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

541–550 of 568 posts

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

#541

Post by not_a_moth »

honkycat wrote: post #370
not_a_moth wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US is politically constipated. The people at the top do not want to help the people at the bottom at their expense, even though they have ALL of the power at this point. They are not malicious, per se, but they don't explicitly care that a large portion of the population is becoming so abject that working in the amazon fulfillment gulags is their only option, and that public infrastructure is crumbling. So when y…

I hear you, but there's still market incentives for companies to participate: cheap labor for 2-3 years with good likelihood of a useful employee afterwards. I think in Germany they're paid ~ 1k Eur/mo. Clearly a progressive element helping those can't go to college so a branding value for SV types too.

Beyond that the administration of the program, certification at the end, etc. probably wouldn't be so expensive.

Think it shouldn't be viewed as threatening.

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

#542

Post by hindsightbias »

memexy wrote: post #519
hindsightbias wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most rich people are white and most legacies are rich whites. More rich, more legacies, more donations, more buildings, more grants, more money for the polo team. More opportunites for you to mingle with rich folk, curry favors. Rich whites were less threatened when they could game the system, but once Asian Americans began to become overly represented per capita academically and Affirmative Action lawsuits on descri…

Makes sense. How would you change the incentives to make what you described less viable?

I think SAT/ACT/AP scores took power away from provosts/admins and there was some accomadation to meritocracy. Underprivileged had a chance, but it was a long shot.

It’s too many trying to get into too few colleges. We need more, smaller universities. Federal funds/grants should be reoriented away from the Ivies. Zero Federal funds for schools that don’t have lower than 30:1 class sizes. That would stop admin bloat overnight.

The Musks, Gates and Bezos’ of the world should be building new colleges, not dumping more into the olds.

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

#543

Post by neilparikh »

torstenvl wrote: post #528
neilparikh wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your claim that the "American Left" has decided to sacrifice the poor whites to help other races? If it is, it's not really an accurate claim. It's poor Asians who've taken the largest brunt of affirmative action, while Whites have remained relatively neutral in their standing.

Your comment is a non-sequitur, and that non-sequitur is emblematic of exactly the problem everyone else in this thread is discussing. How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing. It's a fallacy of division, and anyway you shouldn't pre-judge things about people based on race... it's literally racial prejudice.

> How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing.

How so? "Poor whites" are just a subset of "whites". The parent comment claimed that "poor whites" are worse off. This is making 2 claims: that they are worse off because they are poor, and that they are worse off because they are white. I'm not denying that they're worse off because they're poor, that should be fairly obvious to anyone that knows anything about the American university admissions system. But the parent added the extra claim about race, and I'm refuting that for being inaccurate.

> and anyway you shouldn't pre-judge things about people based on race... it's literally racial prejudice.

Where in my comment did I make any racially prejudiced or racially divisive statements? The parent comment was the one that decided to divide the group of poor further by race.

Anyway, it's Harvard (and the other Ivy Leagues) that are pre-judging people by race. Is me discussing that fact somehow also "prejudging by race" and "racial prejudice"? I don't follow what you're trying to imply.

Edit: Looks like I confused the parent comment with the grandparent comment. The parent comment was about the "left" not caring about poor white kids. I think most of what I'm saying still applies, just replace "worse off" with "not cared about by the left". Ie. The left doesn't care about the poor too much, but they're definitely neutral towards whites, if not biased in favour.

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

#544

Post by [deleted] »

neilparikh wrote: post #543
torstenvl wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is a non-sequitur, and that non-sequitur is emblematic of exactly the problem everyone else in this thread is discussing. How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing. It's a fallacy of division, and anyway you shouldn't pre-judge things about people based on race... it's literally racial prejudice.

> How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing. How so? "Poor whites" are just a subset of "whites". The parent comment claimed that "poor whites" are worse off. This is making 2 claims: that they are worse off because they are poor, and that they are worse off because they are white. I'm not denying that they're worse off because they're poor, that should be fairly ob…

[deleted]

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

#545

Post by [deleted] »

jjoonathan wrote: post #366
webmaven wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but people judge actions, not intentions.

[deleted]

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

#546

Post by torstenvl »

neilparikh wrote: post #543
torstenvl wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is a non-sequitur, and that non-sequitur is emblematic of exactly the problem everyone else in this thread is discussing. How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing. It's a fallacy of division, and anyway you shouldn't pre-judge things about people based on race... it's literally racial prejudice.

> How well "Whites" as a group are doing says nothing about "poor whites" and how they're doing. How so? "Poor whites" are just a subset of "whites". The parent comment claimed that "poor whites" are worse off. This is making 2 claims: that they are worse off because they are poor, and that they are worse off because they are white. I'm not denying that they're worse off because they're poor, that should be fairly ob…

> How so? "Poor whites" are just a subset of "whites".

"A fallacy of division is the error in logic that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

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

#547

Post by amvalo »

whotheffknows wrote: post #518
amvalo wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you saying "No" to? This article says it may have been from the 80s?

I guess I'm saying no to your attempt to distract from the fact that you can pay alot of money to pass these tests in addition to not having proof there is esoteric terminology people growing up on poverty despite being good students might not be exposed to. This would be obvious to you if you've ever taken the SATs. What point are you trying to make? You should make it. Right now you are knitpicking. Even if you are…

The test has actually changed over the years and since people made a stink about the oarsman question, they’ve been more careful to reduce cultural bias (though I’m not convinced it was ever that bad in the first place). It is basically a canard at this point.

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

#548

Post by intended »

torstenvl wrote: post #540
stevens32 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait.. what? Mind explaining this?

What's to explain? Universal college education cannot be done without tax increases, and increasing taxes on the rural working class to pay for a program that doesn't benefit them is a huge disadvantage to them. If I'm a 21yo man in North Dakota working the oil fields to support my young family, how would you expect me to react to the idea of increasing my taxes so that white collar kids don't have to pay as much?

Well tax your rich and corporations more - education is singularly able to propel people out of poverty. For your tax increase you get a way out of poverty.

Tanstafl.

Frankly though- the American education problem is just people talking about the loss of manufacturing jobs at two degrees removed.

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

#549

Post by intended »

hindsightbias wrote: post #542
memexy wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense. How would you change the incentives to make what you described less viable?

I think SAT/ACT/AP scores took power away from provosts/admins and there was some accomadation to meritocracy. Underprivileged had a chance, but it was a long shot. It’s too many trying to get into too few colleges. We need more, smaller universities. Federal funds/grants should be reoriented away from the Ivies. Zero Federal funds for schools that don’t have lower than 30:1 class sizes. That would stop admin bloat o…

That would also kill schools that are in places with few resources.

Ivies don’t need fed funds - they play a different game since the underlying markets tend to be asymptotic - the upper end of students, the upper end of professors, the upper end of athletes, the upper end of wealthy legacies.

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

#550

Post by intended »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #306
Spivak wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Teaching the test and getting an education are not the same.
Post reply on HN