7 ms·

There was just a story today in the news about the University of Chicago completely doing away with requiring SAT/ACT for admissions. It seems like we're bendi

There was just a story today in the news about the University of Chicago completely doing away with requiring SAT/ACT for admissions. It seems like we're bending over backwards to toss out any kind of test or criterion that could be perceived as discriminatory. With one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population. But that is a flawed premise. Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does?

toasterlovin 8y ago
To say nothing of the logical contortions required to argue that modern standardized tests discriminates based on ancestry or skin color.
- learc83 8y ago
  They clearly do. The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    >The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in. What kind of absurd "argument" is this? If you're testing for a university in America, the expectation is that not only will the test be in English, but the vast bulk of your university courses. And Asian Americans, despite a large number coming from families of non-English speakers, still do disproportionately well. But if the local language is something you struggle with, that local university isn't for you, unless we're also going to argue that degree awarding requires lower standards. In which case, just throw university in the dump because it's worthless. If we're at a point where having a majority language and doing important business in that language is bordering on discrimination, this society is lost.
    - learc83 8y ago
      So you disagree with the assertion that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher than non-native speakers of that dialect--all else being equal? Or did you just decide you'd rather argue with something I didn't write?
      - bbddg 8y ago
        Ignore this person. They're clearly of the mind that diversity is the number one threat to the civilized world, never mind what reality is.
      - colordrops 8y ago
        Even if it is case that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher, it's not clear that the result is due to language barriers, and could be a correlation with socio-economic groups. That is the point of bringing up non-native speakers doing well, as the test is not even their native language, which is certainly a greater disadvantage than a different dialect.
        learc83 8y ago
        So you don't think that there is an advantage gained by being a native speaker of a dialect a test is written in? The academic consensus is that there is. The clearest example is that vocabulary is a large part of most standardized tests and native speakers have larger vocabularies than proficient L2 speakers.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        How about the math part? Besides, if I was on a college admissions board, I'd give consideration to an L2 speaker if his verbal scores were unusually below his math scores.
        learc83 8y ago
        I'm less familiar with math testing in general, but as far as direct effects go (not something caused by language of instruction) my guess is that it would be limited to instructions and word problems.
  - Teeer 8y ago
    But yet Asians perform the best on standardized tests, not whites who comes from England?
    - learc83 8y ago
      Do you have any data on white English immigrants who take the SAT? I sure don't.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        The children of East Asian immigrants perform better than the children of white Americans. How does the language hypothesis you put forth account for that?
        learc83 8y ago
        1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants. 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively. 4. Language differences are a factor in performance but obviously not the only factor or the largest factor.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        > 1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants. A quick glance at the first graph on this page will tell you that almost all Asian Americans are either first or second generation: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-ab... Key stats: Asian American population in 2015 is slightly more than 20 million. In 1960 it is about 1 million and only about 2.5 million in 1980. > 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively. Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
- tomdell 8y ago
  That is not the argument. Tests are written by people who talk a certain way, in a way that is easier to process for people who talk the same way. Different communities use different language, and this is reflected in how quickly different students process the problems on standardized tests. There's also the issue that standardized test scores are higher for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them - things which are scarce in poorer families where the student might have to work or help take care of younger siblings. Years of institutionalized racism (loans not given, redlining, denial of employment opportunities) have economically crippled some ethnic communities.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    The diversity thing is mostly a red-herring. Admissions offers are abandoning standardized tests because of Goodhart's Law. > for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them It's not just time and encouragement. SAT/ACT prep is serious industry. $100+/hr tutoring sessions. Owners of good SAT prep businesses can make six or seven figures in a few months. And good prep courses really do work. Tests, like coding interviews, are a game you can hack with enough time and effort. The signal is totally washed out; with enough money, you can learn how to take the test well enough.
    - SatvikBeri 8y ago
