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

Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#941

Post by quibono »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #918
tqi wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder. This comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry these "box checkers" worked too hard to follow the rules of the game…

Counterpoint: box-checkers are no fun to have as classmates.

Counterpoint: universities are supposed to provide education (which doesn't mean fun isn't allowed but surely that's not the priority here)

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#942

Post by pw201 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #888
Dig1t wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valuing something like breadth of experience and being a well rounded person might be considered one of the things that makes a western style education as good as it is. Compared to other types of university systems, for example the one in India which is extremely concerned with test scores and performance metrics, many people would consider the western one to be better (including many people in India who try to come…

What's this Western education system of which you speak? Among Western nations the US is unique in how much emphasis it puts on extracurriculars and character. We know why that is too. The system arose as a smoke screen around Jewish quotas. The overwhelming majority of universities admit students on the basis of results of blind marked exams and nothing else. I'm by no means an expert but the usual examples given of…

The Redditors on /r/cambridge routinely tell American applicants that the whole "extra-curriculars" thing is only relevant if whatever you did demonstrates enthusiasm for or ability in your subject, both of which you will need to survive. Ability for the obvious reason, enthusiasm because you will get the shock of it no longer being effortless and meeting peers who are better at it than you.

For me, the "HR interview" was "what would you say to convince me of your enthusiasm for physics?" (as in, I was explicitly asked that very question) not "tell me about how your adventures pogo-sticking up the Khyber on your gap yah made you a well-rounded person" (and the "technical interview" asked you do actually do some physics).

As someone who couldn't have afforded a gap yah and would probably have been too frail to go on one, I'm pretty happy about that.

The thing that I'm told they will do is look at your school and weight things like GCSE results and A level results accordingly (as in, if you are at a bad school, they'll make allowances for that). https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambri... is interesting from that point of view.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#943

Post by newswasboring »

outlace wrote: post #470

I used to be against standardized tests, but I grew up as a low-income minority in a single-parent household and I ended up getting into good schools pretty much only due to my high test scores, which has been a life changer. Other than test scores, I couldn't afford to do any fancy extra-curriculars. It felt a lot more achievable to know I can change my life if I just focus and do well on a test than it would if I h…

I didn't see your point in the beginning, but as I read this thread I realized how much pressure we are putting on these kids. Even for kids whos parents can afford the extra curricular stuff, it just seems bonkers to me how much they have to do to "stand out". I don't know where I am going with this, but just wanted to say this is too much pressure.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#944

Post by mattcwilson »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #742
mattcwilson wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both develop a passion for mathematics and use that to propel your success on the exam?

Most people aren't passionate about math wholesale. They are passionate for activities that require a strong fundamental in math. That's always been my core reservation with how we currently deem students worthy of learning and applying skills into a career. SAT's feel like the high school equivalent of what the tech industry will joke about as "well you lead a team into launching a multimillion dollar product, but y…

Agree that math on its own isn’t the truly compelling thing for everyone.

I do believe that, since it fundamentally links and describes all sorts of observable phenomena, math is a gateway to a general understanding of the universe. And so might lead someone to their true passion.

I also hear you on the “binary tree” front - focusing exclusively on particular algorithms like that is a hiring antipattern, imo. Where I differ is that I treat math as one level lower and more fundamental - the ability to understand why the algorithm works at all and to prove it to yourself if you wanted to. And correspondingly the toolset to construct algorithms of your own.

I don’t think people need to readily recall partial differential equations on a daily basis, or be able to spot recall how to factor a complex polynomial.

I do think taking practice at those things builds mental strength that is useful for detecting patterns, chasing theories, describing and testing facts, and solving puzzles, and that that’s the true value of math education.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#945

Post by punchclockhero »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #474
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #191

Definitely for the best. Standardized testing was pretty much the only reason I and many other working class folks I know could get into good schools -- I was never going to do a million side activities, and my summers were spent working, not building my academic resume. Of course the real tragedy is that we fixate so much on college, even prestigious ones, at all given how unnecessary they are for making people into…

I live in slovenia, and the system is pretty much unchanged from the socialist times.... standardized testing + grades are used to get entry into colleges (and previously high schools). No resumes, no diversity/affirmative actions, clubs, volounteering etc... just grades+results.

Same here in Bulgaria. The only extracurriculars that influence university admissions are subject olympiads. Students who reach the national finals are exempted from the corresponding tests (max grade assumed).

