5 ms·

I would like to know how much of an “improvement” in outcomes these tests bring. From another article linked in the one from this discussion: “In short: Our r

I would like to know how much of an “improvement” in outcomes these tests bring. From another article linked in the one from this discussion: “In short: Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors. These findings are statistically robust and stable over time, and hold when you control for socioeconomic factors and look across demographic groups. And the math component of the testing turns out to be most important.” There seems to be a lot of hand-waving in that quote. If the improvement is only marginal, we really need to ask, as a society, if the improvement is worth all the money, potential for cheating, angst, and outright conflict that come with maintaining these tests. If we want better talent, we can invest more money and energy into building better schools and paying better salaries to teachers. If we want more diversity, we can target vulnerable communities specifically. The test prep industry is milking families that care about (and might even be obsessed with) education. It encourages folks to think of the whole system as a rat race, and leads to selfishness and hoarding of knowledge. If we did away with standardized testing and spent more money on schools and teachers, we could cultivate a perception of education as a public good. It would be less about who has more resources and more about raising the tide and giving more people a fair shot.

blip54321 5y ago
I think the bigger question is whether we should have exclusive schools like MIT. Screening for college admissions made sense a century ago, when 5% of people went to college. Today, not so much. From an undergrad class perspective, the difference between MIT and a better state school is mostly the brand stamp and the admissions department. Why do we want to stamp people with a stamp like "MIT"?
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  If you want to be brutally honest, because other people in industry have the stamp of "MIT". There will just be natural bias when hearing that a prospective candidate attended your alma mata where you know (in your own personal experience) that the school runs you through the ringer. Nothing more relatable than saying "Hey is Professor Bob still teaching Astro 401? his tests were brutal" and instantly understanding how "this person survived that, he can survive JobCo". If nothing else, the branding is reflective of how the world at large works, I guess.
  - blip54321 5y ago
    My question was a little bit deeper. I understand why we have elite schools. Harvard's an easy one. Rich and powerful people look smart by association with smart people. Smart people gain access to powerful social networks. My question was why this was a good idea for society. MIT was funded through federal grants, financial aid, and philanthropic donations. It's a 501(c)3. If it's bad for the world, we ought to have some mechanism to fix it. We don't, and that's a deeper discussion about how we want to organize society. We ought to. In the limit case of a self-perpetuating endowment harming the world, there ought to be some way for that to be repurposed to help the world.
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      I mean, all education does (and should) make use of state and federal funding to provide an education, arguably they don't give enough for quality education in grade school. And I don't think there's much of a solution to the conundrum of "rich people donate to the rich places and attract more rich people". In all the various other ways billionaires avoid taxes and donate to shady organizations/"charities", it's hard to really knock on them giving money to a place where (in SOME capacity) individuals past their immediate community benefit. It can certainly be better utilized, but I don't have a big fuss with it in the grand scheme of things. Financial aid is certainly a bubble soon to burst, but that's an issue that expands nationwide, not just in the elite schools.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    Even more brutal honesty: MIT has core requirements that are about the toughest in the nation except for CalTech's. One term of calculus beyond the AP BC sequence, calculus based classical mechanics and E&M, one term each of chemistry and biology. No matter what degree you get, you have to get at least C grades based on mastery, not a curve. And reading between the lines, it sounds like MIT has another "lost class" or two. A few years after I was admitted to MIT, the Director of Admissions retired and was replaced by a professional in the field. And being a professional he followed the faculty's official findings on how to select applicants and all of a sudden MIT was getting calls from schools asking why their best students were no longer getting accepted while the next tier suddenly were. And rather quickly the physics faculty led a revolt because way too many of their students were having too much difficulty with the above above minimum core requirements. I got to casually know one of these students, she was very nice and of course smart, but boy did she struggle with the required math based core curricula of her major unlike her female peers from my years and thereabouts.
notananthem 5y ago
This is the best outcome but then you don't get "prestigious" schools of the elite. I went to a public university and I'm much better off for it than my MIT peers.

blip54321 5y ago

I think the bigger question is whether we should have exclusive schools like MIT. Screening for college admissions made sense a century ago, when 5% of people went to college. Today, not so much. From an undergrad class perspective, the difference between MIT and a better state school is mostly the brand stamp and the admissions department. Why do we want to stamp people with a stamp like "MIT"?

johnnyanmac 5y ago
If you want to be brutally honest, because other people in industry have the stamp of "MIT". There will just be natural bias when hearing that a prospective candidate attended your alma mata where you know (in your own personal experience) that the school runs you through the ringer. Nothing more relatable than saying "Hey is Professor Bob still teaching Astro 401? his tests were brutal" and instantly understanding how "this person survived that, he can survive JobCo". If nothing else, the branding is reflective of how the world at large works, I guess.
- blip54321 5y ago
  My question was a little bit deeper. I understand why we have elite schools. Harvard's an easy one. Rich and powerful people look smart by association with smart people. Smart people gain access to powerful social networks. My question was why this was a good idea for society. MIT was funded through federal grants, financial aid, and philanthropic donations. It's a 501(c)3. If it's bad for the world, we ought to have some mechanism to fix it. We don't, and that's a deeper discussion about how we want to organize society. We ought to. In the limit case of a self-perpetuating endowment harming the world, there ought to be some way for that to be repurposed to help the world.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    I mean, all education does (and should) make use of state and federal funding to provide an education, arguably they don't give enough for quality education in grade school. And I don't think there's much of a solution to the conundrum of "rich people donate to the rich places and attract more rich people". In all the various other ways billionaires avoid taxes and donate to shady organizations/"charities", it's hard to really knock on them giving money to a place where (in SOME capacity) individuals past their immediate community benefit. It can certainly be better utilized, but I don't have a big fuss with it in the grand scheme of things. Financial aid is certainly a bubble soon to burst, but that's an issue that expands nationwide, not just in the elite schools.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  Even more brutal honesty: MIT has core requirements that are about the toughest in the nation except for CalTech's. One term of calculus beyond the AP BC sequence, calculus based classical mechanics and E&M, one term each of chemistry and biology. No matter what degree you get, you have to get at least C grades based on mastery, not a curve. And reading between the lines, it sounds like MIT has another "lost class" or two. A few years after I was admitted to MIT, the Director of Admissions retired and was replaced by a professional in the field. And being a professional he followed the faculty's official findings on how to select applicants and all of a sudden MIT was getting calls from schools asking why their best students were no longer getting accepted while the next tier suddenly were. And rather quickly the physics faculty led a revolt because way too many of their students were having too much difficulty with the above above minimum core requirements. I got to casually know one of these students, she was very nice and of course smart, but boy did she struggle with the required math based core curricula of her major unlike her female peers from my years and thereabouts.

notananthem 5y ago

This is the best outcome but then you don't get "prestigious" schools of the elite. I went to a public university and I'm much better off for it than my MIT peers.