4 ms·
The SAT is not fair. By taking an expensive prep course, you can potentially increase your SAT score by 100 (although that's quite extreme, the average improvem
by saithound 7y ago
The SAT is not fair. By taking an expensive prep course, you can potentially increase your SAT score by 100 (although that's quite extreme, the average improvement attributed to SAT prep is closer to 20 points). That's a significant, but not earth-shattering improvement: it moves you from the 75th percentile to the 84th, or from the 97th percentile to the 99th.
Now let's compare that to other criteria used in the college admissions process.
It's way easier to have impressive and relevant extracurricular activities if you're rich and go to a good school. And unlike SAT prep, acquiring good extracurriculars will definitely take years of your time and money.
Well-written admissions essay? MIT requires one. But you do it at home, instead of a tightly controlled testing center. So if you're rich enough, you can have ghost-written admissions essays. Needless to say, this process can turn even a completely worthless essay into an impressive one.
Creative portfolio? Unless you're in the 99th percentile of musical talent, the difference between "I write songs that I play on an old guitar" and "an orchestra performed my composition" is money. The former is probably not even 75th percentile; the latter, probably 95+.
Alumni parents who would be likely to donate big bucks? You don't need an expensive prep course to get that, yet it can provide your application with a much bigger boost than 100 SAT points. And unlike the SAT, if you don't have alumni parents to begin with, then you'll never get this boost, no matter how much extra work you put in.
The SAT is not fair. But it's the fairest admissions criterion used by U.S. universities today.
(note: MIT still relies on the SAT; today's announcement concerns the SAT Subject Tests)
- lollercoasr2020 7y agoTruth be told: the culture of those institutions is based on extremely synthetic virtue-signalling and superficial values and is very far from being meritocratic or open to social mobility. This might be great for rich kids, though in case you are ambitious, clever, gritty but come from not-so-privileged background (not necessarily low-class or third world - just temporary economic turmoil is enough) - you are going to hate every single second you spend there with all your heart. So maybe this way it is a win-win in the end. The aristocracy get their titles and the plebs their opportunities for self-realisation. No harm done.
- commandlinefan 7y ago> it's the fairest admissions criterion I have yet to see an "abolish standardized tests" type suggest a workable alternative (or even an unworkable one).
- ghaff 7y agoYou don't need to use the SAT or ACT as a criterion. The problem if you don't is probably two-fold. 1.) You're throwing out a signal that has proven to be pretty reliable in at least establishing a floor as what students have a good chance of succeeding and 2.) As a related matter, it's a very simple, quantitative, standardized metric (with decent predictive power) that lets you bucket applicants pretty easily. Do you maybe throw out some applicants who are really bad at standardized tests, but would otherwise thrive in an undergraduate academic setting? Probably. But the data suggests that standardized testing is a pretty good predictor of success in school (which, of course, is not necessarily the same as success in life).
- seph-reed 7y agoPotential directions of thought: Offer a series low cost test pilot class which allows potential students to take a single test course at MIT. The professors double as recruiters, they get to see them thinking.
- jessriedel 7y agoIs that 20 point bump a comparison taking an expensive prep class to zero preparation? Or is it a comparison taking an expensive prep class to doing self-directed preparation with a $5 prep book? My guess is the former, when the latter is what's relevant for arguments about the advantages obtained through wealth.
- perennate 7y agoRe: the last point; MIT says they do not consider alumni relations in the admissions process (https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-to-be-clear-we-dont-do-legacy/ https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-to-be-clear-we-do...).
- 0xff00ffee 7y agoMIT requires interviews, too. But complaining that rich people have advantages is a bit of a "no shit, sherlock."
- charlesju 7y agoI took tests in the 1600 era. I came from one of the best public high schools in California. I would say 80%+ of the high school had SAT prep, every single one of the people I talked to at school had SAT prep. If you're not including self study, then maybe? But with prep and self study, everyone I knew was able to get at least a 100 point increase, I think I got a 300 point increase. Basically aced the math section through practice and study (missed 1 question).