      The research suggests SAT test prep has an effect of about one seventh of a standard deviation – about 50 points out of 2400[1]. That's significant but not huge. Most of the perception of large gains comes from the fact that people do better as they get older with or without coaching. (None of the research is great, but better than nothing.) [1]: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size
      - learc83 8y ago
        The College Board released new results in 2017 showing a more than 50 point increase out of 1600 versus students who didn't practice. This was with just 20 hours of practice. Many high achieving students practice for 5+ hours per week. South Korean cram school style 2-3 hours per day is in a completely different league than a standard SAT prep course, but much of the research that shows no result counts them the same.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cdmckay 8y ago
We don’t use any standardized testing in Canada and I don’t think it’s affected our higher education system at all. Are there any proven advantages to standardized testing?
- dontbenaive 8y ago
  It gives smart troubled kids in terrible schools a chance to show that they are talented and in a bad situation. Instead of just selecting for the agreeable popular kids who can get recommendation letters.
- slantyyz 8y ago
  That's true for getting into undergraduate programs, but when it comes to graduate programs, dentistry, medical, law schools etc, I believe we still do use the same standardized tests as in the USA.
  - fooker 8y ago
    For grad school, GRE and the other tests exist to filter out obviously unmotivated candidates. So, a good GRE score can not get you in with any certainty, but a bad one can disqualify you.
    - slantyyz 8y ago
      I think it depends. When I wrote the GMAT (albeit in 1992), a good score would get you into most Canadian business schools even if you had mediocre marks. My recollection of the GMAT's difficulty was that any high school grad with an A average could easily score higher than the 80 percentile on the test. While I was happy my result gave me the ability to choose which business school I wanted to go to (my marks, while not bad, were also nothing to brag about), I also think the GMAT was a useless selection criterion.
      - fooker 8y ago
        I am not familiar with business school admissions, but it is very rare nowadays to get into non cash-cow grad school programs in STEM fields on the basis of the GRE score alone.
tyrust 8y ago
Your comment and questions are only related to the post as far as they both concern higher education. From your phrasing it's clear what you think the answer to your questions are.
tzs 8y ago
There was a fairly long interview on NPR today with the Director of Admissions of University of Chicago on this today. From the part I heard, a big reason given was that you can significantly improve your SAT/ACT scores by taking test prep courses, which reduces the reliability of the test. They believe that can get a better idea of an applicant's academic potential from their grades.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  My high school graduating class (~15 of the ~250 were "Valedictorians" thanks to grade inflation and a lack of a weighting system; they all had 4.0s) says differently. This was in an inner city public school, mind you.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hammock 8y ago
    Admissions officers know individual high schools, and the different grading systems. They can separate the bullshit for the most part
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      In other words, if you're from a shitty high school (or even a "best in the county" high school, if it's a unexceptional county) you're shit out of luck - because now the admissions officers will just reject everyone from that school out of hand, no matter their grades. Objective standards can really help people without the connections to succeed otherwise.
      - eanzenberg 8y ago
        That's the literal goal of the SAT. A standardized test across all schools.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
throwawayjava 8y ago
> It seems like we're bending over backwards to toss out any kind of test or criterion that could be perceived as discriminatory. Yes. SAT/ACT scores are terrible signals because of Goodhart's law. Professional tutoring in wealthy suburbs starts at $100/hr. Many ambitious students opt for four-figure private prep courses. SAT/ACT scores may have been good signals 20 years ago. But today, those scores discriminate against poor students and students aren't inculcated into the "elite institution rat race" from a young age. That discrimination matters to U Chicago because they are interested in admitting brilliant, creative thinkers. Not perfectly groomed drones. If you don't require test scores, then there's a lot less back-and-forth about admitting that one kid who did publishable research as a high schooler but also happened to do only so-so on the associated SAT subject test. Qualitative evaluations have many problems, but overly quantitative evaluations also have their failure modes. Especially when the candidate knows the quantitative function they're supposed to be optimizing.
forapurpose 8y ago
> could be perceived as discriminatory I believe "could be perceived" is incorrect; there is a large amount of evidence that it is discriminatory, and that therefore the most deserving students aren't getting opportunities and that the university is shortchanging itself on the quality of its student body. > one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population Who stated that? Also, it's not a bad guide given that talent is distributed relatively equally. > Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does? What do you think, and more importantly to fellow users, on what is it based? Shall we stand still until nobody raises another question? > It seems like ... Sentences that begin with those words can end in almost any way the author wishes, and in almost all cases we will have learned nothing.

