Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:00 PM UTC

brigadier132 wrote: post #227

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wast…

> If a student isn't a highly-motivated learner, and their goal is maximising lifetime net earnings, they shouldn't be going to college I disagree. I think further education in valuable topics is valuable to people even if they are not motivated. I don't think getting into massive debt for this education is valuable to them. There is nothing inherent about college that requires it to be so expensive and simultaneousl…

> further education in valuable topics is valuable to people even if they are not motivated

Sure, but that doesn’t need to be college. Many European countries have colleges in name only that actually function as trade schools. An unmotivated learner should go to a cheap 2-year trade school and then start earning.

> college is about getting people into massive debt to fund college administrators

Completely agree. That said, we have standout colleges where the purpose is to educate our next generation of elites. That’s still important.

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

#232

Post by LeonardoTolstoy » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #212

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…

Will processes like this result in families avoiding (or at least not seeking out as much) rigorous high schools? It seems like some families might choose to send their kid to a not-super-rigorous high school — where they can coast in class and learn via outside enrichment — instead of a school with more rigorous academics where they'll be held to a higher bar by colleges. This would allow students to have a lower-st…

I'm skeptical someone would risk giving their child a significantly worse education in the off chance it might give them a marginally better chance to get into a top university. Regardless high income families moving to low income areas to go to those schools I would assume would be a net benefit for all from a tax perspective. Some of those taxes would presumably go right back to improving the local schools for everyone else.

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

#233

Post by gnicholas » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #185

anthonypasq wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't say you "added 350 SAT points" so much as your score went up by 350 points between 7th and 11th grade. I would imagine that for practically every student, SAT scores would go up by hundreds of points during this stage of academic development.

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

#234

Post by asoneth » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #208

jedberg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the massive blowback the College Board got from "Adversity Scores" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_SAT#2019_introd... would prevent them from doing that themselves.

However they do offer a "Landscape" which provides similar details and many admissions programs use that to do something like what you're describing.

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

#235

Post by jedberg » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #208

jedberg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure The College Board (makers of the SAT) have done that analysis. Not sure if they share it publicly, but I'll bet they share it with admissions officers.

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

#236

Post by throwway120385 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:02 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #161

Jensson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Being pro-every single medical treatment is epitome of anti-science. Science is following evidence-based medicine and the evidence shows that there are cases where chemotherapy is ineffective, like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15330... and https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20191213/adj... . Putting everybody with cancer on chemotherapy is anti-science.

Well if I were diagnosed with cancer and my doctor said 90% of the time chemotherapy was ineffective but that there are no other treatments, I might still consider doing chemotherapy in case I'm in that other 10% of patients. So it should at least be considered as an option. And this is what every good doctor does with every patient -- presents options, lets you know what the risks and benefits are, and works with you to make decisions.

I would be really upset if the doctor didn't at least let me make an informed decision here, even if you think I'm being anti-science by doing so.

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

#237

Post by webdood90 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:03 PM UTC

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.

Well, for one, you don't just throw your hands in the air and say it's an impossible problem.

Two, you don't label it as fair, and you recognize the disadvantages that exist and start talking about solutions.

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

#238

Post by webdood90 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:04 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #129

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

I think you can argue that this still isn't fair.

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

#239

Post by seabass-labrax » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

Disambiguation for my fellow residents of Britain: this is about university entrance tests for undergraduate courses at Dartmouth university in New Hampshire, USA, not primary school examinations at Dartmouth, Devon (the Original and the Best™).

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

#240

Post by asoneth » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

fakedang wrote: post #117

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…

Not just a higher score. Kids with 1600s (or close) were straight up not even considered.

They weren't admitted, but how do you know they were not even considered?

More generally, a 1600 is not some kind of "get into college free" card.

I did admissions for a very competitive university program many years ago and we primarily used test scores to establish a baseline. One reason was to make sure we only considered people who could handle the program's rigour, but equally valid was that the four of us couldn't possibly review thousands of applications so we needed an automatic filter. But after that filter we didn't pay attention to test scores except as a tiebreaker when filling the last few spots.