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

Post by jandrese » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

yumraj wrote: post #198

piombisallow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, you mean kids from a disadvantaged background can't build a 10 page CV filled with outreach, volunteering, expensive sports and musical practice by the time they're 18? They don't have an instinctive feel for the current pieties, bred into them since they're 3, to put in their admission essays?

No they are supposed to put their sob story and life’s traumas that shaped them into their college essay. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MyD0m7JXgjA

Post by tverbeure » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:22 PM UTC

trgn wrote: post #250

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…

It's so weird to me that all this data exists, and that's it available and munged enough to be actionable. Do colleges really keep track of this for the tens of thousands of high schools, not only that, but all the income info, the mechanics of student placement for each school district, etc... it just seems so intensely convoluted.

Post by runarberg » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

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…

Post by ckemere » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

pknomad wrote: post #190

elteto wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 by yieldcrv » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #126

yieldcrv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.