401–410 of 568 posts
Ah, those pesky standardized tests. Sure they're the hardest part of admissions to game and are a major part of establishing an even intellectual playing field for applicants, but it just looks so bad when we discard a much higher proportion of qualified Asian applicants than qualified applicants from other groups! We were even sued over this issue and the suit is going to appeal! And we're trying so hard to increase…
> they're the hardest part of admissions to game Are they really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I understand this is the assumption but why is this the assumption? I can imagine poor kids doing just as well if not better without artificial barriers to entry like the SAT and GRE. For some reason everyone is assuming these tests are "good" and "meritocratic" but I don't see it. Everyone seems to assume there need to be tests and no one is wondering what happens when there are no tests. I suspect no one is wo…
Poor kids aren't going to have the resources to compete as equitably on extracurriculars. A kid in a wealthy school might be able to host a fundraiser for charity and raise thousands of dollars easily, while a kid at a poor school would be able to raise only a fraction of that. That poor student is also going to have more trouble showing excellence in art/sports/intellectual hobbies if their parents aren't able to pa…
Yes, that's my point. Given fewer learning opportunities poor kids end up at a disadvantage even though the next Einstein is more than likely somewhere in a poor neighborhood. The SAT might be a good way to find this person but it would be better if we required a standardized minimum from everyone and helped them as much as possible to achieve those minimum standards. That way the next Einstein wouldn't be like finding a needle in haystack with very poor objective measures of learning potential (Einstein himself being famously unfit for his own educational system based on standard measures of the time).
A) Ivies/Standford are better than regular universities because they have resources, powerful alumni and well connected students B) They should let XYZ in because they have great test scores
If B was really the most important A would no longer be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a function of local demographics as well though. Lowell high school in San Francisco has those numbers but that's in part due to (more affluent than average) whites long fleeing the SF public schools.
But whites still are the majority in SF by a huge margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you aren't affluent enough to afford Harvard tuition, or if you don't have a full scholarship, Harvard tuition is not worth the degree and student loans you end up with. Ivy League schools are famously generous with financial aid. If the tuition cost is an issue for your family, odds are that you won’t be paying sticker price. It would not be uncommon for a typical “middle class” family (not upper middle class,…
The point still stands that what you are paying for in college is a network and credentials. Harvard offers the best of both, but success is still a thousand inputs and statistical probabilities, no guarantees. I've worked with several Ivy League grads, including some from Harvard. Some succeed, some still fail miserably. A good education improves your chances of success, but it isn't necessary. So unless you are get…
The point that's being made is that your "unless" covers effectively every single student at Harvard (and the other need-blind schools). If you get in, you're either well-off and don't care about tuition, or the price tag is going to be low enough that you can justify paying it to go to Harvard instead of taking whatever other scholarships you may have received (and it may even be overall cheaper than other schools).
These top schools know their students are getting full scholarships from other schools. They accepted them because they want them, and a couple thousand dollars a year's difference is a low price for them to pay to ensure the student chooses their school.
I think the only valid "unless" is "unless you're wealthy but not super-wealthy". There's certainly a range of income where they won't give you aid but you aren't that rich (maybe your parents are FAANG SWEs). If your family makes $800k a year, you probably won't get any financial aid but you may still balk at a $250k tuition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The objective here isn't to identify good students. That's just the cover story. The objective is to select on criteria other than intelligence. For example, race.
Seems like a very idealogical thing to argue without evidence
It's often good to question assumptions. I happened to do well on SATs/ACTs, so I could be biased in their favor. But, I was curious--what is the actual predictive value of SATs/ACTs on college outcomes such as say GPA or graduation rate. This study would suggest that it's actually more predictive (at least in Alaska) than test scores: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectI... Has anyone else fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. They had similar quotas to keep Jews out several generations ago. > Certain private universities, most notably Harvard, introduced policies which effectively placed a quota on the number of Jews admitted to the university. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935…
Yeah but not anymore. There is a higher jewish population at harvard (~28%) than non-jewish whites (~22%) despite non-jewish whites making up 60% of the population of the US and jews making up less than 2% of the population. No skin off my nose since I went to a mormon school in Utah. There is clearly an anti-white, anti-asian agenda at these top schools now.
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?
You are greatly mistaken, although it does depend on the quality of the preparation. I have seen scores improve 100-200 points per skill on average for middle range scores, and 50-100 points per skill for higher range scores with quality preparation. Reasons: - familiarity with test format - improved test taking strategies - familiarity with test content - developing the mental stamina to perform at a high level thro…