12 ms·

"The governor also signed a bill that removes a requirement that public colleges consider SAT or ACT scores for freshmen, though the new law still allows studen

"The governor also signed a bill that removes a requirement that public colleges consider SAT or ACT scores for freshmen, though the new law still allows students to submit test scores if they wish." That doesn't seem equitable at all, it seems to encourage admission based on social status and parent's wealth.

skrtskrt 5y ago
SAT and ACT scores are, on a macro level, a measure of social status and parent's wealth.
- dylan604 5y ago
  How's that exactly? I studied in school, took the tests, and received a score. I didn't have SAT tutors. I took the PSAT, and I sort of remember some practice workbooks. How did my receiving decent scores on those tests indicate my social status or parent's wealth?
  - skrtskrt 5y ago
    > on a macro level
  - quenix 5y ago
    The nature of these tests ensures that they are easy to score highly on through rote practice with a coach. Coaches cost money.
    - tooltalk 5y ago
      That must by why all those children of Asian immigrants excel on standardized exams, who btw also happen to be the poorest group in places like NYC. Many of them still send their kids to cram schools for coaching, however dire their financial situation, and their kids in turn sacrifice after-school, weekends, and summers vacation toiling with tutors/coaches. This insane unfairness has to end.
      - quenix 5y ago
        That there is more than one way to excel at a standardized test does not mean that economic inequality doesn't play a big role. Note that never at any point did I claim that _only_ money could lead to success on these tests. It's then irrelevant that a group of children from specific socio-economic and cultural circumstances and backgrounds happen to succeed on them. It doesn't matter—I didn't say it couldn't happen. Money plays a role because of the nature of the test. It's an unescapable reality that children who would otherwise score much lower scores highly simply because their parents can afford a tutor to hammer questions into their child and resolve doubts every day. They don't learn many life skills, true mathematical appreciation, scientific knowledge, or real literary analysis skill from the 'tutoring'—the test, then, is purely a reflection of the tutoring money they spent and not their actual college readiness.
        tooltalk 5y ago
        the fact that you have to exclude inconvenient evidence to justify your argument very weakens it. I'm sick of racists comments that Asians don't matter, or they are always outliers as if they are invisible, especially when it comes to education.
        quenix 5y ago
        I don’t appreciate your characterization of my criticism of the SAT as racist. I didn’t say that “Asians are outliers”. I said that the fact that some people don’t pay to excel at a test doesn’t make the test inherently fair.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    They didn’t, at least not anymore than doing good in school does in general.
  - kiba 5y ago
    Wealth means that a student can receive all the advantages of the best tutoring and preps that money can buy.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    He said macro level. In other words, statistically kids do better when they are in a wealthier household or have higher educated parents. You also never mentioned what exactly your social status or wealth was then. Were you living in poverty when you got those scores?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      My exeperience has much less to do with what level of poverty one was considered. Back when I was in school while Moses was in his cradle and dirt was being invented, there were no specialist tutors for taking tests. Teachers taught subjects, students learned said subject to the best of their abilities, and then took tests. Tutors were typically older students that did well in the subject matter, or even extra time with teachers before/after school. My parents would have laughed at me to ask for testing tutors, and would have rather less politely to put my nose back in a book and study harder.
      - whydoibother 5y ago
        Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level. Did you have to worry about food or housing situations, have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working, deal with substance abuse of parents, or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families? You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.
        dylan604 5y ago
        >Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level Somethings I just don't volunteer as they are private, but since you asked in this very public forum: >Did you worry about food or housing situations yes >have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working yes >deal with substance abuse of parents luckily, no. but abuse from parent, yes. parents with undiagnosed medical conditions, yes. >or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families yes >You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things. To quote the Dude, "that's like, your opinion, man". There were definite obstacles to overcome. I was able to, others are not. I'm not judging anyone for not being able to as situations are different, yet you seem to be wanting to judge me. My economic situation changed as did the economy dictated the earning ability of parent's jobs. I was taught how to talk to people that came to the door looking for the "adults" or called on the phone (before we finally went without a phone all through my high school years). Did I live in the ghetto? No. One of the better financial decisions my parents made and were able to do was built their own house. Not paid a builder, my dad and grandfather cut the wood, swung the hammers. What was your situation like?
