Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

hechingerreport.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 602 posts

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#391

Post by kelnos »

WalterBright wrote: post #243
metalforever wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can answer this because I was in this position. Parents couldnt afford the gas. They worked long hours to make ends meet and couldn’t take time to drive me to this stuff even if they had the gas money. Finally, there’s just not a lot of ECs available in a lot of poor areas , like the one I came from. I filled that space in the app talking about my hobbies instead because there was no money. Yeah.

The school clubs met after school, one was there anyway. The Boy Scouts also met within walking distance. The Scouts used to meet at public schools, but the people who hate the Scouts got them kicked out because they had a religious requirement for one of the ranks.

> The school clubs met after school, one was there anyway.

And how did students get home after the club meetings were over, since the school buses weren't running anymore?

> The Boy Scouts also met within walking distance.

Is it really that hard to understand that many people don't live within walking distance of their school, or of where clubs might meet?

Or at least safe walking distance; the last house I lived in before college was certainly within walking distance of quite a few things, but that would require walking along sidewalk-less, shoulder-less, limited-visibility, twisty roads with cars zipping around corners at 45mph. Even if my parents would have allowed me to walk along those roads (they wouldn't), I don't think even my "invincible" teenage self would have felt comfortable with that.

I was lucky that my mom was available to drive me to and from places after school, and on days when she wasn't, I could sometimes find a neighbor, or a schoolmate's parents to help. But many kids just don't have that option. More kids than it seems you realize.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#392

Post by kelnos »

WalterBright wrote: post #368
actionablefiber wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I walked home from school. I can't recall my parents ever picking me up. In the United States in the 2020s being able to walk yourself to and from school without A) having your life in grave danger from motor vehicle traffic and B) having someone call CPS or the police on your parents is an incredible luxury. The neighborhood where I grew up was built in the early 90s and its elementary school and middle school are…

We're talking high school, not elementary school. College admissions don't look at elementary school activities. High schoolers can walk around unattended. Even a quarter mile, both ways. It's not a big deal. In the summer I often try to get in 5 miles a day of running/walking. > incredible luxury Don't overstate your case. The irony in this thread is all the complaining about "can't do things that will look good on…

You seem to have had a pretty privileged upbringing. I did too. School bus was always available during normal hours, and my mom was a stay-at-home mom, and was (nearly) always available to drive my sister and me places.

My schools were never within walking distance, and my parents wouldn't have been comfortable with the type of roads I'd have to traverse even if they were, even when I was in high school.

Your assumption that everyone -- or even most kids -- have a situation like you had is just flat-out wrong.

> Surmounting obstacles makes one a standout candidate.

This is just hogwash; being in a position to surmount obstacles is privilege too. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that some kids didn't have obstacles, and so it was easier for them to participate in all these other activities: they started out with a built-in advantage. Even if you do have obstacles, and are able to overcome them, you're still going to have a harder time than the kids without the obstacles. And not in ways that are obvious to admissions departments such that your experience would give you a leg up.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#393

Post by rayiner »

onetimeusename wrote: post #358
rayiner wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say WASPs are given an edge. But the institutions are controlled by them. And minorities must appeal to their fancy to get in.

I didn't say WASPs are given an edge You are making a nuanced argument for sure then. But the Students for Fair Admissions have explicitly made the case that whites are given an advantage that takes Asian seats at Harvard via the children of faculty admissions, donations, essays, athletics, etc. But this discounts donations from certain foreign governments and I think it creates a misconception about the average whit…

> You are making a nuanced argument for sure then.

It’s not a nuanced argument at all. Harvard and similar universities are WASP institutions run by WASPs. When you have non-objective admissions standards, you have to appeal to their WASP sensibilities to get admitted. That doesn’t necessarily mean they prefer other WASPs. They also like minorities that affirm their worldview (but not so much minorities that don’t affirm their worldview).

The root of your confusion seems to be thinking that I’m using “WASP” to mean “white people” generically. White people aren’t a monolith. Harvard WASPs have nothing to do with folks in Appalachia (who may literally be white and Protestant).

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#394

Post by WalterBright »

actionablefiber wrote: post #379
WalterBright wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking high school, not elementary school. College admissions don't look at elementary school activities. High schoolers can walk around unattended. Even a quarter mile, both ways. It's not a big deal. In the summer I often try to get in 5 miles a day of running/walking. > incredible luxury Don't overstate your case. The irony in this thread is all the complaining about "can't do things that will look good on…

> High schoolers can walk around unattended. Even a quarter mile, both ways. It's not a big deal. In the summer I often try to get in 5 miles a day of running/walking. Extremely location dependent. Where I live today, in Virginia very close to DC, I commute by bike and do lots of biking/walking for fun and to run errands. What you are saying about walking around as a means of getting from place to place is just compl…

I'm sure there are places where it is difficult to walk anywhere. Those are not the norm, however. I don't recall any places like that in Seattle.

