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

321–330 of 451 posts

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

#321

Post by asdff »

Kwpolska wrote: post #183

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; so…

In theory this is what the diploma or GED is already for. These are all certified by the state to show you've completed a certain amount of education to a certain level of quality. What is an SAT or ACT supposed to be on top of all that honestly? Really its tackling a symptom of colleges for whatever reason no longer trusting the states own education departments' diploma or GED. Which is damning considering these schools point to these same states accreditation as a quality measure for their own programs, forgetting that if the diploma is untrustworthy then so are these state accreditation...

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

#323

Post by asdff »

zahma wrote: post #194
Kwpolska wrote: post #183

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; so…

What a silly idea. Universities are not just in charge with academic education but rather with the formation of a person’s character. To succeed with the latter, academic capability must be held alongside the estimation of one’s character, for it is not only about one’s intellectual capacity but rather how one uses it.

If schools started estimating the merit of one's character they'd have to probably throw out half of their own faculty and cut off ties with many of their donors.

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

#324

Post by asdff »

sokoloff wrote: post #2

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

Except that the test is pretty clearly perverted. You take two kids, same education, give one an after school testing program their parents pay money for, and they score better. Is the wealthier kid more worthy of receiving a college education? What does that say about how we educate our society then, and what we are actually valuing and giving privilege?

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

#325

Post by tverbeure »

chiefofstuffs wrote: post #266
LeonardoTolstoy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ever…

It's relatively common for similar behavior on the margin; people avoid sending their kids to the super competitive high schools for a combination of competitiveness/mental health/standing-out-to-colleges reasons

Indeed. If the level of instruction between neighboring school districts is the same but one is super competitive and the other is not, I really don't see why you'd decide to buy a house in the the more competitive one. What good does it do? And that's not even taking into account the fact that kids from a weaker school might actually have better chances during admission.

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

#326

Post by laverya »

nyrikki wrote: post #218
nick7376182 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that for alumni, not incoming students?

Currently, the Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 15% of each entering class using legacy admissions. Add that to the zip code correlation that is the strongest indicator of SAT scores and it does matter. Students without parents that are college graduates are also at a disadvantage no matter what their potential is. It is one of the barriers to social mobility.

> Students without parents that are college graduates are also at a disadvantage no matter what their potential is.

It is possible both for SAT scores to predict a person's potential to contribute in cognitively demanding fields AND for there to be a strong correlation between SAT score and parental income/zip code/etc. In fact, this is true even of a theoretically perfect measure that can somehow peer into the future of every prospective student were they to be admitted.

Is there some reason you expect that the children of people who did not go to college will have the same level of potential as those born to college graduates? Would this hold true of the children of professors, or Nobel winners? Is there any place for 'nature' in your worldview, or is it purely 'nurture'?

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

#327

Post by asdff »

zeroCalories wrote: post #102
ryukoposting wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. Being good at taking tests in high school is a positive indicator for being good at taking tests in college? A staggering discovery.

I don't know if you're trying to make a point about test taking, but you're aware that college GPA is composed of more than just being a good test taker? Better way of putting it might be: someone that scores highly on an IQ proxy is good at everything.

The vast bulk of your GPA is due to testing. In major classes its pretty common to have your entire grade be from two or three exams. Increasingly in nonmajor classes they are weighing things like labs and assignments less and increasing the weight on exams. Especially in this era where you have to be at least a little suspicious of every submission you aren't in the room to see.

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

#328

Post by exoverito »

webdood90 wrote: post #237
Ekaros wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Research shows students admitted based on affirmative action have higher drop out rates due to the academic mismatch effect. Giving preferential treatment based on class may be better than based on race, but such students may still be under prepared for the rigors of an elite university's program. After all, middle class families generally choose the best schools they can afford under the assumption that it has a material effect on the human capital of their children.

I also don't see the problem with students from poor families simply going to community college for a couple years then transferring to a state school. It's far cheaper and the curriculum is largely the same for most undergraduate courses.

The major problem that progressive don't want to recognize is the role of culture and family structure, e.g. lower class Blacks and Whites who view education negatively, and who tend to be raised by single mothers. Asians generally don't have this problem and have the highest SAT scores even when you control for family income.

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

#329

Post by runarberg »

cm2012 wrote: post #313
11101010001100 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that says more about social science than IQ.

You can replace social science with "science about predicting people's behavior" if you want. The important thing is that IQ is one of the most powerful predictors of human behavior in science. So few things get proven to have a major effect on outcomes over and over again. You shouldn't just throw that out.

I think IQs usages outside of a very narrow scope of a) psychometrics and b) developmental psychology is very limited, if any to speak of. In developmental psychology it is more often a tool to detect developmental or learning disabilities, and even then many (most?) psychologist prefer individual subtests rather then to assess the whole IQ of the individual, indicating that it is not the IQ it self which is useful, but rather the tests.

In psychometrics (which is a scientific dead end IMO) IQ is indeed still popular, but the predicting factor of IQ is more often then not other operationally defined concepts which psychometrisians fight tooth and nail to justify is not circular logic, that IQ is not just predicting IQ.

If you think IQ is the best predictor of human behavior, you must not have heard about many more. If you grow up in an english speaking household, you are very likely to speak english fluently in your adulthood. You are much quicker to find Waldo if you’ve done so 10 times in the last 20 min, then on your first attempt (cognitive priming), if you smoke weed you take much longer to find Waldo. If you inhibit your serotonin reuptake in specific areas in your brain, you are much less likely to suffer severe depression. If you reward child with a praise you are much more likely to see this child repeat the behavior then if you punish the child with a shout.

These are all pretty powerful and—more importantly—useful predictors in behavioral sciences. IQs predictive power is very limited to a very narrow scope inside psychometrics, we will do just fine throwing it out. There are much better constructs out there (including the SAT).

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

#330

Post by makeitdouble »

ghaff wrote: post #65
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of support for students who can’t afford to take the test. What isn’t really included is test prep. China has the gaokao, which everyone can take, but the prep factor is real even if they tried to outlaw it.

But your local library probably has test prep books. I know things have gotten more competitive since back in the day but you can probably get 90% of the way there without expensive test prep courses. (Yes, it takes time and commitment but it's mostly not the case that paying for test prep courses automatically translates into higher scores.)

You can't recognize it's a competition and argue people should be fine with only partial access to what their competitors get.

And yes, money helps a lot to brute force what material works for a kid and get motivated teachers. It's not a magic bullet, but it's a lot better than no bullet.

Post reply on HN