7 ms·

What are your thoughts on standardized tests as the most standard (not sure what a better word is here) comparison between applicants? I recognize that a lot h

What are your thoughts on standardized tests as the most standard (not sure what a better word is here) comparison between applicants? I recognize that a lot has been written about the SAT/etc being biased, but high school grades and "experiences" are worse (how does one compare what a "B" in Calculus or club president actually means, in all high schools across the US??).

kbos87 6y ago
I agree with you that comparing applicants objectively is a tough nut to crack. I don’t know the right answer but I would imagine looking at as diverse a set of inputs as possible is a good starting point; I could also see universities coming up with some means of weighing inputs differently to not let any one input (like standardized test scores) be an arbitrary disqualifier. But until that’s the case, I don’t think individuals should feel guilt for not letting a flawed system run them over, even if that means needing to “cheat”.
- albntomat0 6y ago
  I definitely agree with individuals taking actions within the system to optimize their chances is fine (e.g. targeting colleges that don't require standardized testing if the applicant doesn't do well on those tests, but not things like the fake sports recruiting that was in the news a year or so ago). I may be biased as I did well on standardized tests. I have family members that volunteer to do admissions interviews as alumni of a very major name university. They both mention how gamified some applicants are taking the process, with some high school students' parents essentially buying them research opportunities and other experiences to talk about on their applications. While standardized testing is influenced by family wealth and resources, I'm convinced standardized tests (SAT/ACT/AP/etc) are the least influenced part of college admissions, and thus should remain in some form.

kbos87 6y ago

I agree with you that comparing applicants objectively is a tough nut to crack. I don’t know the right answer but I would imagine looking at as diverse a set of inputs as possible is a good starting point; I could also see universities coming up with some means of weighing inputs differently to not let any one input (like standardized test scores) be an arbitrary disqualifier. But until that’s the case, I don’t think individuals should feel guilt for not letting a flawed system run them over, even if that means needing to “cheat”.

albntomat0 6y ago
I definitely agree with individuals taking actions within the system to optimize their chances is fine (e.g. targeting colleges that don't require standardized testing if the applicant doesn't do well on those tests, but not things like the fake sports recruiting that was in the news a year or so ago). I may be biased as I did well on standardized tests. I have family members that volunteer to do admissions interviews as alumni of a very major name university. They both mention how gamified some applicants are taking the process, with some high school students' parents essentially buying them research opportunities and other experiences to talk about on their applications. While standardized testing is influenced by family wealth and resources, I'm convinced standardized tests (SAT/ACT/AP/etc) are the least influenced part of college admissions, and thus should remain in some form.