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

271–280 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#271

Post by rayiner »

notlukesky wrote: post #234
_mh56 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in India, we have quotas for different kinds of people. There's caste based, Gender based and finally EWS (Economically Weaker Section) Quota. Overall 60% of total seats are reserved for these people. My friend who's ultra rich was selected in EWS Quota. His father who runs his own company took Zero pay for the last two years so he qualified for the benefits. Meanwhile people who actually deserved this had to co…

40% for meritocratic entrance is more than twice what is at elite schools in the US. Maybe ambitious Americans should move to India for a fairer chance. At most US elite schools, less than 20 percent is for “non-reserved” seats. Elite schools reserve seats for sports teams (affirmative action for rich white elites with “sports” like fencing and rowing), legacies (affirmative action for rich white elites), related to…

> So it is a brilliant way to use regular affirmative action for Blacks as a weapon to ensure that rich white elites always win and do not compete with the “deplorable” poorer whites, the Asians and immigrants.

I just realized that there are more Appalachians in America than Asian Americans. But how many people have you run into in an elite school with an Appalachian accent? (Or a southern or mid-atlantic, or other lower-tier white accent?)

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#272

Post by _mh56 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #180
_mh56 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in India, we have quotas for different kinds of people. There's caste based, Gender based and finally EWS (Economically Weaker Section) Quota. Overall 60% of total seats are reserved for these people. My friend who's ultra rich was selected in EWS Quota. His father who runs his own company took Zero pay for the last two years so he qualified for the benefits. Meanwhile people who actually deserved this had to co…

> you can't just give preference based on income as its incredibly easy to fudge That's why you have to look at total wealth, not just income... though I'm sure the ultra wealthy will find some way to work around that as well.

You don't even need Trusts for this. EWS is decided by an issued certificate. The issuer can be bribed.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#273

Post by htag »

faeriechangling wrote: post #198
cma wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Learning disabilities are a type of neurodevelopmental disorder in which a student that is of otherwise average of above average intelligence struggle with a specific type of material, commonly reading (dyslexia) or basic math (dyscalculia). The most effective treatment is early remediation, in which students in primary education are identified and given extra lessons and exercises on their weakness to help make them more well rounded so they do not struggle later in their education. This is super effective.

I can tell your frustrated with accommodations. I think your arguments against accommodations would be a lot stronger if you knew more about them. I think you might have some good points inside, but your frustration and ignorance prevent them from being compelling. I encourage you to do more reading, but let me point out a few mistakes in your post.

* You seem to mistakenly associate a learning disability with low intelligence. A person cannot have a learning disability and be below average in intelligence by definition. Struggling to learn how to read while being average or above average in every other subject is different than strugglingly to learn everything. The more a student struggles to learn to read while excelling at everything else, the more likely they are to be diagnosed. This means very intelligent students with a learning disability are more likely to be diagnosed than average students with the same disability.

* Extra time on test is an accommodation.

* Accommodations are not being handed out like candy for no reason. Anyone can buy candy. Accommodations require a documented disability.

* Many standardized test accommodations are very appropriate, such as blind people being offered a braille version of the test, or people with poor motor control having someone else physically fill in scantron bubbles.

* A student can be disabled based on low intelligence. It's not called a learning disability, because it's fundamentally a different thing.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#274

Post by jwilber »

vasco wrote: post #254
pmoriarty wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"any quantifiable, OBJECTIVE framework" The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. You can't just base the core of your argument on the assumption of objectivity when that objectivity itself is what is in question.

Your argument makes no sense because as the comment you are replying says, when you drop the shenanigans, the universities get full of Asians. If what you say is true, they'd become full of rich people of any race, common denominator being the richest you are the likelier you are to be there. But instead what happens is hard working Asians are admitted. Universities should optimize for the best students.

No. They mentioned what happens upon dropping affirmative action. Standardized tests still exist.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#275

Post by rayiner »

PaulHoule wrote: post #249
civilized wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by bias?

