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

181–190 of 451 posts

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

#181

Post by photochemsyn »

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.

A chance to acquire a massive debt (four year tuition alone is > $240,000, not counting rent and food and books). Whether or not that will be worth it (as the main reason to go to an Ivy League school is for social networking with the children of wealthy parents who might fund future endeavors) is an open question.

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

#182

Post by JumpCrisscross »

brigadier132 wrote: post #176
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the vast majority are not highly motivated learners The honest truth is they shouldn't be going to college. Because they went to school and didn't come out cultured or creative. (I went to a state school. It was easy to structure your schedule with zero liberal arts. I almost did. To the extent I have regrets about my time in college, it's in not taking more liberal arts classes.)

> To the extent I have regrets about my time in college, it's in not taking more liberal arts classes. I also went to a state school, I took the liberal arts classes, they have added nothing of value to my life. If you want to get cultured, read.

> I took the liberal arts classes, they have added nothing of value to my life

Sure, many were useless. But the few that were good were golden. Sorry you missed that.

> If you want to get cultured, read

This is necessary but insufficient. The discussion is essential. To be clear, I'm not saying you can't become cultured outside college. (Of course you can.) But that coming out of college uncultured is close to a waste for most graduates, i.e. those graduating with a degree that isn't immediately in high demand at a six-figure wage.

If a student isn't a highly-motivated learner, and their goal is maximising lifetime net earnings, they shouldn't be going to college.

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

#183

Post by Kwpolska »

You know what’s an even better policy? Making standardised tests the sole admission criterion. No high school grades (which are often inflated, unless your teachers hate you), no extracurricular activities, no essays. Just one set of objective numbers from the national maturity exam; which tests and with what weights depending on the field of study. This is what universities do in Poland (for most fields of study; some might have extra tests to write), and it’s great at letting people from different backgrounds into universities while filtering out people highly unlikely to succeed.

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

#184

Post by drewcoo »

ren_engineer wrote: post #157

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 As…

If you're going to talk about the origins of the SAT, don't forget that it was designed by a eugenicist to try to exclude black candidates.

Ironically, the problem with them now is that they're now used to exclude white people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT

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

#185

Post by smeej »

anthonypasq wrote: post #135
causi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. You can retake the tests, hence they do test for persistence.

this clearly pales in comparison to the extended effort for 4 years of highschool that is factored into your gpa

In most cases, I'd agree with you, but my parents thought it would be a great idea to have me start taking the exams in 7th grade so that by the time it mattered, boy would I be ready.

Over four years, I added 350 SAT (1200-1550) points and 5 ACT points (30-35), but it seems pretty likely to me that it wasn't the direct work ("persistence") that made the difference as much as the generic four more years of schooling and general maturity.

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

#186

Post by janalsncm »

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…

That doesn’t actually address the concern if I understand it correctly. If Dartmouth is primarily concerned with accuracy, and SAT alone is predictive of performance, and wealthy students tend to score higher even for equally qualified applicants, then a test score only admissions process will naturally disadvantage poorer students.

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

#187

Post by bigstrat2003 »

paxys wrote: post #22
resters wrote: post #3

this says more (good stuff) about Dartmouth than it does about the standardized tests. If scoring higher on something that is close to an IQ test doesn't predict higher academic performance, what does that say about the coursework?

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.

I didn't spend a dime on ACT prep. I barely spent any time on it. I scored 33/36. It's perfectly possible to score well on these tests even if you don't spend money/effort on preparing.

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

#188

Post by melkor73 »

Ekaros wrote: post #105
webdood90 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

A large and generous welfare state.

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

#189

Post by alphazard »

This is refreshing. I sometimes wonder if the universities understand why they have value to industry. It's not the education. Schools are rating agencies for people.

The university admission process takes a more comprehensive look at candidates than is practical during the hiring process in industry. In particular they pay close attention to proxies for general intelligence (SAT math and to a lesser extent reading) and trait conscientiousness (grades, extra-curricular, etc.). If an employer sees Dartmouth on your resume, they can make an educated guess about your IQ and your conscientiousness, both of which they should care about as an employer.

As other comments have mentioned, measuring these psychometric traits more directly has the effect of identifying top candidates in unprivileged circumstances. While diluting these psychometric scores with other measures has the effect of biasing towards affluent candidates who can afford to do things that are impressive on paper.

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

#190

Post by pknomad »

elteto wrote: post #137
msravi wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 a score of 1400 for an applicant from a high school in a higher-income community And this is how you again discriminate based on race in a post-Affirmative Action world. The weight they assign to each context is…

How though?

They're explicitly tying academic performance in relation to one's socioeconomic background. I find their claim of "doing more with less being more impressive than doing more with more" reasonable.

The only way to avoid any sort of judgmental/arbitrary calls is to blindly apply academic standards (the way UT Austin does top 4% of your HS class) and that comes with its own problems.

Post reply on HN