Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles • Hacker News Board

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

#961

Post by kizer » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:03 PM UTC

lightup wrote: post #553

My son found out 2 days ago he didn't get accepted to his in-state land grant public university. The University of Minnesota. This was his fall back plan. Now he's screwed and may not be able to start college in fall. His sins: - a 35 ACT score (legit with no studying or ACT prep classes) - a 3.8 weighted GPA (because he took multiple AP classes and actually was in college for his junior and senior years through Minn…

35 ACT and he was rejected to University of Minnesota? Tell your kid that he’s perfectly fine and that their admissions are FUBAR.

Try UIUC (my alma). Though I was in-state. It’s gotten more selective but a top one for CS. They admitted me into CE but it was easy to transfer after doing well in my first few CS classes.

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

#962

Post by meepmorp » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:03 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #397

meepmorp wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SAT/ACT aren't IQ tests.

Yes they are: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

They aren't. It says in the first line of the abstract that they correlate with general measures of intelligence, which is a different thing.

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

#963

Post by kizer » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

lightup wrote: post #784

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete disaster for his future? I don't think so, just a slight delay. I've had many setbacks in my life, i've known people in Asia who majorly messed up an exam they'd been preparing their entire life for, they just attempted it next year, and they did fine. If you have the brains to score a 35 on the ACT with no prep, then you really shouldn't have much problems in life if you put effort and deal with setbacks.

THanks, he reminded me tonight that he scored 35 _twice_. LOL. I kinda suggested to him he try for perfect like his best buddy. Best buddy is accepted at Ivy school (but probably will not go due to cost from what he said).

I replied to your other post but I’d also like to say: there is too much of a focus IMO on getting in to the “good” schools right out of HS. I remember a genius physics grad TA I had who went from community college to the UIUC graduate physics program. Undergrad education is pretty similar across the board; after all, the infamous US news rankings refer to the graduate programs (which can have ramifications for the quality of undergrad of course).

Anyways my point is that I think smart and capable people with hard work and persistence can end up at similar places when all is said and done even if they don’t start out at a “top” program.

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

#964

Post by caddemon » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:30 PM UTC

aj7 wrote: post #827

fmajid wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The notion of a “well rounded student” who does music, art, and extra curricular activities, is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture. More precisely it was first invented by Yale to limit the number of Jewish students admitted, and was later repurposed to limit the number of Asian students admitted.

Exactly. If you’re really intellectually bright and committed, all those extracurricular activities, populated by average students, are a total waste of time. Regardless of anything they say, MIT and Cal Tech have prospered precisely by ignoring that crap, and giving preference to people who can do the work.

Extracurriculars like research, robotics competitions, math camp, etc. are absolutely considered heavily by MIT. SATs and grades are way too saturated at the top end of the curve to make reasonable admissions decisions, and performing highly at a particular extracurricular can be an important signal for future success in itself.

I get what you're saying though, being a typical jack of all trades high school overachiever isn't the best strategy for getting into MIT. I don't think that's because they don't consider personality though - heck one of the admissions short answers is "what do you do for fun?". I think it's actually because they are trying to avoid the type that does things just to get into college or just because it's the thing to do at their school. If you're an absolute prodigy then it probably doesn't matter either way, but if you're borderline MIT is definitely the top school that tries the hardest to take the kid that seems more genuinely passionate and not like a social climber.

MIT also does the best job of considering context of all the elite schools. If you went to a great private high school you better have taken full advantage of those opportunities, whereas most other elite schools will just see the better overall resume/prior education. This is pretty clearly reflected in the schools' respective demographics.

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

#965

Post by mxkopy » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:31 PM UTC

csa wrote: post #871

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to high school in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and almost all of the top academic students in my class were first or second generation immigrants (mostly Indian) that had no interest in extra-curricular activities like sports, band, choir, or really anything. It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial…

> It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores This is very unlikely to happen for East Asians or Indians. > and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live. This “trivial” stuff is often not trivial when done well. - Sports, especially varsity athletics and Olympic sports…

>This “trivial” stuff is often not trivial when done well.

I loathe to say it but you've been got. Reread the OP in a sarcastic tone, you'll see what I mean.