  - throwaway33432 5y ago
    intelligence has a hereditary component; social status and wealth correlate with intelligence.
  - deadmutex 5y ago
    I think the argument is that someone whose parents are richer can afford to boost their kids' scores through tutoring, prep classes etc. So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead. I think one needs to be careful of survivorship bias here -- "the system worked for me, so it is fine". The issue with banning SAT/ACTs, etc. is that is the system they're using in its place with actually better? However, many well off parents will feel like they worked hard to move up, and provide their kids with best educational opportunities... but now the rules are changing. It is definitely a hard problem to try to equalize for wealth and at the same time not overly penalizing somewhat wealthy parents that also care about kids' education.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      > So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead. This is true of pretty much every single thing they can use to measure students, though. Test scores, classwork scores, sports, extracurricular activities, social interactions; all of these things are easier for children in wealthier families.
      - deadmutex 5y ago
        Indeed, it is not an easy problem
      - lr4444lr 5y ago
        And SATs are the ONE thing that has to be performed openly when it counts without any kind of coaching, proofreading, parental persuasion, or social connection.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Snoozle 5y ago
  Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases? I grew up poor and did badly in school, but I was smart enough to score in the top 3% of SAT scores and that allowed me to get in to many colleges that I wanted, something I would not have had based on my grades and ability to pay.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    You can still submit test scores, this just means that the colleges don't require them.
  - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
    “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...
    - Glavnokoman 5y ago
      Meaning what?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
        Meaning that if you have money you will get a better score than if you don't. If that's not a problem to you then fine but I think its a little messed up.
        Glavnokoman 5y ago
        Is it just owning the money which grants you a better score? In that case that's the problem indeed. But if you think that investing money in your or your kids development is a problem I tend to disagree. That's the whole point of having money.
- evantahler 5y ago
  https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-been-cancelled https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee... is a good podcast explaining how
- jostmey 5y ago
  The purpose of standardized testing is identify the most worthy candidate. It is meant to be colorblind. Certainly it is not perfect, and wealthy families can help their kids game the system, but it is at least something. If you remove standardized testing, what will you replace it with?
- SatvikBeri 5y ago
  This is a commonly repeated myth but it's untrue. For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size In contrast, holistic measures like looking at extracurriculars are much more correlated to wealth and social status.
  - throwkeep 5y ago
    That myth comes from the test prep industry, which makes exaggerated claims about their importance. "Once scholars control for all these factors as best they can, they find that coaching has a positive but small effect: Perhaps 10 or 20 points in total on the SAT, mostly on the math section, according to careful work by Derek Briggs of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ben Domingue of Stanford University. ...a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools. Even when it comes to less selective schools, just 20 percent of the counselors said a boost from 430 to 450 would make a difference. In other words, research has debunked the myth that pricey test prep gives a major bump to students’ scores, but it’s also hinted that whatever modest bumps they do provide are more likely to help the people who are already at the top." https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-they-work-bias.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsder 5y ago
    > For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores I really don't understand how this statement is even remotely true. The only thing I can think of is that "coaching" is too broad--ie. includes both students who spend 100+ hours and students who spent an hour at a talk by the guidance counselor. Doing nothing other than taking a couple sample tests has to net you a bunch of points because you don't have to waste time reading the directions. Simply drilling basic mathematics so I could do "1+1" and come up with 2 regularly netted me almost 250 points in Math (standardized tests like the SAT are really nasty about having answers that match the common mistakes). Going through 6000 vocabulary words pulled my verbal up almost 250 points (and had a dramatic effect on my writing). But that's far beyond "coaching" ... that's a multi-year commitment.
- sparrc 5y ago
