Interesting how many people try using inequality of outcomes as evidence for inequality of opportunities
Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
61–70 of 684 posts
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#62Standardized 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…
It’s the other way around. It helps to have some familiarity with the test, so test prep has some value, but some rich kids can’t test their way out of a paper bag. The one thing they could do is hire a ringer to take the test for them, otherwise it is a valuable form of downward mobility which presents a “barrier” to them hoarding opportunity from someone more able.
Yes, exactly. “Holistic” evaluation is entirely game-able.
The claim is that they are trying to give the kid from East New York a shot but the reality is that this is all about the Dalton parents not wanting their little precious to have to go head to head on a fair playing field against a Stuyvesant kid.
Their goal is to make all desirable institutions look like Dalton—-very wealthy students with an appropriate sprinkling of diversity make everyone feel great about how open minded and progressive they are.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#63Employers should embrace standardize testing: we're on the cusp of a revolution in education driven by the tireless personalized tutoring and feedback of LLMs Of course not all schools are ending testing, MIT for example: "We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles" https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...
Employers used to have standardized tests for all sorts of things. The tests enabled a lot of upward mobility for people to pursue occupations that did not require college degree. If you could show aptitude in a test and had at least a high school education, they'd take you on and train you and you'd have a nice career. However, certain groups sued saying that "equality of outcome" is more important than "equality of…
Or, what a private employer tested was not necessarily a fair standardized test, given they are a private entity that could do whatever they wanted, not part of the public education system that has to adhere to all kinds of annoying standards.
Just because something claims to be fair doesn't mean it is.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#64The only reason I was able to break into programming was because of high standardized test scores. The SAT and others like it really are a great equalizer. Dropping the requirement is a shame.
Sorry, but what do you mean? If you said any other career except programming I'd agree with this, but programming is literally the least gate-kept of the high-paying careers. Anyone can break into programming, all you need is the internet, interest and aptitude to understand code.
I do think it’s hard to break into initially — if you are approaching it from any other industry (such as what I did), it can take a few jobs to make the leap into a high paying career.
Edit: not trying to derail what you had said either, just a comment
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#65I think the author is missing an important point: like many young people, he was smart but undisciplined. If he had gone directly to college from high school, instead of into the military, he probably would have performed as badly in college as he did in high school. He needed more time to grow up and mature. The SAT is irrelevant to that natural fact.
If you're not self-disciplined, then college can be even worse than high school, because you have more personal freedom in college. For example, if you skip classes in high school, you're in big trouble, but if you skip classes in college, they just shrug, cash your tuition check, and give you an F. In college, the adult supervision is largely absent. You're expected to be an adult and supervise yourself.
The military accepts smart underachievers because the military is going to force you to work whether you like it or not.
I didn't join the military myself, but it took me until age 24 to become self-disciplined. Although I was smart enough to get into college, I wasn't psychologically ready for it at 18, and I dropped out at age 20. I had a great time partying for the first 2 years though. ;-)
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#66Standardized 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…
It’s the other way around. It helps to have some familiarity with the test, so test prep has some value, but some rich kids can’t test their way out of a paper bag. The one thing they could do is hire a ringer to take the test for them, otherwise it is a valuable form of downward mobility which presents a “barrier” to them hoarding opportunity from someone more able.
There's virtually no such thing as ringers taking tests.
The majority of rich kids, whose parents are serious about college, are tracked through prep schools beginning with kindergarten.
Its more rare than not that such a kid underperforms enough to be excluded from elite University admission. Especially once one includes the many elite liberal arts colleges that are generally off of the radar of poors.
I do agree about the value of standardized testing, but for the reason that it enables positive filtering of underprivileged kids who otherwise wouldn't be looked at. I don't believe that a downward pull on rich kids is all that significant. To politely disagree with the reasoning of an otherwise well intentioned post.
I attended prep school as a poor. One of the most egregious things that I've ever witnessed, in terms of admissions, is a truly stupid poor being admitted to an Ivy because his Father networked enough as the a prep school's soccer coach (soccer being why his son was at the prep school, but not why he was admitted to the Ivy). I knew this kid from when we attended Catholic school together before the prep school.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#67In principle, SAT scores enable people like me, who were very very good at such tests, to break into elite schools. In fact, test prep works well enough to enable a shockingly high percentage of legacies and donor brats in elite schools. Ending SAT use in admissions might enable a more balanced approach to admissions, but it does not broaden access to elite schools. They could increase class sizes, or they could get…
Standardized tests are designed to be as non-gameable as possible. They're definitely less gameable than the other admissions criteria still used in elite colleges: admissions essays, playing obscure sports, fancy extracurricular experiences, etc. Most studies find SAT prep confers very limited benefits to the average person. Having an essay essentially written for you by an expensive consultant with contacts in admi…
The SAT is way more gameable than the College Board would have you believe. Most coaching is not very effective, but there is a group that is very effective. It’s almost by design that they aren’t very popular.
That said it is less gameable than most of the rest of the process. Family wealth and income are probably less gameable, but many schools are need blind.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, when school is there just to mark elite status. For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. That these schools serve both sets of demand is a problem: Sure hand out the elite status tokens to favored groups, they dont matter much anyways. But if society actually believes that there are pressing problems…
> For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in.
The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#69The SATs may not be fully fair, but they are definitely more fair than any other means of judging college applicants.
Extracurriculars can make a very mediocre student look amazing, and if you pour enough money into sports, student organizations, community organizing, arts, etc, eventually one of them might pan out as sounding impressive. Middle class and poor kids won't have opportunities like that, while rich people can keep spending until their child seems unique and interesting.
Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief
#70Interesting how many people try using inequality of outcomes as evidence for inequality of opportunities
Especially since evidence of inequality of opportunity is so prevalent.