Live data from Hacker News

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

home.dartmouth.edu

201–210 of 451 posts

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

#201
post #52
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 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…

Yes, it will be easier to sue Dartmouth (successfully) for race-based discrimination if/when they return to requiring standardized tests. For example, they won't be able to admit certain minorities with low test scores while not admitting other applicants with similar/better test scores.

However, it sounds like their system works around this problem by weighting the test score based on the average score at the school. So they can still down-weight the application of a poor Asian student from a more challenging school, compared to a different minority student who goes to a school with worse SAT performance. If Dartmouth's percentage of Asian students doesn't tick upward materially in coming years, I would assume this is what they are doing.

To steelman the argument for this process, it's effectively boosting the scores of kids whose parents didn't care as much about education, or who had no avenue into a challenging school. On the other hand, this process dings students from families that prioritize education, who work really hard. Those kids would probably succeed at Dartmouth, and beyond.

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

#202
post #195

Are we maybe missing the forest for the trees here? Like, do the test scores or the academic achievement at Dartmouth actually matter? By sheer dumb luck, I am exactly the kind of intelligent schools and standardized tests measure for. I went to my first choice schools on a full academic scholarship for both undergrad and grad school. And it's meaningless in the real world. The most important connections I've made ce…

If what you said is true, then you are likely an ideal employee for the vast majority of roles. You can read well, understand what you are supposed to do, follow instructions, etc.

It's not meaningless in the real world. You may not be satisfied with your level of success, but that's dependent on how you define success.

You won't find many dumb people among self made multi-millionaires. But being high IQ isn't enough to get you there. It also requires creativity, people skills, a network, luck, etc. We don't test for those things because the people running the show aren't interested in identifying people to compete with them, they are interested in identifying people who will work for them.

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

#203
post #195

Are we maybe missing the forest for the trees here? Like, do the test scores or the academic achievement at Dartmouth actually matter? By sheer dumb luck, I am exactly the kind of intelligent schools and standardized tests measure for. I went to my first choice schools on a full academic scholarship for both undergrad and grad school. And it's meaningless in the real world. The most important connections I've made ce…

High five to all the former gifted and talenteds.

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

#204
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... is it close to an IQ test? Like, people study very specifically for these standardized tests, and success is also related to how much prep work you put in. I think that may also align with how people study for exams once they're enrolled students, how much work they put into projects/papers/etc.

[dead]

... but b/c this is a highly competitive school, those "small" differences matter. Looking at figure 1, where they divide by scores into 16 equal buckets, we can tell that the median was over 1500, so the space between say 1510 and 1600 has to express as much of the variation as the whole range to the left. Similarly looking at figure 5, the impact to your admission chances of moving from 1550 to 1600 is larger than the impact of moving from 1200 to 1400. In that context, 60 points is pretty significant.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the UC system does — they refuse to consider SATs.

I’ll admit I forgot they kept test optional - I’ll celebrate when they bring it back, not when elite schools whose purpose is to segregate and enrich the few do it.

They are not test-optional; they refuse to consider it. They previously toyed with the idea of making their own test, but IIRC they gave up on it (probably because they realized it have the same features/bugs as the existing tests). They may be forced to bring mandatory testing back in the future, but currently there are no rumors that will happen. They have other priorities for admission these days.

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

#206
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

Not exactly, it's tough because every high school needs a different normalization, and it may drift from cohort to cohort. Most universities only ever see a handful of students from any given HS, so it's really tough to untangle the big spike of 5.0 students. Usually the results are weakly predictive of academic success, if the correlation even exists at all. External agencies like the CollegeBoard offer data as a service type solutions for this, but they're (A) low quality, (B) expensive, and (C) have lots of weird privacy concerns because it's data about minors.

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

#207
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you just normalize the scores based on socioeconomic indicators like is done in the article. Of course, this highly advantages well groomed students from bad demographics, and horribly disadvantages neglected students from good demographics. That's why China worked hard to ban test prep. But either way, it's a pretty good proxy for IQ.

I think we're missing each other. Propensity to study may be a different attribute than IQ, which is a predictor for both standardized test scores and academic success. Normalizing for socioeconomic factors does not in itself disambiguate these possibilities. Someone with low motivation to study is not necessarily 'neglected'. I've seen years ago a highly cited paper showing relatively high correlations between SAT s…

Propensity to study is highly correlated with socioeconomic factors. Kids from good homes are provided the support and encouragement needed to get it done.

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

#208

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

It would be interesting to regress out family income from scores and then correct the scores to the national median family income. I wonder if anyone does that.

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

#209

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…

> the fact that paying huge money for tutoring only results in minor score improvements

This might be true in aggregate, but I’ve seen data that says otherwise (buddy owns a test prep school). The keys are that the student wants the test prep and that the student has room to grow (i.e., not already near the top, where increases are capped).

Middle of the pack students can gain 50-150 points per skill (this is a lot).

> 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

Is this implying that Asian immigrants do better because of genetics (nature)?

The non-agenda-based research on this topic is pretty clear that Asian immigrant success is mostly about a culture of schooling and learning in Asian communities. This includes things like tutoring, “cram schools”, and test prep.

Here is an example of research/views from outside the US:

https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/vol2no1/setsuo.html

Almost all academic success is built on a culture of learning of some sort (e.g., parental involvement in schooling, reading to kids, etc.). Note that this is true regardless of race. The higher quality (non-agenda-based) research in this area all focuses on how this culture of learning can be fostered, with special focus on low SES (low socio-economic status) families regardless of race.

> destroys the basis for trillions in social programs

> Standardized tests effectively threaten the entire house of cards

Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-t...

Fwiw, I actually agree that a lot of research in education is non-replicable, agenda-based bullshit, but your comments here go against both the better research and fairly substantial anecdotal evidence (my buddy’s test prep program).

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

#210
post #2

Shocking that a “Scholastic Aptitude Test” or “American College Test” would predict future scholastic achievement at the collegiate level.

I know. Sarcasm aside though, there is a growing movement of HS and elementary school teachers looking to remove all KPIs from schools. It is very worrying that this protected class of workers are arguing they are special compared to every other problem in the world and their performance and those who they are teaching should never be measured.
Post reply on HN