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

531–540 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#531

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #322
nervousvarun wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've articulated this very well. It's something I also have for years believed as a non-Asian person that has become a "conceptual framework" (my words...probably inadequate) to better understand Asian co-workers now and co-students back in my school days (to unfortunately generalize here). For me at least it really does explain a lot of the cultural differences that lead to lazy western stereotypes. So many exampl…

That's part of it, but as an Asian American immigrant myself, the stereotypes aren't really far off. "Tiger parents" is an American characterization of how Asian families are generally structured: parents (who have knowledge and life experience) dictate to kids (who lack both). Dating and relationships are discouraged (freeing up huge bandwidth for studying) while marriage is expected (heading off the tendency for ex…

How does one study for the SAT, would you say, and what impact do you believe that studying has?

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#532

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #281
pmoriarty wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"any quantifiable, OBJECTIVE framework" The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. You can't just base the core of your argument on the assumption of objectivity when that objectivity itself is what is in question.

> The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups. And it's a silly contention. The SATs were invented by American WASPs. Yet the group that does extraordinarily well, Asians, are the most recent immigrants to the country, from places that have the least similarities (in terms of language, culture, political knowledge, etc.) to American WASP culture.

It's only silly to the extent that you collapse the argument down to the design of the test itself, and not all the circumstances that go into the administration of the test across the country.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#533

Post by anonymouskimmer »

zenta wrote: post #309
rayiner wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prepping for the test is a valuable signal when you're talking about the entire pool of high school students. And it does not gate opportunities by economics as much as you'd think: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/magazine/asian-test-prep-... . Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests.

It's not though. Give ten kids from the same class a self study online course and give another ten a private tutor, and they won't see the same score distribution. Where's the signal there? SAT results don't have a line item that notes the amount of wealth or privilege that went into preparing. > Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests. Some families can't…

> That said... I don't know how the _new_ system will work at fighting that privilege -- there are still lots of ways for it to disguise itself. But we have to at least acknowledge the issues with the SAT.

I'm in favor of using tests like that SAT as cheaper diagnostic tests, to help with student placements and accommodations, not for admissions. It's too bad this is being lost with the removal of the testing requirements, but I guess it doesn't matter much as the tests were never used this way in the first place, despite providing this information. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ACT%20Paper%20... (note that I don't agree with the conclusions of this paper, merely the identified diagnostic criteria)

> This is about diversity of skills and diversity of learner profiles

I might believe that if I didn't believe that the diversity would mostly be token, with the majority of students in selective schools fitting a handful of templates.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#534

Post by lapcat »

gameman144 wrote: post #523
lapcat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This view ironically makes schools and education irrelevant. Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student?

> Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student? Because the tests measure knowledge, and schools are intended to impart knowledge. As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" If my local gym is really trash or I can…

> As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?"

This isn't a good analogy. A gym is a mere building. I wasn't referring to schools as mere buildings, the walls, the halls, the roofs. I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers.

> Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests.

How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. I wouldn't expect that to work well, with only rare exceptions. Students — who by definition and nature lack experience, lack knowledge, are ignorant — need guidance, and thus the quality of the schools, the quality of the teaching is crucial. Nothing is totally in the control of the student, nor should it be, for the student's own good.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#535

Post by chaostheory »

Glyptodon wrote: post #315
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…

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.

Did you not read the part where the ‘aristocracy’ pays way more tuition money for their one child? If you weren’t so focused on class warfare, you’d realize all of that extra money can be used for other things such as scholarships for families who wouldn’t be able to afford a university education for their children. The people you’re referring to wouldn’t be able to afford tuition before the rate hikes, and they sure would be in a worse position post tuition hike

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#536

Post by pclmulqdq »

WalterBright wrote: post #445
WalterBright wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page, in the 1970s. I did not notice any disparity among the houses. Freshmen were initially assigned to houses at random, and then they'd go through "rotation" where they'd have dinner at each house in turn. After that, the houses would each make a rank of who they wanted, and the freshmen would say yes or no to the selection. I don't recall anyone, ever, talking about their social/wealth background in this process.…

P.S. It's possible I was simply blind to the upper class signalling. Things like word choice, manner, etc.

I was one of the richer kids in what was one of the more "bohemian" houses, as another commenter referred to them. Page was actually toward the top of the wealth spectrum when I was there (recently). There was also a lot of wealth disparity within each house, too, by the way.

However, the signals are more subtle than you think. Things like being happy to go out to eat on weekends, having a big wardrobe, having technical toys, and having a car (at all) were all signs of wealth. A few particular sports were also indicators. "Rich people cars" are usually not given to kids in their 20's, even by wealthy parents.

More subtly, there are a lot of social things, like asking what your parents do and asking about your last vacation. Most rich kids know how to read the room enough not to brag about expensive vacations directly, but will ask assuming you recently had one. Having parents who fly in for things and flying out for short vacations is a dead giveaway.

Also, at Caltech in particular, being well-read was a sign of wealth, but I assume that doesn't translate to non-science schools.

And it would never come up in rotation, but certain house cultures just are more attractive to certain types of people. I think that's the source of the disparity, not any sort of rotation-related thing.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#537

Post by chaostheory »

ww520 wrote: post #248
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…

We don't need rich people to all piling in to donate to the top schools. Have them donated to the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th tier schools. Encouraging donation to top schools via legacy admission creates a perverse incentive to concentrate resources at a few top schools, creating the cycle of everyone fighting to get into them. Money and resources should be spread out.

I agree, and for the record I wasn’t referring to just elite schools.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#538

Post by torstenvl »

docandrew wrote: post #524
torstenvl wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed you didn't come close to answering the question. Complaining that people who aren't you are making money isn't a good look, and certainly isn't a sound basis for federal public policy. You indicated a problem with the way federal funds are spent. What section of what federal statute should be changed? In what way should it be changed?

So far you’ve used straw man (you don’t support poor kids going to college?) and an ad-hominem (complaining that people who aren’t you are making money…) attack in your responses, which indicates a lack of argument in good faith. I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.

OP said you opposed federal funding here. Pell Grants are federal funding. Accurate descriptions aren't straw men.

OP expressed disapproval of the fact "that public funds can go to private schools like Harvard."

I tried to guess what OP might mean, but it appears you have found those guesses insulting. So, assuming you think similarly, why don't you just clear it up so we aren't left guessing? What are the specific changes to federal law you propose as an alternative?

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#539

Post by sokoloff »

docandrew wrote: post #524
torstenvl wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed you didn't come close to answering the question. Complaining that people who aren't you are making money isn't a good look, and certainly isn't a sound basis for federal public policy. You indicated a problem with the way federal funds are spent. What section of what federal statute should be changed? In what way should it be changed?

So far you’ve used straw man (you don’t support poor kids going to college?) and an ad-hominem (complaining that people who aren’t you are making money…) attack in your responses, which indicates a lack of argument in good faith. I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.

It’s not a straw man when poor kids do literally use federal grant programs to attend Harvard. It’s not a distortion or exaggeration of the original objection that federal monies went to Harvard.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#540

Post by markdown »

ironcurtain wrote: post #521
markdown wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.

Don’t you worry, they’ll come for you eventually.

One would hope so.

Ideally, the people of the future will have progressed beyond the relative savagery of me and my peers and look upon us with disdain. Perhaps for how much I enjoy a good steak, or for the genital mutilation of our boys.

Post reply on HN