12 ms·

Caltech is doing this -- actually, they're going test blind -- for two years. I think that's pretty notable, since I trust them to be interested in only admitt

Caltech is doing this -- actually, they're going test blind -- for two years. I think that's pretty notable, since I trust them to be interested in only admitting students that can pass their physics classes.

deathgrips 6y ago
I know a girl who goes to caltech. She says that they don't require you to take a compilers class to get a computer science degree. Sounds like a joke.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  They used to require an operating systems class that used Bryant and O'Halloran. Not the Dragon book but not nothing either.
alkibiades 6y ago
dont worry, when the admitted student doesnt pass physics theyll say its because of systemic oppression and caltech will pad their scores to get them on their merry way
gautamcgoel 6y ago
I'm a PhD student at Caltech. There's also a push to eliminate the GRE as a requirement for graduate admissions, in much the same way as some people want to eliminate the SAT as a requirement for undergraduate admissions. In my opinion both proposals are well-intentioned but ultimately bad ideas.
- memexy 6y ago
  Why are they bad ideas? I took the SAT and GRE for undergraduate and graduate schools respectively and neither was worthwhile preparation for anything I studied. If we want to put up barriers to entry then I think we can find better and more predictive ways than measuring general pattern matching skills with the SAT and GRE.
  - xvedejas 6y ago
    To quote Scott Aaronson: Admissions to the top US universities—and hence, most chances for social advancement in the US—will henceforth be based entirely on shifting and nebulous criteria that rich, well-connected kids and their parents spend most of their lives figuring out, rather than merely mostly based on such criteria. The last side door for smart noncomformist kids is now being slammed shut.
    - vkou 6y ago
      And to quote someone on HN: Colleges, as insitutions, care about progressive, equality of opportunity values. Those nebulous criteria will coalesce to produce roughly the same outcomes that they currently do.
      - jbay808 6y ago
        Will they? They might adjust their admission picks until e.g. aggregate ethnic/racial admission stats look the same as before, but at the same time picking more of the rich, well-connected black/other minority kids and fewer of the poor but hardworking ones.
        memexy 6y ago
        How many brilliant poor kids do they choose now?
        jbay808 6y ago
        Some? I think the assumption implicit in this thread of the conversation is that scoring well on the SATs is a way for brilliant poor kids to compete with rich well-connected kids.
        memexy 6y ago
        Yes. I understand this is the assumption but why is this the assumption? I can imagine poor kids doing just as well if not better without artificial barriers to entry like the SAT and GRE. For some reason everyone is assuming these tests are "good" and "meritocratic" but I don't see it. Everyone seems to assume there need to be tests and no one is wondering what happens when there are no tests. I suspect no one is wondering because without tests people have to face some harsh truths about economic and social class structures that most people in the US like to pretend do not exist. If these tests were about meritocracy then they would be enforced without exceptions and rich kids wouldn't be able to buy their way into their favorite schools like they do now after their parents make a generous donation. The existence of the test does not matter if you're rich enough so the argument about meritocracy rings hollow.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  Some people self study and pass GRE subject tests without having done the relevant undergraduate degree. Especially in fields such as mathematics and physics where testing results are easily quantified, this is a gradually growing long-term threat to the credentialing power of universities. If an independent company comes along that can reliably get students to equivalent GRE subject test scores in a hard science most quickly than the university itself does, the result could be many of the best students stop applying. Some would just take the nontraditional route, save a fortune, ace their GREs and apply as a graduate student. Others would take their tests as evidence of their skills and and go directly into industry. Making this move now, before such a challenger exists seems like a "good" idea from the selfish perspective of universities.
  - anonuser123456 6y ago
    What motivation does CalTech have to retain ownership of credentialing powers? I can't imagine the administration there caring about anything less.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Money? Undergraduate attendance is typically a vastly larger revenue stream.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        Most of Caltech's revenue is from government and private research grants, not tuition. They only raised it because they don't have economies of scale for their undergrad program and admissions wanted to keep up with the Joneses at Stanford and Princeton,
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        That's news to me if true. Do you have any resources I can check out?
  - 6y ago
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I went to Caltech in the 70's. Caltech did a pretty good job of only admitting people who could hack the program. But they did make mistakes here and there, and those would suffer the humiliation of flunking out. This did nobody any good. BTW, I found out years later that they took a chance on admitting me, and I very nearly flunked out my freshman year before I found my "sea legs". I was rejected by MIT, Harvard, and Stanford.
  - downerending 6y ago
    My run-of-the-mill state school had quite lax admission standards. It was understood that most of the freshman class each year would just party and flunk out after one or two semesters. As long as grading standards are maintained, I suppose that's another way to go.
- ylem 6y ago
  Why do you think this is a bad idea? Shouldn't it be a data based decision? https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaat7550 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaat7550
mjfl 6y ago
I think it's a bad idea. There are people who grew up in poverty that still do well on the SAT, in fact that's exactly what the SAT is for - to identify those people, who might not be informed about math competitions or intel science fairs, or have connections at local universities, but have good potential.
- eitally 6y ago
  SATs don't test potential. They, and GREs, explicitly test general baseline knowledge in a couple of subject areas. A person who grew up in poverty is still going to do poorly on a standardized test unless they have committed at least some effort to learning those things (whether through school, self-study, or a form of tutoring).
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    SAT’s don’t test baseline knowledge, they “require” it. That’s early high school math and English language. The SAT tests ability to perform cognitive tasks, like solving math problems and answering questions about passages you’ve read. If it were about knowledge, the questions would ask about facts. I only know about the math subject GRE but it certainly was testing problem solving ability moreso than knowledge, many of the questions designed so that the clever can solve them quickly to save time.
OkayPhysicist 6y ago
It's not a stretch to posit that Caltech is the most competitive university on the planet. Test scores were already a poor indicator for them, since their applicant pool is well outside the effective measurement range of standardized testing.

