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

151–160 of 451 posts

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

#151

Post by brigadier132 »

etrautmann wrote: post #141
brigadier132 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> This is such a cynical and tired take

Good job, starting off strong with a real substantive criticism.

> I would imagine that most people attending college at least intend to learn something and level up some ability.

Your imagination is lacking and you have not spoken with many 18 year olds, the vast majority are not highly motivated learners. A large number of degrees teach skills that are not even valuable enough to pay back the amount of money that is put in. So they are leveling up in worthless shit. All these indebted graduates are clamoring to have the government pay for their bad decisions. None of them blame the institutions that charge these exorbitant amounts to supposedly become "cultured" and "creative".

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

#152

Post by JCharante »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #44
ZeWaka wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't enroll infinite people.

No, but surely you can enroll more people. I can't imagine theres a dearth of physical space or qualified educators near any university. The fact that they are not growing to accommodate the demand has always boggled my mind...

Many things fail at scale.

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

#153

Post by troupe »

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.

Yes the report sounds like Dartmouth is trying to do a good job of weighting the scores based on things that matter for college success--meaning not the race of the person.

The point I was trying to make was that it appears many colleges may have an incentive to NOT require ACT SAT tests if they want to continue to use race or proxy for race and avoid what the report from Dartmouth is suggesting. Dartmouth looks like they are considering ACT/SAT along with the students background / opportunities, but specifically NOT treating people differently based on the color of their skin.

Dartmouth is assuming that they will get racial diversity just by getting better at selecting the best students instead of trying to penalize or reward people for the color of their skin.

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

#154

Post by godelski »

msravi wrote: post #40
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.

And this: >> Third, under test-optional policies, some less-advantaged students withhold test scores even in cases where providing the test score would be a significant positive signal to Admissions. Importantly, Dartmouth Admissions uses SAT scores within context; a score of 1400 for an applicant from a high school in a lower-income community with lower school-wide test scores is a more significant achievement than…

This is a critical part. The problem is not using metrics (like SAT/ACT), the problem is using metrics blindly. That's the thing that always bugs me is when people just go on metrics alone as if they perfectly align with what's being attempted to be measured when metrics are only guides which choices must then be made from through careful evaluation.

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

#155

Post by kccqzy »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #78
ghaff wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I prepped on my own and did really good, but I was middle class and had a lot of other advantages. Prepping isn’t just about having access to prep material, but coaching that encourages you to actually practice the material.

My friends and I all prepped on our own. It really helped to have that kind of friendly competitive mindset among high school friends to provide each other motivation to one-up everyone else. Of course all of us were middle class, and we were all raised in the kinds of families value education above many things.

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

#156

Post by gumby »

MIT publicly said their stats showed that SAT was the best predictor of graduation (MIT tracks six-year graduation rate): https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

They accepted me (same year as the guy who wrote that article!) from a high school than only gave letter grades, computed no class rank or GPA, and offered no "AP" classes or SAT prep. Then again, back then, I don't remember colleges caring about extracurriculars either, though I might have forgotten.

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

#157

Post by ren_engineer »

The SAT was based on IQ tests used during WWI to try and find draftees with the most potential who shouldn't be wasted in the trenches. Standardized tests have always been about making things as fair as possible, and the fact that paying huge money for tutoring only results in minor score improvements should be a sign they are effective

the war against them was because people didn't like the implications that poor Asian immigrants were able to outscore other demographics regardless of income, which goes against modern academia's favored nurture over nature mindset and destroys the basis for trillions in social programs. Standardized tests effectively threaten the entire house of cards, even more than the replication crisis showing that most of the "research" used to justify modern social programs was fake in the first place

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

#158

Post by Der_Einzige »

Jensson wrote: post #83
nordsieck wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tend to think there is an unspoken fear that if it became more accessible it loses its prestige That might be a concern for Dartmouth and the Ivys. But for US state schools, not so much. And those generally provide a very high value:cost product.

College already lost its prestige since today everyone who wants to attend a college can do it, there are free spots every year. Now only specific colleges are prestigious not colleges in general like before. Also means that the "just increase the spots" already happened as well, there is no lack of spots today, just a lack of prestigious spots. But not everyone can get into prestigious positions, by definition prest…

Related, men mass opting out of academia is going to erode it's privileged independently of the other factors listed - https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-...

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

#159

Post by magicalist »

jvanderbot wrote: post #32
535188B17C93743 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Undergraduate GPA predicts lifetime earnings[1], incoming test scores and GPA are highly predictive of both advanced degrees (which increase earnings), and increased earnings within degrees [2], [3]. I suggest these effects are because being a good student aka "eating books" is correlated with conscientiousness. They show up to lectures, prepare, and test well. And conscientiousness is very highly correlated with lif…

> Undergraduate GPA predicts lifetime earnings[1]

That is...an extremely narrow study to use to make that broad an assertion. GPA of two classes from 2010 at a single business school in China, their starting salary, and then their salary in 2018?

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

#160

Post by seanmcdirmid »

anticorporate wrote: post #112
stonemetal12 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Space isn’t the limiter, teaching hours via faculty are. The glut of un/under employed PHds suggest that the limited faculty is an artificial limit. Schools could easily hire more faculty and expand their undergrad programs if they wanted to. They see their half percent acceptance rate as something that makes them special.

Exactly. There's no shortage of people who can teach, there is only a shortage of a willingness to pay them to do so.

Your popularity goes down if too many of your classes are taught by PhD students and post docs. Overhead is brutal, and research grants are limited, so hiring more faculty is tough. If they just hire enough professors to satisfy demand, they would be on the hook for paying most of their salaries since they are unlikely to get funding. Hiring a bunch of pure teaching faculty is a no go since that turns the flag ship into a less popular non-research university.
Post reply on HN