5 ms·

Employers should embrace standardize testing: we're on the cusp of a revolution in education driven by the tireless personalized tutoring and feedback of LLMs

Employers should embrace standardize testing: we're on the cusp of a revolution in education driven by the tireless personalized tutoring and feedback of LLMs Of course not all schools are ending testing, MIT for example: "We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles" https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/ https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

ec109685 4y ago
As an aside, that is so well written, and I love the use of inline citations that expand right where the reader is versus jumping to the bottom. It feels so natural that I wish all publications did that.
ghaff 4y ago
I had a professor in grad school who had studied how admissions inputs correlated to various measures of success (which is of course a fraught subject of uts own). This was a while back though I assume not much as changed. As I recall, standardized tests followed by some sort of adjusted class rank were the best predictors while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close to worthless. I expect schools could drop some of the more time-consuming softer stuff with very little impact on the admissions process. In MIT's case it probably is especially important to assess certain types of skills, because someone who doesn't have a reasonable math background for example is going to have a bad time. (Though problems doing math is a surprisingly common theme in higher ed including at the grad level--even with programs you wouldn't think were especially quantitative.)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close to worthless It’s telling we’re seeing testing attacked while these are preserved.
  - lumb63 4y ago
    It’s not a mistake, that’s for sure. I’ll be more blunt since a lot of other comments in this thread beat around the bush: higher education institutes are removing objective admissions criteria so that they can admit less qualified minorities on subjective grounds.
    - baremetal 4y ago
      the question is, why? why are they doing it? the real reason not the ostensible one.
      - IshKebab 4y ago
        Money presumably. There's an extremely strong incentive for educational institutions to spend their long term reputation on short term financial gain by setting high fees and giving everyone a high grade. Basically everyone loves it except people who already graduated. And maybe employers, but employers tend to do their own tests because of the difficulty of comparing external test results across time and institutions.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > question is, why? Discretionary admissions with social goals turns the university, and its administrators, into institutions with broad public remit.
      - ljhlkjlkj 4y ago
        Probably three reasons: 1) They're trying to get ahead of a Supreme Court ruling, which will likely rule Ivies are discriminating against Asian candidates. 2) Elite cultural zeitgeist is in favor of discriminating against Asian and non-elite white candidates. 3) More subtly, the top Ivy admins are overwhelmingly Jewish, and they've likely received push back from Jewish alumni/donors, as Asians have displaced smart-but-unremarkable Jewish candidates. A recent Tablet article alluded to Asians displacing Jewish candidates, which has been an unreported theme in the Ivies over the last 20 years. Those three things are driving much of it.
    - deleted 4y ago
tomohawk 4y ago
Employers used to have standardized tests for all sorts of things. The tests enabled a lot of upward mobility for people to pursue occupations that did not require college degree. If you could show aptitude in a test and had at least a high school education, they'd take you on and train you and you'd have a nice career. However, certain groups sued saying that "equality of outcome" is more important than "equality of opportunity". They argued that if the outcome of a test showed intersectional differences, then the test must be biased. They succeeded in pressuring the various trade groups and industries to get rid of the tests or be sued into oblivion. The trade groups that offered these tests realized it was just easier to require college degrees as a proxy instead of having their own specific tests and having to deal with these pressure groups. This is why many occupations these days require a degree when it seems like that should be unnecessary. This slammed the door to upward mobility for many that the pressure groups were claiming to try to help.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Can you provide references for this story?
  - standy17817 4y ago
    It was a Supreme Court case, Griggs vs Duke Power, in 1970. Since then, employers cannot use IQ tests or standardized tests, since they were deemed discriminatory against minorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      This case says something different though. It says you can’t use a test that doesn’t relate to the job, regardless of if there’s intent to discriminate or not. A standardized test that tests your ability to do the job is still allowable — presumably even if minorities fare worse on it.
      - 4y ago
LeonardoTolstoy 4y ago
If you read the explanation I do think that makes sense in that they are very clear that it is specifically the _math_ portion of the SAT/ACT where they see the value. And generally I agree with that, especially as a threshold (as opposed to a fine ranking). It was similar when I applied to grad school (this was engineering). They told us pretty unequivocally that getting a perfect GRE math score was pretty much required, but that the verbal went right in the bin, so don't worry about it. It makes sense for engineering focused schools or those applying to engineering schools. I'm still less convinced places like Harvard where a good chunk of the students won't take a ultra-difficult math class during their time there has much use in the SATs. At least in the "I got a 1580 on my SATs but someone with a 1570 got in over me, how is that fair?" Kind of way.

