Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#11

Post by xname »

There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing.

Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities". Tests are tests, they do not and should not care about students' socioeconomic background. Whether universities should account for socioeconomic status of applicants or not, that's their consideration, not test makers' consideration.

Of course standardized tests do not measure all aspects of a student, but they never claim they do. This critique is also silly. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to measure "traits such as optimism, curiosity, resilience" of a person, especially when you want to use the results in college admission. Current psychological instruments for those traits are not developed for that purpose. No serious psychologist will suggest colleges to use those psychological instruments in college admission.

Do no blame standardized testing for those silly reasons!

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#12

Post by [deleted] »

colechristensen wrote: post #4

Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well sure that the day is soon. Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more? There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format. Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just because) copyleft. Pay Universities fo…

[deleted]

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#13

Post by jessaustin »

colechristensen wrote: post #4

Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well sure that the day is soon. Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more? There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format. Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just because) copyleft. Pay Universities fo…

I suspect that the only aspect of undergraduate education that requires the reputation, commercialism, or exclusivity of "traditional" universities is testing. Scoring well on an electrical engineering test administered by MIT might be just as good as taking the course there.

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#14

Post by saalweachter »

RhysU wrote: post #5

From TFA: > The flaws in standardized testing are well-documented at this point.... their predictive powers only forecast a student’s progress as far as the first semester of their freshman year. Let's be honest. Raise your hand if you needed markedly more than your first semester of freshman year to figure out which of your friends at college were going to cut it in some traditional academic sense. Not saying that's…

Actually, that's an interesting thought.

If you asked high-schoolers (not necessarily even seniors) which of their peers would do the best in college, do you think they would give useful answers?

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#15

Post by colechristensen »

[deleted] wrote: post #12
colechristensen wrote: post #4

Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well sure that the day is soon. Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more? There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format. Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just because) copyleft. Pay Universities fo…

[deleted]

>no one is buying the bullshit

Here is some writing feedback for you: this style of discourse isn't wanted here.

The vast majority of STEM undergraduate courses fit very well into the format and are very arguably better suited to computer delivery.

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#16

Post by joe_the_user »

xname wrote: post #11

There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing. Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and…

Please cease argument-by-repeated words.

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#17

Post by spamizbad »

xname wrote: post #11

There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing. Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and…

> It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities"

A test can be written with a bias that favors or punishes any group. I don't think its intentional, as it is quite difficult to create them without these issues.

A simple example to show the point:

    Which of the following is not like the others:
    
    A) Chicken
    B) Moose
    C) Cow
    D) Pig
    E) Dog
Many people would answer A: A chicken is a bird and everything else is a mammal.

But if you come from an agricultural background, in addition examining the animals based on their Biological Kingdom, you might be tempted to say B, Moose: It's the only animal that has no role on a farm. B is not an illogical answer from that perspective, but within the context of the test it's likely wrong.

When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question can become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background. The question above is easy for most of us, but would probably be solved slower by anyone who grew up on a farm.

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#18

Post by xname »

spamizbad wrote: post #17
xname wrote: post #11

There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing. Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and…

> It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities" A test can be written with a bias that favors or punishes any group. I don't think its intentional, as it is quite difficult to create them without these issues. A simple example to show the point: Which of the following is not like the others: A) Chicken B) Moose C) Cow D) Pig E) Dog Many people would answer A: A chicken is a bir…

> When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question can become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background.

That's not their argument.

However, actually the issue you mentioned has long been noticed by psychologists / test makers. Experts in SAT / ACT know a lot about these things. Please refer to Differential Item Functioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_item_functioning

Re: Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

#19

Post by 001sky »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
[deleted] wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

>no one is buying the bullshit Here is some writing feedback for you: this style of discourse isn't wanted here. The vast majority of STEM undergraduate courses fit very well into the format and are very arguably better suited to computer delivery.

>no one is buying the [premise]

is a fine word substitution. but the problem with your observation (assuming it is correct), is that nobody is paying money for commodity education. people are lining up to pay money (in the hope that) a "peer reviewed" credential will set them apart.

Post reply on HN