Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief • Hacker News Board

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#311

Post by Master_Odin » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

nick__m wrote: post #237

chaostheory wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist. https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai... It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it…

Elite institutions like MIT, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Harvard do not need more donations. Look at the worth of theirs endowment funds at the end of 2021 : Harvard 53G$ Yale 42G$ Stanford 37.8G$ Princeton 37G$ MIT 27.4G$ Can you honestly tell me that they need more donations ?

None of these (and other) schools view endowments as something to spend. It must always be growing to show how amazing and great the school is.

I remember how during the pandemic there was a number of articles about how these schools might have to take out some small pittance of the endowment to fund certain things and the schools were all doom and gloom about it.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#312

Post by nradov » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

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.

As a practical matter how would college admissions departments even try to account for "total wealth"? That number doesn't appear on income tax returns. Applicants could write down any number and there wouldn't be any way to verify it short of a court ordered forensic audit.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#313

Post by Glyptodon » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

bnralt wrote: post #239

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.” >…

> This is a simple and effective way of achieving the goals they claim to be championing. And what are the real goals of these institutions? The whole approach of having artificially limited education where people are sifted into higher and lower status classes based upon judgements made when they're teenagers is premised on elitism, not equity. That's the purpose of these institutions - not to education as many peop…

That public funds can go to private schools like Harvard is such a joke.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#314

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#315

Post by Glyptodon » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #191

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.” >…

If you ban legacy, then you lose needed donations. If you lose donations, then costs go up for everyone else. There is a net benefit for everyone when there are academically challenged wealthy children. Just keep standardized testing to prevent mass arbitrary admissions that will inevitably become racist. https://priceonomics.com/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-agai... It’s happened in the past to Jewish people and it…

But for the beneficence of the aristocracy...

I think that's a joke of an argument. The people whose kids would no longer get in would go somewhere and the distribution of their bribery would surely be more democratizing.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#316

Post by lordnacho » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #310

lordnacho wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't see why studying 20 hours for 1 test that you can easily repeat is easier to scrape together than 2000 hours to score well on all tests throughout high school?

If you can't find the time to do your normal tests for GPA, you won't find time to study for the SAT either. Whether that's because you live in an unsupportive home or you just can't find the discipline, it's only theoretical that someone who isn't used to a studying environment can somehow have the foresight to invest their few hours on this particular exam.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#317

Post by Glyptodon » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #261

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.” >…

The core problem is that merit-based entrance is inherently at odds with equality of outcome. Families that are better off rais more capable children on average

I think they raise children who are more effectively socialized and protected more so than more capable. I've known very capable people who don't have the status to refuse to kiss rings and they always get screwed in public schools.

The kids with sufficiently "decent" parents get handled with kid gloves and rule adherence, everyone else gets punched down with half-assery even when if they're experiencing injustice and unfairness.

Have known so many bright kids who get nowhere because of schools.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#318

Post by nradov » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

htag wrote: post #273

faeriechangling wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is not how it works in the real world. Affluent parents go doctor shopping to get learning disability diagnoses for their children. This has been going on for decades (I saw it with some of my classmates when I was in school) and the friendly doctors are well known in those circles.

I am not claiming that learning disabilities aren't real or that students who legitimately have those conditions don't deserve some accommodations. But the reality is that the current system is totally broken and discriminatory.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#319

Post by cleandreams » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

I totally agree. I was an SAT high tester in an unsupportive home. I was not a good student. I had actually flunked a grade in elementary school though they let me pass. BTW, I ended up as a principal level at Microsoft.

When I tested 99.9 percentile in Verbal and 97 percentile in Math my father's only comment was, "Who ever thought you could test like that?" Snicker, snicker.

I'm disgusted by this decision. You HAVE to let kids have a way of knowing they have capabilities when for some reason the environment blocks that.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#320

Post by Jensson » Sun, Mar 05, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #316

Jensson wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see why studying 20 hours for 1 test that you can easily repeat is easier to scrape together than 2000 hours to score well on all tests throughout high school?

If you can't find the time to do your normal tests for GPA, you won't find time to study for the SAT either. Whether that's because you live in an unsupportive home or you just can't find the discipline, it's only theoretical that someone who isn't used to a studying environment can somehow have the foresight to invest their few hours on this particular exam.

> If you can't find the time to do your normal tests for GPA, you won't find time to study for the SAT either.

That is just nonsense. Lets say that you have 20 hours to study per year, like a couple of weekends that are calmer etc, you can spend those on SAT and you got basically the full benefits of studying for that test since studying more isn't very beneficial. But 20 hours to study per year wont budge your GPA much at all. Close to every kid can find 20 hours to study per year, I'm pretty sure.

Or do you think that people can either study all the time, or study none of the time, no in-between at all?

Edit:

> it's only theoretical that someone who isn't used to a studying environment can somehow have the foresight to invest their few hours on this particular exam.

Not at all, I never studied for anything in high school and got shit grades. But I spent a weekend to study for a SAT once, got good on that, and got into college that way. This isn't theoretical at all, it happens all the time. It is very different to do something for a very short time, or keeping that up for 4 years straight.