Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 465 posts

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#391

Post by smilekzs »

Yhippa wrote: post #270
bsanr2 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, let's acknowledge the fair critique from the end that is not, "Keeping high-achieving Asian kids out": the part where the tests themselves cost money parents (and school systems) don't have; the part where the study guide in and of itself is not enough to prepare for these exams, leaving us the true, astronomical cost of preparation; the part where this is all begging the question of what admissions te…

> Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out. I'm all in favor of adding some kind of RNG to this process. The overpreparation of the wealthy in all kinds of aspects of admissions gives them a big advantage over those who don't. RNG evens it out.

I disagree. A raffle system, while inevitable in some cases (H-1B lottery comes to mind), is totally inappropriate when applied to a standardized test. Quite on the contrary, a standardized test aims to measure capability (however abstract it is), not luck.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#392

Post by glitchc »

barry-cotter wrote: post #338
bsanr2 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible that these tests measure something other than general intelligence, that just happens to correlate with social outcomes (like historical, relative familial wealth). IIRC general intelligence also doesn't simply measure speed of cognition, but also ability to choose what to focus on ("intuition"), which these tests do not measure.

Adoptees have IQs in line with their biological parents, not their adoptive ones. It’s heritable like every other psychological variable I’m aware of. Speed of cognition is absolutely correlated with IQ but the difference in speed doesn’t cause the differences in results. Both are downstream of being more intelligent. > Speed of information processing and general intelligence > One hundred university students were gi…

There is no evidence connecting IQ to hereditary traits. This has been demonstrably proven false multiple times. What you are arguing is eugenics and that is patently false.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#393

Post by adamsea »

knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

IMHO the SAT is no more objective than an essay, grades in school, or any of the other things you listed.

What is the SAT objectively measuring? Not math. Not logic. Not writing ability. It's objectively measuring the ability to succeed at a timed test which involves some math, some logic, some verbal ability, and knowing how to "test well".

I taught GRE test prep classes for Kaplan for a year or two. What I observed was:

- To do well even the bright folks had to block out time and apply study skills, be organized, and "learn the test." - This means having the time to do those things.

- Time allocated for test prep and study was a better predictor of success than almost anything else.

- Yes, some people who were naturally better at certain things had it easier, but that did not obviate the above.

My conclusion for the GRE at least was that it primarily measured the time available to prepare, the study skills of the student, and the test prep resources the student had access to.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#394

Post by dumb_kid »

saagarjha wrote: post #366
barry-cotter wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can find out about all these tricks for free on Khan Academy or for $20 in a SAT prep book.

Not everyone can afford to sink time into learning SAT tricks.

No, but I think the point is a combination of Chesterton fence and Goodhart's law. The personal statments and the like, by becoming the primary targets, will cease to measure achivement, and instead measure wealth. So instead of changing without a plan, make a plan to replace SAT2 with something less subject to wealth

MIT is removing a test which rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor. That's good. But the other metrics that MIT currently use are more punishing to the poor, and more rewarding to the wealthy.

With the removal of this element, MIT is left relying on personal statements, recommendations, and the like. With those metrics as the targets, the kids of the wealthy will fund their child's various activities for the sake of giving them a better application.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#395

Post by adamsea »

pdonis wrote: post #165
dawg- wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call a "smooth-talker" is what someone else would call an articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others. Perhaps if this was the standard college admissions used, public schools would have more incentive to educate students as functional humans rather than test-taking drones.

The problem is that "articulate, socially well-adjusted person who can communicate their values and opinions in an intelligent way and who is comfortable making connections with others" is (a) highly subjective, and (b) only a means to an end. The end is to have a productive civil society where people do not prey on other people. Unfortunately, all these highly subjective characteristics are used by people to prey on…

Distrusting social skills, linguistic ability, and emotional intelligence doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

It's not like there aren't plenty of engineers, scientists, math folks, i.e. those "honest", quantitative folks, who aren't also crappy or deceptive people.

Just look at Facebook! ;)

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#396

Post by salty_biscuits »

im3w1l wrote: post #314
salty_biscuits wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had a multiple choice quiz with the actual questions hidden you would get a normal distribution in results. Anything where you sum lots of small random effects.

If the test was not measuring anything at all, then you would expect repeat takers to have completely unrelated scores on first and last test.

That's true, I'm just pointing out that the normality of the distribution of the results alone proves nothing.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#397

Post by knzhou »

adamsea wrote: post #393
knzhou wrote: post #57

Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people. Yes, some misguided parents waste thousands of dollars on SAT courses. But students can also prep using the $20 officia…

IMHO the SAT is no more objective than an essay, grades in school, or any of the other things you listed. What is the SAT objectively measuring? Not math. Not logic. Not writing ability. It's objectively measuring the ability to succeed at a timed test which involves some math, some logic, some verbal ability, and knowing how to "test well". I taught GRE test prep classes for Kaplan for a year or two. What I observed…

What's "objective" about the SAT is that, at the very least, different people are being made to take the same test. Contrast that with the essay: it looks like the same task (everybody gets 500 words), but for poor kids this task looks like writing an essay, while for rich kids it looks like shopping for the best college counselor to write the essay.

At the very least, given an SAT score, I can know that somebody worked alone for 4 hours with a No. 2 pencil to get it... that's more than any other indicator can guarantee.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#398

Post by WalterBright »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #200
WalterBright wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was rejected by MIT even though my father attended. I don't think MIT does legacy admissions, or sports admissions.

legacy preference just gives you a +1, not guaranteed.

I applied to 10 ivy league universities, and was accepted by 3. It's reasonable to suppose that if MIT gave a +1 for legacy admits, I would have gotten the nod.

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#399

Post by chongli »

banachtarski wrote: post #382
chongli wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of kids in the US who can't afford to bring lunch to school, let alone pay $20 for a SAT prep book. Many of these kids don't have a computer or Internet access at home for that matter, so Khan Academy isn't much good to them either. When we talk about rich vs poor kids, there's a HUGE gap that many people don't realize.

Anecdote: When I was younger, I used to take a public bus to a local bookstore and work through the SAT practice books (on separate scrap paper of course).

It sounds like you didn't have to pick up younger siblings at school when you were younger. That's the reality for a lot of poor kids. Raised by a single parent, the older siblings are in charge of looking after the younger ones. The parent often does not get home from work until late (and may have multiple jobs).

Re: MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions

#400

Post by mywittyname »

smilekzs wrote: post #391
Yhippa wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out. I'm all in favor of adding some kind of RNG to this process. The overpreparation of the wealthy in all kinds of aspects of admissions gives them a big advantage over those who don't. RNG evens it out.

I disagree. A raffle system, while inevitable in some cases (H-1B lottery comes to mind), is totally inappropriate when applied to a standardized test. Quite on the contrary, a standardized test aims to measure capability (however abstract it is), not luck.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to go with a lottery system after some point. Most people with a ACT over ~30 are going to be completely capable of performing the coursework for an undergraduate degree at MIT. And anyone with a perfect score is going to be fine anyway. There are plenty of world-class institutions in the USA that would be more than happy to accept these peopl.
Post reply on HN