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

331–340 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#331

Post by lordnacho »

Jensson wrote: post #320
lordnacho wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Have you ever met kids who aren't good at studying? Do you think they somehow get their shit together just for this one test, because they read somewhere that it's judged fairly and a great investment of time? Teenagers will somehow know that 20 hours, that's where Jensson's return curve breaks?

People who study a lot study a lot for the SAT, people who study little study little for the SAT, and in between people do an in between amount of SAT. That somehow seems like a good starting point, which we'll probably be stuck on given evidence will be hard to come by.

FWIW there were kids in my kid's class who had three tutors and studied every day over the summer holiday (the test is right after). They would have stopped if it was so obvious the benefits stop past some level. Just as there will be people who think it's a great idea to put 1000 hours into it, there's going to be people who think they'll just show up on the day and see how it goes.

Edit: seems this wasn't a direct descendent of the the thread I thought it was, about the UK 11+, but the point is the same.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#332

Post by setgree »

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.” >…

Banning legacy admissions is a coordination problem. Try to eliminate it at one school and parents (re: donors) will raise an uproar. It would need to be eliminated at the whole cohort of peer schools to eliminate parents’ exit option.

Semi-related anecdote: my alma mater got huge pushback from donors when it tried to eliminate its football team [0], which was legendarily bad and a recruiting nightmare to boot (apparently football rosters can be 100+, though Swarthmore’s was ~53). So there was about as clear a case for elimination as you could hope for, and still it was a big controversy that impacted the school where administrators tend to notice — its endowment.

So when we talk about eliminating legacy admissions, I picture that, but just a thousand times worse.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/05/sports/football-no-more-f...

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#333

Post by Glyptodon »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #124
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.” >…

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.

There's a lot of evidence that it's difficult to drastically change someone's test scores in a year or two, and it's compounded by the degree of internal motivation of the test taker. And there's an element of reversion to the mean with children of some high achievers.

Meanwhile, GPA and extracurriculars are significantly reflections of socialization and parents rather than anyone's inherent or learned abilities.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#335

Post by moomoo11 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #5

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…

In re to LSAT at least a decade ago your LSAT score meant shit.

I’m S Asian, scored 99th percentile 17x, but my GPA was around 3.3 because I think college is a joke when it involves homework. I had never gotten less than a A on midterms and finals, but what I’m trying to say is that GPA and race matters much more.

There was a law school acceptance calculator. With my scores and my Asian background, the T14 were either out of reach or I had somewhat of a chance at a lower rank of those schools.

Law school is probably the most atrocious when it comes to race based acceptance. Changed my race on the calculator and my chances became green across the board basically.

Being Asian is hard enough. We have to succeed because our parents and in some cases like me know what life is like without running water or electricity, genocide every few years, etc.

It sucks that no school ever looks at that. I grew up without running water nor a toilet, and multiple people living in a home that was barely 400sq ft. Yet nobody cares about that because I’m Asian, the wrong minority.

Yes I don’t give a shit about homework, I understand the material which is why I’m slaying each test. I hated that about college. We are adults. I’m paying to get an education, why the fuck is homework 20% of the grade? It’s practice, for people who don’t get the material.

Education is a joke. when I see a fellow asian person from a top uni I know they had to be actually extraordinary to get in and come out.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#336

Post by tomp »

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 general question for the whole "social justice" movement.

If you're concerned about the wellbeing of black people, and you justify your concern with statistics pointing out that they're disproportionately poor, why not, instead of instituting preferential treatment for black people (which, btw, is racist), you support preferential treatment for poor people instead? That way, you are more efficient (e.g. your resources aren't wasted on Obama's daughters, who are certainly sufficiently privileged already), while also helping people who weren't captured by your superficial assessment ("black poor").

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#337

Post by Glyptodon »

faeriechangling wrote: post #235
Jensson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah exactly. Being able to score well on some standardized test is way easier than being able to keep up performance year round when you have problems at home if you have the aptitude to succeed at either. GPA is also much more subject to getting penalized because a teacher straight up hates you for being poor, disabled, male (this one is measurable by having teachers grade tests with different names), ugly, smelly,…

People are so oblivious to how judgy and twisted a solid chunk of teachers are. Obviously not the majority, but it only takes a few to really screw things up for people without enough of a support system.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#338

Post by Jensson »

lordnacho wrote: post #331
Jensson wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

Have you ever met kids who aren't good at studying? Do you think they somehow get their shit together just for this one test, because they read somewhere that it's judged fairly and a great investment of time? Teenagers will somehow know that 20 hours, that's where Jensson's return curve breaks? People who study a lot study a lot for the SAT, people who study little study little for the SAT, and in between people do…

> Have you ever met kids who aren't good at studying? Do you think they somehow get their shit together just for this one test, because they read somewhere that it's judged fairly and a great investment of time? Teenagers will somehow know that 20 hours, that's where Jensson's return curve breaks?

I was one of those kids. I never had a stable home, I have 5 siblings with many parents, I moved between different parents, lived on the floor with mom and siblings at one of her friends homes for a few months etc. But mustering up the energy to put in effort for one test is still possible, doing that for everything, no way.

Kids aren't stupid, they have spent years doing things, reading things, it isn't hard to find out information about college, SAT etc. A bad home doesn't mean you are stupid even though you make it sound like it does.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#339

Post by Glyptodon »

lordnacho wrote: post #280
Jensson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

GPA is not a bunch of tests. Schools make it so box checkers who squeak get every opportunity to make up for their ability with cooperative socialization. While other students who don't do the right stuff and aren't involved in the right extracurriculars get everything rounded down, and rounded down harder if they speak up.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#340

Post by jeffrallen »

jeffrallen wrote: post #75

I live in a society with free education for all, up to and including university. To make that possible, there are a limited number of seats, and the number is based on the needs of society, and on our government's budget. The seats are allocated based on testing, but there are multiple ways to "test into" a seat, i.e. "you missed it this time, but go do another two years of pre-university and you might get in later".…

Forgot to mention: I suppose this only works in high trust societies.

Citizens are sometimes dissatisfied with individual outcomes, but there is no groundswell of resistance to it because people generally believe the system (both the educational system, but also the entire economic system) is fair.

Post reply on HN