Harvard University Won’t Require SAT, ACT for Admissions Next Year • Hacker News Board

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

#561

Post by pc86 » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #557

pc86 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Non-profit" doesn't mean you don't make any money, it means you spend all your money. I went to a tiny liberal arts college you've never heard of, with a 1300-student enrollment today. The president makes well over half a million dollars a year. There are half a dozen deans making anywhere from $75-250k. A career services department run by a six-figure employee who has never held a job outside of that college (for r…

Is this RPI?

No but I've actually heard very similar experience to folks that went there, although I don't think it qualifies as a liberal arts college.

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

#562

Post by intended » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #555

intended wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“the average amount of money that the eight Ivy League schools received annually over that time period — $4.31 billion — exceeds the amount of money received by 16 of the 50 states.” Fund those with few resources or create new ones away from the Ivies. You can’t democratize the Ivies but you can give a lot more people a better education. The status quo is that the Ivies have their cake and eat it too. https://www.the…

That sounded weasel wordy so I read the article -

> full $41.59 billion of the Ivy League’s money could be traced back to taxpayer-funded payments and benefits.

Traces back.

So part of it is tax breaks to educational institutions- which is natural, they have the biggest endowments combined so the tax benefits will be massive.

They point out that major research happens at these institutions so they have more money from that as well.

This meshes less with the “have their cake and eat it too” line of thinking and more a result of the distortions from reputation and network effects.

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

#563

Post by kvnnews » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

Keyword seems to be require. I would think it’s still a factor. If you forego the tests you should be prepared to prove yourself by other means I guess. I wouldn’t take those chances though if I wanted in to Harvard. Although maybe I don’t understand the function of 21st century university anymore.

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

#564

Post by L_Rahman » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:56 AM UTC

bfieidhbrjr wrote: post #400

L_Rahman wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was accepted and got to see their financial aid package, I have to mention that it's extremely generous as well. They don't just cover room and board and tuition, there's an understanding that you're poorer than your peers at the university so there's general spending money, money to buy winter clothes, money to fly home 2x-3x a year. This is a rounding error for Harvard, but I didn't realize how limit…

So where was better than Harvard for you?

I went to Hopkins to study bioengineering. This ended up being a tactical mistake - the media hype around the field gave me unrealistic expectations, the life of an underpaid academic no longer seemed appealing, coursework was incredibly difficult and graded on a harsh curve.

But it was incredibly useful because it took me off the default track. Had I gone to Harvard and enjoyed its attendant grade inflation and reputation advantages, I'd probably be floating around McKinsey and feeling self important right now.

Instead, I had to ask myself some difficult questions about what is important to me and how to make it happen in my life.

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

#565

Post by viklove » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

MengerSponge wrote: post #303

viklove wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Then quit it with the lie that any person in the US has the same chance of success. It's obvious that the only thing that matters is who your parents are and how much money they have, let's accept it for what it is and stop praising success like it means you're better than everyone else.

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

#566

Post by crimsonalucard5 » Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

creatornator wrote: post #317

crimsonalucard5 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The SAT has always generally been a test showing how well you prepared for the SAT. For top schools all viable candidates had very good scores so it wasn’t much use. There are many people who have high GPA's but are not intelligent enough to do well on the SATs. Removing this bar will allow those people through. Not necessarily a bad thing but a thing nonetheless.

The point is that the SATs don't measure intelligence. "not intelligent enough to do well on the SATs" is harsh. And if anything I think it would go the other way--it's common to get a subpar grade on the SAT even if you are smart and a high achiever. And regarding removing the bar allowing more people through, that's not true either--it's not like colleges all of a sudden have more seats available. They'll still onl…

>And regarding removing the bar allowing more people through, that's not true either--it's not like colleges all of a sudden have more seats available. They'll still only admit the same number of students, and they will still select for the best students.

But white people tend not do as well on the SATs, but they do fine with GPAs.

Now they can let more white people into the school and they don't have to explain the SAT discrepancies because they aren't measuring for that.

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

#567

Post by helen___keller » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

skinnymuch wrote: post #532

helen___keller wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the narrative was mostly about economic status, we would hear more about that and about universal programs Like.... Universal healthcare? One of the most (perhaps THE most) discussed topics at democratic presidential debates? Just because neither Bernie nor Elizabeth Warren didn't win the nomination doesn't mean that their ideas aren't part of the left.

I thought Warren backed away from full Universal for all Health insurance. From my outside look, it didn’t appear as if Warren was actually that progressive. One random example — endorsing Biden (and Hillary which possibly is about identity politics) were both political moves not seeming to be of someone close to a progressive like Bernie. — Many poorer people already get Medicaid which is quite good. If that was exp…

> I thought Warren backed away from full Universal for all Health insurance.

Her exact proposal was to phase-in full universal by starting with a subsidized public option and then spending more time building out a full universal plan, i believe.

You can argue this is a cop-out but i'd say it's more of a technocratic play - offering full universal would be a massive undertaking and not something that can just pop up overnight, but offering a subsidized insurance plan in the existing system is comparatively easier and could be implemented easily in a president's first year in office (with a cooperative congress, anyways)

Regardless, that's all aside the point

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

#568

Post by stevens32 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #559

intended wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> education is singularly able to propel people out of poverty You're using education in an ambiguous way here. Either you're including vocational training, in which case the argument for universal college doesn't follow, or you only mean college, in which case the premise is false.

Vocational training is way under-utilized and promoted in the US, but there are still many many jobs that won't even look at you without a degree in hand. As long as we're careful about where the money comes from, universal education can be a huge win for almost all citizens.