Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief • Hacker News Board

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#191

Post by chaostheory » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #120

The following paragraphs were especially powerful: > The chattering class is using poor kids as pawns to eliminate standardized testing. Which helps their own kids. Rich kids who “don’t test well.” But they know how to strategically boost their GPAs, get recommendation letters from important people, stack their resumes with extracurriculars, and use the right slogans in their admissions essays. They have “polish.” >…

If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist.

https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai...

It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it’s now happening with Asians. It’s routine to hear admissions officers say that Asians are boring.

If the end goal is to eliminate any sign of a meritocracy, they are well on their way to achieving it.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#192

Post by realjhol » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

yellow_lead wrote: post #152

Spooky23 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the standardized tests correlate with IQ, and IQ has been determined to be have racial and other biases. I went to a shitty rural high school - high scores on my ACT made a huge difference as anyone who could read got out of that school with a 3.7.

IQ and race have a confounding variable - poverty. Malnourishment, abuse, lack of healthcare, etc can all be detrimental to a child's development.

Poverty correlates with high time preference. High IQ correlates with low time preference.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#193

Post by paleotrope » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #120

The following paragraphs were especially powerful: > The chattering class is using poor kids as pawns to eliminate standardized testing. Which helps their own kids. Rich kids who “don’t test well.” But they know how to strategically boost their GPAs, get recommendation letters from important people, stack their resumes with extracurriculars, and use the right slogans in their admissions essays. They have “polish.” >…

Once a school is all lower class people it will stop being a high class product. Part of the value of these institutions is in reinforcing and renewing class solidarity.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#194

Post by jiscariot » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

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 case is the whole reason the "disparate impact" phrase exists and its had a chilling effect on employment testing. If you're a large FANG company hiring programmers, you risk testing (validating someone can write code), but if you don't have the pocketbook and legal team, there is not much incentive to put your company at legal risk of being sued. This is especially true when you can just use "college degree in X required" as an extremely inefficient and costly proxy for what could have been a test. And we wonder why tuition is so high.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#195

Post by bradleyjg » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #177

bradleyjg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that the rich kid rate is accurate and what’s missing is parallel accommodations for poorer kids. But what about if instead the elevated rate is a result of fraud? In other areas of life (e.g. service animals and medical pot) it’s pretty clear that there are medical professionals out there are selling their letterhead to the highest bidder. Why should we believe that’s not happening here?

Why should you believe that it is "happening here"? Let alone at a significant rate. Why is this wild conjecture worth a discussion? Give me a break. As a clinician that evaluates disabilities, it is very difficult to fake one. They tend to be diagnosed at an early age, and not at "test time" in high school. In fact, as a person ages they are much less likely to receive a diagnosis. There has to be early-age evidence…

What makes a psychologist an “independent psychologist“? Are they selected and paid for by someone other than the parents?

We see in medical malpractice cases that there’s always two expert witnesses and their respective testimonies always line up with the interests of the side that’s paying them. Why aren’t those clinicians worried about losing their licenses?

Edit: I upvoted your post, it was gray, I appreciate engagement especially from those that disagree with me.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#196

Post by sandworm101 » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #18

sandworm101 wrote: post #5

Standardized tests remain the only criteria totally in the control of the student. You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant. Everthing else is either circumstantial or based in the opinion of others, mostly highschool teachers. If i had to rely on my highschool teachers' opinion of me i would not have ever gone to university let alone have won scholarships. Standardized testing allo…

Where you go to school still greatly affects how well you are likely to do on standardised tests. Better schools can easily bump students up 2 or 3 grades compared to poorer schools. To some extent this will also improve students’ ability to complete degree courses, but there’s also a great extent to which this is just teaching students how to pass standardised tests well. It’s true that truly excellent students will…

>> truly excellent students will do well regardless of school

Not if they go to a school that doesn't have the prerequisites for college/university. Not if the school is so poorly-resourced that they don't have access to the study material, or even access to take the standardized tests they need. Not if the teachers are jerks. Go luck getting into a university science program if your highschool didn't teach science.

(Yes, that is a thing even in the US. Many religious schools do not teach what we who read HN would call "science", which makes university applications tricky.)

