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

141–150 of 451 posts

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

#141

Post by etrautmann »

brigadier132 wrote: post #93
boringg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The goal of school IS NOT to make you a good office worker Who defines this "goal"? Each student has their own individual goals. I bet you if you surveyed students "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." Would rank all the way to the bottom and they all are terrible reasons to get into $200k of deb…

This is such a cynical and tired take. I would imagine that most people attending college at least intend to learn something and level up some ability. Many of them will also enjoy partying in their early 20s. Both can be true, and there’s not a singular purpose of attending school.

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

#142

Post by laidoffamazon »

crazygringo wrote: post #115
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.

Which was, of course, a major justification for creating the SAT in the first place: > First offered in 1926 by the College Board... Early proponents of the SAT argued that the admissions exam made higher education more meritocratic. Admissions officers at elite institutions like Harvard believed the test would identify talented applicants at less academically strong high schools and accelerate their journeys into hi…

There was probably a time in which SAT scores are weighted highly in admissions for elite schools.

Now it's a starting level filter. You're not getting in because of top scores, but you will get rejected because of bad scores absent a massive alternative hook. People that get in have top scores and other superhuman traits.

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

#143

Post by laidoffamazon »

My ideal admissions system would consist of highly weighting standardized test scores and grades along with community impact and other extracurriculars as well as letters of recommendation from teachers and other community members.

...oh, wait, we have that admissions system. That's the admissions system of every flagship state school and the US Service Academies. Why does Dartmouth (and before it, MIT's) flip-flop on this matter to 99% of us again?

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

#144

Post by TheCaptain4815 »

It seems fairly obvious you need these standardized tests, especially when GPA inflation would be incentivized otherwise, but the SAT and ACT drive some very uncomfortable discussions involving intelligence, primarily on its hereditary nature and the possibility of "group-differences". Gets even more uncomfortable since we're talking about children. If "group-differences" exist at the genetic level for example, why shouldn't affirmative action be required since disadvantaged groups also pay taxes to these schools.

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

#145

Post by ericjmorey »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #49

This is not surprising to me. Our local school district started using social promotion several years ago when a new Superintendent started. Struggling students were ratcheted down to being taught materials 1-3 grades below their level. Extra credit not related to the subject were allowed to boost grades (such as coloring assignments in 4th grade Spanish). The end result was a huge population of kids with straight B a…

That seems like a poor plan to get kids "up to speed" with their peer groups. Especially if any of those students have parents who are unable or unwilling to provide a nurturing environment for their kids.

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

#146

Post by ryukoposting »

zeroCalories wrote: post #102
ryukoposting wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. Being good at taking tests in high school is a positive indicator for being good at taking tests in college? A staggering discovery.

I don't know if you're trying to make a point about test taking, but you're aware that college GPA is composed of more than just being a good test taker? Better way of putting it might be: someone that scores highly on an IQ proxy is good at everything.

Not in my experience in the Big Ten. For any math/science class, the plurality of the final grade was made up by exam scores - typically 45-60 percent, to my recollection.

60ish percent is a very particular number, because it's the highest weight that doesn't make it possible to pass the class by doing almost nothing except the exams. At 65 percent, you're giving students an easy way to game the system.

Some classes had a substantial lab component, but it was relatively easy to score well on labs. Labs were graded by TAs, who were consistently more lax than the professor. I don't think there's some coordinated effort by TAs to lower the bar; they were simply too busy with their own studies to provide a thorough criticism of every lab report they received. In most classes, labs were effectively a curve.

English courses were different, since those had essays instead of exams. However, I'd argue that it's feasible to write a paper "to the rubric" in the same sense that one can shape their studies "to the test." Given the audience HN caters to, I'd imagine that we're more interested in the science/math/engineering stuff anyway.

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

#147

Post by visarga »

dpweb wrote: post #61
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 proble…

It's also risky to take on debt if there is a higher chance of not graduating. Being admitted on a lower score might come back to bite the student. There's no substitute for actually having a handle on the subject matter. The fix is to help students before they start lagging.

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

#148

Post by BeetleB »

dpweb wrote: post #90
doctorpangloss wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Increasing enrollment means increasing faculty. Maybe controversial but I really believe this lowers overall standards. You just can't find enough faculty to meet the high standards. Look what happened when tech blew up - they hired like crazy. I'd argue the overall level of programming skill went down.

> You just can't find enough faculty to meet the high standards.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Many/most PhDs who want a faculty position will never be able to get one because the availability of jobs is so low. There's really no shortage of potential faculty members.

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

#149

Post by HL33tibCe7 »

Tainnor wrote: post #131
Ekaros wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you correct for that? Move all children to government controlled facilities and do not let them see their parents until they are some age like 21? Or maybe we should get rid of all criteria for education and just do huge once a year lottery. You get one chance to enter. As poor people can not afford more.

> As poor people can not afford more. Then you gotta make it affordable for them. You can still have elite schools for the absolute best (though I would question that certain self-styled 'elite schools' are really principally selecting for that and not e.g. wealth or family connections), but that doesn't mean that you cannot raise the bar on public and affordable education (including traditional schools and universit…

> certain self-styled 'elite schools' are really principally selecting for that and not e.g. wealth or family connections),

This hasn’t been true for years, decades even

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

#150

Post by zild3d »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #12
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 agree. Every other comment here seems to be like "well duh" and I'm... skeptical. My experience is that the ACT/SAT seem to be good indicators of getting good grades in well-defined spaces. But things like creativity, curiosity, work ethic are much better predictors of other kinds of success that frankly matter much more in the real world. I know some really, really unintelligent people who got good grades in colle…

> things like creativity, curiosity, work ethic are much better predictors

of course but how would these be measured

Post reply on HN