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

Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

robkhenderson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#101

Post by kenjackson »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #91
kenjackson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about being obligated or private parties. It’s just simply pointing out that not everyone has equal opportunity. You can start with access to prenatal health care, which literally starts before birth. And then you can find inequality of opportunity all the way up through life — from differences in water quality, school quality, access to money through inequality in banking access, access to high quality food…

Like I said, I’m not interested in hearing why you believe other individuals should be forced to pay more money to things that would benefit you. Do you have any examples of government inequality? For instance, does the law require that a white student with the same SAT as a black student be prioritized?

We were talking about inequality of opportunity. There are lots of sources of this inequality.

One example of government inequality is in sentencing of crimes. Also in arrests related to drug possession. Another example is tax breaks for the wealthy. And farm subsidies. Access to federal money for small businesses.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#102

Post by [deleted] »

wunderland wrote: post #27

All of this debate about what measures should be used to gatekeep higher education ignore that the US system is only loosely about teaching students; the goal of an American university degree is class differentiation. There is not a shortage of textbooks or qualified teachers who could explain calculus or history or economics. As a society, the could easily produce far more educated people (and for a lower cost), but…

[deleted]

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#103

Post by tarotuser »

I think people are missing the bigger picture, that's related directly to the SAT.

In the USA, public education funds are directly derived from the local tax base as a percentage of that revenue. If you live in a rich area, it means your family is also rich. The tax base, although it may be the rough same percentage, is much higher actual dollars than a small non-rich community.

I even see that locally in my nearby college town. There's definitely a "rich district". Homes go from $750k up to $5m. Their elementary has teachers and aides to cover students at 7:1, and flush with a wealthy technology budget. The other schools, or in particular, the "subsidized housing and trailer parks area's schools" have student coverage around 25:1, no teacher aides, and very limited tech budget.

This should be of little surprise given how our education system by default teaches the wealthy to be wealthy. And that starts as early as preschool and easily onwards through public school. And naturally, I didn't even touch upon private schools. And in my state, vouchers can be used from public schools on private and even religious schools. That too is an even higher rung on elitism.

Unless you're a genius from a poor family, you're likely going to stay in the "dumb and low paying" jobs for most of your lives.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#104

Post by tomohawk »

kenjackson wrote: post #93
standy17817 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a Supreme Court case, Griggs vs Duke Power, in 1970. Since then, employers cannot use IQ tests or standardized tests, since they were deemed discriminatory against minorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co .

This case says something different though. It says you can’t use a test that doesn’t relate to the job, regardless of if there’s intent to discriminate or not. A standardized test that tests your ability to do the job is still allowable — presumably even if minorities fare worse on it.

This misses the point. The point is that the process is the punishment. The process is that these groups will sue over and over again until you give in.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#105

Post by kenjackson »

civilized wrote: post #97
kenjackson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And I’m going to be coy and not tell you much about it. So you’re right to be skeptical. In a few years I’ll speak more freely on it.

Skeptical is putting it mildly. I'd give you better chances of having a secret proof of the Riemann Hypothesis than producing miracle educational results at scale (even if it is just on a standardized test).

I’d be just as skeptical. It’s something that would require strong evidence and I’m providing you none.

I’ll be around on HN in five years. Ask me then.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#106

Post by kenjackson »

tomohawk wrote: post #104
kenjackson wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case says something different though. It says you can’t use a test that doesn’t relate to the job, regardless of if there’s intent to discriminate or not. A standardized test that tests your ability to do the job is still allowable — presumably even if minorities fare worse on it.

This misses the point. The point is that the process is the punishment. The process is that these groups will sue over and over again until you give in.

That story doesn’t say that at all. You brought in your own baggage to make that claim.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#107

Post by StanislavPetrov »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #41
prepend wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should I have a leg up over everyone because I am good at what it tested? Yes, that’s a feature not a bug. The SAT doesn’t test randomly. It is designed to test for specific subjects and knowledge in those subjects. I’ve SAT is not fun but I think it’s purpose is to fairly test all takers and rank them to assist with allocating educational resources. It’s such an odd question to ask “should I get a leg up because I…

I think the point might have been, you can be excellent at chemistryy, a real value to society with your ingenuity and rigor, and be no good at all at writing about chemistry. A test like that would be fair if it were testing for journalists. Maybe every job needs at least a little bit of rounded basic skills like that, and so it's fair for the test to include some the same way. In that case I see no problem there ei…

I think we can all agree there is no such thing as a perfect test, but at the end of the day we need some sort of objective metrics if we want a merit-based educational system.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#108

Post by lapcat »

mrangle wrote: post #89
lapcat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students…

People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser Universit…

> Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University?

I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots.

> The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.

> Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates.

I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#109

Post by alphanullmeric »

kenjackson wrote: post #101
alphanullmeric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I’m not interested in hearing why you believe other individuals should be forced to pay more money to things that would benefit you. Do you have any examples of government inequality? For instance, does the law require that a white student with the same SAT as a black student be prioritized?

We were talking about inequality of opportunity. There are lots of sources of this inequality. One example of government inequality is in sentencing of crimes. Also in arrests related to drug possession. Another example is tax breaks for the wealthy. And farm subsidies. Access to federal money for small businesses.

Sure, in the case I believe any inequality in sentencing and arrests should be eliminated. As should subsidies and non-consumption taxes, making tax breaks irrelevant/impossible. Seems like you have no such consistency.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#110

Post by mrangle »

CJefferson wrote: post #49
1letterunixname wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm old or insufficiently woke, but I don't see legacy or identity as substitutes for demonstrated learning. I see the decay of rigor and achievement as signals of decline of excellence and the crumbling of knowledge. The mythology of "everyone needs degrees" created a wealth transfer scam and a lowering of standards to sell more student loan debt for sheepskins. Maybe we need to throw away arbitrary employment…

“Legacy” applicants is the opposite of woke, it’s been how the “old boys network” has run for hundreds of years, getting under qualified students into top Universities.

That's an urban myth perpetuated by people interested in generalized grievance. At least from the period I attended prep school, and beyond. From the mid-1990's.

Almost in-total, the "old boys" applicants are not under-qualified. When compared to almost any kid that attended lesser secondary schools than the privileged kid attended, on average.

These kids have almost always proven themselves in elite educational environments. Most of those who skate by in such environments don't go Ivy. They will instead attend one of the many more numerous elite Liberal Arts colleges that most others ignore but that carry almost equivalent cache.

There are no Stuyvesant valedictorians missing Ivy admissions. In the same vein, there are plenty of prep school kids who do. I've only rarely seen underqualified kids go Ivy, and the only one that I can actually think of was a poor kid.

Today, Ivy's are skipping qualified lesser privileged kids for diversity. In eliminating the SAT/ACT, they are essentially gambling that their reputation rather than their student body will continue to qualify them as Elite. Over time, I have doubts. The curriculums will have to be adjusted so as to avoid the pall of racism or classism that will occur when wildly divergent grades become apparent.

Post reply on HN