3 ms·

I mean, I'm definitely a naive progressive (and probably hold some internalized bigotry that I'm unaware of), but I was against the SAT/ACT requirements sort of

I mean, I'm definitely a naive progressive (and probably hold some internalized bigotry that I'm unaware of), but I was against the SAT/ACT requirements sort of for the opposite reason than what you described. I half-assed my entire way through high school, but studied for about a month for the ACT and did extremely well (perfect in all categories except Math, which I got a 32 in). I didn't get into MIT (I never applied) but I did get into a few other relatively well-regarded universities (Auburn, NYU) despite my awful grades, almost exclusively riding off the strength of my ACT scores, and ended up going to Florida State (since it was cheaper than the other two I listed). I dropped out after 2 years (nearly flunking out due to low grades). To me, this showed that the tests are not an accurate measurement of how successful someone will be at college, but instead just how well someone can prepare for a specific test. If that's the case, why add the extra cost, both time and money-wise? If a mediocre student can just cram for a few weeks and do well on the test, then it seems to me that it's not a great test. I acknowledge that this is pure anecdata, but that was my perspective, not "minorities can't be expected to do well on anything objective" and not "I don't want Yale to be 2/3 asian."

caffeine 5y ago
Edit: I should add, thanks for pointing out a third group - people who think the tests don’t work! > To me, this showed that the tests are not an accurate measurement of how successful someone will be at college The test proves you are smart enough. Like, do you believe you were not intellectually capable of getting through college? That you flunked out for a pure lack of IQ and no other factors? From the writing in your comment alone I find that hard to believe. There are some other factors you need to be successful in college, like interest, motivation, work ethic. Also luck - avoiding illness for example. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting colleges should ONLY use standardised IQ tests for admittance, they should try to select for those other things too if they can do so fairly and accurately. I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ.
- tombert 5y ago
  > I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ. No it almost certainly wasn't raw IQ (not that I take a lot of stock in IQ in itself anyway), it was a combination of depression and attention issues. > The test proves you are smart enough. I wouldn't exactly call the ACT (I never took the SAT so I cannot speak to it) an objective measure of intelligence. It's extremely formulaic, and you can get "good" at taking it just by doing a boatload of practice tests, which is what I did. If the Kaplan practice tests are anything to go on, I would have gotten about 21 (not a great score) the first time taking the test had I not studied for it. I doubt I got considerably "smarter" in a month, I think I just got better at taking ACT tests.
  - thedougd 5y ago
    The 'truer' measure of your aptitude was likely your highest score. They allow multiple takes of the test because they understand that testing has errors from jitters, misunderstanding the wording, time management, a bad night of sleep, etc. Even within the bounds of a single class, we often get better at taking tests in a class once we understand the instructor's style. Ultimately, the score of everyone who takes the test fairly is capped by their aptitude. If we want to even the playing field, we should find a way to allow disadvantaged kids to have multiple tries at the test with some preparation. They may already have it.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    What happened at FSU? It is enough of a good deal that I might send my kids there one day.
    - tombert 5y ago
      FSU was a perfectly fine school, you can certainly do a lot worse (at least the CS department, I can't speak for anything else really). I was suffering from a lot of "don't give a shit" syndrome, leading to me not going to class, which makes it a lot harder to get decent grades.

caffeine 5y ago

Edit: I should add, thanks for pointing out a third group - people who think the tests don’t work! > To me, this showed that the tests are not an accurate measurement of how successful someone will be at college The test proves you are smart enough. Like, do you believe you were not intellectually capable of getting through college? That you flunked out for a pure lack of IQ and no other factors? From the writing in your comment alone I find that hard to believe. There are some other factors you need to be successful in college, like interest, motivation, work ethic. Also luck - avoiding illness for example. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting colleges should ONLY use standardised IQ tests for admittance, they should try to select for those other things too if they can do so fairly and accurately. I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ.

tombert 5y ago
> I can’t pretend to know you enough to know why you dropped out. But if I had to bet it wasn’t raw IQ. No it almost certainly wasn't raw IQ (not that I take a lot of stock in IQ in itself anyway), it was a combination of depression and attention issues. > The test proves you are smart enough. I wouldn't exactly call the ACT (I never took the SAT so I cannot speak to it) an objective measure of intelligence. It's extremely formulaic, and you can get "good" at taking it just by doing a boatload of practice tests, which is what I did. If the Kaplan practice tests are anything to go on, I would have gotten about 21 (not a great score) the first time taking the test had I not studied for it. I doubt I got considerably "smarter" in a month, I think I just got better at taking ACT tests.
- thedougd 5y ago
  The 'truer' measure of your aptitude was likely your highest score. They allow multiple takes of the test because they understand that testing has errors from jitters, misunderstanding the wording, time management, a bad night of sleep, etc. Even within the bounds of a single class, we often get better at taking tests in a class once we understand the instructor's style. Ultimately, the score of everyone who takes the test fairly is capped by their aptitude. If we want to even the playing field, we should find a way to allow disadvantaged kids to have multiple tries at the test with some preparation. They may already have it.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  What happened at FSU? It is enough of a good deal that I might send my kids there one day.
  - tombert 5y ago
    FSU was a perfectly fine school, you can certainly do a lot worse (at least the CS department, I can't speak for anything else really). I was suffering from a lot of "don't give a shit" syndrome, leading to me not going to class, which makes it a lot harder to get decent grades.