  but what are the alternatives to SAT/ACT? In my mind they're even worse: 1. number of AP/IB classes student took (mostly dependent on how rich the school and how attentive and educated their parents are) 2. participation in extra-curriculars (again, participation in things Model United Nations are highly highly correlated with wealth) 3. volunteer experience or other outside of school experience (again highly correlated with wealth, students working pizza delivery at 16 don't have time for volunteering) I'm not saying the SAT/ACT is perfect, but at least everyone can easily get free or very cheap study materials and practice exams online and from libraries.
  - alephnan 5y ago
    Putting more weight on the math section than the reading/writing section which favors native speakers and those with more social context to interpret reading passages.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  Intelligence, on a macro level, is a measure of proper nutrition throughout childhood, which is a measure of social status and wealth. Life, on a macro level, is not fair.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wyager 5y ago
  Yes, but this doesn’t imply that SATs unfairly favor rich people. The most recent shared ancestor in this causal graph is “parents’ intelligence”, which causally influences both their expected wealth and their children’s intelligence. SAT is basically an IQ test.
- Meekro 5y ago
  You're right-- there will never be a metric that the rich won't find a way to game. SATs will get tutoring (and in rare cases, cheating). If colleges focus on grades, there will be grade inflation. Essays will be bought. Interviews will be coached for. Expensive family trips will be turned into stories about personal growth. If we accept all that, the question becomes this: if you were a poor but talented kid, which metric would you like them to focus on? I was a poor immigrant raised by a single parent, and to me the answer is that I want them to focus on the SAT. We could never afford the prep courses, but the prep books were cheap at the local bookstore and free at my high school library. I took advantage of that. Now there are even more options, such as the Khan Academy's free prep course. There's even some data suggesting the free course produces outcomes that rival the paid courses[1]. Bottom line, the SAT gave people like me a fair shot. It can be gamed a little, but I worry that replacing it with a "holistic approach" will just become a proxy for social/class status that will penalize people like me. [1] https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-personalized-official-sat-practice-khan-academy-115-point-average-score https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-pe...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  So is studying for math, or anything really.
fallingknife 5y ago
Yes, that's the plan. Ever notice that it's always upper middle class people bitching about the SAT's? That's because they're too poor for legacy / donor advantage, and they can't stand that poor people would have a fair shot through a standardized test.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  So what do they stand to gain by eliminating standardized testing, if they also don't benefit from legacy advantage?
  - baggy_trough 5y ago
    Extracurriculars and essays.
    - TchoBeer 5y ago
      I suppose poor people can't write essays? And if the argument is "wealthier students can afford help for writing essays" then the same could be said of the SATs too.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Essays for admission are never (at least when I went through the system) done under observation - they're take home assignments which makes them really easy to game. Interviews by alumni honestly seems like a pretty good evaluation metric - it is quite susceptible to legacy favorship though.
      - dhruvrrp 5y ago
        Think the problem is more with extracurricular activities. If you are well off, it easier to let your kid go to piano lessons, do some volunteer work, join a social mission to Africa during summers, etc.
  - mig39 5y ago
    Well, then they're judged on their extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities, rather than their SATs. I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do so well on those.
trentnix 5y ago
Yep. It enables discrimination because it enables college admissions to become almost entirely subjective. It's a way to get attaboys for banning legacies while simultaneously opening a back door to let them in without scrutiny. And that's not even mentioning all the other ways college admissions might discriminate against deserving candidates.
umvi 5y ago
Why does it encourage that? What incentive does admissions have to admit students with wealthy parents? To me it seems like it gives admissions an excuse to admit anyone they want even if they have super low test scores as long as it is in the name of inclusivity and diversity.
wyager 5y ago
They’ve redefined “equitable” to explicitly preclude any kind of meritocratic system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwkeep 5y ago
It's about reducing the number of Asian Americans in admissions, who vastly outperform other groups on the SAT(1). Ivy leagues like Harvard have been discriminating against Asians for years with affirmative action and bullshit like "personality score"(2). This is yet another anti-Asian, anti-merit move by ideologues who want an "equitable" pie chart of skin colors for their Powerpoint presentations. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-h... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

