4 ms·

I've pushed back against standardized testing at certain points of my life, and I don't think this comment even remotely summarizes my views. If anything, I wo

I've pushed back against standardized testing at certain points of my life, and I don't think this comment even remotely summarizes my views. If anything, I would say that my views are the opposite -- homogenization creates a lack of differentiation around skill and aptitude based on questionable science (and sometimes outright pseudoscience) and often leads to an oversimplification of human intelligence in general. It always feels very strange to me that people trying to compress aptitude into a single number say that they're defending differentiation or diversity of talent. MIT's findings here don't really change my view of the value of SATs, although the findings are interesting and I think they're worth looking into further. I'm not sure "they're more predictive than GPAs" is the glowing recommendation that SAT proponents think it is. You can agree or disagree with me on that point, I'm not here to debate the entire idea of testing or IQ or whatever -- I just want to point out the above comment is a pretty big oversimplification and (in my mind) a borderline complete misrepresentation (I assume unintentionally) of what people like me believe. I can only speak for myself though, maybe there are people out there who do hate the idea of excellence.

zaidf 5y ago
What's a better alternative in your view?
- danShumway 5y ago
  I'm not completely sure. I think MIT's conclusions might be correct, they might be preferable to GPAs. I also think there might be other alternatives that aren't easy to implement, that require either a restructuring of how we do school or a better distribution of resources than we currently have. One conclusion that MIT hints at (although it doesn't say it outright) is that SATs might be a better indicator of success across economic levels in part because it's harder to buy a better SAT score with money. Looking at things like extracurricular activity runs into many of the same problems as looking at Github repos during hiring processes -- a lot of people don't have time to do a bunch of extracurricular activities, and access to those extracurricular activities is likely highly correlated with socioeconomic status. It might be difficult to move in that direction when access to school resources varies so much between areas. I do think the SAT could be improved -- I think one really easy way would be to change how it's administered so that it optimizes less for formal test-taking skill. The really good thing about the SAT is that it's a less school-specific measure than GPA. So a better alternative might be a version of the SAT that kept a standardized metric but that either widened its scope significantly or was administered differently. I also want to put forward the idea that admissions might just be really hard, period, and there might not be an easy way to assess potential, and trying to figure out the easiest way to do it might be like asking, "what's the best way to teach a child to play an instrument in a single day?" ---- One really important point that I want to get across: there is a difference between a measure being good and a measure being "the least terrible option we have at the moment" -- and confusing the two can cause real harm. At the top of this thread I see the quote, "so much for that common, popular notion that standardized tests do not predict anything of value." And if that's somebody's attitude, then they're never going to find a better option because the whole thing is being approached through the lens of "see, we were right, this is a good metric." I think a lot of criticism of standardized testing, IQ, coding tests for hiring, etc... is not necessarily trying to destroy everything, it's just trying to point out that many of these measures are really bad and they shouldn't be treated with the respect they're often given. I think that someone can very easily both have the position, "yeah, MIT probably should use SAT scores alongside GPAs" and the position, "people place way too much confidence in these things as an indicator of success."
tharne 5y ago
> If anything, I would say that my views are the opposite -- homogenization creates a lack of differentiation around skill and aptitude based on questionable science If that were true, you'd expect countries like South Korea, Japan, and German to perform poorly in science and engineering, among other things. Diversity may be a worthy goal for societal reasons, but it certainly is not a perquisite for excellence, seeing as there are many highly successful countries that are very homogeneous.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > If that were true, you'd expect countries like South Korea, Japan, and German to perform poorly in science and engineering, among other things. It's wild to me that someone can have the view that the existence of other countries settles the debate over whether or not our school systems encourage well-rounded/successful students given that comparisons to more homogenized schooling environments like China is still one of the more contentious high-level debates about educational quality we have today. Again, I'm not here to convince you one way or another, but that is not a debate that I think most of society considers settled. > Diversity may be a worthy goal for societal reasons, but it certainly is not a perquisite for excellence If that's the argument you want to make, then fine, go for it. But then don't say that you're opposing a group that "hates the idea of excellence and differentiation." You are arguing for removing differentiation between different kinds of intelligence and skillsets and compressing that spectrum into an objectively less descriptive metric. Make up your mind whether I'm arguing for more diversity and more differentiation between people or for less of it.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
Well, what you have written just feels like a more favorable to your side explanation of the same thing. Colleges are not trying to compress aptitude into a single number. It’s even worse. They are trying to compress aptitude into a single Boolean variable, you are either admitted or not. That’s it. And it seems that subject tests and general aptitude tests are very good indicators of college fit. I don’t know what system you envision, but alternatives I have seen always seem far worse.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you mean. GP writes: > There is a small, but well-organized and vocal subset of the population that hates the idea of excellence and differentiation. I don't see how that applies to my comment above, and I don't see how saying: > They are trying to compress aptitude into a single Boolean variable, you are either admitted or not. That’s it. is doing anything other than backing up what I said. At the point where you are dividing a subset of the population into binary "in or out" groups, you are in fact advocating for homogenization, for less differentiation between students, and for fewer levels/categories of excellence or exceptionalism. I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, you do whatever you want. MIT is trying to decide who gets into their specific college, fine. But if you're arguing that the point of SATs is to make a binary determination about students, then it's just strictly inaccurate to say that it's the SAT critics who are all trying to cut down tall poppies.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    You conflate vertical differentiation with horizontal differentiation. Horizontal differentiation is what is usually understood as “diversity” and considered good among certain groups of people. Vertical differentiation is what is usually understood as “hierarchy” and considered bad among those groups of people. MIT like many American universities does only general admission and that’s indeed would be considered weird in other countries, but it seems like a whole nother issue.
    - danShumway 5y ago

zaidf 5y ago

What's a better alternative in your view?

