81–90 of 684 posts
Interesting how many people try using inequality of outcomes as evidence for inequality of opportunities
Especially since evidence of inequality of opportunity is so prevalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Can you provide references for this story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 spri…
Isn't this patently obvious that dropping the SAT is entirely about creating pretext for continued discrimination against Asian applicants? In 1996, California repealed affirmative action via Prop 209. At the UC Berkeley and UCLA, considered the 'best' of the UC system, Asians represented 25-30% of the student base. Studies and fear-mongering at the time showed that a repeal of affirmative action would imply that Asi…
Based on this Whites are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action (by numbers), even if blacks are by ratio. There just aren’t enough blacks at these schools to make that much of a difference of scale.
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. 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…
Make it 100% achievement. Any differences in background must be supplemented with aggressive college prep programs so the bar isn't weakened for some. It's the only way to remain globally competitive. And abolish legacy. (Don't get a JD unless set on a particular practice because the field is overflowing. Consider MD or DDS first.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially since evidence of inequality of opportunity is so prevalent.
Would you like to provide an example then? Government inequality please, I’m not interested in hearing why you believe a private party should be obligated to give you anything.
This isn’t about the causes of these issues. But it’s obvious that not everyone has the same opportunities in childhood. It seems odd that you’d even question this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 suf…
> after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students…
The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are you saying there is some particular training program that increases scores much more than the 30-90 points claimed by various studies?