I agree with what you're saying but in the spirit of disagreeing with OP, I would devilishly advocate:

When evaluating extracurriculars, there is a chance that the type of extracurricular may matter as much/more than the degree of participation, which can be problematic.

In theory, colleges are just a place where you go to learn. So it doesn't make much theoretical sense to me that an admissions officer would probably think different things when they hear "rugby captain and president of the debate club" as opposed to "full time brother and avid programmer." That's because traditionally, colleges are also where children of privilege learn what the status quo is and how to fit in with one another. Of course we have to measure something other than SAT scores (i.e. IQ), we have to measure how nice they are/capable of leading/willing to learn (i.e. how white they can act/how much their parents know about and push them towards traditional leadership positions/how much free time their family can afford). To some degree, it isn't in the interest of the college to admit someone who isn't also a cultural fit; but the more important culture is in your selection process, the more problematic that process is.

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

#966

Post by caddemon » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

quibono wrote: post #941

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

A room full of box checkers is also worse for education. I want to have classmates that are willing to question the teacher, classmates that will spend time thinking beyond a class instead of cramming every trivial detail for an A+, classmates that will choose their classes based on what sounds interesting to them and not only what would look best on their resume.

These schools don't systematically reject all box checkers, it's just that there are so damn many of them the admit rate is going to be very low for box checkers if you want a class with diverse perspectives.

I also don't think it's a binary property, and to some extent is a product of how one spins their application. This is definitely a downside of the current system. But there are fundamental, educational reasons to not want your entire class consisting of students that poured every waking hour of high school into gaming the college app.

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

#967

Post by mxkopy » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #593

sparrc wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agreed. I could also buy a test prep book on amazon plus get a few others from the school and public libraries for a grand total of $15 spent on test prep. That's a lot cheaper than dedicating my working summer to smarmy volunteer/extra-curricular projects.

I went to high school in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and almost all of the top academic students in my class were first or second generation immigrants (mostly Indian) that had no interest in extra-curricular activities like sports, band, choir, or really anything. It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial…

>the society in which they live.

Which society? The one that has mass shootings on a regular basis but makes gun ownership a viable identity? Or the one praises love and peace while buying clothes made in sweatshops?

>especially immigrants

not their fault Rutesh has maidens and you don't

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

#968

Post by linksnapzz » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #915

linksnapzz wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you recast your civilization as simply the sum total of the economic activity generated by fungible worker-units, that's the sort of thing you get. A giant. somewhat dilapidated luxury shopping mall with a military attached.

I suppose you also get lazy cultural analysis like this from armchair patriots...

Concise, not lazy. Brevity is the soul of wit.

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

#969

Post by MrMan » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

aj7 wrote: post #895

whatshisface wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What defines true genius?

1) Bachelor’s level by 15-16. 2) Doctorate or equivalent by 20-21. 3) Decent communication and social skills. This is a significant flameout point. 4) Creativity and absolute refusal to work on directed projects by others, except voluntarily for some higher good. 5) Tremendous persistence. 6) Cheerfulness, related to 3) above, increases the degree of genius-ness. What have I left out?

genius is not defined by accomplishments, believe it or not. geniuses may or may not achieve the things we hope or expect they will. genius is seeing reality, intuition, knowing things even though you maybe didn't even read the book. genius is generative, not always performative. it takes many forms.

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

#970

Post by tiahura » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #938

noduerme wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they talk about well rounded students: They do value working on a farm. Or going to Guatemala and building wells for people. Or construction work building houses. It's definitely not just about doing ballet and fine arts. I was the only kid in my class who didn't go to college, but I went to one of the top 3 prep schools in terms of Ivy League placement in the country, and the entire focus for extracurricular ac…

> TL;DR In my experience, a kid who had no creative talent but took a summer to build houses in Ecuador was much more likely, in the 90s, to get into the Ivy League than one who played violin, or football. And how is a lower middle class kid in the Midwest supposed to be able to swing a summer off to build houses in Ecuador?

Reddit has plenty of discussions about this.

Church groups would be one option.

Or, Kayak shows round trip flights this summer from Cincinnati to Ecuador for $500. So, Set up a table outside the local grocery store for a few weekends with pictures of starving Ecuadorans and beg. Or, gofundme.

I think the key is initiative, which is one of the main traits they’re looking for.