4 ms·

> Ideally what colleges should do is to use a standardized test and go strictly by the results of the standardized test. Standardized tests are not perfect, but

> Ideally what colleges should do is to use a standardized test and go strictly by the results of the standardized test. Standardized tests are not perfect, but if there are flaws in standardized tests then fix them, because it is better than the alternatives Standardized tests are terrible. Predicting the outcomes of standardized tests is very simple, it's a function of your parents income. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and... With a 0.95 R^2. Simply put, standardized tests would make sure that only rich people go to good schools. > Other countries such as UK use test scores for college admissions. At one time the US too used scores. But US colleges introduced subjective criteria ("holistic reviews") because far too many Jewish people were getting admitted when they used objective criteria. ( No. That's not what happened. This is the history according to the National Educational Association: https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis... In the beginning, US colleges did not use standardized tests. A well-known racist who was against the "intermingling of races" created standardized tests to exclude races he did not like. And for the most part, it worked beautifully, except that too many Jews were getting in, so they added other criteria on top. The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism. > Other countries such as UK use test scores for college admissions Yeah, how's that going? Notice who gets into Oxford and Cambridge? It's not really the lower classes. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxford-cambridge-white-students-university-poverty-deprived-areas-diversity-a8779081.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/... Only 20% of Cambridge students are eligible for a grant that takes 50% more than the median income to get. https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/16287 https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/16287 That means that they overwhelmingly come from families with very high income.

usaar333 5y ago
> With a 0.95 R^2. That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower with other factors more significant (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv). > The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism. Huh? Prior to tests, schools were even more classist. Standardized tests have also been used in all sorts of societies historically explicitly to break class lines. i.e. the Chinese Imperial Examinations (created over 2,000 years ago) intentionally were created so that candidates were not just merely young aristocrats recommended by other aristocrats (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination). And yes, the institution of holistic review (ironically, not relying as much on tests) was absolutely driven by anti-semitism. See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/21/holistic-admissions-origin/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/21/holistic-admiss.... Of course, neither the history of testing or holistic admissions says anything about the actual value of them today.
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  > That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with it. Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist. > Huh? Prior to tests, schools were even more classist. This is why tests were introduced, schools were claiming to admit people based on skill. But then the "wrong" people showed up with skills. So they introduced tests. You should read the history of testing that I linked to before, it explains this very nicely. > Standardized tests have also been used in all sorts of societies historically explicitly to break class lines. i.e. the Chinese Imperial Examinations (created over 2,000 years ago) intentionally were created so that candidates were not just merely young aristocrats recommended by other aristocrats (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination). You should totally read a book on this. I suggest "Civil examinations and meritocracy in late imperial China" by Elman. The examinations were extremely onerous and required pretty deep pockets. The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! > Of course, neither the history of testing or holistic admissions says anything about the actual value of them today. The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and oppression that those who came before up put up.
  - usaar333 5y ago
    > it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, are biased by class or race. Are they? The article you linked doesn't say. > The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! What percent of students scoring over a 1500 on the SAT are from the top 1% of household earners? I doubt it is not a minority. There's obviously an income correlation, but it's far better than simply taking rich kids. How do you propose selecting students?
esyir 5y ago
Well standardised tests seem to do badly at that, seeing that they're deliberately tweaking cutoffs to hinder certain groups. And reducing its wishes to exclude them. Turns out discrimination doesn't apply to Asians, as far as universities go.
flowerlad 5y ago
> Standardized tests are terrible. Predicting the outcomes of standardized tests is very simple, it's a function of your parents income. Correlation is not causation. See Skirt Length Theory https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/skirtlengththeory.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/skirtlengththeory.asp

usaar333 5y ago

> With a 0.95 R^2. That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower with other factors more significant (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv). > The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism. Huh? Prior to tests, schools were even more classist. Standardized tests have also been used in all sorts of societies historically explicitly to break class lines. i.e. the Chinese Imperial Examinations (created over 2,000 years ago) intentionally were created so that candidates were not just merely young aristocrats recommended by other aristocrats (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination). And yes, the institution of holistic review (ironically, not relying as much on tests) was absolutely driven by anti-semitism. See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/21/holistic-admissions-origin/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/21/holistic-admiss.... Of course, neither the history of testing or holistic admissions says anything about the actual value of them today.

light_hue_1 5y ago
> That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower - in fact, in California at least, both student ethnicity and parental education is more predictive as far as background factors go (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv). You write that as if you disagree with my comment, but then you go on to agree with it. Scores are highly predictable from income and factors like race. Yes. That's what makes standardized tests not just worthless, it makes them classist and racist. > Huh? Prior to tests, schools were even more classist. This is why tests were introduced, schools were claiming to admit people based on skill. But then the "wrong" people showed up with skills. So they introduced tests. You should read the history of testing that I linked to before, it explains this very nicely. > Standardized tests have also been used in all sorts of societies historically explicitly to break class lines. i.e. the Chinese Imperial Examinations (created over 2,000 years ago) intentionally were created so that candidates were not just merely young aristocrats recommended by other aristocrats (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination). You should totally read a book on this. I suggest "Civil examinations and meritocracy in late imperial China" by Elman. The examinations were extremely onerous and required pretty deep pockets. The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! > Of course, neither the history of testing or holistic admissions says anything about the actual value of them today. The fact that scores are basically a proxy for income+race does say something about their actual value today. Zero. Let's stop building on the infrastructure of racism and oppression that those who came before up put up.
- usaar333 5y ago
  > it makes them classist and racist. What do you mean by these terms? I'd argue that they only are if the results, conditional on future college performance, are biased by class or race. Are they? The article you linked doesn't say. > The exams were a way to choose among elites. Just like standardized tests today! What percent of students scoring over a 1500 on the SAT are from the top 1% of household earners? I doubt it is not a minority. There's obviously an income correlation, but it's far better than simply taking rich kids. How do you propose selecting students?

esyir 5y ago

Well standardised tests seem to do badly at that, seeing that they're deliberately tweaking cutoffs to hinder certain groups. And reducing its wishes to exclude them. Turns out discrimination doesn't apply to Asians, as far as universities go.

flowerlad 5y ago

> Standardized tests are terrible. Predicting the outcomes of standardized tests is very simple, it's a function of your parents income. Correlation is not causation. See Skirt Length Theory https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/skirtlengththeory.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/skirtlengththeory.asp