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

Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

home.dartmouth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 451 posts

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#61

Post by dpweb »

ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

Always felt that the ability to think was indicative of academic success.

But also a good SAT for (those not naturally brilliant = most of us) also a positive indication of the student work ethic (to study for the test).

The problem I believe with the disadvantged students argument, which I believe to be a very real problem - is that lowering the standards wrt the test scores - is just a bad solution to a real problem.

Poor students do sit at a disadvantage - but the fix is much more difficult and complicated, and involves that child's entire life experience until they become 17 or 18 y/old. No one has a handle on how to fix it.

I get the feeling smart + hard work will come back into fashion when it comes to academic opportunities.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#62

Post by subpixel »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #35
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

If the universities were sincere about that, they would figure out how to increase enrollment. Why is every parameter of admissions open to change despite tradition, except that one?

Elite institutions do not exist to give more people access to anything.

And where that is a goal, there is clearly a point where you have to draw a line based on capacity, student:teacher ratios, etc.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#63

Post by rhaps0dy »

resters wrote: post #25
paxys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that SAT scores are directly proportional to how much time, effort and money you have spent in preparation should tell you that it is very different from a general IQ test.

Do we know that general IQ tests are not also something that a person can improve on with practice?

No, AFAIK you can very much improve at general IQ tests with practice. But all IQ measurements and normalisation are taken on subjects who (hopefully) haven't practiced, so the correlation between the SAT and IQ measurements should not include the practice factor on the IQ side.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#64

Post by readthenotes1 »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #35
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

If the universities were sincere about that, they would figure out how to increase enrollment. Why is every parameter of admissions open to change despite tradition, except that one?

Why would we want more people taking student loans to get a questionable degree?

Trade schools make a lot more sense for most. Get a good job and you can self study from a position of safety...

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#65

Post by ghaff »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47
BobaFloutist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they should be publicly run and free to take and send to universities.

There is a lot of support for students who can’t afford to take the test. What isn’t really included is test prep. China has the gaokao, which everyone can take, but the prep factor is real even if they tried to outlaw it.

But your local library probably has test prep books. I know things have gotten more competitive since back in the day but you can probably get 90% of the way there without expensive test prep courses.

(Yes, it takes time and commitment but it's mostly not the case that paying for test prep courses automatically translates into higher scores.)

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#66

Post by BeetleB »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #35
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

If the universities were sincere about that, they would figure out how to increase enrollment. Why is every parameter of admissions open to change despite tradition, except that one?

Not sure if you're referring to Dartmouth or universities in general. For state universities, I think they do increase enrollment all the time. University of Michigan, for example, increased enrollment by 25% in the last decade.

What did you have in mind?

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#67

Post by CharlieDigital »

omgJustTest wrote: post #60
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

IMO the thing that tests do not sample is persistance. Missing that degree of freedom misses important mind-sets to achieving goals. One of the most interesting studies, not specifically focused on "success" / GPA, but on "life-satisfaction" comes from a longitudinal study "Project Talent"[1]. The key correlation to "life-satisfaction"/happiness is how many questions a person _attempts_ to answer on an otherwise un-f…

    > IMO the thing that tests do not sample is persistance
See Angela Duckworth's research on "grit"; it is indeed very difficult to test for.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#68

Post by boringg »

spamizbad wrote: post #17
SnooSux wrote: post #5

To measure academic achievement they use First Year GPA. It makes sense they're correlated, both require studying known material for a test. But is GPA the best measure, especially first year? I would be interested in other metrics like 3rd-4th year GPA or placements into jobs and such.

I believe there's some research that suggests your college GPA is not correlated strongly with job performance[1]. I suspect if SAT/ACT scores are strongly correlated with GPA, there's reason to suggest it may also not be strongly correlated with job performance (but I can't find anywhere that tests that). I suppose this shouldn't be surprising. School does not train you to be a good office worker. [1] https://www.li…

The goal of school IS NOT to make you a good office worker. The goal of school is to create the ability to think creatively, rationally and critically and make you a better citizen of society through those processes.

Job performance is subjectively measured by your bosses which has political implications. It is inherently a terrible metric.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#70

Post by troupe »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #35
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

If the universities were sincere about that, they would figure out how to increase enrollment. Why is every parameter of admissions open to change despite tradition, except that one?

Harvard, Yale, etc. could set a particular standard and increase enrollment to accept everyone who met that standard and (if logistics allowed) that could possibly be a good thing. In some ways the massive online classes seem to be piloting this idea.

However, if you go spend some time teaching at a community college, I don't think you'll walk away with the idea that somehow getting all those students pushed into a university would improve things for the community college students or for the ability to educate kids at the university.

Increasing enrollment might be beneficial, but past a certain point it is going to be detrimental to education.

Post reply on HN