One thing that amuses me is that I occasionally see press releases about some Hollywood star (say Alyssa Milano) who took an IQ test and got a 145 score which is suspiciously the top score for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices and given that standard variants of the test have 60 items anybody who is capable of learning a script could memorize them and get a perfect score. I imagine there is…

Why would that be surprising? Gifted people tend to be that way in multiple areas. I wouldn't be surprised if the average IQ in Hollywood is quite above the overall average.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#276

Post by jozvolskyef »

sandworm101 wrote: post #204
bnralt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this recently with the elementary school near me. Grading is extremely opaque, and seems to be largely based on teacher intuition. Some very advanced students have gotten grades below where they are (I've heard many teachers just won't give the highest grade until the end of the year because of the weird system). Thankfully they also have standardized test scores, which both have a much more transparent sco…

It is true that many teachers react very badly to the best students, particularly where the students are very evidently smarter than the teachers. In this age of ready access to information, any student with a drive to learn can quickly be head-and-shoulders above the average highschool teacher in a given subject. Good teachers help such students. Bad ones get jealous and seek to harm them.

When I applied to secondary school, I barely made the cut and was one of the lowest-scoring students to be accepted that year, only ranking around the 4th percentile of those accepted. Once I started attending, I performed exceptionally well, ranking around the 95th percentile, give or take 5. It was mainly due to the fact that a large minority of my primary school teachers had biased opinions about me and our personal differences affected my grades.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#277

Post by civilized »

kenjackson wrote: post #105
civilized wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's real, you might as well tell everyone and I'll hear about it that way - I am certain you'll be very popular.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#278

Post by lapcat »

mrangle wrote: post #221
lapcat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate. > The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation. I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluo…

>I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure? No. You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure, in total. >I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words tha…

> You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure

Unfounded? I don't think so. After all, I've gone through admission myself. Anyway, what do you think they want to measure?

> curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability

> having a unique curriculum apart from other students

I agree wholeheartedly. However, our school system doesn't provide that. Our system isn't even remotely in the vicinity of that. We still rely mostly on social promotion based on geography and age, with age groups sometimes divided into 2 or 3 rough subgroups. I'm not impressed. I think it's questionable how much if any value that provides. It's classism rather than individualism.

> the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.

"likely"? Is that just your speculation, or do you have empirical evidence? I know that IQ tests are not required for admission.

I'm not a fan of the notion of "IQ". I consider it a kind of pseudoscience. I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test myself, though I don't recall exactly the criteria for admission to the aforementioned gifted program.

> That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.

Mmmkay, thanks for playing. I'm done here now. Congrats on the smugness, hope you enjoy it.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#279

Post by lordnacho »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #242
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.” >…

Allowing Rich kids in. THISSSSSSS!!!! is what it was always about. It amazes me how corrupt higher education is now. It is AMAZINGLY corrupt. There is this thing with getting old (I'm in late 40s now) where you think the world is going to hell, but really what is happening is that you are figuring out EXACTLY how fucked up everything is. However, sometimes things really are going to hell (increasing rich/poor divide,…

> There is this thing with getting old (I'm in late 40s now) where you think the world is going to hell, but really what is happening is that you are figuring out EXACTLY how fucked up everything is.

This is so true. When I was younger I thought "oh what a cynical thought, I should cheer up and be less gloomy". Now I realize I was right. The sheer amount of waste arising from badly managed orgs with wrong incentives is just enormous. This is why we don't have flying cars and teleporters.

If you consider that universities these days let in a lot more people, it's inevitable that the academic level is lower. Back in the day someone doing a phd had a reasonable chance of becoming a professor. Now there's so many people the university is not really for producing knowledge, that's just a side business to giving a stamp of approval to your average middle class kid who is not gonna be doing research.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#280

Post by lordnacho »

Jensson wrote: post #140
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.

> Standardized tests are much easier to prep for than GPA and extracurriculars And that makes them perfect for poor kids who don't have much time or money, they can easily get similar levels of test prep as rich kid with little effort. GPA or extracurriculars however, no chance, those are much more dependent on home environment and wealth.

Why would home environment be more influential for GPA, which is a bunch of tests, versus the SAT, which is also just a test?

Extracurriculars I agree with, rich people are more likely to have connections to get the nice internships.

Post reply on HN