5 ms·

I get the idea that with so many admissions we need some way to "standardize" admissions, but the way we do it is pretty archaic, and definitely doesn't work fo

by TCR19 7y ago

I get the idea that with so many admissions we need some way to "standardize" admissions, but the way we do it is pretty archaic, and definitely doesn't work for a host of different students. Has anyone seen any interesting concepts or ideas around dropping standardized testing in general for something else?

umanwizard 7y ago
In many countries it goes the other direction: the standardized exams are much harder than the SAT (so you don't have a bunch of people clustering at the top with perfect scores) and are the only metric used for university admissions.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  That seems pretty bad too, no? Basing everything off just standardized exams? Are these exams usually/mostly multiple choice?
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    Why does it seem bad to you? To me it seems like the fairest possible method, as long as the tests are reasonably accurate measures of competence. The US method on the other hand where colleges try to assess “leadership” and other qualities of that nature makes no sense to me. What in the world do “leadership”, extracurricular activities, sports ability, etc. have to do with academic ability? I guess it’s because in the US, college is seen as a way of sorting people into social classes, just as much as a place to actually learn something (or more). But a sane system shouldn’t care about having “well-rounded” students — it should optimize for having the best 100 students in physics in the country studying together from the best physicists, the best in history from the best historians, etc. > Are these exams usually/mostly multiple choice? No.
lithos 7y ago
Except that having a "failure" of an admissions test is desirable. Colleges would be far worse off in their current and next round of admissions scandals/lawsuits if the test were as clear as something like the ASVAB (where you score is literally the % of people you've beaten).

by TCR19 7y ago

umanwizard 7y ago

In many countries it goes the other direction: the standardized exams are much harder than the SAT (so you don't have a bunch of people clustering at the top with perfect scores) and are the only metric used for university admissions.

skinnymuch 7y ago
That seems pretty bad too, no? Basing everything off just standardized exams? Are these exams usually/mostly multiple choice?
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Why does it seem bad to you? To me it seems like the fairest possible method, as long as the tests are reasonably accurate measures of competence. The US method on the other hand where colleges try to assess “leadership” and other qualities of that nature makes no sense to me. What in the world do “leadership”, extracurricular activities, sports ability, etc. have to do with academic ability? I guess it’s because in the US, college is seen as a way of sorting people into social classes, just as much as a place to actually learn something (or more). But a sane system shouldn’t care about having “well-rounded” students — it should optimize for having the best 100 students in physics in the country studying together from the best physicists, the best in history from the best historians, etc. > Are these exams usually/mostly multiple choice? No.

lithos 7y ago

Except that having a "failure" of an admissions test is desirable. Colleges would be far worse off in their current and next round of admissions scandals/lawsuits if the test were as clear as something like the ASVAB (where you score is literally the % of people you've beaten).