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

121–130 of 451 posts

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

#121

Post by anon291 »

retzkek wrote: post #82
troupe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a school asks for SAT or ACT scores but, hypothetically, wants to discriminate based on race or some other characteristic, doesn't requiring the ACT/SAT make them more likely to be liable for discrimination because there is an objective standard to show that they are treating some groups differently than others? I thought that some of the recent rulings against selecting students based on their race hinged on the…

The NY Times article about this addressed that concern specifically, indeed it was the key point of the study: > It’s worth acknowledging a crucial part of this story. Dartmouth admits disadvantaged students who have scores that are lower on average than those of privileged students. The college doesn’t apologize for that. Students from poor neighborhoods or troubled high schools have effectively been running with wi…

> I also asked whether she was worried that conservative critics of affirmative action might use test scores to accuse Dartmouth of violating the recent Supreme Court ruling barring race-conscious admissions. She was not. Dartmouth can legally admit a diverse class while using test scores as one part of its holistic admissions process, she said.

I am conservative and I have no problem with poor students from disadvantaged backgrounds having their scores weighed differently.

I absolutely do have a problem with race-based admissions. Most conservatives have a problem with race-based admissions because it is not fair to poor students.

I remember a girl from my college (elite institution on west coast) that would go on and on about how disadvantaged she was because she was 'black'. Firstly, she's like a quarter black and looks completely white. Secondly, and more importantly, she's filthy rich. I mean... like multiple international trips a year growing up. Super picky about fashion, etc. Both parents had PhDs. Nevertheless, she qualified for all the diversity offerings the school had, including scholarships, special programs, etc.

Meanwhile, we had kids whose parents never attended college and grew up in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with very disadvantaged background, who were given nothing because of their race and sex.

Now, I'm certainly not part of the latter group (grew up middle class and am neither white nor black or any 'disadvantaged' minority) and frankly don't have a whole lot to lose in this debate, but seeing this with my own eyes has convinced me that we need to look at actual disadvantage, not just race. There are A LOT of high-achieving black, latinos, . That's great! More power to them. I have no qualms with rich people.

I do have qualms when they pretend to be disadvantaged to get an advantage over obviously more disadvantaged others. This is annoying when Donald Trump does it. It's annoying when Elon Musk does it. And it's annoying if someone who's not white does it too.

The idea that simply because you're of a particular race, you're automatically disadvantaged is retarded.

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

#122

Post by jltsiren »

ghaff wrote: post #65
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The real cost is the opportunity cost. Prepping for a competitive test (I don't know if SAT or ACT is one) is a full-time job. If you work for living, you don't have the time and energy to prepare adequately.

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

#123

Post by garyrob »

My own experience was that I was a mediocre high school student due to my ADHD-Inattentive, but then the SATs were interesting enough to me that I was able to really, really focus for the length of the test. And I did far better on that test that anyone would have suspected I could do based only on my grades, and it was, in fact, predictive of my college performance. In college, I was able to figure out tricks to manage my ADHD.

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

#124

Post by biomcgary »

bwanab wrote: post #100
troupe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a school asks for SAT or ACT scores but, hypothetically, wants to discriminate based on race or some other characteristic, doesn't requiring the ACT/SAT make them more likely to be liable for discrimination because there is an objective standard to show that they are treating some groups differently than others? I thought that some of the recent rulings against selecting students based on their race hinged on the…

The way you phrased it, yes. But, that isn't what the report was saying. It was using a generalized criteria of disadvantaged meaning low income or non-english speaking. Race based criteria can't be considered, but income can which means poor white kids from Appalachia as well as poor black and latino kids from urban areas.

Although my family moved around too much to actually be from Appalachia, I was a white kid with an Appalachian family background that grew up on government assistance (on and off) that was significantly helped on my academic journey by the use of the ACT to award scholarships.

