UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative

I take it you haven't consulted the references I listed second-hand? They are likely far more insightful than anything I can write here.

Before making my earlier comment, I read the start of the the Hiss and Franks paper is at https://web.archive.org/web/20140310113612/http://www.nacacn... to make sure the citation I gave wasn't misrepresenting the topic (it wasn't). Here's text from the abstract:

It "examines the outcomes of optional standardized testing policies in the Admissions offices at 33 public and private colleges and universities, based on cumulative GPA and graduation rates."

That is, UC isn't the first to do this, and we can look at real-world evidence from previous universities where test scores were optional, to gauge how useful test scores are and what effect they have.

It found: "Few significant differences between submitters and non-submitters of testing were observed in Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates, despite significant differences in SAT/ACT scores."

That is, SAT/ACT scores don't seem to affect metrics like Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates. (As I recall from elsewhere, they do correlate with first year grades, but that's a different and less important metric.)

Further: "Optional testing policies also help build broader access to higher education: non-submitters are more likely to be first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences."

That is, using SAT/ACT scores in the selection process appears to have measurable effect on the student population; reducing what is sometimes referred to as "diversity."

As to your correct observation, "it does not follow that predicts(A) > predicts(A ∪ B)", one of the issues is that college success is also correlated with other factors, including parental wealth. And success on the SAT/ACT is also correlated with parental wealth, who can afford special training on how to pass those tests.

We know this by looking at the early history of college boards, which emphasized the topics taught at prep schools (like Latin grammar) than public school, because college admissions preferred rich white male Protestants, who were likely to go to prep school.

To be clear, the SAT has done a lot of work to de-bias their tests, and I don't know enough about to topic to say anything what factors are actually involved.

But I don't need to, since the tests don't seem to be that effective in predicting college success.

> Liberal market based societies / economies have many failings, and would be a very interesting conversation to explore some of these.

On an absolute basis maybe, but on a relative basis I'd say they've been very effective. But as you said that's a different conversation (which if you want to have off HN, my email is in my profile!).

> worst case they fail and some of the other XXX universities in this country will raise to the occasion and take their place. What's the big deal?

> They are so self evidently righteous that no cost is too high

> the only hope becomes, tragically, total collapse.

Well, I didn't mean to minimize it exactly, just that mass de-industrialization and 3rd world status is probably going too far.

One of the hallmarks of extremism is the view you refer to that "no cost is too high". Sometimes this is about boosting the general welfare, but more often it is about a (perceived or real) threat. If every win by the right is a slippery slope to fascism, deplatforming becomes easily justified. And if every win by the left is a slippery slope to communism, it becomes easier to tolerate public undermining of the traditional checks on power, that depend on public support to be effective, like elections / the courts / legislature / (even the same side) media, etc.

The problem is as extremism increases, the threat to the other party becomes, increasingly, real. And the case for further authoritarian measures or undermining the existing system becomes more logical.

I have two issues with this accelerationist scenario. One is that the escalation is inevitably bi-directional in the end, and it is difficult to predict which faction (if any) will win, only that they are more likely to be authoritarian.

The second is that I don't see crisis as something that necessarily leads eventually to positive reforms. I think it is fully possible to have a crisis, then have things be poorly functioning for quite some time. Crisis aided the Soviet Union's fall but it also aided its rise.

In the US, the process of escalation seems to be well on its way, and to me seems more likely to lead to crisis in the medium term than incremental reforms (in any direction).

It's not even a "white" thing, or a "savior" thing.

Indian here. I have rich relatives who send their kids on very very expensive "charity missions" to Africa (Where the kids work temporarily in some school or such. Something to add to their CV.). These people are not white, and they're not trying to be saviors. They're trying to get their kids into the Ivy League. Their friends-group literally has parties where they share all the ways they can add extra-curriculars and such to their kids admissions applications.

Umm, the other way around. "Tests don't seem to be a good predictor of college success, even when taking GPA into account. But they do seem to reduce diversity."

(You wrote "promote" instead of "reduce".)

What is the origin of your quoted paragraph ending 'If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping.'?

I don't know how the source quantifies "a significant number of people" or "intrinsic cognitive skills". If "intrinsic cognitive skills" means "does well on the SAT or other forms of standardized testing" then of course there's no need for prepping.

And the problem is the other way around. Given the emphasis on the SAT, a single bad day (or if you have the money to re-test, a couple of bad days) - if on the day of the test! - can "doom" you.

I'm also curious about the quote because a lot of people have a good life without going to college and without "minimum wage servitude". Median pay for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters is $27.08 per hour (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...), done by apprenticeship and/or vocational-technical training.

And don't tell me that plumbers (or Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics, or Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers, or other careers which don't require a college degree) don't require 'intrinsic cognitive skills'.

> consider diversity

As a reminder, I used the term "diversity" in quotes, because I don't like the vagueness of the term. The specific sub-populations in the paper I linked to were "first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences".

> Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.

I don't know what you mean. The linked-to document about UC says:

] Training admissions office staff on the “comprehensive review” process that looks at grades, extra-curriculars, the socio-economic factors in which students grow up and other non-test criteria becomes even more important, Estolano said.

That sure does not look like simple stack-ranking to me.

> the most easily demonstrable predictors of success

FWIW, two easily demonstrable predictors of success are: 1) applicants from a rich family, and 2) applicants with at least one parent who has been to college.

I think you can see that using these predictors - and if you believe college is an important influence on life-time earnings - means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Well I agree that trying to force everyone to a fixed schedule in time is not correct. If you divide your life into 20 or even ten year chunks, those are your batche sizes for endeavor. You are not the fixed product of one batch of applicants at one arbitrary point in your life.

What things are scarce? Human resources to teach, capital to start businesses, bandwidth, computing power, physical security and time are some things I can think of that are scarce to varying degrees.

I don't mind if I got shut out of the ivy league Lottery at 18 ad long as I can get what I need to succeed at 36 when I finally get my act together.

At 36 as a male I might still have 40 or 50 years ahead of me to work on one or more career projects.

To some extent we need to stop worrying so much about who gets the spoils of any given lottery and just try to make it possible for people to get more bites at the apple.

The biggest problem isn't weeding out false positives and keep them from sullying Caltech or Stripe. Within reason this is a non problem.

The real problem are the people with aptitude who never get educated and don't get time and physical security in enough amounts to train themselves up to be good candidates to win capital to start ventures that will help advance society.

Tldr False negatives worse than false positives to all you evil gatekeepers