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

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

#971

Post by umvi » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 3:06 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #870

umvi wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using IQ as the sole metric for intelligence is bogus though, in my opinion. Hard working "low IQ" slow learners beat mentally fragile or lazy "high IQ" quick learners 9 times out of 10 in my book. Low(er) IQ people can still master advanced sciences, it just takes them longer to do so. Standardized tests filter for the quickest learners who can think the fastest but they don't do as well filtering for mental fortitu…

I didn't base what I wrote on my opinion or my personal experience, it's published peer reviewed science. The notion that many psychologists over many decades who have devoted their careers attempting together to understand/explain/theorize about the cleverness that sets us apart from the other apes would have somehow failed to stumble upon your insights seems fanciful.

I always take social science studies with a huge grain of salt because they are highly susceptible to emotional and political bias, even with safeguards such as peer reviews. It sounds like you are upset that MIT doesn't do enough IQ-based gatekeeping, which is fine. I'm just saying IQ alone doesn't measure a person's work ethic, mental resilience, or even ability to master a topic, and that in my experience, I've noticed my Mensa obsessed friends have other shortcomings that are worth factoring into their profile - shortcomings that friends with lower IQs (but still smart) tend not to have.

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

#972

Post by Salgat » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

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 imagine that test preparation is far more accessible when you have well funded schools and parents who can cover any additional tutoring/preparation. For me the game changer was community college, it gave me a second chance at a price I could afford and with a clean slate I earned a 3.9 GPA and got into a top 10 engineering program.

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

#973

Post by femiagbabiaka » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

agar wrote: post #723

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…

This thread is filled with people arguing false dichotomies: "test scores" vs. "fancy extra-curriculars" or "rich experiences" vs. "working class experiences." I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities. To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1)…

This was a pretty compelling argument to get rid of the current rigamarole of the college admissions process. Is the purpose to get an education or to audition for a reality show? Why are we making 17 year olds craft a narrative about their life and judging their worthiness based on that?

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

#974

Post by Mountain_Skies » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

tomkat0789 wrote: post #293

I hated taking the SAT/ACT, but holy cow are we in the US in a better situation than Chinese students dealing with the Gaokao. A Chinese pen-pal once showed me some calculus problems from the Gaokao and the example I saw (a bunch of integrals) looked like a math test a sadist would create: long, complicated expressions just for the sake of complexity, "ugly" numbers that turned into messy fractions you have to carry…

In the software development world, we simply moved it from university admissions to employment interviews.

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

#975

Post by red_admiral » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

rory wrote: post #510

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This complaint is addressed in footnote 10 of the article. It would be great to design a test that's less gameable than the current version, and we should certainly try to do that, but the current version is already less gameable than basically anything else colleges consider for admission.

Whereas "holistic" admissions processes are probably the _most_ gameable option out there. If you were designing a process specifically to be able to game it (for example to keep out the Jews) then turning down the transparency would be the way to go.

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

#976

Post by red_admiral » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 5:17 PM UTC

The 1k+ comment count speaks for itself, but it's hard to overstate the importance of this decision. Maybe the wind has changed on some very lofty peaks.

My opinion has always been that the SAT/ACT is the best method we currently have to achieve any reasonable goals that you might have for an admissions process, with one possible exception. In fact the SAT/ACT looks to me like a better method to achieve the aims that the anti-SAT faction claims they're fighting for, than any other method on the table, again with one exception. As such I'm delighted with this decision.

(Sure, you could spend a lot of time and money designing a test that's even better calibrated than the SAT/ACT, and then switch to that. Until you've done that, I'm in favour of sticking with the SAT/ACT.)

The one exception is if you want a quota-based affirmative action program (or, to be more precise, a back door to get around the legal ban on an openly quota-based admissions system in the US). It is possible for two people to disagree on whether this is a good thing while both of them remain decent human beings, as far as I'm concerned.

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

#977

Post by bradwschiller » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #394

bradwschiller wrote: post #167

It's clear the SAT/ACT has predictive power for highly-selective colleges, such as MIT. And therefore, they are valuable for these colleges – especially for the Math scores as MIT suggests. The value of SAT/ACT scores decreases as selectivity decreases or as math abilities matter less for admission (e.g., liberal arts programs). Here are some related points: - Harvard considers roughly 4 in 5 applicants to be academi…

> Harvard considers roughly 4 in 5 applicants to be academically capable of doing the work at Harvard I have no doubt that this is true of Harvard. I mean, after all, you can pick your own classes! That said, I think there is a difference between admitting just those capable of doing the work vs. a set of some of the best of the best, in that that second group will be the one filling the advanced physics classes for…

Best of the best is very subjective. Once you're over the academic bar of being able to do the work, other factors are far more important for success in college and life.

Essentially, there's a bar for intellectual horsepower – which 4 in 5 Harvard applicants are above. And this is the same for all highly-selective institutions.

Then, other factors become far more important. Specifically, colleges look for people who are unusual even in a pool of extremely higher-performers (essentially the top 1% of all high school graduates). Students who are unusually driven, unusually intellectually curious, unusual contributors, unusual experiences, unusual at taking the initiative.

These personality traits are very similar to what YC looks for in founders. Raw intellectual horsepower is important – but only to a point. Given the choice between a student far above the academic bar without any other distinguishing features and a student just above the academic bar but is unusually driven – we'd pick the unusually driven person pretty much every time.

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

#978

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #880

jerojero wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be nice if access to education is equitable. In chile we also have grades + standardized test + ranking (your position versus your cohort). But the top universities are filled with the top alumni from expensive private schools because they are usually 1. given inflated grades 2. trained to perform well on standardized tests (in their own schools, theyre rich so they can afford this). If you look at OECD stat…

The lower performing areas in the US tend to have one of two problems: 1) Very high percentage of immigrants and / or English as a second language learners. These students have multiple disadvantages. 2) A local culture that dismisses education. Two personal anecdotes: One poor rural white 6 year old boy swore at and otherwise rejected his teachers authority. She was a friend of mine and mentioned many kids are like…

Well yeah, but you still want the best performers in college (and later too), and things like these should be solved "back then" (eg. extra language classes... fixing culture is hard, but again, if your peers make you a worse student, you're still a worse student, even though you blame your peers).

Giving some groups a push, especially on racial grounds (where you group together bill gates' kids with bobby from a trailer park in bumfuck alabama on one side, and Will smiths kids vs some random kid from philadelphia fighting on a basketball court) is really bad... both for people who should be accepted on merit, but don't, because they're in the wrong group, and also for their later careers (do you really want a doctor, who only got accepted to college because of affirmative action?). Government paying for books for the poor, programmes for gifted students, actually "leaving bad students behind" (and having special schools for them, like we had), etc. would help more.

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

#979

Post by mirker » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #463

mirker wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are discrete forms of “gradients” which generalize classical CS concepts. Submodular optimization, for example, covers many algorithms that search for optimal configurations of discrete sets, and it does so by arguments that are analogous to convex optimization.

Can it approach an optimum in time linear in the number of dimensions like gradient descent does, rather than quadratic or exponential or something?

The greedy approach has an 1-1/e type of approximatation. You basically prove that the problem is in the class and then solve it greedily. It’s not much different than proving the problem is convex and then using gradient descent.

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

#980

Post by bradlys » Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 9:23 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?

If that's what it takes to be a "genius" - what a joke.