skrtskrt 5y ago

SAT and ACT scores are, on a macro level, a measure of social status and parent's wealth.

dylan604 5y ago
How's that exactly? I studied in school, took the tests, and received a score. I didn't have SAT tutors. I took the PSAT, and I sort of remember some practice workbooks. How did my receiving decent scores on those tests indicate my social status or parent's wealth?
- skrtskrt 5y ago
  > on a macro level
- quenix 5y ago
  The nature of these tests ensures that they are easy to score highly on through rote practice with a coach. Coaches cost money.
  - tooltalk 5y ago
    That must by why all those children of Asian immigrants excel on standardized exams, who btw also happen to be the poorest group in places like NYC. Many of them still send their kids to cram schools for coaching, however dire their financial situation, and their kids in turn sacrifice after-school, weekends, and summers vacation toiling with tutors/coaches. This insane unfairness has to end.
    - quenix 5y ago
      That there is more than one way to excel at a standardized test does not mean that economic inequality doesn't play a big role. Note that never at any point did I claim that _only_ money could lead to success on these tests. It's then irrelevant that a group of children from specific socio-economic and cultural circumstances and backgrounds happen to succeed on them. It doesn't matter—I didn't say it couldn't happen. Money plays a role because of the nature of the test. It's an unescapable reality that children who would otherwise score much lower scores highly simply because their parents can afford a tutor to hammer questions into their child and resolve doubts every day. They don't learn many life skills, true mathematical appreciation, scientific knowledge, or real literary analysis skill from the 'tutoring'—the test, then, is purely a reflection of the tutoring money they spent and not their actual college readiness.
      - tooltalk 5y ago
        the fact that you have to exclude inconvenient evidence to justify your argument very weakens it. I'm sick of racists comments that Asians don't matter, or they are always outliers as if they are invisible, especially when it comes to education.
        quenix 5y ago
        I don’t appreciate your characterization of my criticism of the SAT as racist. I didn’t say that “Asians are outliers”. I said that the fact that some people don’t pay to excel at a test doesn’t make the test inherently fair.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  They didn’t, at least not anymore than doing good in school does in general.
- kiba 5y ago
  Wealth means that a student can receive all the advantages of the best tutoring and preps that money can buy.
- whydoibother 5y ago
  He said macro level. In other words, statistically kids do better when they are in a wealthier household or have higher educated parents. You also never mentioned what exactly your social status or wealth was then. Were you living in poverty when you got those scores?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    My exeperience has much less to do with what level of poverty one was considered. Back when I was in school while Moses was in his cradle and dirt was being invented, there were no specialist tutors for taking tests. Teachers taught subjects, students learned said subject to the best of their abilities, and then took tests. Tutors were typically older students that did well in the subject matter, or even extra time with teachers before/after school. My parents would have laughed at me to ask for testing tutors, and would have rather less politely to put my nose back in a book and study harder.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level. Did you have to worry about food or housing situations, have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working, deal with substance abuse of parents, or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families? You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        >Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level Somethings I just don't volunteer as they are private, but since you asked in this very public forum: >Did you worry about food or housing situations yes >have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working yes >deal with substance abuse of parents luckily, no. but abuse from parent, yes. parents with undiagnosed medical conditions, yes. >or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families yes >You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things. To quote the Dude, "that's like, your opinion, man". There were definite obstacles to overcome. I was able to, others are not. I'm not judging anyone for not being able to as situations are different, yet you seem to be wanting to judge me. My economic situation changed as did the economy dictated the earning ability of parent's jobs. I was taught how to talk to people that came to the door looking for the "adults" or called on the phone (before we finally went without a phone all through my high school years). Did I live in the ghetto? No. One of the better financial decisions my parents made and were able to do was built their own house. Not paid a builder, my dad and grandfather cut the wood, swung the hammers. What was your situation like?
- throwaway33432 5y ago
  intelligence has a hereditary component; social status and wealth correlate with intelligence.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  I think the argument is that someone whose parents are richer can afford to boost their kids' scores through tutoring, prep classes etc. So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead. I think one needs to be careful of survivorship bias here -- "the system worked for me, so it is fine". The issue with banning SAT/ACTs, etc. is that is the system they're using in its place with actually better? However, many well off parents will feel like they worked hard to move up, and provide their kids with best educational opportunities... but now the rules are changing. It is definitely a hard problem to try to equalize for wealth and at the same time not overly penalizing somewhat wealthy parents that also care about kids' education.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead. This is true of pretty much every single thing they can use to measure students, though. Test scores, classwork scores, sports, extracurricular activities, social interactions; all of these things are easier for children in wealthier families.
    - deadmutex 5y ago
      Indeed, it is not an easy problem
    - lr4444lr 5y ago
