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

281–290 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#281

Post by rayiner »

pmoriarty wrote: post #211
tokey wrote: post #71

Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California repealed affirmative action via Prop 209. At the UC Berkeley and UCLA, considered the 'best' of the UC system, Asians represented 25-30% of the student base. Studies and fear-mongering at the time showed that a repeal of affirmative action would imply that Asi…

"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.

> The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups.

And it's a silly contention. The SATs were invented by American WASPs. Yet the group that does extraordinarily well, Asians, are the most recent immigrants to the country, from places that have the least similarities (in terms of language, culture, political knowledge, etc.) to American WASP culture.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#282

Post by 1-KB-OK »

I agree with the article. The SAT is a chance for any student, regardless of background, to demonstrate academic skills and the ability to succeed. I was one of those students -- my SAT score got me a full merit scholarship. I wasn't as polished or accomplished as other students around me, but I was able to show that yes, I am smart, and that I can succeed academically at the college level. I did go to a korean after-school program to help study for it though.

I feel like instead of dropping the test they could provide free resources to students to prepare for it. At least get them familiar with the structure of the test and encourage them to do the best they can. A lot of kids like those in the article would stand to benefit.

The only winner from getting rid of the test is rich, stupid kids that don't do well regardless of how much prep they get. They then go on to cheat and BS their way through college and use their network to land jobs. Poor and disenfranchised students will continue to be marginalized.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#283

Post by s1artibartfast »

pmoriarty wrote: post #211
tokey wrote: post #71

Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California repealed affirmative action via Prop 209. At the UC Berkeley and UCLA, considered the 'best' of the UC system, Asians represented 25-30% of the student base. Studies and fear-mongering at the time showed that a repeal of affirmative action would imply that Asi…

"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.

It seems like there is an inherent contradiction in logic at play.

If you believe that racial disparities result in real harm to certain groups, you would expect the impacts of those harms to show up on objective metrics of capability.

The only way to have a measure blinded to the impacts of inequality is to ignore everything about the individual being measured. Perhaps everyone has equal potential and capability at birth, but everything after that is tainted by their unequal environment.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#284

Post by zenta »

Probably the most common pro-SAT take I see is: "I wouldn't be where I was today without the SAT, so therefore it must be a good thing."

Which is fine.

What _is_ narrow sighted is extending that to "Everyone will benefit from the SAT" and "the system must remain the same because it worked for me".

This article unfortunately drops into the latter category.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#285

Post by earlyam »

mrangle wrote: post #85
1letterunixname wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make it 100% achievement. Any differences in background must be supplemented with aggressive college prep programs so the bar isn't weakened for some. It's the only way to remain globally competitive. And abolish legacy. (Don't get a JD unless set on a particular practice because the field is overflowing. Consider MD or DDS first.)

Magnet programs operating from kindergarten on are one possible solution. The problem is that these programs are being effectively phased out because less-astute normals are insulted that everyone doesn't qualify. Which is the inverse precise equivalent of eliminating special ed programs.

Most criticism I've heard of them is that they suck up a disproportionate amount of funding.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#286

Post by gqcwwjtg »

1-KB-OK wrote: post #282

I agree with the article. The SAT is a chance for any student, regardless of background, to demonstrate academic skills and the ability to succeed. I was one of those students -- my SAT score got me a full merit scholarship. I wasn't as polished or accomplished as other students around me, but I was able to show that yes, I am smart, and that I can succeed academically at the college level. I did go to a korean after…

Maybe I'm missing something because you and the author seem to agree, but I think schools are moving toward test-optional applications, not test-ignored. So it still could show that a student is excelling. Right?

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#287

Post by rflrob »

One obvious difference between how the AVSAB and SAT are used is that the minimum score on the AVSAB is ~ 35th percentile (somewhere around a 980 on the SAT). That kind of score is likely all-but disqualifying at Columbia, where the 25th percentile is 1450, and only 5-6% of applicants are accepted.

The question is not “does the SAT provide some globally useful measure of college performance,“ to which the answer is “very probably yes”; instead, Columbia is asking “does requiring it help them identify top tier talent from underrepresented backgrounds rather than filter out top talent from those backgrounds”, to which the answer is “quite possibly not”. They aren’t banning it as a factor, they are just permitting those with a low score to omit it.

And lest I sound like I’m cheerleading elite universities here, I suspect there are enough people with >1500 SATs and family incomes <$50k that you could fill 2 whole Columbias. They’re obviously going to keep admitting legacies and other high donor value applicants because they’re mostly trying to maximize return on investment.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#288

Post by throw0101a »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #146
_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…

> The point is you can't just give preference based on income as its incredibly easy to fudge. Okay, well this is the US. Your tax returns are a very good indication of how much money you make. If you lie on your tax returns then you have much bigger issues than college admissions counselors.

> If you lie on your tax returns then you have much bigger issues than college admissions counselors.

If you own a large amount of equities you can get a secured loan on those holdings and use it to pay your bills while taking zero salary. This allows folks to live fancy lifestyles without selling holdings and triggering capital gains:

* https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/portfolio-loans-can-be-one-w...

The loan is not counted as income.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#289

Post by DebtDeflation »

tokey wrote: post #71

Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California repealed affirmative action via Prop 209. At the UC Berkeley and UCLA, considered the 'best' of the UC system, Asians represented 25-30% of the student base. Studies and fear-mongering at the time showed that a repeal of affirmative action would imply that Asi…

I'm white, my wife is Asian, our kids will be applying to university over the next couple of years. We've started to have the conversation about which race they will check off on the application. I'm coming to the conclusion that they have to just check white, as this means they will face less discrimination than if they check Asian. This makes me very uncomfortable, and also just seems absurd.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#290

Post by IshKebab »

mrangle wrote: post #199
IshKebab wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 promisin…

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

Neither do I but that doesn't mean that we should make trivial changes to even the playing field where possible. Especially when that trivial change is just to stop doing something that is very obviously unfair.

At this point I'm guessing you or your children benefited from the legacy system and don't want to feel guilty about it because I can't really imagine any other reason to defend the system. It's very obviously unfair, and there is very obviously no good reason to keep it (other than money of course).

> people arguing against the rate of legacy admissions haven't a leg to stand on without first controlling for obvious variables.

You don't need to do any statistical analysis to prove it has an effect to know that it is unfair. Like, if you took fair dice and then sanded one side slightly, you don't need to actually do any actual analysis to know that you shouldn't do that because there are no possible good effects and one possible bad effect.

Post reply on HN