6 ms·

So they should. Anything other than an objective standardized test is just asking for bias. Australia gets by just fine with standardized testing only, don't s

by jpgvm 5y ago

So they should. Anything other than an objective standardized test is just asking for bias. Australia gets by just fine with standardized testing only, don't see why America can't as well. If you make the cut then you can qualify for scholarships if you are disadvantaged because of means, etc. To be fair though Australia is overall more equal in terms of schooling outcomes but to pretend that it's a university/college problem that the rest of the schooling system is fucked is preposterous. By the time someone is at the age to go into university the damage has been done. Give the spots to those that deserve them because of ability. It's not the job of the school to rebalance society that is the governments problem.

3qJD3eCM 5y ago
So, I was involved with admissions in a selective graduate program. Not undergraduate but I saw some of the same issues arise. I have a lot of thoughts about this all. The end result of a lot of this, my guess, is that schools will drop standardized tests as admission requirements. That's what happened at my institution. Standardized tests are also biased. They are definitely biased toward individuals who are representative of the typical test-taking participant in background, who have more test-specific preparation beyond ability, and toward individuals who are more familiar and skilled with standardized test-taking in general. The purpose of standardized tests, nominally, is to select on aptitude, ability, or achievement, independent of the test, not to become the thing selected for. People seem to forget this. All the other things -- grades, experiences, and so forth -- are also biased in their own way, but in ways that counter the bias of tests. The reasons for having multiple criteria are so the different forms of bias sort of cancel each other out, or can be evaluated against one another. Stepping back a bit, I have colleagues at institutions who heavily use standardized tests rotely, and they complain heavily about ending up with students who just want to be told the correct answer, without thinking independently or questioning material. That is, overly obsessed with grades, or missing the fact that established textbook information is often incorrect, or incomplete. This is the fear. Schools want you to be right in the "real world" even if it means getting a lower test score or grade. (Importantly, these colleagues are at institutions with low numbers of Asian applicants to begin with for other reasons, mostly geography.) Having said that, there's definitely racism afoot. Interestingly to me, people seem to be assuming that this always takes the form of quotas or something, where the racism is in favor of blacks or hispanics, and against Asians. This might be true in many cases, but racism can operate simultaneously against both. I have had colleagues who have argued heavily against black-hispanic applicants because test scores were too low, and then against Asians with good test scores because of interview characteristics. What people might be missing here in this HN thread is that this racism was coming from persons advocating for use of standardized tests. At some level this can happen because typically there are more than enough applicants with high enough test scores, and because there are other reasonably objective criteria that are also legitimately important, so you have to use something other than the test to make decisions. The net result of this all was to conclude that tests were problematic in both directions, that it underselected some people of disadvantaged backgrounds and overselected other people of other types of backgrounds. Not because of race quotas per se, but because of test bias. There were too many experiences of people with very good real-world qualifications in every other respect, but low test scores, or high test scores and every real-world indication of problems, even among individuals who were all white. The response to racism with regard to test selection was to just drop the test requirement, because in situations with racism, it was being used to exclude underprivileged individuals, and also not helping people who were experiencing other forms of racism. It was basically concluded the test was becoming a distraction and not functioning that well.
- rg111 5y ago
  I get your points. I really do. I know that standardized tests aren't devoid of faults. But, if you want to replace them, you have to replace them with something better. Just because something has faults, it doesn't mean we abandon it. We find something better, and then replace it. That is not being true for admissions. Double-blind standardized tests are not only safe against bias, but also against corruption. If we were to simply abandon things with fault, we would have to get rid of democracy, marriage, and food, among other things. This is a sad case of Goodhart's Law playing into reality. People in power have chosen one metric as a measure of progress of historically oppressed races- enrolment in college degrees. And that is costing us dearly.
- DebtDeflation 5y ago
  >All the other things -- grades, experiences, and so forth -- are also biased in their own way, but in ways that counter the bias of tests. I was under the impression that the main variable we were trying to predict in admissions was collegiate academic performance. High school grades are highly correlated with collegiate academic performance. High school grades + standardized test scores taken together are even more correlated. This study: https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-new-assessment-system-for-uc-admissions/ https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n... Found that eliminating standardized tests in admissions actually benefited Asian applicants while hurting Black applicants. No objective admissions metric will ever be perfect, but grades and standardized test scores are fairly good. I wonder how long until there's a push to eliminate high school grades as an admissions metric.