      And SATs are the ONE thing that has to be performed openly when it counts without any kind of coaching, proofreading, parental persuasion, or social connection.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Snoozle 5y ago
Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases? I grew up poor and did badly in school, but I was smart enough to score in the top 3% of SAT scores and that allowed me to get in to many colleges that I wanted, something I would not have had based on my grades and ability to pay.
- monocasa 5y ago
  You can still submit test scores, this just means that the colleges don't require them.
- ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
  “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...
  - Glavnokoman 5y ago
    Meaning what?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
      Meaning that if you have money you will get a better score than if you don't. If that's not a problem to you then fine but I think its a little messed up.
      - Glavnokoman 5y ago
        Is it just owning the money which grants you a better score? In that case that's the problem indeed. But if you think that investing money in your or your kids development is a problem I tend to disagree. That's the whole point of having money.
evantahler 5y ago
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-been-cancelled https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee... is a good podcast explaining how
jostmey 5y ago
The purpose of standardized testing is identify the most worthy candidate. It is meant to be colorblind. Certainly it is not perfect, and wealthy families can help their kids game the system, but it is at least something. If you remove standardized testing, what will you replace it with?
SatvikBeri 5y ago
This is a commonly repeated myth but it's untrue. For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size In contrast, holistic measures like looking at extracurriculars are much more correlated to wealth and social status.
- throwkeep 5y ago
  That myth comes from the test prep industry, which makes exaggerated claims about their importance. "Once scholars control for all these factors as best they can, they find that coaching has a positive but small effect: Perhaps 10 or 20 points in total on the SAT, mostly on the math section, according to careful work by Derek Briggs of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ben Domingue of Stanford University. ...a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools. Even when it comes to less selective schools, just 20 percent of the counselors said a boost from 430 to 450 would make a difference. In other words, research has debunked the myth that pricey test prep gives a major bump to students’ scores, but it’s also hinted that whatever modest bumps they do provide are more likely to help the people who are already at the top." https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-they-work-bias.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 5y ago
  > For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores I really don't understand how this statement is even remotely true. The only thing I can think of is that "coaching" is too broad--ie. includes both students who spend 100+ hours and students who spent an hour at a talk by the guidance counselor. Doing nothing other than taking a couple sample tests has to net you a bunch of points because you don't have to waste time reading the directions. Simply drilling basic mathematics so I could do "1+1" and come up with 2 regularly netted me almost 250 points in Math (standardized tests like the SAT are really nasty about having answers that match the common mistakes). Going through 6000 vocabulary words pulled my verbal up almost 250 points (and had a dramatic effect on my writing). But that's far beyond "coaching" ... that's a multi-year commitment.
sparrc 5y ago
but what are the alternatives to SAT/ACT? In my mind they're even worse: 1. number of AP/IB classes student took (mostly dependent on how rich the school and how attentive and educated their parents are) 2. participation in extra-curriculars (again, participation in things Model United Nations are highly highly correlated with wealth) 3. volunteer experience or other outside of school experience (again highly correlated with wealth, students working pizza delivery at 16 don't have time for volunteering) I'm not saying the SAT/ACT is perfect, but at least everyone can easily get free or very cheap study materials and practice exams online and from libraries.
- alephnan 5y ago
  Putting more weight on the math section than the reading/writing section which favors native speakers and those with more social context to interpret reading passages.
nickysielicki 5y ago
Intelligence, on a macro level, is a measure of proper nutrition throughout childhood, which is a measure of social status and wealth. Life, on a macro level, is not fair.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wyager 5y ago
Yes, but this doesn’t imply that SATs unfairly favor rich people. The most recent shared ancestor in this causal graph is “parents’ intelligence”, which causally influences both their expected wealth and their children’s intelligence. SAT is basically an IQ test.
Meekro 5y ago
You're right-- there will never be a metric that the rich won't find a way to game. SATs will get tutoring (and in rare cases, cheating). If colleges focus on grades, there will be grade inflation. Essays will be bought. Interviews will be coached for. Expensive family trips will be turned into stories about personal growth. If we accept all that, the question becomes this: if you were a poor but talented kid, which metric would you like them to focus on? I was a poor immigrant raised by a single parent, and to me the answer is that I want them to focus on the SAT. We could never afford the prep courses, but the prep books were cheap at the local bookstore and free at my high school library. I took advantage of that. Now there are even more options, such as the Khan Academy's free prep course. There's even some data suggesting the free course produces outcomes that rival the paid courses[1]. Bottom line, the SAT gave people like me a fair shot. It can be gamed a little, but I worry that replacing it with a "holistic approach" will just become a proxy for social/class status that will penalize people like me. [1] https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-personalized-official-sat-practice-khan-academy-115-point-average-score https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-pe...
threatofrain 5y ago
So is studying for math, or anything really.

