6 ms·

To add to this with numbers the US military imposes a standardized test on all service members and many high school students who never become service members.

To add to this with numbers the US military imposes a standardized test on all service members and many high school students who never become service members. The test, the ASVAB, is composed of several sections but all anybody really looks at is the GT score. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti... The first time I took the test as a dumb 17 year old who was at risk of failing out of high school my GT score was only 107 (out of 130) and my average performance placement compared to all other test participants that year was 79 (on a scale of 0 - 99). Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation. When I wanted to become a warrant officer I had to retake the test because of my low scores. The minimum GT score to become a warrant officer is 110. I retook the test at the age of 35 after 8 years of being a full time software developer in the corporate world. My new GT score was 129 (out of 130) and my placement amongst other test takers that year (on a scale of 0 - 99) was 98. I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years. This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education.

legolas2412 6y ago
> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries, you must answer how whatever that replaces SAT is not worse. Because whatever replaces it, for example identifying well rounded candidates with extra curricular achievements is even more socio-economic stratifying. It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics, allowing both more legacy hires and more representative demographics. Such actions however will come at the cost of merit.
- austincheney 6y ago
  > is even more socio-economic stratifying. Is there data to suggest that? Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. Contrast those tax funded and faculty lead activities to private tutors and rigorous SAT practice that is almost exclusively limited to families with the personal financies to afford such. > It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics I can certainly empathize with that. Wealthy households had an advantage with private tutors and timely dedicated/forced test preparation activities. Now that advantage has evaporated so that wealthy students are now less exclusively advantaged, or in other words the bar of entry has lowered to wider availability.
  - rfw300 6y ago
    > Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. I think you’re greatly underestimating how much the college admissions game has changed in recent years. For top universities (like the better UCs, Ivies, etc.), being, for example, president of a club in one’s high school is essentially irrelevant. The paths to admission consist of: (1) being a top athlete, (2) significant extracurricular achievement (meaning state/national accolades, founding a non-profit, etc.), or (3) extreme adversity. You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. But the absurd time and resource investment required of modern high-schoolers and their families to participate in extracurriculars in the way top colleges now demand is far greater a burden than SAT prep.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      Lottery with a min bar would fix most of these issues, especially the crazy extra curricular game that is played today.
      - 6y ago
egsmi 6y ago
> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/uc-suspends-sat-act-for-admissions-until-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/uc-suspends-sat-act-for-ad... It's not at all obvious that was done, and there are a ton of caveats in the new rules. They basically want a shot at developing a different test. They didn't eliminate testing. "We are removing the ACT/SAT requirement for California students and developing a new test that more closely aligns with what we expect incoming students to know to demonstrate their preparedness for UC," Napolitano said. "If a new test does not meet the specified criteria in time for admissions for fall of 2025, UC will eliminate the standardized testing requirement for California students, according to the news release. UC will work on a separate approach for out-of-state and international students."
whack 6y ago
> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential Why speculate when people have already done research on this. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-sat-and-act-1520521861 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-sat-and-act... > Myths abound about standardized tests, but the research is clear: They provide an invaluable measure of how students are likely to perform in college and beyond
marcinzm 6y ago
>All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. The tests in essence measure either intelligence or work ethic. Work ethic is probably more important for college performance than anything else to be honest however you can do fairly well on the tests with intelligence alone. The point of college admission isn't really to predict your performance in life but rather to predict your performance in college. If you become a better person at 24 or 35 it doesn't really matter since you're long gone from college by then.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Work ethic isn’t just working hard. Slaves work hard without work ethic. Work ethic requires self initiative. There is no reason to suggest that those high school students who practice hardest for the standardized tests do so entirely of their own accord with a forcing function from adult interference.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Nothing is a perfect proxy for something else so lacking an oracle or a time machine all you can do is try to find an approximation. Also, adult interference doesn't end just because someone goes off to college.
disown 6y ago
> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. But that also applies for grades as well. High school is preparation for college. Shouldn't colleges select for people who are prepared over those who are not? Should we get rid of grades, extracurriculars, etc? What should colleges use then? Just legacy admissions? > I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years. So then let those people reapply for college when they "mature". What does that have to do with SATs? > Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education. This is hilarious. SATs and ACTs acted as an objective factor against "socio-economic" factors. High school grades are unreliable as different schools grade differently. It also prevents against wealthier students buying better grades by paying for people to do their homework for them. It guards against wealthier students being able to afford quality extracurricular activities vs poor students. The SATs and ACTs were the only objective factor a less advantaged minority group could use to show discrimination in admission. It existed as an objective national measure and currently, it's the only ones that we have in college admissions. Frankly, it's the only test we have to measure actual discrimination in colleges. And the virtue signalers want to get rid of it? Your entire comment is in favor of GT score and SATs. You even said that you were a "dumb 17 year old". You weren't prepared. > Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation. No kidding. That's true for everything. It's why you can join the military later in life. So the military and colleges should take everyone who isn't prepared? All you are arguing for is people should enter military and colleges at different ages because some people are less prepared than others at certain ages. I don't know why you are so hung up about SATs, ASVAB, only. Why not grades? Why not extracurriculars? Your argument applies to those as well. People mature at different ages. So lets get rid of every measure and let anyone in. Everyone is against the most fair and objective test measure. There are so many media articles and social media spam about it. Not so much about legacy admissions and the real privileges.
ci5er 6y ago
The peers are of the same age group (largely), so as a comparative tool within a cohort, would it still not be relevant?
- austincheney 6y ago
  No because the cohort are children operating under artificial constraints that are no longer present once those children move away from their guardians.

