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

MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 465 posts

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#211

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #155
jzoch wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh its all easily game-able. The SAT (and ACT) is a joke. So are the subject tests. The only subject test that wasn't laughable are the language ones (since you can't "intuit" spanish as easily as math or physics or chemistry). Its not bad if you are a good test taker (a dumb skill but a useful one) or wealthy. My friends were tutored idiots and did well (2200+ SAT, 700+ subject tests) and i was a good test taker (sa…

If the SAT were a joke, you wouldn't expect scores to follow a bell curve with only ~0.3% of people getting a perfect score, but they do.

This isn't a good argument, because the SAT (and other tests of the same kind) are normalised to have this property.

The SAT may not be good tests, but that fact has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a normal distribution.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#212

Post by grantsch »

Nearly none of the comments are really about what they're eliminating: SAT subject tests (NOT the SAT!)

The main SAT is basically a basic skills and IQ test while the SUBJECT tests are almost entirely about preparation, making them much easier to game/prepare for.

Source: I tutored the SAT and subject tests.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#213

Post by httpz »

To clarify, SAT subject tests are the ones like physics, chemistry, Spanish, etc. Not the main verbal and math portion. For students smart enough to get into MIT, the subject tests are way too easy. Most students applying to MIT probably have near perfect score already, so for MIT it's probably not a useful indicator.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#215

Post by fairenough42 »

knzhou wrote: post #203
fairenough42 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel the need to name white people specifically?

Because the Senate is over 90% white, and most of the rest are at least half-white. To people in this country, that's what leadership looks like, so if you grade based on leadership, that's what you're going to get. Not playing identity politics here, just stating a fact.

Remind me of the relationship between the Senate and testing for college admissions.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#216

Post by pbhjpbhj »

mattkrause wrote: post #142
nicoburns wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your offended by that, what about professors or HS teachers who teach certain sections of the textbook because it's going to be on the exam. Yes, this another big problem caused by (too much emphasis on) standardised testing. I learnt the most in classes that didn't do this. But people do better on tests when they do do this. Standardised tests are destroying our education system.

Surely the standardization matters? Teaching to an aptitude test is clearly counterproductive (and ditto tricks for hacking the test--like just testing each multiple choice answer instead of solving an equation). On the other hand. the AP classes I took in high school (admittedly, a long time ago) seemed pretty reasonable. Perhaps you could quibble with how the syllabus weighted various subjects, or the (mercifully f…

Diversity in knowledge across the working population would seem preferable to homogeneity to me.

Sure you want some core things, like all engineers being able to solve 2nd order DEs, but outside that you want diversity if you're looking for innovation and application to diverse fields.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#218

Post by _fq4v »

SkyBelow wrote: post #177
_fq4v wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do rich kids have more scholastic potential because they have better access to resources? Do kids with involved parents have access to more scholastic potential because their parents cared? Almost certainly, and that's a good thing and we should harvest it, not attempt to force something that is not going to work.

Once they are in college, the impact of parents is quite minified. So if you have a stupid whose default academic potential is 10 but has a parental multiplier of 2 for having involved parents and another kid whose default academic potential is 15 but has a parental multiplier of 1 for parents who don't care, once they get into college and the parental multiplier goes away the one who has a 15 should do better than t…

> Once they are in college, the impact of parents is quite minified

What an absolutely ridiculous thought. Literally our entire personality, our study habits, and our grit come from our parents.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#219

Post by knzhou »

fairenough42 wrote: post #215
knzhou wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Senate is over 90% white, and most of the rest are at least half-white. To people in this country, that's what leadership looks like, so if you grade based on leadership, that's what you're going to get. Not playing identity politics here, just stating a fact.

Remind me of the relationship between the Senate and testing for college admissions.

> To people in this country, that's what leadership looks like, so if you grade based on leadership, that's what you're going to get.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#220

Post by araara »

manfredo wrote: post #179
dawg- wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call a "smooth-talker" is what someone else would call an articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others. Perhaps if this was the standard college admissions used, public schools would have more incentive to educate students as functional humans rather than test-taking drones.

It's hard to create an accountable system to identify "smooth-talkers". We already know that perceived charisma is highly dependent on attractiveness, ethnicity, and other innate factors. What we could do is gauge students' communication ability in a way that is less subject to these factors. Which we already do, by examining students' writing.

What's the difference between perceived charisma and charisma?
Post reply on HN