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

611–620 of 684 posts

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#611

Post by mvnuweucxqokii »

csa wrote: post #546
Jiro wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First, using Harvard as an example, 25-28% or so of the entering class is Asian. Given that Asians-Americans are about 6% of the US, this hardly smacks of systemic racism. Something doesn’t add up with this argument. There's a larger percentage than the whole population of the US, but a smaller percentage than the percentage who apply and have similar qualifications to accepted students who aren't Asian. What you're…

> What you're seeing is that Asian-Americans are better qualified, but not enough of them are accepted as one would expect from being better qualified. Please reread my entire comment. I covered your thesis, and I am fairly certain that it is an inappropriate characterization of the reality. Specifically, every study I have seen that makes this claim determines that Asians are “more qualified” based exclusively on a…

> Grades and SAT scores are only one factor of many that are used in admissions decisions.

The other factors were added specifically in order to give universities leeway to massage the demographics of the incoming class. IIRC this kind of holistic admission was invented specifically to be able to reject Jewish applicants who tended to be academically strong but less "well rounded" than WASPs. So ivies effectively put a cap on the Jewish quotient by creating the holistic system.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#612

Post by 1letterunixname »

mrangle wrote: post #110
CJefferson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Legacy” applicants is the opposite of woke, it’s been how the “old boys network” has run for hundreds of years, getting under qualified students into top Universities.

That's an urban myth perpetuated by people interested in generalized grievance. At least from the period I attended prep school, and beyond. From the mid-1990's. Almost in-total, the "old boys" applicants are not under-qualified. When compared to almost any kid that attended lesser secondary schools than the privileged kid attended, on average. These kids have almost always proven themselves in elite educational envi…

Not entirely true. The marketplace for homework and Varsity Blues.

Really believe Trump could've made it through Wharton unassisted? Or W?

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#613

Post by 1letterunixname »

joenot443 wrote: post #399
ww520 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A legacy with a B grade candidate will get in. It’s a boost, not a tie breaker.

So does that mean that on average, “legacy” students at these schools are lower performers? Since their bar for admission would be that much lower? This system doesn’t really exist in Canada so I’m finding it very interesting

In the US, legacy and a building donation overlook many inadequacies.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#614

Post by 1letterunixname »

tqi wrote: post #184
mrangle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the point of my prior post, and you misunderstand how legacy admissions work. Dropping the rhetorical nuke of "systemic racism" doesn't cover for that. Read my prior post again. Legacy gets one looked at. Its not an automatic admission. Unlesss you are simply stating that legacy admissions should be disqualified (this would be ridiculous), then also consider that: you may be making the "resear…

Two questions: 1. does having a parent who is an alum make a student more qualified? 2. does having a parent who is an alum increase the likelihood of an applicant being accepted?

Unfortunately, the current system is often yes to both.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#615

Post by cuteboy19 »

mrangle wrote: post #199
IshKebab wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legacy gets one looked at I'm not that familiar with the US legacy system but even if it is just "we'll definitely take a look at your application" that isn't competing on even ground is it? It might not guarantee you a place but it's clearly an unfair advantage.

No one is disputing the fact that there are advantages to being legacy, at least in terms of giving the application a hard look so as not to unduly disappoint donors and other people in the "club" that is the entire reason that non-legacy candidates want in. Versus say a public school (American) candidate who gets filtered out earlier because they graduated in the middle of their class. I don't recall anyone promisin…

This is typically what legacy admits tell themselves to cope with the fact that they do not deserve to be there. But it has no relation to reality. With the data that Harvard tried so desperately to hide, we can confidently dismiss these false claims

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#616

Post by 1letterunixname »

adrr wrote: post #189
mrangle wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an urban myth perpetuated by people interested in generalized grievance. At least from the period I attended prep school, and beyond. From the mid-1990's. Almost in-total, the "old boys" applicants are not under-qualified. When compared to almost any kid that attended lesser secondary schools than the privileged kid attended, on average. These kids have almost always proven themselves in elite educational envi…

Is it an urban myth? We can look at former presidents like George who attended Yale with a 1200 SAT and a 2.5 HS GPA.

Homework and test-taking for sale.