toasterlovin 8y ago

To say nothing of the logical contortions required to argue that modern standardized tests discriminates based on ancestry or skin color.

learc83 8y ago
They clearly do. The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in.
- fiblye 8y ago
  >The most explicit example is that ancestry correlates with whether you are a native speaker of the dialect the test was written in. What kind of absurd "argument" is this? If you're testing for a university in America, the expectation is that not only will the test be in English, but the vast bulk of your university courses. And Asian Americans, despite a large number coming from families of non-English speakers, still do disproportionately well. But if the local language is something you struggle with, that local university isn't for you, unless we're also going to argue that degree awarding requires lower standards. In which case, just throw university in the dump because it's worthless. If we're at a point where having a majority language and doing important business in that language is bordering on discrimination, this society is lost.
  - learc83 8y ago
    So you disagree with the assertion that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher than non-native speakers of that dialect--all else being equal? Or did you just decide you'd rather argue with something I didn't write?
    - bbddg 8y ago
      Ignore this person. They're clearly of the mind that diversity is the number one threat to the civilized world, never mind what reality is.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      Even if it is case that native speakers of a specific dialect score higher, it's not clear that the result is due to language barriers, and could be a correlation with socio-economic groups. That is the point of bringing up non-native speakers doing well, as the test is not even their native language, which is certainly a greater disadvantage than a different dialect.
      - learc83 8y ago
        So you don't think that there is an advantage gained by being a native speaker of a dialect a test is written in? The academic consensus is that there is. The clearest example is that vocabulary is a large part of most standardized tests and native speakers have larger vocabularies than proficient L2 speakers.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        How about the math part? Besides, if I was on a college admissions board, I'd give consideration to an L2 speaker if his verbal scores were unusually below his math scores.
        learc83 8y ago
        I'm less familiar with math testing in general, but as far as direct effects go (not something caused by language of instruction) my guess is that it would be limited to instructions and word problems.
- Teeer 8y ago
  But yet Asians perform the best on standardized tests, not whites who comes from England?
  - learc83 8y ago
    Do you have any data on white English immigrants who take the SAT? I sure don't.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      The children of East Asian immigrants perform better than the children of white Americans. How does the language hypothesis you put forth account for that?
      - learc83 8y ago
        1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants. 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively. 4. Language differences are a factor in performance but obviously not the only factor or the largest factor.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        > 1. We don't know that. We know that Asian Americans outperform whites, but Asian American can refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation immigrants. A quick glance at the first graph on this page will tell you that almost all Asian Americans are either first or second generation: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-ab... Key stats: Asian American population in 2015 is slightly more than 20 million. In 1960 it is about 1 million and only about 2.5 million in 1980. > 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively. Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
tomdell 8y ago
That is not the argument. Tests are written by people who talk a certain way, in a way that is easier to process for people who talk the same way. Different communities use different language, and this is reflected in how quickly different students process the problems on standardized tests. There's also the issue that standardized test scores are higher for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them - things which are scarce in poorer families where the student might have to work or help take care of younger siblings. Years of institutionalized racism (loans not given, redlining, denial of employment opportunities) have economically crippled some ethnic communities.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  The diversity thing is mostly a red-herring. Admissions offers are abandoning standardized tests because of Goodhart's Law. > for students who have the time and encouragement to study for them It's not just time and encouragement. SAT/ACT prep is serious industry. $100+/hr tutoring sessions. Owners of good SAT prep businesses can make six or seven figures in a few months. And good prep courses really do work. Tests, like coding interviews, are a game you can hack with enough time and effort. The signal is totally washed out; with enough money, you can learn how to take the test well enough.
  - SatvikBeri 8y ago
    The research suggests SAT test prep has an effect of about one seventh of a standard deviation – about 50 points out of 2400[1]. That's significant but not huge. Most of the perception of large gains comes from the fact that people do better as they get older with or without coaching. (None of the research is great, but better than nothing.) [1]: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size
    - learc83 8y ago
      The College Board released new results in 2017 showing a more than 50 point increase out of 1600 versus students who didn't practice. This was with just 20 hours of practice. Many high achieving students practice for 5+ hours per week. South Korean cram school style 2-3 hours per day is in a completely different league than a standard SAT prep course, but much of the research that shows no result counts them the same.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cdmckay 8y ago