danShumway 5y ago
I'm not completely sure. I think MIT's conclusions might be correct, they might be preferable to GPAs. I also think there might be other alternatives that aren't easy to implement, that require either a restructuring of how we do school or a better distribution of resources than we currently have. One conclusion that MIT hints at (although it doesn't say it outright) is that SATs might be a better indicator of success across economic levels in part because it's harder to buy a better SAT score with money. Looking at things like extracurricular activity runs into many of the same problems as looking at Github repos during hiring processes -- a lot of people don't have time to do a bunch of extracurricular activities, and access to those extracurricular activities is likely highly correlated with socioeconomic status. It might be difficult to move in that direction when access to school resources varies so much between areas. I do think the SAT could be improved -- I think one really easy way would be to change how it's administered so that it optimizes less for formal test-taking skill. The really good thing about the SAT is that it's a less school-specific measure than GPA. So a better alternative might be a version of the SAT that kept a standardized metric but that either widened its scope significantly or was administered differently. I also want to put forward the idea that admissions might just be really hard, period, and there might not be an easy way to assess potential, and trying to figure out the easiest way to do it might be like asking, "what's the best way to teach a child to play an instrument in a single day?" ---- One really important point that I want to get across: there is a difference between a measure being good and a measure being "the least terrible option we have at the moment" -- and confusing the two can cause real harm. At the top of this thread I see the quote, "so much for that common, popular notion that standardized tests do not predict anything of value." And if that's somebody's attitude, then they're never going to find a better option because the whole thing is being approached through the lens of "see, we were right, this is a good metric." I think a lot of criticism of standardized testing, IQ, coding tests for hiring, etc... is not necessarily trying to destroy everything, it's just trying to point out that many of these measures are really bad and they shouldn't be treated with the respect they're often given. I think that someone can very easily both have the position, "yeah, MIT probably should use SAT scores alongside GPAs" and the position, "people place way too much confidence in these things as an indicator of success."

tharne 5y ago

> If anything, I would say that my views are the opposite -- homogenization creates a lack of differentiation around skill and aptitude based on questionable science If that were true, you'd expect countries like South Korea, Japan, and German to perform poorly in science and engineering, among other things. Diversity may be a worthy goal for societal reasons, but it certainly is not a perquisite for excellence, seeing as there are many highly successful countries that are very homogeneous.

danShumway 5y ago
> If that were true, you'd expect countries like South Korea, Japan, and German to perform poorly in science and engineering, among other things. It's wild to me that someone can have the view that the existence of other countries settles the debate over whether or not our school systems encourage well-rounded/successful students given that comparisons to more homogenized schooling environments like China is still one of the more contentious high-level debates about educational quality we have today. Again, I'm not here to convince you one way or another, but that is not a debate that I think most of society considers settled. > Diversity may be a worthy goal for societal reasons, but it certainly is not a perquisite for excellence If that's the argument you want to make, then fine, go for it. But then don't say that you're opposing a group that "hates the idea of excellence and differentiation." You are arguing for removing differentiation between different kinds of intelligence and skillsets and compressing that spectrum into an objectively less descriptive metric. Make up your mind whether I'm arguing for more diversity and more differentiation between people or for less of it.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

Well, what you have written just feels like a more favorable to your side explanation of the same thing. Colleges are not trying to compress aptitude into a single number. It’s even worse. They are trying to compress aptitude into a single Boolean variable, you are either admitted or not. That’s it. And it seems that subject tests and general aptitude tests are very good indicators of college fit. I don’t know what system you envision, but alternatives I have seen always seem far worse.

danShumway 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. GP writes: > There is a small, but well-organized and vocal subset of the population that hates the idea of excellence and differentiation. I don't see how that applies to my comment above, and I don't see how saying: > They are trying to compress aptitude into a single Boolean variable, you are either admitted or not. That’s it. is doing anything other than backing up what I said. At the point where you are dividing a subset of the population into binary "in or out" groups, you are in fact advocating for homogenization, for less differentiation between students, and for fewer levels/categories of excellence or exceptionalism. I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, you do whatever you want. MIT is trying to decide who gets into their specific college, fine. But if you're arguing that the point of SATs is to make a binary determination about students, then it's just strictly inaccurate to say that it's the SAT critics who are all trying to cut down tall poppies.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  You conflate vertical differentiation with horizontal differentiation. Horizontal differentiation is what is usually understood as “diversity” and considered good among certain groups of people. Vertical differentiation is what is usually understood as “hierarchy” and considered bad among those groups of people. MIT like many American universities does only general admission and that’s indeed would be considered weird in other countries, but it seems like a whole nother issue.
  - danShumway 5y ago