fallingknife 5y ago

Yes, that's the plan. Ever notice that it's always upper middle class people bitching about the SAT's? That's because they're too poor for legacy / donor advantage, and they can't stand that poor people would have a fair shot through a standardized test.

TchoBeer 5y ago
So what do they stand to gain by eliminating standardized testing, if they also don't benefit from legacy advantage?
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  Extracurriculars and essays.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    I suppose poor people can't write essays? And if the argument is "wealthier students can afford help for writing essays" then the same could be said of the SATs too.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Essays for admission are never (at least when I went through the system) done under observation - they're take home assignments which makes them really easy to game. Interviews by alumni honestly seems like a pretty good evaluation metric - it is quite susceptible to legacy favorship though.
    - dhruvrrp 5y ago
      Think the problem is more with extracurricular activities. If you are well off, it easier to let your kid go to piano lessons, do some volunteer work, join a social mission to Africa during summers, etc.
- mig39 5y ago
  Well, then they're judged on their extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities, rather than their SATs. I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do so well on those.

trentnix 5y ago

Yep. It enables discrimination because it enables college admissions to become almost entirely subjective. It's a way to get attaboys for banning legacies while simultaneously opening a back door to let them in without scrutiny. And that's not even mentioning all the other ways college admissions might discriminate against deserving candidates.

umvi 5y ago

Why does it encourage that? What incentive does admissions have to admit students with wealthy parents? To me it seems like it gives admissions an excuse to admit anyone they want even if they have super low test scores as long as it is in the name of inclusivity and diversity.

wyager 5y ago

They’ve redefined “equitable” to explicitly preclude any kind of meritocratic system.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwkeep 5y ago

It's about reducing the number of Asian Americans in admissions, who vastly outperform other groups on the SAT(1). Ivy leagues like Harvard have been discriminating against Asians for years with affirmative action and bullshit like "personality score"(2). This is yet another anti-Asian, anti-merit move by ideologues who want an "equitable" pie chart of skin colors for their Powerpoint presentations. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-h... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...