Why is the university of California dropping the SAT?

Post by enaaem » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

mattmcknight wrote: post #379

enaaem wrote: post #362

Im from the Netherlands and US education seems to be worst of both socialism and capitalism: lack of choice and sky high prices. In the Netherlands we have: Free choice of high school. I grew up in the poorest neighbourhood of the city and I still went to a very decent high school with classmates from all backgrounds. More and smaller high schools. More choice and competition between schools. Schools are subsidised b…

>"Free choice of high school" How does this work when 25% of the students want to go to the "best" one? Is it really not free choice, but free choice of schools for which your exam scores qualify you?

Post by Spivak » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #402

My two cents. Be color blind for access to things like this. Then, when you see cultural groups that don't seem to getting through in the numbers you'd like, study the success factors from other groups and help promote those from the bottom up, within the culture. Sounds cliche, but it's better to build naturally occurring desirable attributes in communities than providing the benefits despite the absence of the attr…

Post by sjg007 » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #221

bayesian_horse wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't. The author seems to have a gut-felt conviction that there is no bias or damage in standardized testing or its subsequent use for university admissions.

The problem is that every approach to university admissions will be flawed. Personally I think there should be a lottery system after a certain grade/extracurricular cut-off. The difference at a certain point between students is negligible and a lottery system would help alleviate some bias. Of course there's plenty of things wrong with this approach as well, you're never going to find something that pleases everyone…

Post by satyrnein » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #557

satyrnein wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that the existing system is already a perfectly ordered meritocracy. Affirmative action supporters are coming at it from a different hypothesis: that 20 of the applicants pass the objective proficiency bar, and now people will apply subjective criteria like "culture fit", who has "leadership potential", etc, and this is where bias creeps in. Somehow the qualified candidates from certain groups don't make…

> that 20 of the applicants pass the objective proficiency bar, and now people will apply subjective criteria like "culture fit", who has "leadership potential", etc, and this is where bias creeps in. If that was the case they wouldn't drop SAT. Fact is they want to accept people with worse objective scores, this whole discussion and article is about that fact. Instead they will use "culture fit" and "leadership pote…

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 2:41 PM UTC

pugetsounds wrote: post #554

rayiner wrote: post #383

What I find very odd about this is the assumption that kids in challenging circumstances would have more problem with test prep than with keeping up their GPA. Poor people can afford test prep. Stuyvesant, NYC’s selective admission high school, has 50% of students living in poverty, and a 1300+ average SAT score. A couple of thousand dollars one time is something most Americans can scrape together. Gaming GPA is much…

As much as I agree with the overall premise that a GPA is harder to focus on than test prep, I disagree that poor families can afford test prep. Blowing away $1000+ so your child (who is not a star student) can potentially get a better SAT score is not going to be something that a poor family considers to be possible. Anecdotally, I write this comment from the couch of a poor family. My girlfriend’s parents (who I am…