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

#125

Post by dyno12345 »

rconti wrote: post #107

NYTimes "The Daily" podcast had an informative episode on the matter[1] I'm out of the loop since my college days are behind me, and I don't have kids. I had heard colleges were going to rely less on standardized testing (and many dropped the requirement during Covid when SAT tests didn't take place at all). I had also heard that there was controversy over reliance on standardized tests, because the wealthy can more…

re: grade inflation, they can statistically normalize the grades

fwiw GPA and SAT scores are highly correlated anyway

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

#126

Post by Jensson »

yieldcrv wrote: post #86
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.

[flagged]

> SATs are the chemotherapy of inclusion

This is very apt. And then all the anti science people come and argue we need to take every patient off chemotherapy because it hurts them, and thus making things worse for these poor patients. I think it is ok to think that those kind of people are insane and need to be stopped, and that chemotherapy is overall a good things for patients even if it hurts a bit.

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

#127

Post by troupe »

retzkek wrote: post #82
troupe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a school asks for SAT or ACT scores but, hypothetically, wants to discriminate based on race or some other characteristic, doesn't requiring the ACT/SAT make them more likely to be liable for discrimination because there is an objective standard to show that they are treating some groups differently than others? I thought that some of the recent rulings against selecting students based on their race hinged on the…

The NY Times article about this addressed that concern specifically, indeed it was the key point of the study: > It’s worth acknowledging a crucial part of this story. Dartmouth admits disadvantaged students who have scores that are lower on average than those of privileged students. The college doesn’t apologize for that. Students from poor neighborhoods or troubled high schools have effectively been running with wi…

A. People who attend poor high school and get a 29 on his ACT are admitted over students to went to a college prep private school and got a 32.

B. People who are of a certain race that get a 29 on their ACT are admitted over people of another race that get a 32.

It sounds like Dartmouth is doing A. The recent court cases had to do with schools that were doing B. If a college requires SAT/ACT tests and continues doing B, then it is pretty easy to see they are doing so based on objective data.

I believe those court cases are one of the reasons schools are moving to test optional--not because the SAT/ACT isn't useful to predict success at college, but because they see it as a liability in their acceptance process.

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

#128

Post by elteto »

alberth wrote: post #71

Anecdote: a friend of mine is an admission officer for one of the US largest public university. They told me that if your kid has a 4.0 GPA (a perfect GPA), do not take the SAT/ACT ... because, without those standardized test scores - your kid is "perfect". But unless your kid has a perfect 4.0 GPA, taking the SAT/ACT typically helps your child get into a better school than their GPA might indicate. YMMV

That sounds very localized to the institution your friend works at. And public universities have very different admission procedures than private ones.

You won’t get into a high tier private university (Ivy or not) without SAT/ACT scores.

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

#129

Post by jedberg »

webdood90 wrote: post #92
hardware2win wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Standardized exams are the most fair and transparent. Materials and tutors are available easily for free or cheaply on the internet nowadays.

> Standardized exams are the most fair and transparent. perhaps the _most_ fair right now, but certainly not what I would consider fair. consider a middle class family that has secure food, housing, and transportation vs lower class family where the child might potentially have less consistent sleep, food, or has to work to help pay bills. one has more distractions than the other.

And the paper specifically mentions that they correct for that by counting the scores higher for people who come from unprivileged backgrounds.

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

#130

Post by nostrademons »

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.

SAT is well-correlated with 1st year GPA, but not well-correlated with eventual job placement (although it does correlate pretty well with eventual income). However, 1st year GPA is well-correlated with 2nd year GPA, which is well-correlated with 3rd-year GPA, which is well-correlated with 4th year GPA, which is well-correlated with eventual job placement, which is well-correlated with entry-level salary, which is well-correlated with mid-career salary.

A pretty useful model for life is that it's a series of contests, and doing well at the previous contest gives you an advantage for the next couple contests, but only the next couple contests. By the time you get to mid-career, nobody really cares what your high school GPA was. However, because each contest determines which set of subsequent contests you'll face, performance early on can have outsize effects on eventual life outcomes. You typically won't be applying for CEO jobs if you worked retail your whole life, unless you lie your ass off and bullshit convincingly to executive recruiters.

Post reply on HN