Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

> get recommendation letters from important people, stack their resumes with extracurriculars, and use the right slogans in their admissions essays. They have “polish.”

Or they just completely fake it, like a few cases that were discovered a few years ago. [1]

Let's be honest though. Those with less "polish" that would be admitted on purely objective/anonymous merit might even excel academically at the university, but they would be excluded by the very same social games being played here.

Sometimes they might even be told that explicitly but usually an excuse will be concocted.

The real question should be:

> What is more cruel, excluding them early on or allowing them to "win" but then ignore them completely when the benefits of that are to be distributed?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal

> So explain that to me.

You're special. Congratulations! You have a unique capability to absorb knowledge. In my experience, this means one of two things: either (1) you truly are brilliant and will exceed at anything you apply to, or (2) at some point you will run into something that you _don't_ understand after the first or second try, and you'll be entirely unequipped and unprepared to deal with that. Also in my experience, (2) is far more common than (1).

Bashing your head against difficult things in a low-stakes environment where folks are literally paid to help you navigate failure is a great way to extend the runway until (2) hits. Again - you're _paying_ for this opportunity in college.

> ... then the professor would do some last saving grace move where you do some BS work to get an extra five percent.

Maybe it's not BS work? Maybe there's something to creating relationships with the people you work with, and creating alternative avenues for them to help you, since it's literally their job?

I had an undergrad once who did reasonable on their homework problem sets, but just could not get it together in the written exams. Turns out their was an anxiety issue involved. But they came to my office hours for help, and put in the effort, so I was more than happy to see what I could do to ensure that not only would they learn the material to the best of their ability, but that we could soften the blow of a less-than-perfect final mark in the course. I wouldn't go to such lengths for a name on a paper who I saw in lecture but otherwise had no interaction with... how do I know they actually put in the effort and knew the material?

> Someone who understands the material would ace the exams. In my experience most people did not ace the exams and in fact would hate on me and some others who would “kill the curve”.

Depends entirely on the exam. I've taken exams for coursework that I truly thought I had mastery over and utterly bombed them. I've also taken exams for courses that I was convinced I was going to fail, and done well, too.

In my experience, it's actually very difficult to write an in-person exam that rewards mastery over course material. I've encountered very few such exams in my life that didn't resort to gimmicks or "gotchas" in the material. It's much easier in a timed, in-person setting to write busy work that has tricks built in so things simplify away and get rid of a lot of the manual work.

He should have been canceled for all the experimental fraud he committed.

> The effects of studying "for the test" as you put have been measured, improved test taking skills tends to be worth ~30 points which is not that significant. This matches my anecdotal experience and that of people I know who run SAT prep courses.

I see this often but I suspect that it is lumping "Took a prep class for 1 hour on a Saturday" and "Spent 6 hours a week for 52 weeks with a tutor" in the same category.

Any tutor who only gets a 30 point increase won't be seeing much business among the folks I know.

However, I do agree with you that firming up skills is a remarkably quick way to get a significant boost. Being able to add 2 + 2 and come up with 4, repeatedly and accurately is often a big deal on these tests even with a calculator.

Separating out confounders is easier said than done. When you look at the performance of black people raised in white families they are still exposed to media, teachers, and peers who have expectations of them based on appearance. Even with that population, racism remains a confounder.

Likewise while you can look at historical Jews as a poor population with high IQ, you have the confounder that even then Jews placed a strong cultural value on education and intelligence. And therefore, even while they were poor, Jews were likely to work to improve themselves on both. Therefore this leaves open the question of how much of the difference is due to this cultural factor versus innate genetics.

In the case of Vietnamese boat people, we have families that literally risked their lives for a chance at a better future. This attitude taken to a new country suggests that we should expect them to make the most of any opportunity that they can find. How much of their subsequent success is due to this attitude?

On Nigerian immigrants, I'd need to see a source to believe your "generally better social outcomes" comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Americans puts the 2018 median household income for members of the Nigerian diaspora into the USA at $68,658. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26... the median household income for white non-Hispanic households at $70,642. At least on the easiest to check social outcome, whites are still doing better.

That said, Nigerians who arrive here tend to be motivated and well-educated. I'm not sure how you can distinguish that from genetics. Doubly so since the poster child for racist claims about IQ is the poor performance of US blacks. Blacks whose African ancestry includes a significant share of Nigerian.

So yes, we can cite volumes of statistics. And it is easy for find lots of books like The Bell Curve that actually do. But when you dig in you won't find a single statistic whose difference can be clearly attributed to genetics rather than some cultural factor.