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

521–530 of 602 posts

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

#521

Post by WalterBright »

andrepd wrote: post #452
WalterBright wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A point is reached in that any improvement in fairness to one group will decrease fairness to another. For example, I'm bald. That's unfair. At some point, one has to just accept it and move on.

I fail to see how the educational system has reached the end of any possible or conceivable improvement. I find it very very unlikely that 2022 USA is the end of history (but Mr Fukuyama might like a word with you :p) Also, as a fellow man afflicted with male-pattern baldness, I wouldn't dream of comparing that with the injustices discussed in this thread.

> I fail to see how the educational system has reached the end of any possible or conceivable improvement

At least the public school has not made any objective improvement since around 1970 or so. That's pretty good evidence that that system cannot get any better.

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

#522

Post by junofan »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #493
dTal wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you study for an IQ test? Perhaps, but then is that fair? If you do, what is actually being measured? Certainly not IQ anymore. Maybe it doesn't occur to students that they should attempt to increase their score because they have a certain innocent model of the world, perhaps one in which they put trust in educational institutions to (as they claim to do) tell them how they should best achieve personal success.…

>Would you study for an IQ test? I'd study for any test that was consequential to my future. >Maybe it doesn't occur to students that they should attempt to increase their score In my opinion, if it doesn't occur to someone that they can better their score on any test by studying, then they aren't ready for college. Studying isn't some sort of arcane concept available only to the privileged few. >Reminder: you are re…

I mean, in high school did it occur to you how to become a fighter pilot? College is about as far removed as flight school in some people’s lives.

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

#523

Post by WalterBright »

kelnos wrote: post #391
WalterBright wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> many people don't live within walking distance

True. You can say anything at all about people, and there will be many exceptions.

Parents with kids tend to make an effort to be within range of the local school.

> More kids than it seems you realize.

I'm aware I have a different perception of walking distance that is quite a bit further than most parents, based on how far from the local schools I see kids walking to/from. It peters out to about 0 at the half mile mark.

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

#524

Post by [deleted] »

pannSun wrote: post #328
rayiner wrote: post #100

What surprises me is how many Asians support these measures. Make no mistake: our ability to progress as we have in America has depended on the fact that objective metrics cannot easily be gamed. The cost of test prep is a minor barrier to entry compared to the cultural knowledge required to write an essay that moves a WASP admissions officer, or the social capital and connections required to get involved in charitab…

If culturally-discriminating WASP admissions officers were the main barrier, one would not expect non-Jewish whites to be the most underrepresented group in the Ivy League. Circa 2019, looking at non-international students only: Ivy League US Ratio Mean SAT score [1] Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 n/a Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 1216 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 1148 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 1043 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 96…

[deleted]

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

#525

Post by WalterBright »

kelnos wrote: post #392
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…

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 assumpt…

> privileged

Lower middle class. Pretty ordinary.

> in a position to surmount obstacles is privilege

I presume you live in America. That makes you just as privileged. Consider all the millions with nothing that are desperate to get into America. They see something you're missing?

> you're still going to have a harder time than the kids without the obstacles

Well, yes. Overcoming obstacles makes for a more compelling candidate.

> And not in ways that are obvious to admissions departments such that your experience would give you a leg up.

The opportunity to bring how you surmounted obstacles to the attention of the admissions people is through your application.

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

#526

Post by WalterBright »

kelnos wrote: post #387
WalterBright wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean by "test prep" is learning how to game the test, not actually learning the material the test covers.

Why does it seem so odd to you that learning how the test works, and learning about strategies that work for the specific test, can increase your score? It seems obvious that this would be the case, and it's pretty clear that this actually has helped many people (myself included) get a better score on subsequent attempts.

Why not just learn the material instead? It's a much more useful skill. And you can be proud that you did it without gaming the test.

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

#527

Post by WalterBright »

stale2002 wrote: post #375
WalterBright wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean by "test prep" is learning how to game the test, not actually learning the material the test covers.

> What I mean by "test prep" is learning how to game the test You'd also be wrong here. Let me give you a simple example, that might not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn't know the rules of these tests. At one point in time, on some tests, there was a "guessing penalty" for getting a wrong answer. Having a basic understanding of how that works, and different guessing strategies, can increase your score. E…

> that might not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn't know the rules of these tests.

1. Read the rules of the tests. Come on! Does one really need handholding with this?

2. Understanding the probability of success at guessing based on how many of the answers you can eliminate is trivial probability, which goes back to my advice to pay attention in math class.

3. "how long to spend on a question" I'm laughing/crying now. It's third grade arithmetic to figure out the time per question. You know, number of minutes for the test divided by the number of questions. Of course skim the test picking off the easy ones then the medium ones and save the hard ones for last. This is just common sense.

If this is what test prep is, things are much worse than I thought. Who needs to be told that reading the instructions is a strategy for doing well on the test? My gawd.

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

#528

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #527
stale2002 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I mean by "test prep" is learning how to game the test You'd also be wrong here. Let me give you a simple example, that might not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn't know the rules of these tests. At one point in time, on some tests, there was a "guessing penalty" for getting a wrong answer. Having a basic understanding of how that works, and different guessing strategies, can increase your score. E…

> that might not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn't know the rules of these tests. 1. Read the rules of the tests. Come on! Does one really need handholding with this? 2. Understanding the probability of success at guessing based on how many of the answers you can eliminate is trivial probability, which goes back to my advice to pay attention in math class. 3. "how long to spend on a question" I'm laughin…

[deleted]

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

#529

Post by texaslonghorn5 »

bombcar wrote: post #148
MichaelCollins wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have them selected randomly from those that clear the standardized testing bar. Otherwise, without selecting for academic performance, universities become a continuation of highschool where high achievers are surrounded by riffraff who don't really want to learn but rather spend a few years partying with student loans before hitting the workforce.

The solution is to make high school more selective - which is done in some countries. Around 12 it is determined if you’re on the college path or the tradeschool path and you go from there Then suddenly you have the ability to boot non-performers on the college path into something else.

You really think we can accurately determine people's paths by age 12?? It's more likely the determination ends up as a proxy for whose parents were rich enough to [stay at home to / pay for someone to] train their kids to get onto the college track.

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

#530

Post by jjav »

BobbyJo wrote: post #399
matai_kolila wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids

In a poor family, the kids are likely working a part-time job before going to school and then another part-time job (or two) after school. There's not much free time. They might also be the caretaker for younger siblings since their parents are also working three full time jobs so they never see them.

Post reply on HN