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

441–450 of 602 posts

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

#441

Post by lupire »

BobbyJo wrote: post #349
MereInterest wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially because the entire purported schtick of the SAT is to measure aptitude (the "A" in the acronym). In principle, if the SAT is true to its name, getting a study book shouldn't help at all. But since study guides or repeated testing does improve the score, it can't be a true measurement of aptitude.

I don't think they meant aptitude in the strictest sense. You ability to learn and apply ideas is an aptitude in and of itself. That is something studying is a part of demonstrating, and the the type of aptitude these tests, I believe, are intended to measure.

You know what's a good way to test for scholastic aptitude?

Try studying, and see if helps you learn. Studying to increase score on a test is scholastic aptitude.

If studying fails to raise your score, you lack scholastic aptitude.

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

#442

Post by dTal »

Meekro wrote: post #377
crazygringo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me reiterate: that requires for it occur to a student that you even can increase your SAT score. That remains non-obvious. After all, IQ tests aren't supposed to be something you can prepare for. So why should the SAT be, if it's this kind of supposedly holistic aptitude test? Why isn't "school overall" all the possible preparation you could do? Again, the difficulty isn't primarily in getting the extra resources…

So what if they call themselves an aptitude test? Believing what it says on the label is naive. I prefer to think of it as Jordan Peterson would say: it's a dragon guarding the treasure you wish to obtain. Your goal is to find a way to slay it. Family money can help, but I can tell you from experience that it's not a requirement. Some kids fully devoted themselves to the slaying of this dragon; others had a more "wha…

And when schools bring you in to read this comment out to the entire school in the auditorium, perhaps then you may blame the "attitude" of the kids, instead of the (highly class-based) environment they were brought up in.

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

#443

Post by psalminen »

lupire wrote: post #436
crazygringo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me reiterate: that requires for it occur to a student that you even can increase your SAT score. That remains non-obvious. After all, IQ tests aren't supposed to be something you can prepare for. So why should the SAT be, if it's this kind of supposedly holistic aptitude test? Why isn't "school overall" all the possible preparation you could do? Again, the difficulty isn't primarily in getting the extra resources…

The SAT stopped calling itself an Aptitude test 29 years ago. If you go to school and you don't presume that your can improve your score on a test by studying, it seems unlikely that you would score high on the SAT anyways.

As a stubborn, idealistic teenager I refused to do any preparation for the SAT/ACT. I believed that I _should_ be an aptitude test so I treated it as one.

Would preparation have been helpful? Most likely. But I was happy with my >2000 score, and felt.lkke.i earned it more by not preparing.

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

#444

Post by lupire »

HarveyBungus wrote: post #369

1) The SAT is obviously a superior and more objective indicator of "will do well on schoolwork" than the other components of college applications. Essays on political topics, biggest weaknesses, and a time you had to overcome a challenge are obviously less standardized, more subject to whims of reviewer, and this is why they are being promoted. The idea that there are kids with terrible scores but great portfolios of…

> The idea that you can't really study for the SAT is loserthink promoted by the SAT.

Nope. SAT offers an official curriculum via Khan Academy.

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/what-to-do-with...

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

#445

Post by lupire »

dougSF70 wrote: post #238

MIT admissions concluded that SAT scores were the least inequitable method for selecting students that would be successful at MIT.

Citation needed. MIT Dean of Admissions said the opposite:

"He says the standardized exams are most helpful for assisting the admissions office in identifying socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for MIT’s challenging education, but who don’t have the opportunity to take advanced coursework, participate in expensive enrichment programs, or otherwise enhance their college applications."

https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement...

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

#446

Post by davidgay »

malborodog wrote: post #422
davidgay wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

Well that's cause his _actual_ point is that they shouldn't have to, and that public schools should be run differently so as to eliminate the advantage of rich people just circumventing them, ya dig?

> Well that's cause his _actual_ point is that they shouldn't have to, and that public schools should be run differently so as to eliminate the advantage of rich people just circumventing them, ya dig?

I'm all for that point, I grew up in Switzerland which on the whole exemplifies that attitude (make sure the schools are good). But "we should fix the schools" is not a counter-argument to the fact that current admission inequity is primarily driven by socio-economic status.

