3 ms·

Standardized tests are designed to be as non-gameable as possible. They're definitely less gameable than the other admissions criteria still used in elite colle

Standardized tests are designed to be as non-gameable as possible. They're definitely less gameable than the other admissions criteria still used in elite colleges: admissions essays, playing obscure sports, fancy extracurricular experiences, etc. Most studies find SAT prep confers very limited benefits to the average person. Having an essay essentially written for you by an expensive consultant with contacts in admissions departments is undetectable and widely practiced. But when it comes to standardized tests, many wealthy families get so desperate for good scores for their kids that they engage in criminal conspiracy (recall the Varsity Blues scandal in 2019). It's extremely hard for me to see how, when you remove the least gameable aspect of admissions, that it gives the rich less of an advantage. I'm almost certain it gives them more of an advantage instead.

Zigurd 4y ago
14% of Harvard undergrads are legacies. It is exceedingly unlikely that SATs help a higher percentage of deserving but otherwise overlooked applicants. My point is, there is a way to have a far higher impact on opening seats for kids who should be getting an elite education than the question of whether SATs help or harm attaining that goal. They're not really serious until they don't preference legacies.
- civilized 4y ago
  > 14% of Harvard undergrads are legacies. It is exceedingly unlikely that SATs help a higher percentage of deserving but otherwise overlooked applicants. I don't follow. Are you implying that the first sentence is evidence for the second? Do you think legacies are getting in via high standardized test scores? I don't think that's true. If standardized test scores were a major determinant of admission, these schools would be 2-3x more East Asian than they currently are. And virtually none of those students would be legacies. The Harvard admissions case showed all this with evidence from Harvard's own admissions data. Additionally, the article cites a study saying that SATs do in fact help "deserving but otherwise overlooked" applicants. > My point is, there is a way to have a far higher impact on opening seats for kids who should be getting an elite education than the question of whether SATs help or harm attaining that goal. They're not really serious until they don't preference legacies. I agree with you that elite schools do not explicitly prioritize the talented poor. My impression is they prioritize (1) the powerful, (2) those who possess or can afford expensive class signals, (3) those who will donate money, (4) racial balance, (5) high achievers. Standardized tests allow students who can't get in via Categories 1-4 to sneak in via Category 5. Even these students tend to be of higher socioeconomic class, but to a lesser extent than Categories 1-4. In my opinion, the only way to do better than standardized tests would be (standardized tests) - (all the non-academic mechanisms that privilege the rich) + (explicit priority for the talented poor). But these second and third terms will never happen, so standardized tests are better than nothing. It is hard for me to understand those who support standardized tests being discarded along the way to a more fair admissions process. As you point out, there are much more obvious ways to achieve that first.
kenjackson 4y ago
The SAT is way more gameable than the College Board would have you believe. Most coaching is not very effective, but there is a group that is very effective. It’s almost by design that they aren’t very popular. That said it is less gameable than most of the rest of the process. Family wealth and income are probably less gameable, but many schools are need blind.
- civilized 4y ago
  Are you saying there is some particular training program that increases scores much more than the 30-90 points claimed by various studies?
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    Yes. And I’m going to be coy and not tell you much about it. So you’re right to be skeptical. In a few years I’ll speak more freely on it.
    - civilized 4y ago
      Skeptical is putting it mildly. I'd give you better chances of having a secret proof of the Riemann Hypothesis than producing miracle educational results at scale (even if it is just on a standardized test).
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        I’d be just as skeptical. It’s something that would require strong evidence and I’m providing you none. I’ll be around on HN in five years. Ask me then.
        civilized 4y ago
        If it's real, you might as well tell everyone and I'll hear about it that way - I am certain you'll be very popular.

Zigurd 4y ago

14% of Harvard undergrads are legacies. It is exceedingly unlikely that SATs help a higher percentage of deserving but otherwise overlooked applicants. My point is, there is a way to have a far higher impact on opening seats for kids who should be getting an elite education than the question of whether SATs help or harm attaining that goal. They're not really serious until they don't preference legacies.

civilized 4y ago
> 14% of Harvard undergrads are legacies. It is exceedingly unlikely that SATs help a higher percentage of deserving but otherwise overlooked applicants. I don't follow. Are you implying that the first sentence is evidence for the second? Do you think legacies are getting in via high standardized test scores? I don't think that's true. If standardized test scores were a major determinant of admission, these schools would be 2-3x more East Asian than they currently are. And virtually none of those students would be legacies. The Harvard admissions case showed all this with evidence from Harvard's own admissions data. Additionally, the article cites a study saying that SATs do in fact help "deserving but otherwise overlooked" applicants. > My point is, there is a way to have a far higher impact on opening seats for kids who should be getting an elite education than the question of whether SATs help or harm attaining that goal. They're not really serious until they don't preference legacies. I agree with you that elite schools do not explicitly prioritize the talented poor. My impression is they prioritize (1) the powerful, (2) those who possess or can afford expensive class signals, (3) those who will donate money, (4) racial balance, (5) high achievers. Standardized tests allow students who can't get in via Categories 1-4 to sneak in via Category 5. Even these students tend to be of higher socioeconomic class, but to a lesser extent than Categories 1-4. In my opinion, the only way to do better than standardized tests would be (standardized tests) - (all the non-academic mechanisms that privilege the rich) + (explicit priority for the talented poor). But these second and third terms will never happen, so standardized tests are better than nothing. It is hard for me to understand those who support standardized tests being discarded along the way to a more fair admissions process. As you point out, there are much more obvious ways to achieve that first.

kenjackson 4y ago

The SAT is way more gameable than the College Board would have you believe. Most coaching is not very effective, but there is a group that is very effective. It’s almost by design that they aren’t very popular. That said it is less gameable than most of the rest of the process. Family wealth and income are probably less gameable, but many schools are need blind.

civilized 4y ago
Are you saying there is some particular training program that increases scores much more than the 30-90 points claimed by various studies?
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Yes. And I’m going to be coy and not tell you much about it. So you’re right to be skeptical. In a few years I’ll speak more freely on it.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Skeptical is putting it mildly. I'd give you better chances of having a secret proof of the Riemann Hypothesis than producing miracle educational results at scale (even if it is just on a standardized test).
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      I’d be just as skeptical. It’s something that would require strong evidence and I’m providing you none. I’ll be around on HN in five years. Ask me then.
      - civilized 4y ago
        If it's real, you might as well tell everyone and I'll hear about it that way - I am certain you'll be very popular.