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

Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#211

Post by opportune »

I am so happy to see this.

I went to high school in a bit of a backwater in the US. People don’t really go to selective colleges or care much about applying. It was only doing very well on standardized tests and spending time on the internet looking for info about colleges that led me to believe I could go to one of these places. I got into several and attended one, and I believe it greatly positively changed my life. (For the record, I had more going for me than just tests, but having a more objective way to compare myself to people across the country was very helpful, since I could easily attribute things to my area being backwards).

Removing admission tests was a huge slap in the face to social mobility out of the middle class. To reiterate other commenters, admission tests are the hardest part of the process to game and the least biased towards things like having a tiger parent, while being the most predictive indicator of success in college. Wealthy and well connected people can easily game extracurriculars and essays, and HS grades are vastly inflated at this point across the country. That pretty much only leaves standardized tests for your average kid who isn’t being deliberately primed by their environment to stand out for selective college admissions.

I hope more colleges are brave enough to reinstitute standardized test requirements. I know they want to do “class building” by hitting minimum representations across many groups (including legacy, but I don’t think that’s as big at MIT), and not requiring test scores makes it easier, but for institutions to keep up high standards and continue to give opportunities to kids, I really think it’s most beneficial to require scores.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#212

Post by grego61 »

One way that rich parents can game SAT/ACT is through aggressive seeking of test accommodations for disabilities. There was common knowledge of up to 50% of test takers having extended time in some affluent private schools in the SF Bay Area prior to the Covid pause.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#213

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

erdos4d wrote: post #175
azinman2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How common is this? I would guess not very. Either way, if you cheated your way into MIT, expect to fail out. The hand holding stops there.

Well, Trump did it, that's one data point. Also, he did fine at U Penn, an Ivy, so why should we assume MIT is so awesome that another rich kid couldn't cheat his way through there?

The man is functionally illiterate so it's likely someone else did it in his name.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#214

Post by tharne »

dijit wrote: post #126
Psyladine wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but the idea of standardised testing being equivalent across all factors just strikes me as being fundamentally untrue. What's your take on MIT's stance? our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT 02 Our research shows this predictive validity holds even when you control for socioeconomic factors that correlate with testing.

My take is exactly what I said. The same factors that lead to success for SATs can lead to further academic success. I believe that MIT is probably right, in fact, I'm quite certain of it. Many people will drop out of university or perform poorly than their peers for socio-economic reasons, the person working while studying will probably do worse than the person who just studies. MIT wants the most graduates and espe…

> this is part of why I live in Europe where university students in general are seen as an investment by the state and not so much a business to be optimised

In this specific case, though, I don't think these two things are in conflict at all. By selecting the best candidates on the basis of merit, MIT is doing what's best for both MIT as well as the broader society.

We all benefit from living in a country that produces top-tier scientists and engineers, and MIT benefits from being a place that is known for producing top-tier scientists and engineers.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#215

Post by adfgadfgaery »

hkt wrote: post #163
adfgadfgaery wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The debate is about the quality and predictive value of the tests. Opponents claimed that the tests had a cultural bias so students from some backgrounds would do better than others, that students who had a good education before university would be better prepared, and that studying for tests or taking tests repeatedly has been shown to improve scores but is only accessible to people who can afford it. These are all…

> it is reasonable to wonder about the psychology of opponents of standardized testing It is, at its core, a fear that testing largely reproduces the status quo. If one accepts the idea that there is an intellectual elite who constitute the highest strata of society, and that their gifts are innate and heritable rather than trained, it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision. Personally…

>it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision.