Lascaille 5y ago
>Australia gets by just fine with standardized testing only, don't see why America can't as well. Because when the results align along racial boundaries and votes (and therefore power) can be won by 'combating' that 'discrimination' policies follow accordingly.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  What? If you think standardized testing is benefiting white/rich Australians you are horrendously mistaken. Asian Australians disproportionally destroy the affluent white Australian population on standardized tests as they fucking should because they prepare more and work harder. As a result they have priority access to medicine and law degrees, again, as they fucking should. If someone is going to work harder for something they simply deserve it, that is all there is to it.
  - pinephoneguy 5y ago
    The same is true in the US but reality doesn't matter.
  - aiisjustanif 5y ago
    Just because Asian Australians do better on standardized testing does not mean white/rich Australians do not benefit more from it. The population size of each percentile and distribution across percentiles also matter. White identifying students can represent a larger distribution in the top percentile ranges overall [1]. > as they fucking should because they prepare more and work harder. Working harder does not increase population size or influence necessarily. > If someone is going to work harder for something they simply deserve it, that is all there is to it. Not all jobs, responsibilities, careers, political representation, the list goes on.. are based on merit or even hard work. Their is definitely an element of luck and survivorship bias. Standardized tests are also bias. They are biased toward individuals who are representative of the typical test-taking participant in background, who have more test-specific preparation beyond ability, and toward individuals who are more familiar and skilled with standardized test-taking in general. Also grouping all Asians together as a group that represents what you may think is ridiculous, the cultural differences between Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese cultures are very different. [1] www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highligh t-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/
trophycase 5y ago
Huh? I'm all for calling this what it is: discrimination. But many these are private institutions. They can discriminate however they want. Also as people have been saying for a long time: standardized tests don't necessarily measure what certain educational institutions deem important. Also for what it's worth, I encountered more cheating Chinese students in my time in college than any other race by far. They even had email lists where they'd circulate around all the test prompts and homework answers. So let's not pretend like grades and test scores are some end-all be-all of academic achievement.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  >But many these are private institutions. They can discriminate however they want. Even private institutions are legally prevented from discriminating on the basis of protected class, such as race. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case against Harvard later this year to rule on just this, and there is a good chance the plaintiffs succeed in ending the practise of racial discrimination in college admissions.
Hnrobert42 5y ago
So you believe standardized tests are unbiased, huh?
- jpgvm 5y ago
  It's literally in the name. All the bias happens well before the tests. Fix the bias at it's root, don't blame standardized testing regimes for exposing the inherent biases in the system.
  - Hnrobert42 5y ago
    https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100730074308.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100730074308.h... “ "The belief in the fairness of the tests and the accuracy of the gauges to check them has been so deeply engrained that to challenge them would be akin to questioning the sun as center of the solar system," said Aguinis, a nationally recognized expert who was also a co-author of an amicus brief in the landmark Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court case regarding employment testing.”
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      The amount of bollocks in those two links is hard to quantify. People who's job it is to complain about how unfair the world is aren't fit to decide how we should measure the effectiveness of education and our students progress. Leave that to educators, just like we can leave the bitching to the "Antiracist Research & Policy Center". The tests -will- show that disadvantaged children are behind, that is literally the point. Said test results don't mean said child is "lesser" simply that they aren't at the same level as peers that score higher. Fixing that is the job of the schools and the government (in so far as reducing the race/socioeconomic gap outside of the classroom), but they need the tests to understand which each child sits. Hell if they -didn't- show that minorities are disadvantaged that would be a much more egregious problem and indicate the tests don't in fact test for what we think they do.
notSupplied 5y ago
> Anything other than an objective standardized test is just asking for bias. Agree. "De-bias" is actually the same thing as bias. The only way to solve bias is to increase accuracy of measurement, not introduce new error terms with a negative sign.