deathgrips 6y ago

I know a girl who goes to caltech. She says that they don't require you to take a compilers class to get a computer science degree. Sounds like a joke.

selimthegrim 6y ago
They used to require an operating systems class that used Bryant and O'Halloran. Not the Dragon book but not nothing either.

alkibiades 6y ago

dont worry, when the admitted student doesnt pass physics theyll say its because of systemic oppression and caltech will pad their scores to get them on their merry way

gautamcgoel 6y ago

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. There's also a push to eliminate the GRE as a requirement for graduate admissions, in much the same way as some people want to eliminate the SAT as a requirement for undergraduate admissions. In my opinion both proposals are well-intentioned but ultimately bad ideas.

memexy 6y ago
Why are they bad ideas? I took the SAT and GRE for undergraduate and graduate schools respectively and neither was worthwhile preparation for anything I studied. If we want to put up barriers to entry then I think we can find better and more predictive ways than measuring general pattern matching skills with the SAT and GRE.
- xvedejas 6y ago
  To quote Scott Aaronson: Admissions to the top US universities—and hence, most chances for social advancement in the US—will henceforth be based entirely on shifting and nebulous criteria that rich, well-connected kids and their parents spend most of their lives figuring out, rather than merely mostly based on such criteria. The last side door for smart noncomformist kids is now being slammed shut.
  - vkou 6y ago
    And to quote someone on HN: Colleges, as insitutions, care about progressive, equality of opportunity values. Those nebulous criteria will coalesce to produce roughly the same outcomes that they currently do.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Will they? They might adjust their admission picks until e.g. aggregate ethnic/racial admission stats look the same as before, but at the same time picking more of the rich, well-connected black/other minority kids and fewer of the poor but hardworking ones.
      - memexy 6y ago
        How many brilliant poor kids do they choose now?
        jbay808 6y ago
        Some? I think the assumption implicit in this thread of the conversation is that scoring well on the SATs is a way for brilliant poor kids to compete with rich well-connected kids.
        memexy 6y ago
        Yes. I understand this is the assumption but why is this the assumption? I can imagine poor kids doing just as well if not better without artificial barriers to entry like the SAT and GRE. For some reason everyone is assuming these tests are "good" and "meritocratic" but I don't see it. Everyone seems to assume there need to be tests and no one is wondering what happens when there are no tests. I suspect no one is wondering because without tests people have to face some harsh truths about economic and social class structures that most people in the US like to pretend do not exist. If these tests were about meritocracy then they would be enforced without exceptions and rich kids wouldn't be able to buy their way into their favorite schools like they do now after their parents make a generous donation. The existence of the test does not matter if you're rich enough so the argument about meritocracy rings hollow.
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
Some people self study and pass GRE subject tests without having done the relevant undergraduate degree. Especially in fields such as mathematics and physics where testing results are easily quantified, this is a gradually growing long-term threat to the credentialing power of universities. If an independent company comes along that can reliably get students to equivalent GRE subject test scores in a hard science most quickly than the university itself does, the result could be many of the best students stop applying. Some would just take the nontraditional route, save a fortune, ace their GREs and apply as a graduate student. Others would take their tests as evidence of their skills and and go directly into industry. Making this move now, before such a challenger exists seems like a "good" idea from the selfish perspective of universities.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  What motivation does CalTech have to retain ownership of credentialing powers? I can't imagine the administration there caring about anything less.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Money? Undergraduate attendance is typically a vastly larger revenue stream.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Most of Caltech's revenue is from government and private research grants, not tuition. They only raised it because they don't have economies of scale for their undergrad program and admissions wanted to keep up with the Joneses at Stanford and Princeton,
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        That's news to me if true. Do you have any resources I can check out?
- 6y ago
WalterBright 6y ago
I went to Caltech in the 70's. Caltech did a pretty good job of only admitting people who could hack the program. But they did make mistakes here and there, and those would suffer the humiliation of flunking out. This did nobody any good. BTW, I found out years later that they took a chance on admitting me, and I very nearly flunked out my freshman year before I found my "sea legs". I was rejected by MIT, Harvard, and Stanford.
- downerending 6y ago
  My run-of-the-mill state school had quite lax admission standards. It was understood that most of the freshman class each year would just party and flunk out after one or two semesters. As long as grading standards are maintained, I suppose that's another way to go.
ylem 6y ago
Why do you think this is a bad idea? Shouldn't it be a data based decision? https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaat7550 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaat7550

mjfl 6y ago

I think it's a bad idea. There are people who grew up in poverty that still do well on the SAT, in fact that's exactly what the SAT is for - to identify those people, who might not be informed about math competitions or intel science fairs, or have connections at local universities, but have good potential.

eitally 6y ago
SATs don't test potential. They, and GREs, explicitly test general baseline knowledge in a couple of subject areas. A person who grew up in poverty is still going to do poorly on a standardized test unless they have committed at least some effort to learning those things (whether through school, self-study, or a form of tutoring).
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  SAT’s don’t test baseline knowledge, they “require” it. That’s early high school math and English language. The SAT tests ability to perform cognitive tasks, like solving math problems and answering questions about passages you’ve read. If it were about knowledge, the questions would ask about facts. I only know about the math subject GRE but it certainly was testing problem solving ability moreso than knowledge, many of the questions designed so that the clever can solve them quickly to save time.

OkayPhysicist 6y ago

It's not a stretch to posit that Caltech is the most competitive university on the planet. Test scores were already a poor indicator for them, since their applicant pool is well outside the effective measurement range of standardized testing.