6 ms·

So what do they stand to gain by eliminating standardized testing, if they also don't benefit from legacy advantage?

by TchoBeer 5y ago

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.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do as well on the SATs either.
  - jostmey 5y ago
    Try participating in extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities while working a minimum wage job 20+ hours a week and going to school. Have you worked in a restaurant? It is fu##ing exhausting. At least testing tries to achieve standardized results. It is not perfect but it is better than the current alternative
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      But the question is , is it better ? From my experience the test all come down to if a student is lucky enough to have caring parents and test prep. Wouldn’t a better metric be to have that minimum wage job count as a extra curricular activity?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - monetus 5y ago
        Why are you trying to improve the world rather than choose between two bad choices? /s Applying data from other complex systems besides our own might not be easy, but surely other countries have some studies we could compare with our own. I'm going to go look. Hope you're having a nice day.
  - whoooooo123 5y ago
    My wife is from a fairly poor background and had few advantages growing up, but her country rigourously uses standardised testing for university admissions. She didn't have any extra curriculars or after school activities to brag about in her personal essay, but she aced the standardised test and got into the best university in her country and now she has a successful career and lives a lifestyle far more affluent than anything her parents could have dreamed of. Without standardised testing she wouldn't have had a chance. The drive to eliminate standardised testing is insane, and it can only hurt minorities and the already-disadvantaged, to the benefit of the elite. But then that's the whole point.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Entrance by subjective determination. Might as well make it a lottery. Apply, get ticket, random number generator makes selection.
- tolbish 5y ago
  If this were clearly a bad thing, wouldn't the schools that don't do this produce much higher quality graduates?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Honestly, I have no idea. I think everyone is seeking signal when a lot of life is luck. Smart people will overcome except when they can’t (smart people fail despite their best efforts all the time) and those who might be unable to achieve (whether because of lack of intelligence or because of life circumstances) might still stumble into success. It’s a crapshoot, but pulling levers makes everyone look like they’re trying to fix whatever they want to fix. We’re optimizing for the wrong problems (selective admissions for limited slots), versus working towards universal access to high quality instruction regardless of location.
    - tolbish 5y ago
      You make it sound like it's not something that should be fixed. Any alternative ways of enabling lower-middle class kids with fewer resources to achieve opportunities at success?
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Universal access (free) to community colleges, remote learning MOOCs from those top in their fields. Commodify higher education and distribute widely, don’t reward artificial scarcity. Existing colleges do not have incentives to do this. They are incentivized to protect the value of their brand and their institution, and to preserve scarcity and gated access to credentials.
fallingknife 5y ago
If you can't compete in intelligence, you want to compete in bullshit (essays / "activities") because you have a much better chance of winning that than someone who can't afford it.
- neom 5y ago
  Is the SAT or ACT a particularly good test of intelligence? Smarts, maybe, but I've met a lot of extremely intelligent, talented people who are not particularly "smart" by these measures.
  - moftz 5y ago
    You can practice and take classes that teach you how to do well on the SAT/ACT. No guarantee that you'll ace it but you'll do much better if you know the strategy behind a perfect score.
    - neom 5y ago
      I don't understand what that has to do with intelligence? Rote learning doesn't make you intelligent. Again, OP specifically said "if you can't complete on intelligence" and then went on to draw a link to "activities" being bullshit, and therefore a not a measure of intelligence. That makes no sense at all.
    - mechagodzilla 5y ago
      This is one of the reasons people with more resources do much better on these tests - getting test-specific tutoring, taking prep classes, etc. will significantly raise most people's scores. The tests are much closer to measuring "How good are you at taking the SAT/ACT?" than some kind of unbiased "How brilliant are you?" measurement.
      - whoooooo123 5y ago
        As opposed to all those other academic tests where resources and preparation make no difference?
fortran77 5y ago
Without SATs, upper income parents can put their kids in private schools with inflated grades and pay top dollar for high-end extracurriculars, sports and music coaches, etc. While I won't get into whether the SATs also "discriminate" in some way against students who are disadvantaged by poverty, etc., eliminating the SAT won't solve the problem. It will just make things worse! They are, for all their problems, a great equalizer.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  In my country, universities don't compare school grades apples-to-apples. Usually if a school gives out inflated grades, that is taken into consideration.
- handrous 5y ago
  It's my understanding that, at least for elite private college admissions, the extremely high quality of college admissions counsellors at decent-or-better prep high schools is a major advantage. They know admissions officers by name at several schools, they know which rules are firm and must be followed and which can be bent or ignored to the applicant's advantage, they write excellent recommendation letters, they give highly tailored and accurate advice on getting into specific schools, the do a good job of focusing their and the students' efforts on schools they actually do have a good chance of getting in to (and also not aiming too low) and ruling out long-shots early to improve chances (because more, better-focused effort) at the remaining options, that kind of thing. Probably less of a factor at (most) state schools, though.
  - naturalauction 5y ago
    It's much worse than that - there is whole industry around college admissions consulting. Why depend on your high-school counselor when you can hire an expert? In the worst cases the expert even helps students effectively pre-plan their whole high school experience to increase students' chances of getting in to elite schools.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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.