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#197

Post by ryzvonusef » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #186

ryzvonusef wrote: post #45

As an Asian person, I think it's a cultural thing. There is this old joke about how even if you are a one-in-a-million person, there are still 8000 of "you"s to choose from; how does one chose who to pick, if there aren't positions for all of them? So how do you make it "fair"? Since of the number of seats are limited, so imagine if the cut-off for the last seat is for someone who is in the 90.3765335th percentile, l…

I would do a very very selective 1st round, eg a college with an intake of 1000 would admit 10 people who are special in some way, so you can get that kid that is head and shoulders above everyone else. For the other 990 spots, you make a minimum bar of achievement (lots of As, high score, whatever) and put everyone who meets it in a lottery.

As I replied to another comment, lottery doesn't achieve what (Asian) people really want; an attempt to control destiny, some sort of idealized version of fairness and justice.

A test allows them to (seemingly) achieve that.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#198

Post by faeriechangling » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #185

whack wrote: post #120

The following paragraphs were especially powerful: > The chattering class is using poor kids as pawns to eliminate standardized testing. Which helps their own kids. Rich kids who “don’t test well.” But they know how to strategically boost their GPAs, get recommendation letters from important people, stack their resumes with extracurriculars, and use the right slogans in their admissions essays. They have “polish.” >…

> Standardized test scores are the hardest metric to game Learning disabilities give unlimited time on the tests. That means you can slowly use brute force on the math section to check each alternative one by one instead of needing to be good at other techniques. Harvard had something like 25% of admitted students do this. Does it sound plausible that 25% of Harvard students need unlimited time on the test due to a l…

The system of accommodating learning disabilities is a grift, I had a few while always being a strong tester who tended to finish tests early. The “accommodation” I always got was extra time which was extremely baffling. Extra time in particular was given out like candy for no reason. Harvard students having learning disabilities that warrant extra time on tests is a fucking joke, how delusional must one be to think that those admitted into Harvard are MORE disabled than most students at learning?

Why is somebody deemed somebody to have a weakness in learning in one particular area that makes them “learning disabled”? Why aren’t students who just aren’t as smart as other students considered “learning disabled” and given extra time on tests? But if you’re called dyslexic or dysgraphic or have dyscalculia you’re disabled and deserve not just accommodations (Which I wouldn’t be opposed to on balance) but extra time on every test even if on the whole you smoke the other students?

They are beyond questioning and any teacher who does is likely to have their heads chopped off for hating and not believing disabled people despite not being an expert in disability. Which pretends these accommodations were given out in the first place due to some rigorous criteria by experts in disability.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#199

Post by mrangle » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #161

mrangle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the point of my prior post, and you misunderstand how legacy admissions work. Dropping the rhetorical nuke of "systemic racism" doesn't cover for that. Read my prior post again. Legacy gets one looked at. Its not an automatic admission. Unlesss you are simply stating that legacy admissions should be disqualified (this would be ridiculous), then also consider that: you may be making the "resear…

> Legacy gets one looked at I'm not that familiar with the US legacy system but even if it is just "we'll definitely take a look at your application" that isn't competing on even ground is it? It might not guarantee you a place but it's clearly an unfair advantage.

No one is disputing the fact that there are advantages to being legacy, at least in terms of giving the application a hard look so as not to unduly disappoint donors and other people in the "club" that is the entire reason that non-legacy candidates want in.

Versus say a public school (American) candidate who gets filtered out earlier because they graduated in the middle of their class.

I don't recall anyone promising anyone else a perfectly even playing field down to the most minuscule detail.

The people arguing that point seem to be demanding a social standard and then working from the assumption that it is a shared standard, value, and may even be the law. None of which is true.

But the more important points are at the end of my last post, which point to the fact that people arguing against the rate of legacy admissions haven't a leg to stand on without first controlling for obvious variables.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#200

Post by ilamont » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #159

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardized tests are much easier to prep for than GPA and extracurriculars. I don’t get where the statement “rich kids don’t test well” actually comes from, and it wasn’t just made up to argue a point. Perhaps if you had state sponsored test prep like in China (you spend the last two years of high school just prepping for the test), but high school isn’t compulsory and many poor kids don’t even attend.

You just need money to game extracurriculars activities and GPA(pay a tutor to do your kids work every day or go to a private a school). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

What happens when the student takes a test in class if the tutor has been doing all the work?