I have always found the idea of social mobility depressing. It assumes that we will always have a hierarchy, with some people who are powerful and prestigious and others who are poor and always feel inadequate. It assumes that we will always have an underclass but at least people can leave it.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#216

Post by WalterBright »

TuringNYC wrote: post #179
paulmd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have evidence for this, but it's always felt like SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes" that cost you score. It's gonna help you when the test writer was playing some gotcha tricks with phrasing or whatever, but if you don't understand the material, even narrowing it down to a 50/50 isn't going to get you a good score, and if you truly don't understan…

>> I don't really have evidence for this, but it's always felt like SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes" that cost you score. As i learned in college, the real "coaching" was rich parents getting rich kids more time on the SAT by getting psychiatric diagnostic classifications that give you more time. Time has been the real challenge on SATs for most people beyond a…

I finished the SAT early, and used the extra time to go back to the beginning and verify each answer. More time wouldn't have done much. If you can answer the questions, there's enough time to complete the test.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#217

Post by fortran77 »

paulpauper wrote: post #2

our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT 02 Our research shows this predictive validity holds even when you control for socioeconomic factors that correlate with testing. It also shows that good grades in high school do not themselves necessarily translate to academic success at MIT if you cannot account for testing. Of course, we can never be fully certain how any given applicant will do: we…

> So much for that common, popular notion that standardized tests do not predict anything of value.

To people with a particular agenda -- that society will be improved if equal outcomes are mandated -- I suppose standardized tests aren't "valuable" to them.

I am very grateful for the SAT. I wasn't a good student. I was unable to do any work outside of school because of a bad home (my brother did hours long "hand-clapping/stimming" and chanting rituals, my mother drank, and my father was violent). But I did well on the SAT -- enough to get a national merit scholarship and a scholarship from Hofstra University where I got my BA in Math in the early 80s.

If it wasn't for the SAT I don't know what I would have done. Standardized tests are the only answer, and I was very upset when I read of schools getting rid of using them for admission.

SATs are also a great predictor of a person's ability to complete college. That was one of their original uses. So without SATs, you'll get more people doing poorly, and more people with no degrees and a lot of debt. And if these people are members of what's considered an "under-represented minority" then there will be even more remedial action required elsewhere to fix the problem of the high failure rate (like giving them degrees anyway, etc).

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#218

Post by opportune »

caffeine wrote: post #209
rg111 wrote: post #130

> as a result, not having SATs/ACT scores to consider tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education It all come down to me to what this point touches. When you have a test, you have something definite to prepare for. Even if you do not have dedicated mentors or well-wishing, caring teachers, you simply know there is a test that significantly improves your chances for MIT. When you…

The no-test policy is espoused by two groups who find themselves to be unlikely allies: naive progressives and actual racists. The naive progressives think what you’d expect: “Minorities and poor people can’t possibly be expected to do well on anything objective, so it’s unfair to test them”. It is bigotry, but at least it’s well-meaning. The actual racists are more cynical: “I don’t want Yale to be 67% Asian.” Obvio…

There are other groups too. Like Big Rich Daddy who wants his kid to go to Yale as a legacy but he only has a 26 ACT and has only donated like $1m. When test scores are required, top schools basically have a “budget” of 25% of their student body they can admit with any score without it adversely affecting college rankings. Making tests optional makes it easier to admit more students that don’t “meet the bar” otherwise, since they don’t count against the 25% quota.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#219

Post by caffeine »

scarecrw wrote: post #198
paulmd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really have evidence for this, but it's always felt like SAT/ACT coaching doesn't improve scores so much as get rid of some of the "dumb mistakes" that cost you score. It's gonna help you when the test writer was playing some gotcha tricks with phrasing or whatever, but if you don't understand the material, even narrowing it down to a 50/50 isn't going to get you a good score, and if you truly don't understan…

> My understanding is that's what SAT/ACT were moving towards about 10 years ago, that it would be computerized and "everyone's test is personalized" by the elo system probing your exact knowledge level from a bank of questions with difficulty scores dynamically based on how "similar ranked" students performed on that question. That is indeed where they're moving. They've recently announced that the SAT will be trans…

> high-level math students have very few opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge using a standardized metric.

AP math and physics exams? Or IB?

True that these are not accessible to everyone though..

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#220

Post by car_analogy »

sin7 wrote: post #181
slavboj wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because blacks have lower average scores on them.

Whites also have lower average scores on them. Lower than Asians and Jews. At the elite level this would make a huge difference. At the state level not at all.

Can we somehow blame this on oppression?
Post reply on HN