4 ms·

> The SAT has always generally been a test showing how well you prepared for the SAT. I don't know about the SAT specifically, but in my country we also have s

> The SAT has always generally been a test showing how well you prepared for the SAT. I don't know about the SAT specifically, but in my country we also have standardized admission tests and, from my appreciation, it's good at measuring 2 things: 1. General Intelligence. 2. How well you prepared for the test. Sure, (2) may be an undesirable artifact but I think that intelligence is a good way --if not the best-- to select people for college.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
In my experience, hard work can make up for quite a lot. I'm not sure which of the above is a better predictor of success in college or after. It begs the question of if colleges should be selecting for general Intelligence over hard works. On the other hand, removal of the SAT will probably put an even greater emphasis on school grades, which certainly correlates better with effort than general intelligence.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > It begs the question of if colleges should be selecting for general Intelligence over hard works. Colleges should be building a model to determine who will derive the highest value from their education. Good inputs to this model include test scores measuring general scholastic abilities, actual performance during high school, notable achievements outside school, and the general background in which they made these accomplishments. AKA, a lot like they're doing now. I don't think the testing portion of it should be eliminated.
Traster 6y ago
2 isn't an undesirable artifact. You want highly motivated hard working people applying to your university course. People have this idea of some genius slacker but you know what's better than a genius slacker? A genius who works hard. And frankly, most people aren't geniuses anyway.
- eitally 6y ago
  You don't even need to raise the bar that much. A normal intelligence person who works hard is much better than a genius slacker. My experience is that a lot of people at the top of their high school classes get/stay their based on 1) general intelligence, 2) memorization skills, 3) socioeconomic advantages, 4) compliance. Of those factors, only #3 has a particular bearing on future success. At university, those who tend to be most successful as students tend to be those who are intrinsically motivated to work hard and study, and also those with socioeconomic advantages. After university, those with socioeconomic advantages tend to succeed regardless of their educational background, so there are fundamental reasons to investigate the systemic unfairness and discrimination in our society. Without trying to sound snarky, this is as linked to movements like BLM as it is to Harvard's discrimination against Asian applicants.
- michaelt 6y ago
  People think smart kids with lower-middle-class parents are losing out on college places to kids whose rich parents can afford $$$$ tuition at the crème-de-la-crème school for the rich and thick. And that's both inefficient as we're not sending our best students to our best schools; and bad for social mobility as it makes it harder for those born poor-but-smart to improve their lot in life.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

In my experience, hard work can make up for quite a lot. I'm not sure which of the above is a better predictor of success in college or after. It begs the question of if colleges should be selecting for general Intelligence over hard works. On the other hand, removal of the SAT will probably put an even greater emphasis on school grades, which certainly correlates better with effort than general intelligence.

mlyle 6y ago
> It begs the question of if colleges should be selecting for general Intelligence over hard works. Colleges should be building a model to determine who will derive the highest value from their education. Good inputs to this model include test scores measuring general scholastic abilities, actual performance during high school, notable achievements outside school, and the general background in which they made these accomplishments. AKA, a lot like they're doing now. I don't think the testing portion of it should be eliminated.

Traster 6y ago

2 isn't an undesirable artifact. You want highly motivated hard working people applying to your university course. People have this idea of some genius slacker but you know what's better than a genius slacker? A genius who works hard. And frankly, most people aren't geniuses anyway.

eitally 6y ago
You don't even need to raise the bar that much. A normal intelligence person who works hard is much better than a genius slacker. My experience is that a lot of people at the top of their high school classes get/stay their based on 1) general intelligence, 2) memorization skills, 3) socioeconomic advantages, 4) compliance. Of those factors, only #3 has a particular bearing on future success. At university, those who tend to be most successful as students tend to be those who are intrinsically motivated to work hard and study, and also those with socioeconomic advantages. After university, those with socioeconomic advantages tend to succeed regardless of their educational background, so there are fundamental reasons to investigate the systemic unfairness and discrimination in our society. Without trying to sound snarky, this is as linked to movements like BLM as it is to Harvard's discrimination against Asian applicants.
michaelt 6y ago
People think smart kids with lower-middle-class parents are losing out on college places to kids whose rich parents can afford $$$$ tuition at the crème-de-la-crème school for the rich and thick. And that's both inefficient as we're not sending our best students to our best schools; and bad for social mobility as it makes it harder for those born poor-but-smart to improve their lot in life.