We don’t use any standardized testing in Canada and I don’t think it’s affected our higher education system at all. Are there any proven advantages to standardized testing?

dontbenaive 8y ago
It gives smart troubled kids in terrible schools a chance to show that they are talented and in a bad situation. Instead of just selecting for the agreeable popular kids who can get recommendation letters.
slantyyz 8y ago
That's true for getting into undergraduate programs, but when it comes to graduate programs, dentistry, medical, law schools etc, I believe we still do use the same standardized tests as in the USA.
- fooker 8y ago
  For grad school, GRE and the other tests exist to filter out obviously unmotivated candidates. So, a good GRE score can not get you in with any certainty, but a bad one can disqualify you.
  - slantyyz 8y ago
    I think it depends. When I wrote the GMAT (albeit in 1992), a good score would get you into most Canadian business schools even if you had mediocre marks. My recollection of the GMAT's difficulty was that any high school grad with an A average could easily score higher than the 80 percentile on the test. While I was happy my result gave me the ability to choose which business school I wanted to go to (my marks, while not bad, were also nothing to brag about), I also think the GMAT was a useless selection criterion.
    - fooker 8y ago
      I am not familiar with business school admissions, but it is very rare nowadays to get into non cash-cow grad school programs in STEM fields on the basis of the GRE score alone.

tyrust 8y ago

Your comment and questions are only related to the post as far as they both concern higher education. From your phrasing it's clear what you think the answer to your questions are.

tzs 8y ago

There was a fairly long interview on NPR today with the Director of Admissions of University of Chicago on this today. From the part I heard, a big reason given was that you can significantly improve your SAT/ACT scores by taking test prep courses, which reduces the reliability of the test. They believe that can get a better idea of an applicant's academic potential from their grades.

DuskStar 8y ago
My high school graduating class (~15 of the ~250 were "Valedictorians" thanks to grade inflation and a lack of a weighting system; they all had 4.0s) says differently. This was in an inner city public school, mind you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hammock 8y ago
  Admissions officers know individual high schools, and the different grading systems. They can separate the bullshit for the most part
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    In other words, if you're from a shitty high school (or even a "best in the county" high school, if it's a unexceptional county) you're shit out of luck - because now the admissions officers will just reject everyone from that school out of hand, no matter their grades. Objective standards can really help people without the connections to succeed otherwise.
    - eanzenberg 8y ago
      That's the literal goal of the SAT. A standardized test across all schools.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

throwawayjava 8y ago

> It seems like we're bending over backwards to toss out any kind of test or criterion that could be perceived as discriminatory. Yes. SAT/ACT scores are terrible signals because of Goodhart's law. Professional tutoring in wealthy suburbs starts at $100/hr. Many ambitious students opt for four-figure private prep courses. SAT/ACT scores may have been good signals 20 years ago. But today, those scores discriminate against poor students and students aren't inculcated into the "elite institution rat race" from a young age. That discrimination matters to U Chicago because they are interested in admitting brilliant, creative thinkers. Not perfectly groomed drones. If you don't require test scores, then there's a lot less back-and-forth about admitting that one kid who did publishable research as a high schooler but also happened to do only so-so on the associated SAT subject test. Qualitative evaluations have many problems, but overly quantitative evaluations also have their failure modes. Especially when the candidate knows the quantitative function they're supposed to be optimizing.

forapurpose 8y ago

> could be perceived as discriminatory I believe "could be perceived" is incorrect; there is a large amount of evidence that it is discriminatory, and that therefore the most deserving students aren't getting opportunities and that the university is shortchanging itself on the quality of its student body. > one stated goal to make the student body mirror the general population Who stated that? Also, it's not a bad guide given that talent is distributed relatively equally. > Is it even the role of higher education to remedy the cards that have already been dealt, and even if so what evidence is there that it actually does what people say it does? What do you think, and more importantly to fellow users, on what is it based? Shall we stand still until nobody raises another question? > It seems like ... Sentences that begin with those words can end in almost any way the author wishes, and in almost all cases we will have learned nothing.