5 ms·

I was born in yugoslavia (later slovenia), under the red star, communism, brotherhood, unity, equality, and all other communist bullshit back then. ...and even

I was born in yugoslavia (later slovenia), under the red star, communism, brotherhood, unity, equality, and all other communist bullshit back then. ...and even then we had standardized testing, and it worked. You went to elementary school, usually the closest to your house (from about 6/7yo to 14/15, =8 years), and at the end of that, you'd apply to a highschool of your choice (either general "gymnasium", or 3 or 4 year technical, trades, economic etc. school), and then you'd have standardized tests. Your grades in last three years and your test scores would be calculated into points (i think it was 120 points max), high schools would sort the applicants by points, and however many spots were available, that many top students would get accepted and a cuttoff point value was published (everybody above X points got accepted). In high school it was a bit more complicated, because standardized testing had three core subjects (slovene, math and usually english (1st foreign language)) plus two subjects chosen by the students. Colleges would post requirements in advance - most had just 40% grades, 60% standardized testing, some (i think medicine) required one of the two chosen subjects to be either biology or chemistry (and it was 20% that subject, 40% grades, 40% other subjects), and only a few (art, acting, music) had entrance exams. And the process was the same as before... everybody did the tests, results got calculated into points (i think 0-100), top X got accepted. The exams included knowledge from all the years of schooling, and tutors were a thing for "bad" students, who couldn't learn enough from the teacher (or didn't listen, did other stuff, failed, and had to get a higher grade, not to fail the whole year). With math, you had to know math... there was a lot of practice in school with every part of math, and tutoring was no better than just doing the work from regular workbooks. With history, well.. you had to memorize a lot of stuff, but you knew that when you chose the subject. There was no way to game the system, because everybody did the same programme. I have no idea why only america has issues with standardized tests... IMHO, using grades is worse than testing, because an average students with shitty classmates will in general get better grades, than in a class with mostly "geniouses".

ldiracdelta 5y ago
Some people in America don't like SAT's because of "disparate impact" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  But this is a thing that needs to be fixed in earlier education (basically the schooling/schools before college need to be fixed), and not later, where you basically accept an objectively worse applicant, because they happen to be some specific race.
jacobolus 5y ago
> IMHO, using grades is worse than testing Empirically, grades are more predictive of college outcomes than test scores. Both are pretty artificial though, and cause various kinds of perverse incentives.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Grades are very subjective, especially with oral exams.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> I have no idea why only america has issues with standardized tests... The United States has issues with standardized tests because (1) its black population performs very, very badly on them, while (2) official policy is that the black population should enjoy outcomes such as college admission or job offers that are in line with its share of the total population, not with performance against objective metrics. Note that communist societies had the analogous problem; whenever they implemented standardized testing, class enemies filled the ranks of top scorers.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Shouldn't this be fixed earlier, and not after they get the lower scores? Equal opportunity is ok, but equal outcome is really shitty for kids of other groups who work hard and lose their spots due to the color of their skin. > Note that communist societies had the analogous problem; whenever they implemented standardized testing, class enemies filled the ranks of top scorers. Meh, we were lucky, we were the "3rd world" (literal definition, before the current one), and our top students left the country and worked in other, western, capitalist countries (and sent money back to their families :)) I think for a huge range of years, our biggest export was the workforce :)
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > Shouldn't this be fixed earlier, and not after they get the lower scores? There is no point earlier than when they get the lower scores. The performance gap is apparent at all ages where performance can be measured at all.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      But why fix then? Will the performance gap vanish when they get accepted by an university (even if someone else from some other group, wouldn't get accepted with the same score)?
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
There's a decent argument to be made that standardized tests distort the education system by making good test results the goal of teaching and attending class, rather than learning whatever the class is supposed to teach. To put it differently, it's not comparing students on the basis of tests that's the problem, it's what those tests cause the students and teachers to do in the year leading up to them. I used to be quite strongly anti-test because in my opinion, testing well is a skill like any other that can be learned largely independently of what the test is on, and it doesn't transfer outside of a school environment. I've softened that opinion a little because testing well seems to require performing abstract thought under stress, which is probably useful in more situations than I originally thought. Still, while it's useful for categorizing students, I still suspect it has a net negative effect on learning outcomes.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Can't the tests be made to reflect the whole subjects? For example have the math test cover everything that high school math programmes are supposed to teach, so there's no way to prepare for the test, except to actually teach the whole subject? For example, our general high schools ("gymnasiums") have predefined lists of topics, that sudents will learn there, and the standardized tests basically cover everything. How can you prep for eg. derivatives, except by actually learning and doing derivatives?
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    One needs to learn derivatives at least in the form they'll be on the test. A lot of high school teachers I had were familiar enough with sorts of questions on the standardized tests their classes would be taking that they taught these subjects with an artificially narrow focus, in order to boost our grades compared to other schools. Of course, teachers at those schools no doubt did the same. The result is that a lot of people who studied eg. derivatives would be much less able to apply that knowledge in any environment except the standardised test.
_RPL5_ 5y ago
Russians introduced standardized testing for college admissions in late 2000s. The stated goal was to curb regional variations in GPA (easier to get high GPA in a bad district), and to make it easier to apply to colleges outside of your immediate city [1]. The kids & parents have generally gotten used to the testing, but the teachers & educators absolutely despise it. You regularly see diatribes on social media against it. The crux of their criticism is that standardized testing emphasizes very niche test-testing skills as opposed to a holistic education. But overall, I'd tend to agree - standardized tests are a good thing. They help streamline the admission process and make it less painful/variable, which is good thing for society as a whole. ---- [1] Prior to standardized testing, each university in Russia held its own full-on series of admission exams that would take 1 to 2 weeks. Even if you were lucky and lived in a city with several universities, the logistics would limit you to 3 or 4 college applications at most. The "SAT" alleviates this, as most universities now use it as the sole application metric. So you can apply to an unlimited number of schools. That being said, universities retained the capacity to do their own testing, for example for foreign students who didn't take the SATs. I think elite schools & programs (like a physics program at a top technical college in Moscow) may require additional testing. But overall, the admissions system they have in Russia now seems to closely approximate what you describe for Slovenia.

