3 ms·

It would be a pathological situation and I do not see how it could be beneficial short or long term. As a society we should make sure that the brightest people

by kukx 5y ago

It would be a pathological situation and I do not see how it could be beneficial short or long term. As a society we should make sure that the brightest people get appropriate knowledge and become as productive as possible, as it is in our interest. Smart people is one of the biggest resource the society has. It would be a waste not to use it to the fullest extent possible.

asoneth 5y ago
> As a society we should make sure that the brightest people get appropriate knowledge and become as productive as possible Right, that's exactly why I believe we should factor in things like a student's school and zip code along with their standardized test scores, so that we can identify the bright kids who are otherwise being underutilized. Using standardized test scores alone means kids with middling intelligence but lots of educational resources will edge out brighter kids without those resources. Plus a kid with a lot of educational resources at their disposal will probably be fine either way, so identifying and advancing underutilized kids will likely yield a higher ROI.
- kukx 5y ago
  I am convinced that the standardized test should be the main or sole factor. Taking into account environmental variables is going to be overly arbitrary and likely to turn political and corrupt leading to worse results on average. If the test is designed well and puts emphasis on measuring IQ then the difference in ed resources should not skew the results too much.
  - asoneth 5y ago
    If there existed a stand-alone test that could measure intelligence I would agree with you. But current standardized tests like the SAT and GRE measure a combination of intelligence, time spent studying, and money spent on educational resources like test prep tutors + materials. Taking into account environmental variables is just an attempt to statistically control for the third variable and make the test more accurate at measuring intelligence. I definitely think NYC is overcompensating by tossing testing entirely, and that's bad. But relying on raw scores is no less arbitrary or political than composite scores that attempt to control for confounding variables. With respect to considering multiple factors, most elite colleges and universities already do that. For example, in the admissions processes I've been directly involved with the test scores had to meet certain thresholds depending on the program the candidate was applying to, but beyond that the reviewers focused on other factors. I mean if someone who didn't go to an elite high school got a stellar score then one of the reviewers would probably note it in the report, but otherwise it just wasn't a major factor in deciding who to admit.

by kukx 5y ago

asoneth 5y ago

> As a society we should make sure that the brightest people get appropriate knowledge and become as productive as possible Right, that's exactly why I believe we should factor in things like a student's school and zip code along with their standardized test scores, so that we can identify the bright kids who are otherwise being underutilized. Using standardized test scores alone means kids with middling intelligence but lots of educational resources will edge out brighter kids without those resources. Plus a kid with a lot of educational resources at their disposal will probably be fine either way, so identifying and advancing underutilized kids will likely yield a higher ROI.

kukx 5y ago
I am convinced that the standardized test should be the main or sole factor. Taking into account environmental variables is going to be overly arbitrary and likely to turn political and corrupt leading to worse results on average. If the test is designed well and puts emphasis on measuring IQ then the difference in ed resources should not skew the results too much.
- asoneth 5y ago
  If there existed a stand-alone test that could measure intelligence I would agree with you. But current standardized tests like the SAT and GRE measure a combination of intelligence, time spent studying, and money spent on educational resources like test prep tutors + materials. Taking into account environmental variables is just an attempt to statistically control for the third variable and make the test more accurate at measuring intelligence. I definitely think NYC is overcompensating by tossing testing entirely, and that's bad. But relying on raw scores is no less arbitrary or political than composite scores that attempt to control for confounding variables. With respect to considering multiple factors, most elite colleges and universities already do that. For example, in the admissions processes I've been directly involved with the test scores had to meet certain thresholds depending on the program the candidate was applying to, but beyond that the reviewers focused on other factors. I mean if someone who didn't go to an elite high school got a stellar score then one of the reviewers would probably note it in the report, but otherwise it just wasn't a major factor in deciding who to admit.