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

Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 568 posts

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#301

Post by Spivak »

malandrew wrote: post #260
Spivak wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High Schools are on the student’s side when it comes to college admissions. So when you’re on the honors track of your HS you almost literally can’t fail because your HS is trying to get you into better schools. Your HS is playing the game with you. The secret of being an honors kid isn’t aptitude but being told that you’re smart and your parents/peers expecting it of you.

> The secret of being an honors kid isn’t aptitude but being told that you’re smart and your parents/peers expecting it of you. This condescension isn't even based on fact. I was in some honors classes but not in others and for the classes I was in an honors class, I had more aptitude than my peers. For those in the classes I was not in, those peers had more aptitude than me (probably more motivation too since it was…

I mean I don’t think it’s condescending. I was the “smart kid” at my HS. People on the honors track weren’t any smarter than the rest, we just cared a lot more about our grades and looking good for colleges.

The “low performers” during HS, now that they’re unburdened by a stifling institution, are showing that they’re just as smart and talented but in areas that school didn’t bring out. One is a pastry chef, quite a few are artists and graphic designers, one is a copyrighter, one does industrial design, two are in theater now.

They could have done just fine in maths and physics but they, rightfully, didn’t really care.

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#302

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

aiisahik wrote: post #242

As an Asian who went to an Ivy, I welcome this change. Yes, it will mask a policy of keeping the proportion of Asians lower than a race neutral policy. Yes, it's racially discriminatory. Yes, it's somewhat unfair to Asians who are trying to get in. But no, being fair isn't the point of these schools. Nor is having the most academically excellent student population. If you want that, go to Berkeley or CalTech. The poi…

The problem with laying bare this purpose of these institutions is it destroys their credibility. If everyone knows it's just a social club, and that is formalized, it loses its prestige. It's beneficial to students who are enrolled due to family gifts that some students are enrolled due to being truly academically skilled. It furthers the impression the gift-giving segment may be skilled as well.

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#303

Post by MengerSponge »

viklove wrote: post #288
Pfhreak wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard has 2400 professors and admits about 6000 students each year. Each professor might have a child that is at college age, but most won't. And parental admittance isn't a guarantee. We're talking about a negligible number of students on this path weighed against the employee happiness and retention.

We're talking about someone getting something they don't deserve due to their birth alone. That kind of injustice doesn't last long in society without someone calling it out.

Have you considered that a professor's kid just might have picked up how to talk in a way that other professors like? That they might have learned how to work that is highly prized by academics?

Of course, none of this would be visible to a random dude from their hometown.

Applications are never just a perfect copy of you. You get to pick who writes letters of recommendation, you get to write the essays that frame and contextualize your successes and failures. Applying for things is a skill, and like all skills, it can be learned and improved.

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#304

Post by [deleted] »

webmaven wrote: post #283
wait_a_minute wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about those? Definitely not the new American left.

Classism may not be quite as "trendy" as racism or sexism right this minute, but I think you'll still find plenty of interest in the topic (and it's intersections with the others) on the left.

[deleted]

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#305

Post by devalgo »

mc32 wrote: post #193
cosmodisk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every candidate has the same score, the score itself becomes meaningless. Imagine getting 200 identical applications for a job,where all you see is John Smith with x years at corp Y. How do you select the best candidate on this info?

Right so you’re saying they could randomly pick from their applicant pool because right now only perfect scores apply. But wouldn’t that cease being the case once scores are not taken into account? Presumably (retroactively speaking) I could have applied or my friends could have applied... now if they do a random selection they could get one of us...

>Right so you’re saying they could randomly pick from their applicant pool because right now only perfect scores apply.

This would actually be a reasonable way to go. Set a cut off ACT/SAT/GPA and just do a lottery for kids that are above it. Actual fairness. Of course thats not what HPY + Stanford etc. are interested in. They are still just finishing schools for the elite. If you want actual meritocracy go to MIT or Caltech

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#306

Post by hackinthebochs »

Spivak wrote: post #221
yasp wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Test scores don’t prove much except who had the resources, time, and motivation to study the most. I was under the impression that SAT prep doesn't move the needle much. Am I mistaken?

Cramming for the test right at the end with SAT prep will add a few points but won’t do anything dramatic. But if you get put in the “honors” track of a lot of high schools where the name of the game is to teach material informed by the SAT, ACT, AP, and IB teats then you almost can’t help but do well since you’ve been cramming for 4 years.

It turns out actually learning the material on a test over the span of a few years helps you do well on the test. That used to be called getting an education.

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#307

Post by staticautomatic »

Press2forEN wrote: post #292
wait_a_minute wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about those? Definitely not the new American left.

As unfortunate as it may be, they still benefit from systemic racism and must be held just as accountable as their wealthy counterparts.

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/12/lefty-lingo/

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#309

Post by asdf9240 »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #269
iagovar wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds bad if you're a white non-rich kid.

Who cares about those? Definitely not the new American left.

There is a very great portion of the American left that cares about economic status. I do believe that admissions should factor in socioeconomic status rather than just race, gender, etc., but believing this does not require me to generalize a very wide reaching political stance.

Re: Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year

#310

Post by panzagl »

not_a_moth wrote: post #120
filereaper wrote: post #31

I highly recommend watching the video by Scott Galloway on The College Implosion. [1] "Colleges have become luxury brands and are adopting a strategy of artificial scarcity to create irrational margins" There's a large movement right now where many are saying the large tuition fees for Zoom lectures aren't worth it. Colleges sell themselves for the experience and are a luxury lifestyle brand almost, but with covid th…

Anyone intimate with Germany's vocational training system, that's used as an alternative to college by approximately half of all graduating high school students? 2-3 years small salary vocational training straight out of HS at 1 of 400k participating companies in 1 of 400 role types. I want to know why implementing this isn't a national debate in US, it seems like such an obviously good idea.

When I was in high school (late '80s) vocational school was an option, and even regular high school had a good selection of shop classes. From what I understand this was mostly dismantled because of cost, liability, and the implied stigma of 'only' being a vocational school student. After all, if 'No Child Left Behind' then why would you send some to one school and some to another.

This kind of forced homogenization of outcomes is why many in the US are so skeptical of progressivism- instead of accepting that Johnny might succeed as a plumber let's force him to be another mediocre college-track student because the educational establishment 'knows' that's the only way to be successful.

Post reply on HN