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

281–290 of 451 posts

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

#281

Post by rozap »

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…

I just don't see how this is a bad thing. At the end of the day, admissions depts are selecting for potential. A middling test score from a kid with access to all the support they need shows that they've reached their potential. A middling test score from a kid that has received little to no support shows that there is a whole lot more there.

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

#282

Post by jobs_throwaway »

runarberg wrote: post #255
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…

That is a pretty old link which has been severed a long time ago. They’ve even changed the name from Scholastic aptitude test to just SAT, in an effort to convey that SAT doesn’t actually measure anything but it self. (This is in a stark contrast to IQ which makes ridiculous and pseudo-scientific claims that it measures something approaching what they call general intelligence ) I have many beefs with SAT and standar…

> IQ is a horrible and racist concept that should remain along with phrenology as a pathetic attempt to use science to explain racist beliefs

How then do you explain IQ's strong correlation with positive life outcomes like work success, educational achievement, happiness, etc

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=74943....

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...

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

#283

Post by alberth »

elteto wrote: post #276
alberth wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re saying the same thing. 99% of kids don’t have a perfect 4.0 GPA. But the point is, if you do happen to have a kid who does - there’s more harm than good that will result from taking SAT/ACT. For all others, it’s highly recommend to take.

I don’t think we are saying the same thing. My point is that, 4.0 GPA or not, if you don’t take the SAT/ACT you will be at a disadvantage when applying to elite, private universities. For the very simple reason that there’ll be many others with similar background as you, with the exact same GPA _and_ SAT/ACT scores. You’ll be more of a wildcard to admissions due to lack of information. If you want to have a chance to…

Are you guessing this or know this for a fact?

Because you should make clear if you’re speculating what your saying or know it’s true

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

#284

Post by counters »

gnicholas wrote: post #214
pknomad wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just socioeconomic background, it also includes 'how much your parents cared about your education', to some extent. For some families (think of the typical Asian immigrant family), getting the kids a good education is the first priority. They will sacrifice vacations, living in a nicer house, etc. in order to make sure their kids go to better schools and get better grades. If you have two families that are e…

It has to be asked out loud - do you think that the admissions departments at top universities haven't explicitly thought about this?

In a post-SFFA vs Harvard world, anecdotes and thought experiments carry very little water. We all know - and the universities are very explicit about this - that socio-economic indicators are the new affirmative action. It's clearly the only practical way to effect the sort of diversity missions that many Universities seek to establish (since by their own published work, it correlates with strong community-wide academic and scholarly outcomes0. At this point, since we all know what's going on, the only question to ask is, "Why didn't you try to game the system since you know how it works?"

I'm not passing judgment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, whether it's honest or dishonest, or whether it's fair or not. It's just reality. SFFA v Harvard is a _horrible_ decision based on absurd jurisprudence and a total divorce from the truths of the world we live in. I commend everyone from admissions boards to clever families who learn how to play the new rules of the game better than those who backed the jurisprudence in the first place.

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

#285

Post by ghaff »

gnicholas wrote: post #242
doctorpangloss wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the universities were sincere about that, they would figure out how to increase enrollment. Why is every parameter of admissions open to change despite tradition, except that one?

Dartmouth actually has a pretty unique program that allowed them to increase enrollment substantially. Basically, every sophomore stays around for the summer semester, but takes off either fall or spring to do an internship or something. The sophomore summer is a great bonding experience for the students, and the program allows the school to enroll significantly more students than they would be able to house otherwis…

The Dartmouth plan (D-plan was basically a way to introduce co-education without reducing the number of male students. Not a bad thing at all but that was pretty much the impetus.

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

#286

Post by stanford_labrat »

What if schools had a minimum-level lottery system based on standardized tests? E.g. "you must score XXXX to be eligible for entry to a T20 school, and you will get in randomly". XXXX+50 for a T10, XXXX+100 for a T5, XXXX-50 for a T50 etc...schools could tailor their minimum score to whatever they desired.

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

#287

Post by genman »

troupe wrote: post #127
retzkek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A. People who attend poor high school and get a 29 on his ACT are admitted over students to went to a college prep private school and got a 32. B. People who are of a certain race that get a 29 on their ACT are admitted over people of another race that get a 32. It sounds like Dartmouth is doing A. The recent court cases had to do with schools that were doing B. If a college requires SAT/ACT tests and continues doing…

They still might do B, but use proxies to determine probable race. This can be determined based on scales they apply to different high schools. Of course the underlining issue is US socioeconomic fabric that is the root cause of this issue.

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

#288

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #142
crazygringo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which was, of course, a major justification for creating the SAT in the first place: > First offered in 1926 by the College Board... Early proponents of the SAT argued that the admissions exam made higher education more meritocratic. Admissions officers at elite institutions like Harvard believed the test would identify talented applicants at less academically strong high schools and accelerate their journeys into hi…

There was probably a time in which SAT scores are weighted highly in admissions for elite schools. Now it's a starting level filter. You're not getting in because of top scores, but you will get rejected because of bad scores absent a massive alternative hook. People that get in have top scores and other superhuman traits.

Or: Having a high IQ isn't enough anymore, you also need to have - and prove - that you have doggedly high Conscientiousness. Preferably in a way which aligns with traditional prestige seeking, like debate or math competitions or football.

That's probably a good thing imo. It indicates that our overall expectations for our elites is on the rise, which translates to better outcomes on net down the line when they actually get fast tracked into positions of power. Those of us who are smart and lazy similarly benefit because many more of us are able to find less taxing jobs plying our expertise at the right hands of these elites for very comfortable wages, rather than being forced into the millstone of the C suite ourselves.

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

#289

Post by legolas2412 »

nick7376182 wrote: post #172
anon291 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also asked whether she was worried that conservative critics of affirmative action might use test scores to accuse Dartmouth of violating the recent Supreme Court ruling barring race-conscious admissions. She was not. Dartmouth can legally admit a diverse class while using test scores as one part of its holistic admissions process, she said. I am conservative and I have no problem with poor students from disadvan…

I agree with 90% of this but I would say it's not entirely "retarded". It USED to be a very valid disadvantage across the board to have a minority race or skin color, but now as racism becomes less pervasive and "affirmative action" has had time to take effect it is becoming less of an effect. To dismiss it entirely ignores how much it seems to have accomplished. I do hate to see poor and working class white male chi…

> It USED to be a very valid disadvantage across the board to have a minority race or skin color

I completely agree that this used to be the case. I might even argue that it is still true to an extent. I will also agree that we should still address it. My problem is when addressing it involves discriminating against asian Americans like me. The people who want to discriminate against asian Americans are just using "historical disadvantage" as an excuse, their actions are political/ideological.

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

#290

Post by kbos87 »

Of course standardized test performance correlates with test performance a year later when someone arrives at a college or university. That's the wrong question to be asking ourselves.

This discussion is maddening to me because it assumes that what colleges and universities should optimize for is test performance, full stop.

I've never been a strong test taker, but I gained a lot from my time in college and I've done objectively well in my career. The way colleges, universities, and some of the people commenting here are willing to limit access to education and life-changing opportunity based on one narrow measure is antiquated and narrow-minded.

If I had to give advice to someone who is motivated and interested in higher education but doesn't perform particularly well on standardized tests, it would be to feel no shame in doing whatever it takes to find your way through or around the arbitrary barriers like standardized tests that are going to be put in front of you.

Post reply on HN