4 ms·

> 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. A

> 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.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      Most of the Ivy League schools already implement a lottery, because even with the absurd requirements for entry they can't differentiate the qualified candidates well enough to make a determination given the limited number of acceptance slots and high number of applicants. You have to keep mind those schools are extremely tiny compared to the highly rated state schools in California, Texas, and Florida.
      - watwut 6y ago
        This suggests that issue is not so much who get to Ivy League school, but the disproportionate advantage Ivy League schools graduates have. No matter how the entrance test is tweaked, as long as not studying there is a block in some career goal of an highly talented and highly ambitious student, there will be issues.
  - mciancia 6y ago
    > You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. What, why? Not American here, but in the past I was looking into going for university in US and studying for SATs and it's just a test that everyone can learn for...
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      Lower socioeconomic status is thought to add stress, often in the form of less time for studying because teenagers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder have to work more. They also can't afford tutors, have fewer books in the house, etc.
    - ip26 6y ago
      Allegedly, with time, money, and tutors you can "study to the test" pretty effectively.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
> It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics, allowing both more legacy hires and more representative demographics. It doesn’t seem like a good solution to that problem. How will removing test scores as a factor help smart kids of underrepresented minority groups against dumb rich kids (with influential parents) who are too lazy to study for the SAT? It seems much better to keep the test but apply a corrective factor if you believe it’s biased against some group. It’s the only way I can think of to keep the dumb rich kids out.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  The point was that they don't want to keep dumb rich kids out. The parents are an important money source and you don't want to upset the ruling elite by withholding from them the prestige they are used to.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Public schools aren't for the "ruling elite"
- legolas2412 6y ago
  The point is to replace this objective transparent measure with a subjective opaque measure. Like alumni interviews, and ranking based on personality. That way they can twist the results a preferred way
nvarsj 6y ago
> Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries This is already the case in the US - more so than any other developed nation I think, because of how poor state public schools can be and the lack of a welfare / healthcare safety net for the poor. The lottery of who you are born to and where you live is pretty much the main determination of whether you get into an elite university or not. The answer is to provide enough high quality higher education so everyone who wants to can get one, as long as they meet the minimum bar (pass GRE / high school diploma). Let people prove themselves as adults. I'm convinced this can be done, but probably not in the traditional way of requiring a physical presence on campus.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
I don't trust anyone who thinks a "competitive bar" to education is a good thing.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  There is a competitive bar to getting an MIT education. And that is a good thing, because it encourages competition and excellence. It is not a competitive bar to education, but a difference of great and not so great universities, which are going to choose students from great and not so great candidates.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
> Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries, The British Open University (distance learning) has no entrance requirements and still has a good reputation and their graduates are successful in getting well paid jobs. It would be quite reasonable to use a lottery if the number of applicants exceeds the number of places, those who discover that they are not good enough or are not willing to work hard enough will drop out quite quickly. You just need to dimension the first year teaching capacity a bit higher than subsequent years so that you have enough students left at the end of the first year to fill the subsequent years.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  I'll consider your point valid if oxford and cambridge also did the lottery. Otherwise, if the elite universities, which are likely to have a lot of good candidates, won't do a lottery, maybe there is some merit in choosing people by 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.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Most of the Ivy League schools already implement a lottery, because even with the absurd requirements for entry they can't differentiate the qualified candidates well enough to make a determination given the limited number of acceptance slots and high number of applicants. You have to keep mind those schools are extremely tiny compared to the highly rated state schools in California, Texas, and Florida.
    - watwut 6y ago
      This suggests that issue is not so much who get to Ivy League school, but the disproportionate advantage Ivy League schools graduates have. No matter how the entrance test is tweaked, as long as not studying there is a block in some career goal of an highly talented and highly ambitious student, there will be issues.
- mciancia 6y ago
  > You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. What, why? Not American here, but in the past I was looking into going for university in US and studying for SATs and it's just a test that everyone can learn for...
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    Lower socioeconomic status is thought to add stress, often in the form of less time for studying because teenagers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder have to work more. They also can't afford tutors, have fewer books in the house, etc.
  - ip26 6y ago
    Allegedly, with time, money, and tutors you can "study to the test" pretty effectively.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

> It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics, allowing both more legacy hires and more representative demographics. It doesn’t seem like a good solution to that problem. How will removing test scores as a factor help smart kids of underrepresented minority groups against dumb rich kids (with influential parents) who are too lazy to study for the SAT? It seems much better to keep the test but apply a corrective factor if you believe it’s biased against some group. It’s the only way I can think of to keep the dumb rich kids out.

bonoboTP 6y ago
The point was that they don't want to keep dumb rich kids out. The parents are an important money source and you don't want to upset the ruling elite by withholding from them the prestige they are used to.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Public schools aren't for the "ruling elite"
legolas2412 6y ago
The point is to replace this objective transparent measure with a subjective opaque measure. Like alumni interviews, and ranking based on personality. That way they can twist the results a preferred way

nvarsj 6y ago

> Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries This is already the case in the US - more so than any other developed nation I think, because of how poor state public schools can be and the lack of a welfare / healthcare safety net for the poor. The lottery of who you are born to and where you live is pretty much the main determination of whether you get into an elite university or not. The answer is to provide enough high quality higher education so everyone who wants to can get one, as long as they meet the minimum bar (pass GRE / high school diploma). Let people prove themselves as adults. I'm convinced this can be done, but probably not in the traditional way of requiring a physical presence on campus.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

I don't trust anyone who thinks a "competitive bar" to education is a good thing.

legolas2412 6y ago
There is a competitive bar to getting an MIT education. And that is a good thing, because it encourages competition and excellence. It is not a competitive bar to education, but a difference of great and not so great universities, which are going to choose students from great and not so great candidates.

kwhitefoot 6y ago

> Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries, The British Open University (distance learning) has no entrance requirements and still has a good reputation and their graduates are successful in getting well paid jobs. It would be quite reasonable to use a lottery if the number of applicants exceeds the number of places, those who discover that they are not good enough or are not willing to work hard enough will drop out quite quickly. You just need to dimension the first year teaching capacity a bit higher than subsequent years so that you have enough students left at the end of the first year to fill the subsequent years.

legolas2412 6y ago
I'll consider your point valid if oxford and cambridge also did the lottery. Otherwise, if the elite universities, which are likely to have a lot of good candidates, won't do a lottery, maybe there is some merit in choosing people by merit.