Stanford is 100% honor system with proctor-less exams. Seems kind of convenient.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#617

Post by spopejoy »

btilly wrote: post #375
erikpukinskis wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic hypotheses for the pro-affirmative action crowd are: 1) Black people are not actually less “good at stuff”, we just have a habit of defining “stuff” in a way that excludes the things that black people are more likely to excel at. And, 2) Where black people do statistically worse, it’s not due to any innate difference, it’s because socially accepted “normal” support systems are more useful for people with ch…

Sorry, but I take offense at this "it is all a matter of opinion and all opinions are equally valid" BS. 1) It is trivially true that if you define your measure right, you can make anyone succeed. For example black people are better at looking like black people. But we try to define "stuff" in a way that correlates with ability to do economically useful tasks. There are excellent reasons to do so. 2) You are ignoring…

> And it is obvious that affirmative action can be at best too little, too late, compared to the things most urgently in need of fixing.

This argument is at least 40 years old and twice as tired. Richard Rodriguez was plying this in the late 80s, and the anti-affirmative action squad in Cali in the 90s.

It is not "too little too late", it is "better late than never". The disadvantages of background usually crop up as crippling impostor syndrome, which can be helped with the right reinforcement, but the idea that "fathers in jail" or "police brutality" in somebody's background invalidates their access to a higher education is a cop out at best.

The main thing this apologism hides is the inescapable fact that mediocrity + centrality wins every time. Look at any school and you will see the folks with "the right background" making it through. Meanwhile, you will also see those from the challenged backgrounds you describe often dropping out and _not_ because of grades but because the whole environment screams "you don't belong here".

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#618

Post by spopejoy »

wunderland wrote: post #27

All of this debate about what measures should be used to gatekeep higher education ignore that the US system is only loosely about teaching students; the goal of an American university degree is class differentiation. There is not a shortage of textbooks or qualified teachers who could explain calculus or history or economics. As a society, the could easily produce far more educated people (and for a lower cost), but…

> The diploma -- especially from an elite school like Columbia -- [is] first and foremost is a signifier that you deserve entrance into an upper middle managerial class

I think that while this take is largely accurate, it's incomplete. Substitute "upper middle managerial class" with "enlarged access to professional employment" -- not a huge leap -- and you can see societal benefit for aggressively modulating the gatekeeping for inclusivity's sake.

Otherwise it's just the usual cynicism which is always effective for maintaining the status quo.

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#619

Post by hgsgm »

Jensson wrote: post #424
Ekaros wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a test is bad if you can study all of the material or enough of it in 20 hours. Realistically good test would require that multi-hundred hour build up.

SAT stands for aptitude test, why would an aptitude test require multi-hundred hours of studying? All you need is to know a bit of math and how to read and you can score really well, you'd think that would be a shit test but apparently 90% of people can neither read well nor do a bit of math, so it is actually a good test.

The SAT stopped being called an Aptitude test in 1994, when they decided it didn't mean anything except "correlated to score on other SAT sessions, and to college GPA"

Re: Dropping the SAT requirement is a luxury belief

#620

Post by gumby »

scottLobster wrote: post #605
gumby wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read Cato, but I have never respected him. I admire Churchill for his contribution to victory in WWII and his excellent playing of a weak hand, but he was a hideous human being for a lot to answer for. I have nothing but contempt for Jefferson Davis. Yes, I even consider the Nazis terrible people no matter how widespread antisemitism was at the time and no matter how much public support they had. I have that view s…

I guess you shouldn't go too far back in history then. If that's how you judge the average Nazi party member (as in the regular Nazi on the street at the time), I imagine you think every Swede during the time of the Vikings was correspondingly a terrible person. And every Frank, Mongol, Arab, Indian, Slav, and... yeah pretty much everyone back in the day. Cato included. With the whole world being so fundamentally mor…

> The uncomfortable truth is that any of us, genetically unchanged but raised in post WWI Germany would most likely be Nazis during WWII.

But of course: isn't that the important lesson? Most, but not all were; so is this knowledge an excuse to do nothing or is it a spur to look for the injustices one accepts today, and change one's position?

Post reply on HN