Most parents with kids try to pick places to live that are reasonably kid friendly. Real estate people know that, and advertisements emphasize things like walkability and distance to schools.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#396

Post by droidist2 »

kenjackson wrote: post #145
bradleyjg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “advanced math, physics, research, etc” in high school is all just college admissions prep too. When you major in math you have to take an analysis sequence starting at the beginning because AP calculus isn’t actually math. It’s just memorizing and learning to execute some math related algorithms. It’s all just signaling. Let’s be open about that instead of hiding the ball.

Again there’s levels to this. Harvard Math 55 is filled with exceptionally strong math students. I’m a 1500 SAT student, but not a Math 55 student. Them not being able to differentiate these classes of students seems problematic.

So basically the SATs are too easy. They could put more advanced math on the test.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#397

Post by davidgay »

robomartin wrote: post #386
BobbyJo wrote: post #285

The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status. Dropping the SAT is so obviously not a fix for that I question the competency of the administrators who thought doing so was a good idea. The SAT is probably the most attainable piece of the application process for a poor kid to succeed at. You literally just need a guide book or two and enough time to study. One good smart friend helps if…

> The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status If we are talking about the US, no, I disagree. The greatest source of admissions inequity are shit K-12 education. I'll give you a direct example from when my kids were at the local middle school. Their science teacher --a Chiropractor-turned-teacher-- was, well, there's no other way to put it, a moron. The guy actually taught the kids th…

> > The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status

> If we are talking about the US, no, I disagree.

> The greatest source of admissions inequity are shit K-12 education.

You've missed the step where the higher socioeconomic classes opt-out of the shit K-12 education by moving to better school districts, sending their kids to private schools, or homeschooling them.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#398

Post by kelnos »

nO0b wrote: post #41
onos wrote: post #2

USA is rich in universities. I wish people would focus less on the rankings and looking good credential aspect of college, and more on using it as an opportunity to learn / actually getting good at something. If we did the latter, we’d realize that people could go to pretty much any university (or coursera!) and get a high quality education here.

Malcolm Gladwell explains why it's statistically FAR better to be among the smartest kids at a 2nd or 3rd tier school than struggling to get into some elite institution where you will be below average among your peers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UEwbRWFZVc&t=220s If you're borrowing money to pay for a degree, going to a school where you are not at the very top of the class is really taking a big risk.

Given all the trash Gladwell has spouted as truth over the years, it's hard to take him seriously. Even if sometimes what he says has merit, it's hard to know when to believe him and when not to.

I especially cringe at the idea that Gladwell is saying it's statistically better to do something, when he has a known history of deliberately misinterpreting data and massaging numbers to get the result he wants.

While I think people should be much more accepting of 2nd- and 3rd-tier schools as options than they often are, kids should absolutely push themselves for the best-ranked school they can get into (assuming they also have a solid program for whatever field/major they're interested in). Not only is it beneficial to surround yourself with people who are smarter than you are, there are also second-order effects to attending an elite university, like making connections that can help you along with your career later. Not to mention that if a recruiter sees two recent-grad resumes that are identical except for the name of the school, they're going to pick the candidate that went to the "better" school.

Certainly you don't want to set yourself up for failure; if that elite school is going to be such a struggle that you're eventually going to be washed out, that's probably not a good outcome, and a lower-tier school would have been a better choice. But, absent that, I think it's good advice to attend the best school you can get into.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#399

Post by BobbyJo »

matai_kolila wrote: post #388
Meekro wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know when all of this happened to you, but these days there's no excuse. I just googled for "how to increase my sat score" and the first result was this collegeboard.org page[1] called "How to Improve Your SAT Score." It referred me to the Khan Academy's free SAT practice course[2]. [1] https://blog.collegeboard.org/how-to-improve-your-sat-score [2] https://www.khanacademy.org/sat/confirmed

Cool so when exactly is a student supposed to spend this time to study? I really think HN should stop for a moment and think about how insidious and pervasively poverty creeps into every aspect of a poor child’s life, because some of what’s being written here is embarrassingly naïve.

As someone who grew up super poor, time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids. Is that universal? Of course not, but name something better.

Re: Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

#400

Post by lr4444lr »

alistairSH wrote: post #321
BobbyJo wrote: post #285

The greatest source of admissions inequity is childhood socioeconomic status. Dropping the SAT is so obviously not a fix for that I question the competency of the administrators who thought doing so was a good idea. The SAT is probably the most attainable piece of the application process for a poor kid to succeed at. You literally just need a guide book or two and enough time to study. One good smart friend helps if…

Part of the argument for dropping the SAT is that the SAT has been shown to be a proxy for family socio-economic status and is no better an indicator of success at college than GPA, honor/AP/IB course participation, and extracurriculars. (I’m not making that argument myself, I haven’t seen numbers explained well enough to form a solid opinion)

It doesn't matter what the numbers show on that, because it's a strawman argument. Most people promoting the preservation of the SAT, (certainly the OP by implication of his comments) is that a high score on it is a sufficient metric for college aptitude, which has a low cost barrier of entry for the poor but intellectually gifted. The people who look to do away with it seem to wrongly assume that the former group are all saying a high score should be a necessary condition for a competitive applicant.
Post reply on HN