4 ms·

> Getting a high/near-perfect score on the SAT does require preparation due to time pressure. Sure, but it is completely possible to get a very high score with

by fhood 8y ago

> Getting a high/near-perfect score on the SAT does require preparation due to time pressure. Sure, but it is completely possible to get a very high score with virtually no practice. Time constraints are an issue, but not too huge of one, so long as you are willing to trust your gut so to speak. > The material tested in the US SATs is relatively unsophisticated compared to the curricula of many East Asian countries. That is exactly why I think the SAT is superior.

wenc 8y ago
> Sure, but it is completely possible to get a very high score with virtually no practice Only if you are naturally highly intelligent. Folks of above average intelligence (but not in the upper percentiles) tend to need to work at it (many do and succeed). > That is exactly why I think the SAT is superior. Only if you are interested in "g" intelligence alone as a pure metric, in which case psychometric instruments like the Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices should also be admissible. The SATs give you one metric of preparedness for college, arguably an important one. But the East Asian exams give you another: grit. It's much harder for a smart person to succeed at them without any effort. That said, I'm not condoning them since I believe the East Asian focus on exams often does go overboard and devolves into mismeasurement (i.e. how good you are at taking tests). But intelligence, measured in isolation, is not a good metric for college-readiness especially in technical fields, where you need a certain measure of grit to do well in the material. I've known stars in high school who struggled when they had to apply themselves.... when you're used to things coming easily to you all your life, it can be demoralizing to have to work at things.
- naveen99 8y ago
  Maybe your fallen stars were secretly using grit before. Working harder than necessary ahead of when it’s needed seems questionable. yagni .
  - wenc 8y ago
    Not sure about that. The high school stars in my example were the effortlessly smart sort (high IQ, crammed before exams). But to your other point about working hard only when it's needed, there is a class of skills (so called "bicycle skills" [1]) that have to be learned in advance, and cannot be picked up on the fly. Mastering those skills early in life can lead to compound interest payoffs later on. So I don't agree with YAGNI as a general rule. Furthermore, even if the material you learn isn't going to be useful, it doesn't mean that the process of learning them is necessarily wasted. On the contrary, the process of acquiring mastery itself can pay dividends in the form of meta-skills. Take learning to play the piano for instance. The blogger "Ask a Korean" has this to say: [2] "The point of learning the piano is NOT about acquiring the skill of playing the piano so that the student can earn a living as a pianist. It is about building the character of the person. Here is the thing about character -- you can't build it by explicitly setting out to build it. Character is not a skill like tying your shoelaces. If it must be put in terms of "skill", character is a "meta-skill" -- a foundational human skill that is necessary to perfect any number of mechanical skills. And the only way to develop this meta-skill is to develop at least one highly sophisticated mechanical skill, such that the student may acquire the meta-skill in the course of building the mechanical skill." [1] https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/01/bicycle-skills/ https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/01/bicycle-skills/ [2] http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-korea-part-v-what-can.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-kore...

by fhood 8y ago

wenc 8y ago

> Sure, but it is completely possible to get a very high score with virtually no practice Only if you are naturally highly intelligent. Folks of above average intelligence (but not in the upper percentiles) tend to need to work at it (many do and succeed). > That is exactly why I think the SAT is superior. Only if you are interested in "g" intelligence alone as a pure metric, in which case psychometric instruments like the Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices should also be admissible. The SATs give you one metric of preparedness for college, arguably an important one. But the East Asian exams give you another: grit. It's much harder for a smart person to succeed at them without any effort. That said, I'm not condoning them since I believe the East Asian focus on exams often does go overboard and devolves into mismeasurement (i.e. how good you are at taking tests). But intelligence, measured in isolation, is not a good metric for college-readiness especially in technical fields, where you need a certain measure of grit to do well in the material. I've known stars in high school who struggled when they had to apply themselves.... when you're used to things coming easily to you all your life, it can be demoralizing to have to work at things.

naveen99 8y ago
Maybe your fallen stars were secretly using grit before. Working harder than necessary ahead of when it’s needed seems questionable. yagni .
- wenc 8y ago
  Not sure about that. The high school stars in my example were the effortlessly smart sort (high IQ, crammed before exams). But to your other point about working hard only when it's needed, there is a class of skills (so called "bicycle skills" [1]) that have to be learned in advance, and cannot be picked up on the fly. Mastering those skills early in life can lead to compound interest payoffs later on. So I don't agree with YAGNI as a general rule. Furthermore, even if the material you learn isn't going to be useful, it doesn't mean that the process of learning them is necessarily wasted. On the contrary, the process of acquiring mastery itself can pay dividends in the form of meta-skills. Take learning to play the piano for instance. The blogger "Ask a Korean" has this to say: [2] "The point of learning the piano is NOT about acquiring the skill of playing the piano so that the student can earn a living as a pianist. It is about building the character of the person. Here is the thing about character -- you can't build it by explicitly setting out to build it. Character is not a skill like tying your shoelaces. If it must be put in terms of "skill", character is a "meta-skill" -- a foundational human skill that is necessary to perfect any number of mechanical skills. And the only way to develop this meta-skill is to develop at least one highly sophisticated mechanical skill, such that the student may acquire the meta-skill in the course of building the mechanical skill." [1] https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/01/bicycle-skills/ https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/01/bicycle-skills/ [2] http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-korea-part-v-what-can.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-kore...