8 ms·

I think it gives Harvard a lot of cover for their admissions decisions. As you noted, Harvard has come under fire for rejecting a lot of Asian American applican

by mdasen 5y ago

I think it gives Harvard a lot of cover for their admissions decisions. As you noted, Harvard has come under fire for rejecting a lot of Asian American applicants while also coming under fire for letting in less-qualified legacy applicants. While standardized tests have biases that are problematic, this move allows them to be more or less biased as they choose. It's possible that they will become less biased in their admissions, but it's also possible they'll become more biased. The University of California has also announced that they won't be considering SAT/ACT scores for admission. California forbids affirmative action in their state schools and while the SAT/ACT aren't objective tests, people often treat them as such and it provides a number for people to compare (whereas you can't really compare "really good at guitar" with "volunteers planting trees"). It's led to Berkeley being 2% Black and UCLA being 3% Black while Stanford is 7% Black and USC is 5% Black. Also notable, Berkeley is 24% White and UCLA is 26% White while Stanford is 32% White and USC is 37% White; Berkeley/UCLA are 36%/28% Asian vs 23%/21% for Stanford/USC. The University of California system is certainly having its admissions decisions impacted by California laws against affirmative action in their public universities. I don't expect Harvard's admissions makeup to change significantly. I just expect it to be harder for third-parties (who might want to sue) to compare data. If you're qualitatively comparing applications that take a lot of time to review, it makes a lawsuit very difficult. If you're able to compare a numeric score, it makes it less time-consuming (even if the numeric score is biased/inaccurate, people often treat it as unbiased/accurate). It's easier to argue qualitative differences in judgement too and means that you have to start challenging things individually rather than as a class (which basically makes it impossible). With the University of California, it will be interesting to see if they start coming closer to peer institutions in their student body.

_brnu 5y ago
How are the SAT/ACT not objective tests? Are they not objective measures of how you perform on the SAT/ACT? There are abundant low cost practice guides and study materials. I came from a very poor family and with some practice at home scored very well on the SAT. It was one of the few tools I had to attract college admissions boards. I feel like taking that away will severely disadvantage poor kids who are otherwise bright with strong work ethics.
- dastbe 5y ago
  put a big IMO/IMU around all of this, but the SAT/ACT isn't objective in the sense that studying for them is something you can do to improve your score and your prospects. However, it is also transparent in how you do that: you take a course, get study books, and/or take practice tests and there are programs out that have been trying to help disadvantaged students get access to these tools. its also much more cost effective compared to the other solutions like going to a private school (difficult, can be costly without aid) or getting into expensive niche sports. so imo getting rid of standardized tests does get rid of a subjective rating of an applicant which is good in theory, but when you leave in all of the other subjective ratings that are much more difficult for disadvantaged students to do well on it who is it actually benefiting?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    It’s well-known how to train for foot races and that training will improve your natural/untrained performance. That doesn’t make a timed foot race a subjective measure, IMO.
    - dastbe 5y ago
      subjective/objective are probably not the right adjectives here, but to use your example I would say that a timed foot race is an objective measure of how well you do in timed foot races, but is not an objective measure of your innate athletic ability because of training/coaching and you have to factor those to attempt to back into physical ability. the same is true for the SAT, in that people treat it like an intelligence/general knowledge test when you have to factor in the specific training that person has had for the SAT itself.
      - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
        So what do you propose is more objective (or whatever qualifier you prefer) than the SAT? Pointing out shortcomings of standardized tests is one thing. Advocating for eliminating what seems to be our most equal/standardized/objective/whatever measurement without a replacement seems like a bad idea to me.
pc86 5y ago
There seems to be a lot of bending over backwards here to say over and over again the SAT/ACT aren't objective. I'm not discounting the role socioeconomic status, parental influence, school district, family income etc. have on one's life, but at the end of the day if you get more questions right, you have a higher score. That's what objective means. We can talk about making the test more equitable, whether or not we should do that, and whether or not that's a good thing for college admissions specifically or education in general, but it doesn't change the fact that the tests are by definition objective measures of whether or not you know the things on the test at the time you take it.
- 8note 5y ago
  Let's propose an experiment then. You take the test twice, once with a blindfold on, and once without a blindfold. As an objective measure of your intelligence, I expect you to get the same results on both tests You are considering whether it's objective only by that the reader at the end sees the final score, but there's many spots in between an empty sheet of paper and that score where somebody's subjective experience comes into play
  - pc86 5y ago
    That's like saying putting something on a scale isn't an objective measure of its weight because you can just take the batteries out of the scale. I'm considering it objective because the more correct answers you get, the higher your score. We can argue about whether or not the stuff on the test is important. We can discuss the various environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that go into the kids taking it and how that impacts scores statistically. We can even talk about the various medical and neurological factors that go into test taking generally and standardized test taking specifically that can affect some people more than others. I'll even concede that the SAT/ACT isn't a test of your intelligence so much as it is a test of how well you did on the SAT/ACT, just like putting things on a scale may at best be a measure of its weight relative to other things on that specific scale. But at the end of the day, more right answers === a higher score, and I'm not sure how you get any more objective than that when it comes to something as fluid as academic ability.
killjoywashere 5y ago
> Berkeley/UCLA are 36%/28% Asian vs 23%/21% for Stanford/USC. The University of California system is certainly having its admissions decisions impacted by California laws against affirmative action By comparison, Asian and Pacific Islander populations combined only make up 15% of the California population (1). I don't suppose the interaction of affirmative action policy and cultural differences might have inadvertently advantaged a couple of Asian subpopulations that are now pissed that the basis of their advantage is being taken away? (1) https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/
- tell_the_truth 5y ago