ldiracdelta 5y ago

Some people in America don't like SAT's because of "disparate impact" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
But this is a thing that needs to be fixed in earlier education (basically the schooling/schools before college need to be fixed), and not later, where you basically accept an objectively worse applicant, because they happen to be some specific race.

jacobolus 5y ago

> IMHO, using grades is worse than testing Empirically, grades are more predictive of college outcomes than test scores. Both are pretty artificial though, and cause various kinds of perverse incentives.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Grades are very subjective, especially with oral exams.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> I have no idea why only america has issues with standardized tests... The United States has issues with standardized tests because (1) its black population performs very, very badly on them, while (2) official policy is that the black population should enjoy outcomes such as college admission or job offers that are in line with its share of the total population, not with performance against objective metrics. Note that communist societies had the analogous problem; whenever they implemented standardized testing, class enemies filled the ranks of top scorers.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Shouldn't this be fixed earlier, and not after they get the lower scores? Equal opportunity is ok, but equal outcome is really shitty for kids of other groups who work hard and lose their spots due to the color of their skin. > Note that communist societies had the analogous problem; whenever they implemented standardized testing, class enemies filled the ranks of top scorers. Meh, we were lucky, we were the "3rd world" (literal definition, before the current one), and our top students left the country and worked in other, western, capitalist countries (and sent money back to their families :)) I think for a huge range of years, our biggest export was the workforce :)
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Shouldn't this be fixed earlier, and not after they get the lower scores? There is no point earlier than when they get the lower scores. The performance gap is apparent at all ages where performance can be measured at all.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    But why fix then? Will the performance gap vanish when they get accepted by an university (even if someone else from some other group, wouldn't get accepted with the same score)?
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

There's a decent argument to be made that standardized tests distort the education system by making good test results the goal of teaching and attending class, rather than learning whatever the class is supposed to teach. To put it differently, it's not comparing students on the basis of tests that's the problem, it's what those tests cause the students and teachers to do in the year leading up to them. I used to be quite strongly anti-test because in my opinion, testing well is a skill like any other that can be learned largely independently of what the test is on, and it doesn't transfer outside of a school environment. I've softened that opinion a little because testing well seems to require performing abstract thought under stress, which is probably useful in more situations than I originally thought. Still, while it's useful for categorizing students, I still suspect it has a net negative effect on learning outcomes.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Can't the tests be made to reflect the whole subjects? For example have the math test cover everything that high school math programmes are supposed to teach, so there's no way to prepare for the test, except to actually teach the whole subject? For example, our general high schools ("gymnasiums") have predefined lists of topics, that sudents will learn there, and the standardized tests basically cover everything. How can you prep for eg. derivatives, except by actually learning and doing derivatives?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  One needs to learn derivatives at least in the form they'll be on the test. A lot of high school teachers I had were familiar enough with sorts of questions on the standardized tests their classes would be taking that they taught these subjects with an artificially narrow focus, in order to boost our grades compared to other schools. Of course, teachers at those schools no doubt did the same. The result is that a lot of people who studied eg. derivatives would be much less able to apply that knowledge in any environment except the standardised test.

_RPL5_ 5y ago

Russians introduced standardized testing for college admissions in late 2000s. The stated goal was to curb regional variations in GPA (easier to get high GPA in a bad district), and to make it easier to apply to colleges outside of your immediate city [1]. The kids & parents have generally gotten used to the testing, but the teachers & educators absolutely despise it. You regularly see diatribes on social media against it. The crux of their criticism is that standardized testing emphasizes very niche test-testing skills as opposed to a holistic education. But overall, I'd tend to agree - standardized tests are a good thing. They help streamline the admission process and make it less painful/variable, which is good thing for society as a whole. ---- [1] Prior to standardized testing, each university in Russia held its own full-on series of admission exams that would take 1 to 2 weeks. Even if you were lucky and lived in a city with several universities, the logistics would limit you to 3 or 4 college applications at most. The "SAT" alleviates this, as most universities now use it as the sole application metric. So you can apply to an unlimited number of schools. That being said, universities retained the capacity to do their own testing, for example for foreign students who didn't take the SATs. I think elite schools & programs (like a physics program at a top technical college in Moscow) may require additional testing. But overall, the admissions system they have in Russia now seems to closely approximate what you describe for Slovenia.