working lower middle class vs the upper rich as much as there is an over emphasis on the exam as a whole.

I agree objective results are very important, and I don't have an answer for a way to calibrate across schools. I think AP exam scores are better indicators but not all schools have AB or IB classes, etc.

It is really at the end of the day like most things about your commitment and ability to get something done regardless of how tangential you think it is to your core goals or study. In real life it is the same way there are lots of silly things people have to do all the time to get where they want to be and the weeding out is those who don't stop trying vs those who find a comfortable spot and stay there and blame everyone else for not having the right priorities.

Regardless, I still fill like even amongst high ranking SAT scorers, students are good at acing them now. My theory though I'm not confident is true is that studying for them has been systemized so much that it is actually difficult for MIT to tell above a certain threshold of score what the bell curve is.

This is all with the exception we need to realize that the SAT is not objective or perfect (the top comment this one is in response to) it was only less than five yrs ago they pulled sailing terminology from the reading and vocabulary portions after having to admit children growing up in the Bronx indeed might not have casually sailed not had sailing related literature in their curriculums, making this a bit unreasonable even for "guessing from context".

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

#356

Post by barry-cotter »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #339
thebradbain wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tests don't not work (I believe that within the middle of bell-curve they accomplish their goal well), but at the extremes they are prone to gamification, especially to those in the know. For example, the pre-2017 SAT had some well known (and some lesser known) tricks that you would only know by studying the test, rather than the material: - ALL sections (and sub-sections) have questions that strictly increase in…

I wish more people who fall into the kneejerk "we must emphasize only objective testing" group were aware of things like these. Standardized tests are incredibly game-able, particularly at the upper tail of the distribution. Because of the nature of that distribution, that means that if you selected students only by "objective" measures like standardized test scores, you will be disproportionately selecting for stude…

Indeed, much better to select for the kinds of people whose parents know how these things work and can ensure their child has the right letters of recommendation, internships and extracurricular activities. And don’t be terribly specific about what exactly it v is you want; that way you can change it from year to year to ensure the right kind of people get in. Wouldn’t want Harvard to look like Cal Tech or Berkekk OK way would we? That’s what happens when you have a public, objective test instead of being able to select some smart and some connected.

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

#357

Post by dntbnmpls »

Everyone here claiming that SATs aren't fair don't seem to realize that SATs are the most fair and most objective criteria in college admissions. It's not perfect but it's the best and only objective measure we have.

GPA is far worse than SATs because not only are each high schools grading standards different, each teacher's grading policy is different. There are plenty of dumb 4.0s out there but there aren't that many dumb 1600s.

Extra-curricular is more unfair than SATs because you generally need time and money and parental involvement for rowing classes.

Interviews are worse because it's a lot more about how the interviewer likes and relates to you.

Of course the most unfair part is legacy admissions which nobody wants to get rid of.

Sure, SATs aren't perfect, but it is the best and most objective measure we have. It's actually the only tool we have to objectively measure and expose racial discrimination in admissions policy. Now, people are fighting against SATs. The only reason I can come up with is that these universities want to participate in racial discrimination.

SATs, GPAs, Extra-curriculur, interview, etc should all be part of a student's portfolio for admissions. That universities want to remove the ONLY, though not perfect, objective measure is worrisome.

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

#358

Post by mercutio2 »

codyb wrote: post #341
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…

That’s nuts, I got a 1590 on my second try with a calculator that turned out to be missing batteries, the day after going to a friends house and drinking with my only prep being reading a few paragraphs from some big book. I had a lackluster performance on the new writing section the first time around or I wouldn’t have spent any time upping the original 1520 or whatever. The point is to brag a little yes because I r…

I also had excellent SAT scores (I didn't bother to retake them, but perhaps I should've).

I also resonate with the idea that rewarding smart kids for being good at taking tests tends to undermine their work ethic and grit; when I finally got to math classes I couldn't just ace the test on, I had a very hard time; I truly didn't know how to buckle down, on my own, and do homework, because I'd never actually had to do that before.

On the other hand, when I'm hiring people, I've discovered I really do want to hire people who are able to ace simple math questions quickly. It's not sufficient, but it seems to be very correlated with being able to wrap your head around complicated code.

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

#359

Post by ryandrake »

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.

OP’s “smooth talker” is a pedigreed bullshitter with a millionaire dad, big fake smile, and popped collar, who combines just enough sound bite knowledge with fancy-sounding words, signaling to similar ivy leaguers that he’s “one of them.” Pretty much the opposite of someone you’d select on academic merit alone.

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

#360

Post by knzhou »

ummwhat wrote: post #346
thebradbain wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tests don't not work (I believe that within the middle of bell-curve they accomplish their goal well), but at the extremes they are prone to gamification, especially to those in the know. For example, the pre-2017 SAT had some well known (and some lesser known) tricks that you would only know by studying the test, rather than the material: - ALL sections (and sub-sections) have questions that strictly increase in…

Maybe this is will be seen as radical but I think the best way to end all this gaming is for collegeboard to not release their previous tests to the public. There simply shouldn't be enough data out there to study the test rather than the material. All that should be known in advance is the topics, format (multi choice v. Open ended) and point system. I'm sure the cottage industry of test prep companies would hate it…

Decreased transparency increases the advantage the test prep industry has, since they'll find a way to get them anyway.
Post reply on HN