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

#447

Post by lupire »

forinti wrote: post #288
gumby wrote: post #252

Why even pretend that admission is in some sense "fair"? I don't mean this as a "anti-woke" or "pro-woke" harangue, or as a middle school cynical pose. Admission in the USA is a manual and largely arbitrary process. Just like judges' rulings, it's influenced by which person happened to read the application, what they had for breakfast and what time of day it is. Plus random factors like the orchestra's french horn pl…

Just forget about trying to be fair: use some kind of test and pick out by lottery from the n best results.

This is what SAT provides:

A way to find highly capable students based on a very low bar (relative to college education), with a low ceiling, avoiding peacocking.

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

#448

Post by d3ad1ysp0rk »

zdragnar wrote: post #408
davidgay wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

That's why so many parents advocate for vouchers and school choice. Kids shouldn't be locked into shit schools just because their parents can't afford to move.

My anecdotal experience is that none of the ~10 or so pro-Charter School people I know are in the bottom 30% of incomes (even talking about bottom 30% of my network). Most of them reference the curriculum and their objections, whether from religious beliefs, pseudoscience, or similar. Others planned to send their kids to private school anyways and want to save money.

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

#449

Post by kelnos »

thegrimmest wrote: post #225
themitigating wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/22/nypd-fewer-a... The ‘clearances paradox’: could less policing actually reduce gun violence in New York? Your over simplifying the complex reasons behind crime.

I think you're oversimplifying the complex nature of policing. If we want peaceful, stable, societies we should model our policing systems on the places that most effectively deliver peace and stability. Two notable examples being Israel and Japan. Both places give police wide latitude to accomplish their goals and punish criminals harshly . Is Israeli policing discriminatory against Arabs? Yes. Is it effective? Also…

Or maybe we try to actually fix the problems that cause people to turn to violence and crime. "It's the economy, stupid!" and all that. People who feel financially secure and can pay for more than just life's basics have less reason to commit crime. People who have mental health issues are less likely to engage in criminal activity if they have those issues treated.

That won't fix everything, of course. People will get involved in crime for other reasons. Obviously there are rich people who are criminals; financial security doesn't remove every temptation to do crime. But I think a lot of the people you label "antisocial" these days are people who have been left behind by society, people who have gotten crushed by wages that haven't kept up with inflation (even before the current inflation issues), by companies who raise CEO pay and send dividends to investors, while ignoring the wages of their employees. Why would anyone bother to be "social" if doing so doesn't solve their economic insecurity?

And sure, there are some people who just don't give a shit about living in polite society, who don't think twice about violating norms and taking what they want. I have no problem locking those people up. But I think those people are a much smaller percentage of people who commit crimes than you think.

I don't know much about policing in Israel, but as I understand Japan, there's rampant corruption and a lot of innocent people behind bars. A near-100% conviction rate is just too good to be true. If you get charged with a crime in Japan, you are screwed, even if you didn't do anything wrong. The only alternative explanation is that Japanese police are so afraid of losing a case that they only charge the near-certain slam dunks. But if that were the case, I think we'd see a lot more crime in Japan than we do. So the only realistic explanation is that a lot of innocent people get steamrolled.

I do absolutely agree with your points 2 and 3. Time spent in prison should not make convicts into better criminals! Hell, even sitting in pre-trial detention for a few months can harden minor offenders. And after a prisoner has served their time, they shouldn't have that history dragged into employment, housing, credit, etc. decisions. If we still feel like they can't be trusted in jobs without their employers knowing about their conviction history, then they probably aren't fit to be released from prison in the first place.

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

#450

Post by lupire »

pannSun wrote: post #347
rayiner wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you would. WASPs don’t like Jews and never have. Only the justifications have changed.

It's the opposite. In a poll, WASPs gave Jews the 2nd highest rating (69, higher than Catholics, rating only themselves higher at 82), while Jews rated themselves at 89, and gave Evangelical Christians the lowest rating, 34. In other words, WASPs have a positive view of Jews, while Jews have a very negative view of WASPs. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/07/16/how-american... 2nd table In fact, no co…

Random Americans feelings of "warmness" isn't the same as admissions officers decisions.
Post reply on HN