by mdasen 5y ago

_brnu 5y ago

How are the SAT/ACT not objective tests? Are they not objective measures of how you perform on the SAT/ACT? There are abundant low cost practice guides and study materials. I came from a very poor family and with some practice at home scored very well on the SAT. It was one of the few tools I had to attract college admissions boards. I feel like taking that away will severely disadvantage poor kids who are otherwise bright with strong work ethics.

dastbe 5y ago
put a big IMO/IMU around all of this, but the SAT/ACT isn't objective in the sense that studying for them is something you can do to improve your score and your prospects. However, it is also transparent in how you do that: you take a course, get study books, and/or take practice tests and there are programs out that have been trying to help disadvantaged students get access to these tools. its also much more cost effective compared to the other solutions like going to a private school (difficult, can be costly without aid) or getting into expensive niche sports. so imo getting rid of standardized tests does get rid of a subjective rating of an applicant which is good in theory, but when you leave in all of the other subjective ratings that are much more difficult for disadvantaged students to do well on it who is it actually benefiting?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It’s well-known how to train for foot races and that training will improve your natural/untrained performance. That doesn’t make a timed foot race a subjective measure, IMO.
  - dastbe 5y ago
    subjective/objective are probably not the right adjectives here, but to use your example I would say that a timed foot race is an objective measure of how well you do in timed foot races, but is not an objective measure of your innate athletic ability because of training/coaching and you have to factor those to attempt to back into physical ability. the same is true for the SAT, in that people treat it like an intelligence/general knowledge test when you have to factor in the specific training that person has had for the SAT itself.
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      So what do you propose is more objective (or whatever qualifier you prefer) than the SAT? Pointing out shortcomings of standardized tests is one thing. Advocating for eliminating what seems to be our most equal/standardized/objective/whatever measurement without a replacement seems like a bad idea to me.

pc86 5y ago

There seems to be a lot of bending over backwards here to say over and over again the SAT/ACT aren't objective. I'm not discounting the role socioeconomic status, parental influence, school district, family income etc. have on one's life, but at the end of the day if you get more questions right, you have a higher score. That's what objective means. We can talk about making the test more equitable, whether or not we should do that, and whether or not that's a good thing for college admissions specifically or education in general, but it doesn't change the fact that the tests are by definition objective measures of whether or not you know the things on the test at the time you take it.

8note 5y ago
Let's propose an experiment then. You take the test twice, once with a blindfold on, and once without a blindfold. As an objective measure of your intelligence, I expect you to get the same results on both tests You are considering whether it's objective only by that the reader at the end sees the final score, but there's many spots in between an empty sheet of paper and that score where somebody's subjective experience comes into play
- pc86 5y ago
  That's like saying putting something on a scale isn't an objective measure of its weight because you can just take the batteries out of the scale. I'm considering it objective because the more correct answers you get, the higher your score. We can argue about whether or not the stuff on the test is important. We can discuss the various environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that go into the kids taking it and how that impacts scores statistically. We can even talk about the various medical and neurological factors that go into test taking generally and standardized test taking specifically that can affect some people more than others. I'll even concede that the SAT/ACT isn't a test of your intelligence so much as it is a test of how well you did on the SAT/ACT, just like putting things on a scale may at best be a measure of its weight relative to other things on that specific scale. But at the end of the day, more right answers === a higher score, and I'm not sure how you get any more objective than that when it comes to something as fluid as academic ability.

killjoywashere 5y ago

> Berkeley/UCLA are 36%/28% Asian vs 23%/21% for Stanford/USC. The University of California system is certainly having its admissions decisions impacted by California laws against affirmative action By comparison, Asian and Pacific Islander populations combined only make up 15% of the California population (1). I don't suppose the interaction of affirmative action policy and cultural differences might have inadvertently advantaged a couple of Asian subpopulations that are now pissed that the basis of their advantage is being taken away? (1) https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/

tell_the_truth 5y ago