3 ms·

>Removing admission tests was a huge slap in the face to social mobility out of the middle class. To reiterate other commenters, admission tests are the hardest

>Removing admission tests was a huge slap in the face to social mobility out of the middle class. To reiterate other commenters, admission tests are the hardest part of the process to game and the least biased towards things like having a tiger parent, while being the most predictive indicator of success in college. Wealthy and well connected people can easily game extracurriculars and essays, and HS grades are vastly inflated at this point across the country. That pretty much only leaves standardized tests for your average kid who isn’t being deliberately primed by their environment to stand out for selective college admissions. I agree with most of this but Exams are absolutely gameable. There's a reason there is a multibillion dollar industry focused on them. There's a reason why Cram School exists across Asia and there's a reason why parents will pay thousands for ACT/SAT tutoring. Because it flat out works. You can increase your scores substantially by paying for these services. All else being equal I would expect that between 2 students with identical aptitudes where one has paid thousands of dollars for tutoring that the student with tutoring will score higher than the other. This can't be ignored. Can you mitigate this with self motivated preparation? Sure. But again, all else being equal and between 2 equally talented and motivated testers the one whose parents paid for a tutor that achieved a perfect score is almost always going to score higher.

opportune 5y ago
IMO there is a difference between gaming a test and just getting better at what a test means to cover. For example, programs like Kumon allow students to learn math more rigorously/at a higher level than what they may get exposed to in a classroom. That doesn’t mean they’re gaming the test, they’re just getting a better education. While it’s perhaps unfair that some students don’t get this opportunity, I don’t think giving children legitimately better educations is something to discourage. There was another near-top comment when I posted that pointed out that test prep classes only conferred a 30 point benefit. Likely because it’s just familiarizing students with the test and covering basic testing strategies (like skipping a hard section and coming back to it last). I agree the benefit should ideally be 0 but 30/2400 is not much. That’s what I meant in my post. Also, I’ve heard that in the past the SAT in particular was much more gameable due to the vocabulary/analogy sections, which incentivized students to study specific known topics or cram vocab terms. I’m not sure if they added it back but they’d been removed by the time I took the exam.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  That would be 30 per category, so 60 points. Which can definitely be the difference between a top university considerign an applicant or throwing the app away. Back in my day when SAT's were 2400, I heard the swing being a difference of 100 points. Since reverting back to 1600 a 60 point swings sounds proportionately similar to 13 years ago. Anyways, I think when people mean "gaming the system", they mean test prep classes literally geared towards the SAT and little else. Not practicing calculus to overprepare for the SAT math portion (maybe even using it to validate answers on a lower level), but being told that X is on the test and using older copies of the SAT to practive with. That does start to feel a bit game-y in my eyes. You're not better understanding combinatorial or algebra, you're understanding the pattern that a test has and playing based on that knowledge.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    Don't you get the majority of the benefit of specific test prep by running through a couple of sample tests from a guidebook, which you can get from a public library? (I'd say most of the benefit, in my case, but probably shouldn't generalize that far.) I can imagine a longer test prep class that was really more like general math tutoring could make a bigger difference, a la Bloom's 2-sigma problem.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Right. Growing up in Melbourne (Australia) there was a marked difference in the performance of state school and private school students at university. Theory (don't know about studies) was that the private schools were selective about their students, but also held a lot of their reputation (and their ability to justify tuition) on TER (Tertiary Entrance Ranking) scores, and as such, taught their students extremely well "how to get a very high TER", but not necessarily how to be an independent learner - information spoon-fed in classes as such meant that assignment and essay scores were quite a bit higher than those in state schools, where there wasn't the individual and personalized attention available. Once those students got to university, while the state school students were used to conducting independent research, having no-one who particularly cared or was going to crack the whip on assignment turn-in ("You're adults - turn your work in or don't. Not my problem."), and such thrived, while many private students found themselves at a loss. I remember many questions about elementary "Well, how would I go about researching that/studying this/doing that" in my first year of university that were along the lines of this theory.
jobs_throwaway 5y ago
you're refuting a strawman. The claim wasn't that tests are impossible to game, only that they're harder to game than the other components used in the admissions process

opportune 5y ago

IMO there is a difference between gaming a test and just getting better at what a test means to cover. For example, programs like Kumon allow students to learn math more rigorously/at a higher level than what they may get exposed to in a classroom. That doesn’t mean they’re gaming the test, they’re just getting a better education. While it’s perhaps unfair that some students don’t get this opportunity, I don’t think giving children legitimately better educations is something to discourage. There was another near-top comment when I posted that pointed out that test prep classes only conferred a 30 point benefit. Likely because it’s just familiarizing students with the test and covering basic testing strategies (like skipping a hard section and coming back to it last). I agree the benefit should ideally be 0 but 30/2400 is not much. That’s what I meant in my post. Also, I’ve heard that in the past the SAT in particular was much more gameable due to the vocabulary/analogy sections, which incentivized students to study specific known topics or cram vocab terms. I’m not sure if they added it back but they’d been removed by the time I took the exam.

johnnyanmac 5y ago
That would be 30 per category, so 60 points. Which can definitely be the difference between a top university considerign an applicant or throwing the app away. Back in my day when SAT's were 2400, I heard the swing being a difference of 100 points. Since reverting back to 1600 a 60 point swings sounds proportionately similar to 13 years ago. Anyways, I think when people mean "gaming the system", they mean test prep classes literally geared towards the SAT and little else. Not practicing calculus to overprepare for the SAT math portion (maybe even using it to validate answers on a lower level), but being told that X is on the test and using older copies of the SAT to practive with. That does start to feel a bit game-y in my eyes. You're not better understanding combinatorial or algebra, you're understanding the pattern that a test has and playing based on that knowledge.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Don't you get the majority of the benefit of specific test prep by running through a couple of sample tests from a guidebook, which you can get from a public library? (I'd say most of the benefit, in my case, but probably shouldn't generalize that far.) I can imagine a longer test prep class that was really more like general math tutoring could make a bigger difference, a la Bloom's 2-sigma problem.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Right. Growing up in Melbourne (Australia) there was a marked difference in the performance of state school and private school students at university. Theory (don't know about studies) was that the private schools were selective about their students, but also held a lot of their reputation (and their ability to justify tuition) on TER (Tertiary Entrance Ranking) scores, and as such, taught their students extremely well "how to get a very high TER", but not necessarily how to be an independent learner - information spoon-fed in classes as such meant that assignment and essay scores were quite a bit higher than those in state schools, where there wasn't the individual and personalized attention available. Once those students got to university, while the state school students were used to conducting independent research, having no-one who particularly cared or was going to crack the whip on assignment turn-in ("You're adults - turn your work in or don't. Not my problem."), and such thrived, while many private students found themselves at a loss. I remember many questions about elementary "Well, how would I go about researching that/studying this/doing that" in my first year of university that were along the lines of this theory.

jobs_throwaway 5y ago

you're refuting a strawman. The claim wasn't that tests are impossible to game, only that they're harder to game than the other components used in the admissions process