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#946

Post by 542458 »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #920
542458 wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the match isn’t completely terrible, it still has some pretty bad qualities. The most notable one is the “pay for applications” issue. The odds of getting into your top picks is constantly declining, and so the dominant strategy is to apply to many residencies to maximize your chance of a successful match - the number of picks the average applicant submits has doubled in the past 15 years. But applying to more…

A layman’s read of the “pick arms race” is that it’s not just like regular keyword-stuff job applications spammed through online recruitment portals.

Sort of, but if you were charged money per application (so that it was more accessible to the wealthy). The pick was supposed to avoid this sort of pointless mass application and allow students to focus on the residencies that they really wanted and were competitive for, but with higher education becoming so expensive and so competitive, shovelling money at applications has increasingly become the student strategy.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#947

Post by BowBun »

newswasboring wrote: post #943
outlace wrote: post #470

I used to be against standardized tests, but I grew up as a low-income minority in a single-parent household and I ended up getting into good schools pretty much only due to my high test scores, which has been a life changer. Other than test scores, I couldn't afford to do any fancy extra-curriculars. It felt a lot more achievable to know I can change my life if I just focus and do well on a test than it would if I h…

I didn't see your point in the beginning, but as I read this thread I realized how much pressure we are putting on these kids. Even for kids whos parents can afford the extra curricular stuff, it just seems bonkers to me how much they have to do to "stand out". I don't know where I am going with this, but just wanted to say this is too much pressure.

I agree, and I think it's yet another symptom of the hypercapitalist society we live in.

Kids are bombarded with media telling them that success is when you get rich and famous, or when you reach the absolute top of your field. Then again, at school, we're drilled with the lies that college is required and that you need to be in x percentile to get into x school to get x job. Finally, once we get into the workforce, we all judge each other based on our initial salaries, positions, and career trajectories.

As long as there is unequal distribution of resources, anyone with an opportunity to further cement their family's socioeconomic status by taking advantage of the system will tend to do so. We need to be able to offer houses, leisure, and fulfillment to everyone from hyper-privileged techy college grads (like a lot of us) to housekeepers, bus drivers, social workers, teachers, etc.

I'm ashamed at how easy it is to do so little and 'win' in this system while so many others suffer. And there's nothing I can do with my smidge of resources to help more than a few people at a time which makes no meaningful trajectory change to the millions (billions?) that need help.

Sorry for the rant.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#948

Post by jounker »

parineum wrote: post #818
thedstrat wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are intelligent people though that don't do well on standardized tests (or at least don't get top tier results). I agree that standardized testing is a good metric to get a general idea of aptitude, but I think it hugely fails in appreciating people who are able to solve 'non-standardized' problems. And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions

> And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions Do you really think there's this untapped group of "non-standardized" thinkers out there who belong in the to institutions but for standardized tests? This sounds a lot like something I'd tell myself when I was 16 instead of dealing with the reality that I was just a lazy, underachieving high school student and would have made a lazy, undera…

I know at least one of these people. When you give her an opportunity she hits the ball out of the park. Wherever you put her she quickly rises to the top, but she has been denied many opportunities because she doesn’t test well on standardized tests.

Re: Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

#949

Post by rayiner »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #479
rayiner wrote: post #447

I don't think people appreciate the radical nature of the attacks on standardized testing. Standardized tests have been critical to higher education and the professions for almost a century. Virtually everyone in an elite academic, government, scientific, legal, medical, or financial role attained that role based, in part, on the SAT and similar exams like the LSAT or MCAT. Not only them, but everyone who taught and…

> If the SAT is not predictive, as some claim, we've been selecting our elites and professionals the wrong way for three generations. Yes, and? The easiest way to understand the shortcomings of these tests (at least their older versions) is to realize that students who use paid SAT/ACT-prep materials and services get higher scores than students who don't. Yes, there are confounding factors, but this fact alone is fai…

> The easiest way to understand the shortcomings of these tests (at least their older versions) is to realize that students who use paid SAT/ACT-prep materials and services get higher scores than students who don't.

Yes, and affluent people with family friends on the boards of non-profits can show volunteer work that’s way more interesting in an application than being actively involved in your church or mosque. Rich people can hire essay consultants to understand what the (mostly white American) admissions officers are looking for: https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/essay-content-strongly-rel...

Of all these measures, the SATs show the smallest benefits from paying to prep.

Post reply on HN