ec109685 4y ago

As an aside, that is so well written, and I love the use of inline citations that expand right where the reader is versus jumping to the bottom. It feels so natural that I wish all publications did that.

ghaff 4y ago

I had a professor in grad school who had studied how admissions inputs correlated to various measures of success (which is of course a fraught subject of uts own). This was a while back though I assume not much as changed. As I recall, standardized tests followed by some sort of adjusted class rank were the best predictors while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close to worthless. I expect schools could drop some of the more time-consuming softer stuff with very little impact on the admissions process. In MIT's case it probably is especially important to assess certain types of skills, because someone who doesn't have a reasonable math background for example is going to have a bad time. (Though problems doing math is a surprisingly common theme in higher ed including at the grad level--even with programs you wouldn't think were especially quantitative.)

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> while a lot of the softer stuff like interviews and letters of recommendation were pretty close to worthless It’s telling we’re seeing testing attacked while these are preserved.
- lumb63 4y ago
  It’s not a mistake, that’s for sure. I’ll be more blunt since a lot of other comments in this thread beat around the bush: higher education institutes are removing objective admissions criteria so that they can admit less qualified minorities on subjective grounds.
  - baremetal 4y ago
    the question is, why? why are they doing it? the real reason not the ostensible one.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      Money presumably. There's an extremely strong incentive for educational institutions to spend their long term reputation on short term financial gain by setting high fees and giving everyone a high grade. Basically everyone loves it except people who already graduated. And maybe employers, but employers tend to do their own tests because of the difficulty of comparing external test results across time and institutions.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > question is, why? Discretionary admissions with social goals turns the university, and its administrators, into institutions with broad public remit.
    - ljhlkjlkj 4y ago
      Probably three reasons: 1) They're trying to get ahead of a Supreme Court ruling, which will likely rule Ivies are discriminating against Asian candidates. 2) Elite cultural zeitgeist is in favor of discriminating against Asian and non-elite white candidates. 3) More subtly, the top Ivy admins are overwhelmingly Jewish, and they've likely received push back from Jewish alumni/donors, as Asians have displaced smart-but-unremarkable Jewish candidates. A recent Tablet article alluded to Asians displacing Jewish candidates, which has been an unreported theme in the Ivies over the last 20 years. Those three things are driving much of it.
  - deleted 4y ago

tomohawk 4y ago

Employers used to have standardized tests for all sorts of things. The tests enabled a lot of upward mobility for people to pursue occupations that did not require college degree. If you could show aptitude in a test and had at least a high school education, they'd take you on and train you and you'd have a nice career. However, certain groups sued saying that "equality of outcome" is more important than "equality of opportunity". They argued that if the outcome of a test showed intersectional differences, then the test must be biased. They succeeded in pressuring the various trade groups and industries to get rid of the tests or be sued into oblivion. The trade groups that offered these tests realized it was just easier to require college degrees as a proxy instead of having their own specific tests and having to deal with these pressure groups. This is why many occupations these days require a degree when it seems like that should be unnecessary. This slammed the door to upward mobility for many that the pressure groups were claiming to try to help.

kenjackson 4y ago
Can you provide references for this story?
- standy17817 4y ago
  It was a Supreme Court case, Griggs vs Duke Power, in 1970. Since then, employers cannot use IQ tests or standardized tests, since they were deemed discriminatory against minorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    This case says something different though. It says you can’t use a test that doesn’t relate to the job, regardless of if there’s intent to discriminate or not. A standardized test that tests your ability to do the job is still allowable — presumably even if minorities fare worse on it.
    - 4y ago

LeonardoTolstoy 4y ago

If you read the explanation I do think that makes sense in that they are very clear that it is specifically the _math_ portion of the SAT/ACT where they see the value. And generally I agree with that, especially as a threshold (as opposed to a fine ranking). It was similar when I applied to grad school (this was engineering). They told us pretty unequivocally that getting a perfect GRE math score was pretty much required, but that the verbal went right in the bin, so don't worry about it. It makes sense for engineering focused schools or those applying to engineering schools. I'm still less convinced places like Harvard where a good chunk of the students won't take a ultra-difficult math class during their time there has much use in the SATs. At least in the "I got a 1580 on my SATs but someone with a 1570 got in over me, how is that fair?" Kind of way.