MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions decisions • Hacker News Board

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

#461

Post by seph-reed » Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #128

saithound wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SAT is not fair. By taking an expensive prep course, you can potentially increase your SAT score by 100 (although that's quite extreme, the average improvement attributed to SAT prep is closer to 20 points). That's a significant, but not earth-shattering improvement: it moves you from the 75th percentile to the 84th, or from the 97th percentile to the 99th. Now let's compare that to other criteria used in the col…

> it's the fairest admissions criterion I have yet to see an "abolish standardized tests" type suggest a workable alternative (or even an unworkable one).

Potential directions of thought: Offer a series low cost test pilot class which allows potential students to take a single test course at MIT. The professors double as recruiters, they get to see them thinking.

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

#462

Post by bsanr2 » Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #420

glitchc wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in twins 80 or more years old. > General and specific cognitive abilities were studied in intact Swedish same-sex twin pairs 80 or more years old for whom neither twin had major cognitive, sensory, or motor impairment. Resemblance for 110 identical twin pairs significantly exceeded resemblance for 130 fraternal same-sex twin pairs for all abilities. Maximum-likel…

>Swedish

This is great for Swedish people. The problem is that humanity consists largely of not-Swedish people. Same for most studies of this kind, which are largely concerned with populations that are already genetically closely related; it stands to reason that the differences between people who are closely related will be more attributable to their inborn differences, than the differences between people who are not closely related. They haven't been able to do an interracial, intercultural comparison on this because socioeconomic circumstances are so substantially different between groups (and have been so since the rise of modern empirical research) that it's impossible to set up a decent comparative study.

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

#463

Post by bsanr2 » Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #364

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.

Or intelligence is correlated with familial wealth because it is hereditary and smarter people tend to end up in more complex cognitively demanding professions which tend to pay more.

Maybe? The confounding factors are many. How to account for war (which often accrues wealth to the most brutal among the reasonably intelligent), disease (where selection is based on behavior, e.g., adherence to cultural norms, not necessarily intelligence), disparities in wealth across geography and culture (relative shifts in the normal distribution of IQ across demographics are reflected exactly in measures of wealth)? Let alone that procreation necessarily requires the joining of individuals who might have disparities in wealth, or intelligence, or both.

I tend to err on the side of caution with this one.

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

#464

Post by glitchc » Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #426

glitchc wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the definition of "eugenics" is the arrangement of human reproduction to maximize desired traits. The g factor is highly heritable, and countless academic works and studies establish it as such, well beyond any reasonable doubt.

So if intelligence is inherited, then children of geniuses should be uber-geniuses. And if intelligence is a desired trait, then people can breed for that. And that's eugenics, so I believe you're agreeing with me.

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

#465

Post by Spivak » Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #302

Spivak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, faking a disability is deplorable but this stance is bonkers. I wish my parents had the money when I was growing up to get me checked and diagnose my ADHD. And of course you wouldn't want to report to the college if a person has a disability, are you trying to scarlet letter everyone who needs a little more time to read from dyslexia?

Which illnesses count? Why does dyslexia count but not lower IQ? Why is there a time limit at all? The point is that not everyone gets diagnosed and has equal access to performance enhancing drugs and extra time when taking a competitive test.

> What illnesses count?

The ACT has a huge list: http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-...

> but not lower IQ

It's always great when people compare learning disabilities to being dumb.

> performance enhancing drugs

I realize that it's easy to look at how stimulants affect people without ADHD and conclude that they're getting the same advantage but this really isn't true. A non-ADHD med example is caffeine. Most people who down a few coffees or energy drinks will be wide awake and jittery. But for me I'll be hyper and bouncing off the walls and spacing out until I have an energy drink which lets me focus a little bit and makes me sleepy.