5 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - light_hue_1 5y ago
    > What do you mean by these terms? By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate. > How do you propose selecting students? Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Colleges can do whatever they want, if they don't like the deal, that's fine, but they get no federal funding and they get no federally-backed student loans. You start with the outcomes you believe are just. And you set up incentives to get that outcome. That's literally what we do everywhere else. We tell car manufacturers that they need to make cars that have fewer emissions, we don't tell them how. They figure it out. Universities will figure out how to make this happen, they're full of smart people.
    - flowerlad 5y ago
      > That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. Yes, your appearance does have an impact on life outcomes, that much is true. But standardized tests are not to blame. In fact, standardized tests are the solution, because the test doesn't know what you look like. > 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. If the 1% of earners are in the 1% because of being smart and because of being hard working, and the children inherit these traits, why punish the children for that?

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?
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  > What do you mean by these terms? By racist and classist? That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. That's literally what a racist society is. Where your skin color plays a large role in your fate. > How do you propose selecting students? Simple. We start with the society we want. One that is not racist and not classist. In other words, your skin color and the income of your parents should not play an overwhelming role in your life outcomes. We tell universities that if they want any federal funding they must admit classes that accurately reflect US demographics. 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. Same for socioeconomic status. Colleges can do whatever they want, if they don't like the deal, that's fine, but they get no federal funding and they get no federally-backed student loans. You start with the outcomes you believe are just. And you set up incentives to get that outcome. That's literally what we do everywhere else. We tell car manufacturers that they need to make cars that have fewer emissions, we don't tell them how. They figure it out. Universities will figure out how to make this happen, they're full of smart people.
  - flowerlad 5y ago
    > That an identical child, who happens to be born poor or who happens to be born with a darker skin color, will have fewer opportunities and worse life outcomes. Yes, your appearance does have an impact on life outcomes, that much is true. But standardized tests are not to blame. In fact, standardized tests are the solution, because the test doesn't know what you look like. > 1% of the incoming class is from the top 1% of earners. If the 1% of earners are in the 1% because of being smart and because of being hard working, and the children inherit these traits, why punish the children for that?