TchoBeer 5y ago
I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do as well on the SATs either.
- jostmey 5y ago
  Try participating in extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities while working a minimum wage job 20+ hours a week and going to school. Have you worked in a restaurant? It is fu##ing exhausting. At least testing tries to achieve standardized results. It is not perfect but it is better than the current alternative
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    But the question is , is it better ? From my experience the test all come down to if a student is lucky enough to have caring parents and test prep. Wouldn’t a better metric be to have that minimum wage job count as a extra curricular activity?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - monetus 5y ago
      Why are you trying to improve the world rather than choose between two bad choices? /s Applying data from other complex systems besides our own might not be easy, but surely other countries have some studies we could compare with our own. I'm going to go look. Hope you're having a nice day.
- whoooooo123 5y ago
  My wife is from a fairly poor background and had few advantages growing up, but her country rigourously uses standardised testing for university admissions. She didn't have any extra curriculars or after school activities to brag about in her personal essay, but she aced the standardised test and got into the best university in her country and now she has a successful career and lives a lifestyle far more affluent than anything her parents could have dreamed of. Without standardised testing she wouldn't have had a chance. The drive to eliminate standardised testing is insane, and it can only hurt minorities and the already-disadvantaged, to the benefit of the elite. But then that's the whole point.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Entrance by subjective determination. Might as well make it a lottery. Apply, get ticket, random number generator makes selection.

tolbish 5y ago
If this were clearly a bad thing, wouldn't the schools that don't do this produce much higher quality graduates?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Honestly, I have no idea. I think everyone is seeking signal when a lot of life is luck. Smart people will overcome except when they can’t (smart people fail despite their best efforts all the time) and those who might be unable to achieve (whether because of lack of intelligence or because of life circumstances) might still stumble into success. It’s a crapshoot, but pulling levers makes everyone look like they’re trying to fix whatever they want to fix. We’re optimizing for the wrong problems (selective admissions for limited slots), versus working towards universal access to high quality instruction regardless of location.
  - tolbish 5y ago
    You make it sound like it's not something that should be fixed. Any alternative ways of enabling lower-middle class kids with fewer resources to achieve opportunities at success?
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Universal access (free) to community colleges, remote learning MOOCs from those top in their fields. Commodify higher education and distribute widely, don’t reward artificial scarcity. Existing colleges do not have incentives to do this. They are incentivized to protect the value of their brand and their institution, and to preserve scarcity and gated access to credentials.

fallingknife 5y ago

If you can't compete in intelligence, you want to compete in bullshit (essays / "activities") because you have a much better chance of winning that than someone who can't afford it.

neom 5y ago
Is the SAT or ACT a particularly good test of intelligence? Smarts, maybe, but I've met a lot of extremely intelligent, talented people who are not particularly "smart" by these measures.
- moftz 5y ago
  You can practice and take classes that teach you how to do well on the SAT/ACT. No guarantee that you'll ace it but you'll do much better if you know the strategy behind a perfect score.
  - neom 5y ago
    I don't understand what that has to do with intelligence? Rote learning doesn't make you intelligent. Again, OP specifically said "if you can't complete on intelligence" and then went on to draw a link to "activities" being bullshit, and therefore a not a measure of intelligence. That makes no sense at all.
  - mechagodzilla 5y ago
    This is one of the reasons people with more resources do much better on these tests - getting test-specific tutoring, taking prep classes, etc. will significantly raise most people's scores. The tests are much closer to measuring "How good are you at taking the SAT/ACT?" than some kind of unbiased "How brilliant are you?" measurement.
    - whoooooo123 5y ago
      As opposed to all those other academic tests where resources and preparation make no difference?

fortran77 5y ago

Without SATs, upper income parents can put their kids in private schools with inflated grades and pay top dollar for high-end extracurriculars, sports and music coaches, etc. While I won't get into whether the SATs also "discriminate" in some way against students who are disadvantaged by poverty, etc., eliminating the SAT won't solve the problem. It will just make things worse! They are, for all their problems, a great equalizer.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
In my country, universities don't compare school grades apples-to-apples. Usually if a school gives out inflated grades, that is taken into consideration.
handrous 5y ago
It's my understanding that, at least for elite private college admissions, the extremely high quality of college admissions counsellors at decent-or-better prep high schools is a major advantage. They know admissions officers by name at several schools, they know which rules are firm and must be followed and which can be bent or ignored to the applicant's advantage, they write excellent recommendation letters, they give highly tailored and accurate advice on getting into specific schools, the do a good job of focusing their and the students' efforts on schools they actually do have a good chance of getting in to (and also not aiming too low) and ruling out long-shots early to improve chances (because more, better-focused effort) at the remaining options, that kind of thing. Probably less of a factor at (most) state schools, though.
- naturalauction 5y ago
  It's much worse than that - there is whole industry around college admissions consulting. Why depend on your high-school counselor when you can hire an expert? In the worst cases the expert even helps students effectively pre-plan their whole high school experience to increase students' chances of getting in to elite schools.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]