by jpgvm 5y ago

3qJD3eCM 5y ago

So, I was involved with admissions in a selective graduate program. Not undergraduate but I saw some of the same issues arise. I have a lot of thoughts about this all. The end result of a lot of this, my guess, is that schools will drop standardized tests as admission requirements. That's what happened at my institution. Standardized tests are also biased. They are definitely biased toward individuals who are representative of the typical test-taking participant in background, who have more test-specific preparation beyond ability, and toward individuals who are more familiar and skilled with standardized test-taking in general. The purpose of standardized tests, nominally, is to select on aptitude, ability, or achievement, independent of the test, not to become the thing selected for. People seem to forget this. All the other things -- grades, experiences, and so forth -- are also biased in their own way, but in ways that counter the bias of tests. The reasons for having multiple criteria are so the different forms of bias sort of cancel each other out, or can be evaluated against one another. Stepping back a bit, I have colleagues at institutions who heavily use standardized tests rotely, and they complain heavily about ending up with students who just want to be told the correct answer, without thinking independently or questioning material. That is, overly obsessed with grades, or missing the fact that established textbook information is often incorrect, or incomplete. This is the fear. Schools want you to be right in the "real world" even if it means getting a lower test score or grade. (Importantly, these colleagues are at institutions with low numbers of Asian applicants to begin with for other reasons, mostly geography.) Having said that, there's definitely racism afoot. Interestingly to me, people seem to be assuming that this always takes the form of quotas or something, where the racism is in favor of blacks or hispanics, and against Asians. This might be true in many cases, but racism can operate simultaneously against both. I have had colleagues who have argued heavily against black-hispanic applicants because test scores were too low, and then against Asians with good test scores because of interview characteristics. What people might be missing here in this HN thread is that this racism was coming from persons advocating for use of standardized tests. At some level this can happen because typically there are more than enough applicants with high enough test scores, and because there are other reasonably objective criteria that are also legitimately important, so you have to use something other than the test to make decisions. The net result of this all was to conclude that tests were problematic in both directions, that it underselected some people of disadvantaged backgrounds and overselected other people of other types of backgrounds. Not because of race quotas per se, but because of test bias. There were too many experiences of people with very good real-world qualifications in every other respect, but low test scores, or high test scores and every real-world indication of problems, even among individuals who were all white. The response to racism with regard to test selection was to just drop the test requirement, because in situations with racism, it was being used to exclude underprivileged individuals, and also not helping people who were experiencing other forms of racism. It was basically concluded the test was becoming a distraction and not functioning that well.

rg111 5y ago
I get your points. I really do. I know that standardized tests aren't devoid of faults. But, if you want to replace them, you have to replace them with something better. Just because something has faults, it doesn't mean we abandon it. We find something better, and then replace it. That is not being true for admissions. Double-blind standardized tests are not only safe against bias, but also against corruption. If we were to simply abandon things with fault, we would have to get rid of democracy, marriage, and food, among other things. This is a sad case of Goodhart's Law playing into reality. People in power have chosen one metric as a measure of progress of historically oppressed races- enrolment in college degrees. And that is costing us dearly.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
>All the other things -- grades, experiences, and so forth -- are also biased in their own way, but in ways that counter the bias of tests. I was under the impression that the main variable we were trying to predict in admissions was collegiate academic performance. High school grades are highly correlated with collegiate academic performance. High school grades + standardized test scores taken together are even more correlated. This study: https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-new-assessment-system-for-uc-admissions/ https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n... Found that eliminating standardized tests in admissions actually benefited Asian applicants while hurting Black applicants. No objective admissions metric will ever be perfect, but grades and standardized test scores are fairly good. I wonder how long until there's a push to eliminate high school grades as an admissions metric.

