Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

home.dartmouth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 451 posts

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#91

Post by grdgyredb »

NegativeK wrote: post #8
sokoloff wrote: post #2

Shocking that a “Scholastic Aptitude Test” or “American College Test” would predict future scholastic achievement at the collegiate level.

Those are marketing terms, though. It's not trivial to go from performance on a single test to performance throughout the year, which will include long-form writing, lab work, and other forms of learning.

You are right it’s not trivial, but on the other hand if you simply try to make such a test you’d do better than completely uncorrelated pretty easily I’d suppose.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#92

Post by webdood90 »

hardware2win wrote: post #36
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

Indeed. Standardized exams are the most fair and transparent. Materials and tutors are available easily for free or cheaply on the internet nowadays.

> Standardized exams are the most fair and transparent.

perhaps the _most_ fair right now, but certainly not what I would consider fair.

consider a middle class family that has secure food, housing, and transportation vs lower class family where the child might potentially have less consistent sleep, food, or has to work to help pay bills.

one has more distractions than the other.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#93

Post by brigadier132 »

boringg wrote: post #68
spamizbad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there's some research that suggests your college GPA is not correlated strongly with job performance[1]. I suspect if SAT/ACT scores are strongly correlated with GPA, there's reason to suggest it may also not be strongly correlated with job performance (but I can't find anywhere that tests that). I suppose this shouldn't be surprising. School does not train you to be a good office worker. [1] https://www.li…

The goal of school IS NOT to make you a good office worker. The goal of school is to create the ability to think creatively, rationally and critically and make you a better citizen of society through those processes. Job performance is subjectively measured by your bosses which has political implications. It is inherently a terrible metric.

> The goal of school IS NOT to make you a good office worker

Who defines this "goal"? Each student has their own individual goals. I bet you if you surveyed students

"The goal of school is to create the ability to think creatively, rationally and critically and make you a better citizen of society through those processes."

Would rank all the way to the bottom and they all are terrible reasons to get into $200k of debt.

Many go to college without a second thought just because they think it's what they are supposed to do. Many go because they don't want to be a manual laborer and they want to be able to make more money. Many go to get drunk and party.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#94

Post by eapressoandcats »

omgJustTest wrote: post #60
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

IMO the thing that tests do not sample is persistance. Missing that degree of freedom misses important mind-sets to achieving goals. One of the most interesting studies, not specifically focused on "success" / GPA, but on "life-satisfaction" comes from a longitudinal study "Project Talent"[1]. The key correlation to "life-satisfaction"/happiness is how many questions a person _attempts_ to answer on an otherwise un-f…

Notably it’s not clear if there’s a better determinant of that. Tests at least have the advantage of being a knowable thing you can prep for, instead of whatever you have without tests.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#95

Post by stonemetal12 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #51
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but surely you can enroll more people. I can't imagine theres a dearth of physical space or qualified educators near any university. The fact that they are not growing to accommodate the demand has always boggled my mind...

Space isn’t the limiter, teaching hours via faculty are. The most popular universities, research ones, have faculty that teach only a few undergrad classes a year. Changing those popular universities into ones more focused on undergrad education would make them less popular. Germany might be a better model where barebones education is easily accessible. They leave much more up to students: your homework might not be…

>Space isn’t the limiter, teaching hours via faculty are.

The glut of un/under employed PHds suggest that the limited faculty is an artificial limit. Schools could easily hire more faculty and expand their undergrad programs if they wanted to.

They see their half percent acceptance rate as something that makes them special.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#96

Post by elefanten »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #51
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but surely you can enroll more people. I can't imagine theres a dearth of physical space or qualified educators near any university. The fact that they are not growing to accommodate the demand has always boggled my mind...

Space isn’t the limiter, teaching hours via faculty are. The most popular universities, research ones, have faculty that teach only a few undergrad classes a year. Changing those popular universities into ones more focused on undergrad education would make them less popular. Germany might be a better model where barebones education is easily accessible. They leave much more up to students: your homework might not be…

That’s the supply / costs side of it.

The demand / revenue side might be another obstacle, especially if the easy money environment for school loans evaporates

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#97

Post by doctorwho42 »

jgwil2 wrote: post #15

The headline should really be, "A test-optional policy is likely a barrier to Dartmouth identifying less-advantaged students who would succeed at Dartmouth." I think it's no surprise to anyone that test scores correlate with academic success, but it might seem counterintuitive that test-optional policies actually bias admission in favor of higher-income students.

Honestly, reading this makes me think "well yeah... Why is anyone surprised?"

Being a good test taker will 100% translate to doing well in college. Almost every course I took in college had over 80% of it's overall grade being tests, with a large number of them being closer to 90-95% for how much tests+final count.

So yeah, if you are good at taking tests and/or studying for them effectively... Yeah, you will do well in college. Especially the first year.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#98

Post by ghaff »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #78
ghaff wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your local library probably has test prep books. I know things have gotten more competitive since back in the day but you can probably get 90% of the way there without expensive test prep courses. (Yes, it takes time and commitment but it's mostly not the case that paying for test prep courses automatically translates into higher scores.)

I prepped on my own and did really good, but I was middle class and had a lot of other advantages. Prepping isn’t just about having access to prep material, but coaching that encourages you to actually practice the material.

Absolutely. If someone isn't from a household that values the idea of test prep and education more broadly, that's a huge disadvantage. It's just the idea that if you can't plop down whatever a test prep class costs that, in itself, is a huge inhibitor is mostly not true.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#99

Post by sokoloff »

grdgyredb wrote: post #91
NegativeK wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are marketing terms, though. It's not trivial to go from performance on a single test to performance throughout the year, which will include long-form writing, lab work, and other forms of learning.

You are right it’s not trivial, but on the other hand if you simply try to make such a test you’d do better than completely uncorrelated pretty easily I’d suppose.

SAT has has been around almost 100 years and ACT around 2/3 of that, so they've had pretty long to hone the tests as well. This is far from their first stab at it.

Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]

#100

Post by bwanab »

troupe wrote: post #52
ccleve wrote: post #28

Here's the money quote: >> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts. Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.

If a school asks for SAT or ACT scores but, hypothetically, wants to discriminate based on race or some other characteristic, doesn't requiring the ACT/SAT make them more likely to be liable for discrimination because there is an objective standard to show that they are treating some groups differently than others? I thought that some of the recent rulings against selecting students based on their race hinged on the…

The way you phrased it, yes. But, that isn't what the report was saying. It was using a generalized criteria of disadvantaged meaning low income or non-english speaking. Race based criteria can't be considered, but income can which means poor white kids from Appalachia as well as poor black and latino kids from urban areas.
Post reply on HN