4 ms·

SATs are the dumbest thing I've encountered in testing. In the US scoring high in some SATs will even qualify you for Mensa(gifted stamp). There are a handful

SATs are the dumbest thing I've encountered in testing. In the US scoring high in some SATs will even qualify you for Mensa(gifted stamp). There are a handful of companies that own a huge margin of the standardized testing market(Pearson being one of them). From selling new test learning books every year, to the massive global standardized testing training market. Maybe the movements to eliminate SATs have a different agenda, but generally the main reason you need those SATs is because the average education level in the US is so horrendous. Instead of fixing that problem there are a handful organizations acting as money printing machines and gatekeepers for higher education. It's frankly disgusting. If you ever had to take ANY kind of industrialized generalized test, whether it's ISC2, PMI, 6 Sigma, TLA+ or just SAT's or IELTS/TOEFL GRE or even just normal US university multiple choice as a non American you might find the whole ordeal infuriatingly insulting(unless you studied medicine, in which case it's similar across the globe) It's a lazy cop out for not giving teacher enough resources to actually teach.

nradov 5y ago
College admissions officers need some way to decide which applicants to accept. If they don't use SAT scores then what should they use instead? SAT scores have pretty good correlation with college academic success (although not perfect). High school grades can't really be compared between schools due to inconsistent grading standards. It used to be common for selective colleges to administer their own proprietary admission exams. But that was a huge burden on students applying to multiple schools, hence the switch to standardized testing.
- lapsedacademic 5y ago
  > If they don't use SAT scores then what should they use instead? The answer depends on institution type. Highly Selective Institutions: the admissions process is so hands-on and personal that I could believe they are able to get a good sense of each candidate without testing. E.g., I absolutely believe Harvard's admissions folks have the bandwidth to compare grades between high schools (not that they need to). And they do all sorts of stuff that gives you a better sense for the candidate than test scores (alumni interviews, essays, rec letters, delving into performance in highly competitive extra-curriculars, exceptional community service work, etc). Non-Selective Institutions (let's say admissions >70%): Standardized tests are kind of a waste of time and money for all involved. These institutions are functionally admitting everyone who can manage to fill out the admissions paperwork and didn't systematically fail high school courses. It makes sense to make test scores optional, because there might be a few diamonds in the 30% "oof" pile who can pull off a decent SAT score to compensate for their D-average-no-honors-courses transcript. But requiring the SAT/ACT is silly when your admissions standards are extremely low. Moderately Selective Institutions: I definitely see utility in these universities still using the SAT. But notice that this is actually a very small set of institutions. Perhaps 100-300 the US's 3K+ colleges fit in this category. -- FWIW, my opinion on SAT/ACT is somewhere in the middle. I think standardized tests can be an excellent instrument when some form of assessment is necessary but more nuanced assessments of merit are cost-prohibitive. So for places like competitive state flagships, I think getting rid of testing and replacing it with an admissions process that works at least as good as testing is probably more expensive than it's worth. However, I also think the pro-testing camp is often extremely hyperbolic. Testing is just one way of assessing merit. It has all sorts of flaws. Tests are a model, and all models are wrong. As an aside, I'm not surprised that so many pro-SAT-the-sky-is-falling folks are mathematicians. That entire field is completely fucked up when in comes to testing. Math as a discipline is bad about intellectual peacocking in general... if you think Mensa is insufferable, spend an afternoon in a math dept. Math professors are exactly the last set of people in the world I would trust to have a healthy attitude toward the ability of testing to suss out real merit. They literally talk about their prelim exams the same way frat bros talk about hazing rituals. Systematic misuse of testing is the second biggest reason that people choose to do phds in math-adjacent fields instead of math. (The biggest reason is job prospects.)
achenatx 5y ago
The average is not great, but it hides the underlying cause. If you look into education scores more closely you will find that subpopulations have greatly varying results. This implies that it isnt just about schools. The same goes for infant mortality. People cite infant mortality as evidence that our healthcare system sucks. But really infant mortality is clustered in certain sub populations. The same goes for murder rates and gun violence. Unfortunately the problems cannot be fixed until people admit and are willing to talk about the underlying actual root causes.

nradov 5y ago

College admissions officers need some way to decide which applicants to accept. If they don't use SAT scores then what should they use instead? SAT scores have pretty good correlation with college academic success (although not perfect). High school grades can't really be compared between schools due to inconsistent grading standards. It used to be common for selective colleges to administer their own proprietary admission exams. But that was a huge burden on students applying to multiple schools, hence the switch to standardized testing.

lapsedacademic 5y ago
> If they don't use SAT scores then what should they use instead? The answer depends on institution type. Highly Selective Institutions: the admissions process is so hands-on and personal that I could believe they are able to get a good sense of each candidate without testing. E.g., I absolutely believe Harvard's admissions folks have the bandwidth to compare grades between high schools (not that they need to). And they do all sorts of stuff that gives you a better sense for the candidate than test scores (alumni interviews, essays, rec letters, delving into performance in highly competitive extra-curriculars, exceptional community service work, etc). Non-Selective Institutions (let's say admissions >70%): Standardized tests are kind of a waste of time and money for all involved. These institutions are functionally admitting everyone who can manage to fill out the admissions paperwork and didn't systematically fail high school courses. It makes sense to make test scores optional, because there might be a few diamonds in the 30% "oof" pile who can pull off a decent SAT score to compensate for their D-average-no-honors-courses transcript. But requiring the SAT/ACT is silly when your admissions standards are extremely low. Moderately Selective Institutions: I definitely see utility in these universities still using the SAT. But notice that this is actually a very small set of institutions. Perhaps 100-300 the US's 3K+ colleges fit in this category. -- FWIW, my opinion on SAT/ACT is somewhere in the middle. I think standardized tests can be an excellent instrument when some form of assessment is necessary but more nuanced assessments of merit are cost-prohibitive. So for places like competitive state flagships, I think getting rid of testing and replacing it with an admissions process that works at least as good as testing is probably more expensive than it's worth. However, I also think the pro-testing camp is often extremely hyperbolic. Testing is just one way of assessing merit. It has all sorts of flaws. Tests are a model, and all models are wrong. As an aside, I'm not surprised that so many pro-SAT-the-sky-is-falling folks are mathematicians. That entire field is completely fucked up when in comes to testing. Math as a discipline is bad about intellectual peacocking in general... if you think Mensa is insufferable, spend an afternoon in a math dept. Math professors are exactly the last set of people in the world I would trust to have a healthy attitude toward the ability of testing to suss out real merit. They literally talk about their prelim exams the same way frat bros talk about hazing rituals. Systematic misuse of testing is the second biggest reason that people choose to do phds in math-adjacent fields instead of math. (The biggest reason is job prospects.)

achenatx 5y ago

The average is not great, but it hides the underlying cause. If you look into education scores more closely you will find that subpopulations have greatly varying results. This implies that it isnt just about schools. The same goes for infant mortality. People cite infant mortality as evidence that our healthcare system sucks. But really infant mortality is clustered in certain sub populations. The same goes for murder rates and gun violence. Unfortunately the problems cannot be fixed until people admit and are willing to talk about the underlying actual root causes.