3 ms·

>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel ni

>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance. Feel free to figure out better system. Tests while not perfect, are in my opinion at least fair and relatively transparent. >High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary jesus christ - GPA. I honestly don't know any more biased metric than GPA. Even if GPA is better predictor of how hardworking you are, then I still don't care, there's too much bias in this metric. Standarized tests are "pure", they aren't your average not 100% emotionally stable teacher

HDThoreaun 4y ago
> Feel free to figure out better system. Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.
- tester756 4y ago
  education system should have different objectives than "get already powerful and wealthy people and make them more wealthy and powerful", so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Harvard is a private institution. You don't get to set their priorities.
    - tester756 4y ago
      I'm not saying Harvard needs to change. I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent. Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access to resources and parental support. And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Anyways, the main discussion was the insane number of admin staff on campus. Admissions staff is only a small slice of that.
        tester756 4y ago
        > And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Internet and that's not very high bar. I've personally mostly used it when preparing for math exams. >to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Access to informations at the level of those tests isn't difficult. What's being measured? how proficient you are at tested topics, how good your knowledge is. >Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access What's more fair then? Those tests are as possibly fair as we can get.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        What does fair mean? I'm pretty sure that harvard is fairly putting together the student body must likely to become rich and powerful. Standardized tests have very little impact on ones likeliness to have a successful business or political career. Just accepting the fastest people might be the fairest way to win NCAA track meets, but that isn't their goal, so it's not how they run admissions.
        tester756 4y ago
Stephen0xFF 4y ago
Statistically speaking, GPA given how long it takes to accumulate, is a great metric. Also given the type of work you have to do from extra credit, pop quizzes, standardize tests, projects, group work and more, it may be a more rounded metric than a single test -- more in tune with life. Though I agree GPA is not better than standardized tests. It still is a very useful metric.
- toast0 4y ago
  GPA as a metric is terrible because there's no standardization of grading across schools. At best, you can use it to compare applicants from the same school, and sometimes even at the same school Professor Birch is a much harsher grader than Professor Elm, so comparing grades of students that took the same course but from a different instructor is tricky. Standardized tests have difficiencies, but at least the scores are comparable.
- tester756 4y ago
  >It still is a very useful metric. Maybe for lulz/curiosity, definitely not when it comes to accepting somebody into college. How to compare GPA of people who didn't gave a fuck about "lame"/"easy" subjects and outperformed at maths, physics, etc with people who didn't outperform at e.g maths, physics, but were putting effort into the lame subjects?

HDThoreaun 4y ago

> Feel free to figure out better system. Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.

tester756 4y ago
education system should have different objectives than "get already powerful and wealthy people and make them more wealthy and powerful", so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Harvard is a private institution. You don't get to set their priorities.
  - tester756 4y ago
    I'm not saying Harvard needs to change. I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent. Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access to resources and parental support. And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Anyways, the main discussion was the insane number of admin staff on campus. Admissions staff is only a small slice of that.
      - tester756 4y ago
        > And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Internet and that's not very high bar. I've personally mostly used it when preparing for math exams. >to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?" Access to informations at the level of those tests isn't difficult. What's being measured? how proficient you are at tested topics, how good your knowledge is. >Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access What's more fair then? Those tests are as possibly fair as we can get.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      What does fair mean? I'm pretty sure that harvard is fairly putting together the student body must likely to become rich and powerful. Standardized tests have very little impact on ones likeliness to have a successful business or political career. Just accepting the fastest people might be the fairest way to win NCAA track meets, but that isn't their goal, so it's not how they run admissions.
      - tester756 4y ago

Stephen0xFF 4y ago

Statistically speaking, GPA given how long it takes to accumulate, is a great metric. Also given the type of work you have to do from extra credit, pop quizzes, standardize tests, projects, group work and more, it may be a more rounded metric than a single test -- more in tune with life. Though I agree GPA is not better than standardized tests. It still is a very useful metric.

toast0 4y ago
GPA as a metric is terrible because there's no standardization of grading across schools. At best, you can use it to compare applicants from the same school, and sometimes even at the same school Professor Birch is a much harsher grader than Professor Elm, so comparing grades of students that took the same course but from a different instructor is tricky. Standardized tests have difficiencies, but at least the scores are comparable.
tester756 4y ago
>It still is a very useful metric. Maybe for lulz/curiosity, definitely not when it comes to accepting somebody into college. How to compare GPA of people who didn't gave a fuck about "lame"/"easy" subjects and outperformed at maths, physics, etc with people who didn't outperform at e.g maths, physics, but were putting effort into the lame subjects?