legolas2412 6y ago

austincheney 6y ago
> is even more socio-economic stratifying. Is there data to suggest that? Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. Contrast those tax funded and faculty lead activities to private tutors and rigorous SAT practice that is almost exclusively limited to families with the personal financies to afford such. > It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics I can certainly empathize with that. Wealthy households had an advantage with private tutors and timely dedicated/forced test preparation activities. Now that advantage has evaporated so that wealthy students are now less exclusively advantaged, or in other words the bar of entry has lowered to wider availability.
- rfw300 6y ago
  > Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. I think you’re greatly underestimating how much the college admissions game has changed in recent years. For top universities (like the better UCs, Ivies, etc.), being, for example, president of a club in one’s high school is essentially irrelevant. The paths to admission consist of: (1) being a top athlete, (2) significant extracurricular achievement (meaning state/national accolades, founding a non-profit, etc.), or (3) extreme adversity. You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. But the absurd time and resource investment required of modern high-schoolers and their families to participate in extracurriculars in the way top colleges now demand is far greater a burden than SAT prep.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    Lottery with a min bar would fix most of these issues, especially the crazy extra curricular game that is played today.
    - 6y ago

egsmi 6y ago

> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/uc-suspends-sat-act-for-admissions-until-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/uc-suspends-sat-act-for-ad... It's not at all obvious that was done, and there are a ton of caveats in the new rules. They basically want a shot at developing a different test. They didn't eliminate testing. "We are removing the ACT/SAT requirement for California students and developing a new test that more closely aligns with what we expect incoming students to know to demonstrate their preparedness for UC," Napolitano said. "If a new test does not meet the specified criteria in time for admissions for fall of 2025, UC will eliminate the standardized testing requirement for California students, according to the news release. UC will work on a separate approach for out-of-state and international students."

whack 6y ago

marcinzm 6y ago

>All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. The tests in essence measure either intelligence or work ethic. Work ethic is probably more important for college performance than anything else to be honest however you can do fairly well on the tests with intelligence alone. The point of college admission isn't really to predict your performance in life but rather to predict your performance in college. If you become a better person at 24 or 35 it doesn't really matter since you're long gone from college by then.

austincheney 6y ago
Work ethic isn’t just working hard. Slaves work hard without work ethic. Work ethic requires self initiative. There is no reason to suggest that those high school students who practice hardest for the standardized tests do so entirely of their own accord with a forcing function from adult interference.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Nothing is a perfect proxy for something else so lacking an oracle or a time machine all you can do is try to find an approximation. Also, adult interference doesn't end just because someone goes off to college.

disown 6y ago

> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. But that also applies for grades as well. High school is preparation for college. Shouldn't colleges select for people who are prepared over those who are not? Should we get rid of grades, extracurriculars, etc? What should colleges use then? Just legacy admissions? > I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years. So then let those people reapply for college when they "mature". What does that have to do with SATs? > Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education. This is hilarious. SATs and ACTs acted as an objective factor against "socio-economic" factors. High school grades are unreliable as different schools grade differently. It also prevents against wealthier students buying better grades by paying for people to do their homework for them. It guards against wealthier students being able to afford quality extracurricular activities vs poor students. The SATs and ACTs were the only objective factor a less advantaged minority group could use to show discrimination in admission. It existed as an objective national measure and currently, it's the only ones that we have in college admissions. Frankly, it's the only test we have to measure actual discrimination in colleges. And the virtue signalers want to get rid of it? Your entire comment is in favor of GT score and SATs. You even said that you were a "dumb 17 year old". You weren't prepared. > Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation. No kidding. That's true for everything. It's why you can join the military later in life. So the military and colleges should take everyone who isn't prepared? All you are arguing for is people should enter military and colleges at different ages because some people are less prepared than others at certain ages. I don't know why you are so hung up about SATs, ASVAB, only. Why not grades? Why not extracurriculars? Your argument applies to those as well. People mature at different ages. So lets get rid of every measure and let anyone in. Everyone is against the most fair and objective test measure. There are so many media articles and social media spam about it. Not so much about legacy admissions and the real privileges.

ci5er 6y ago

The peers are of the same age group (largely), so as a comparative tool within a cohort, would it still not be relevant?

austincheney 6y ago
No because the cohort are children operating under artificial constraints that are no longer present once those children move away from their guardians.