31–40 of 684 posts
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…
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…
It’s the other way around. It helps to have some familiarity with the test, so test prep has some value, but some rich kids can’t test their way out of a paper bag. The one thing they could do is hire a ringer to take the test for them, otherwise it is a valuable form of downward mobility which presents a “barrier” to them hoarding opportunity from someone more able.
Employers should embrace standardize testing: we're on the cusp of a revolution in education driven by the tireless personalized tutoring and feedback of LLMs Of course not all schools are ending testing, MIT for example: "We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles" https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...
However, certain groups sued saying that "equality of outcome" is more important than "equality of opportunity". They argued that if the outcome of a test showed intersectional differences, then the test must be biased. They succeeded in pressuring the various trade groups and industries to get rid of the tests or be sued into oblivion.
The trade groups that offered these tests realized it was just easier to require college degrees as a proxy instead of having their own specific tests and having to deal with these pressure groups. This is why many occupations these days require a degree when it seems like that should be unnecessary.
This slammed the door to upward mobility for many that the pressure groups were claiming to try to help.
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…
Neither SAT nor ACT are measured in "grades", so it's not clear what you mean to say here.
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…
This view ironically makes schools and education irrelevant. Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a professor in grad school who had studied how admissions inputs correlated to various measures of success (which is of course a fraught subject of uts own). This was a while back though I assume not much as changed. As I recall, standardized tests followed by some sort of adjusted class rank were the best predictors while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close…
> while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close to worthless It’s telling we’re seeing testing attacked while these are preserved.
And admission committees put a lot of time and effort into trying to discern qualities that go beyond some numbers of the page to admit a qualified but diverse student body (for reasons both good and arguably bad or ineffective).
In principle, SAT scores enable people like me, who were very very good at such tests, to break into elite schools. In fact, test prep works well enough to enable a shockingly high percentage of legacies and donor brats in elite schools. Ending SAT use in admissions might enable a more balanced approach to admissions, but it does not broaden access to elite schools. They could increase class sizes, or they could get…
I sometimes wonder if rich people pay tutors to test prep their stupid children simply because they don't want their kids knowing they only got into a good school because of corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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... Neither SAT nor ACT are measured in "grades", so it's not clear what you mean to say here.
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…
Thankfully they also have standardized test scores, which both have a much more transparent scoring method and seem a much better match for the children's competency. It's not that standardized tests are perfect, but removing them makes things extremely capricious, and often very unfair.
'Disguising self-interest as virtue' Indeed, and this seems like a prime example. I'm a fan of a level playing-field, and measuring, rather than judging, ability. But lets face it the putative victim described by the author is actually up against the kids of quite privileged, or dedicated families, who will be hiring private tutors, sending their kids to evening cram schools, or doing the 'tiger-mom' thing. Some flex…