Lascaille 5y ago

>Australia gets by just fine with standardized testing only, don't see why America can't as well. Because when the results align along racial boundaries and votes (and therefore power) can be won by 'combating' that 'discrimination' policies follow accordingly.

jpgvm 5y ago
What? If you think standardized testing is benefiting white/rich Australians you are horrendously mistaken. Asian Australians disproportionally destroy the affluent white Australian population on standardized tests as they fucking should because they prepare more and work harder. As a result they have priority access to medicine and law degrees, again, as they fucking should. If someone is going to work harder for something they simply deserve it, that is all there is to it.
- pinephoneguy 5y ago
  The same is true in the US but reality doesn't matter.
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  Just because Asian Australians do better on standardized testing does not mean white/rich Australians do not benefit more from it. The population size of each percentile and distribution across percentiles also matter. White identifying students can represent a larger distribution in the top percentile ranges overall [1]. > as they fucking should because they prepare more and work harder. Working harder does not increase population size or influence necessarily. > If someone is going to work harder for something they simply deserve it, that is all there is to it. Not all jobs, responsibilities, careers, political representation, the list goes on.. are based on merit or even hard work. Their is definitely an element of luck and survivorship bias. Standardized tests are also bias. They are biased toward individuals who are representative of the typical test-taking participant in background, who have more test-specific preparation beyond ability, and toward individuals who are more familiar and skilled with standardized test-taking in general. Also grouping all Asians together as a group that represents what you may think is ridiculous, the cultural differences between Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese cultures are very different. [1] www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highligh t-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

trophycase 5y ago

Huh? I'm all for calling this what it is: discrimination. But many these are private institutions. They can discriminate however they want. Also as people have been saying for a long time: standardized tests don't necessarily measure what certain educational institutions deem important. Also for what it's worth, I encountered more cheating Chinese students in my time in college than any other race by far. They even had email lists where they'd circulate around all the test prompts and homework answers. So let's not pretend like grades and test scores are some end-all be-all of academic achievement.

Gareth321 5y ago
>But many these are private institutions. They can discriminate however they want. Even private institutions are legally prevented from discriminating on the basis of protected class, such as race. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case against Harvard later this year to rule on just this, and there is a good chance the plaintiffs succeed in ending the practise of racial discrimination in college admissions.

Hnrobert42 5y ago

So you believe standardized tests are unbiased, huh?

jpgvm 5y ago
It's literally in the name. All the bias happens well before the tests. Fix the bias at it's root, don't blame standardized testing regimes for exposing the inherent biases in the system.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100730074308.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100730074308.h... “ "The belief in the fairness of the tests and the accuracy of the gauges to check them has been so deeply engrained that to challenge them would be akin to questioning the sun as center of the solar system," said Aguinis, a nationally recognized expert who was also a co-author of an amicus brief in the landmark Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court case regarding employment testing.”
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    The amount of bollocks in those two links is hard to quantify. People who's job it is to complain about how unfair the world is aren't fit to decide how we should measure the effectiveness of education and our students progress. Leave that to educators, just like we can leave the bitching to the "Antiracist Research & Policy Center". The tests -will- show that disadvantaged children are behind, that is literally the point. Said test results don't mean said child is "lesser" simply that they aren't at the same level as peers that score higher. Fixing that is the job of the schools and the government (in so far as reducing the race/socioeconomic gap outside of the classroom), but they need the tests to understand which each child sits. Hell if they -didn't- show that minorities are disadvantaged that would be a much more egregious problem and indicate the tests don't in fact test for what we think they do.

notSupplied 5y ago

> Anything other than an objective standardized test is just asking for bias. Agree. "De-bias" is actually the same thing as bias. The only way to solve bias is to increase accuracy of measurement, not introduce new error terms with a negative sign.