6 ms·

> Standardized tests remain the only criteria totally in the control of the student. You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant

by lapcat 4y ago

> Standardized tests remain the only criteria totally in the control of the student. You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant. This view ironically makes schools and education irrelevant. Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student?

onos 4y ago
Agree, when school is there just to mark elite status. For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. That these schools serve both sets of demand is a problem: Sure hand out the elite status tokens to favored groups, they dont matter much anyways. But if society actually believes that there are pressing problems that need to be solved (global warming perhaps etc) training resources should be aimed at those who can best go on to make use of them.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
  - ngc248 4y ago
    OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in. The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
      - mrangle 4y ago
        People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? In the end, this socializing metric is bs cover in order to juke admissions for the purposes of legacy and diversity criteria. The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots. > The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. > Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
Ekaros 4y ago
The schools and education offer students a tools to achieve good scores in SAT. Some do better, some do worse. On average I doubt most students are capable of self-learning or sufficiently directed towards it at that age.
hedora 4y ago
Most universities would admit kids that did well by one measure (or require both). That hardly makes the school “irrelevant”.
gameman144 4y ago
> Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student? Because the tests measure knowledge, and schools are intended to impart knowledge. As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" If my local gym is really trash or I can't afford one, I can still do pushups on my own or go for runs, but nobody would argue based on that that gyms are worthless. Likewise, schools are (or should be) built for students to learn. Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests. The fact that other means of learning exists, though, doesn't mean that schools aren't important or useful.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" This isn't a good analogy. A gym is a mere building. I wasn't referring to schools as mere buildings, the walls, the halls, the roofs. I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers. > Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests. How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. I wouldn't expect that to work well, with only rare exceptions. Students — who by definition and nature lack experience, lack knowledge, are ignorant — need guidance, and thus the quality of the schools, the quality of the teaching is crucial. Nothing is totally in the control of the student, nor should it be, for the student's own good.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    > A gym is a mere building. > I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers. I think for any gym with personal trainers, this is still a pretty one-to-one analogy. > How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. Ah, I think I might have been missing your point here -- essentially does it boil down to "If tests are all that we're measuring, what's the point of all the grading and process that schools go through", to which the answer is presumably "Tests aren't all that matters"? If that's the case, we probably agree here (in that learning is the thing that matters, and schools might perform a lot of functions which don't map to test scores, but might map to better learning). LMK if this is still off base, though.

by lapcat 4y ago

onos 4y ago

Agree, when school is there just to mark elite status. For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. That these schools serve both sets of demand is a problem: Sure hand out the elite status tokens to favored groups, they dont matter much anyways. But if society actually believes that there are pressing problems that need to be solved (global warming perhaps etc) training resources should be aimed at those who can best go on to make use of them.

lapcat 4y ago
> For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
- ngc248 4y ago
  OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in. The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
    - mrangle 4y ago
      People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? In the end, this socializing metric is bs cover in order to juke admissions for the purposes of legacy and diversity criteria. The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots. > The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. > Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?

Ekaros 4y ago

The schools and education offer students a tools to achieve good scores in SAT. Some do better, some do worse. On average I doubt most students are capable of self-learning or sufficiently directed towards it at that age.

hedora 4y ago

Most universities would admit kids that did well by one measure (or require both). That hardly makes the school “irrelevant”.

gameman144 4y ago

> Why even send students to school, if test scores are "totally" in the control of the student? Because the tests measure knowledge, and schools are intended to impart knowledge. As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" If my local gym is really trash or I can't afford one, I can still do pushups on my own or go for runs, but nobody would argue based on that that gyms are worthless. Likewise, schools are (or should be) built for students to learn. Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests. The fact that other means of learning exists, though, doesn't mean that schools aren't important or useful.

lapcat 4y ago
> As an analogy, my physical fitness is totally in my control: if I work out more, I'll build more muscle. But you'd never say "Why are you even going to the gym if your fitness is within your control?" This isn't a good analogy. A gym is a mere building. I wasn't referring to schools as mere buildings, the walls, the halls, the roofs. I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers. > Students can learn in other ways, too, and any kind of learning will be measured on these tests. How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. I wouldn't expect that to work well, with only rare exceptions. Students — who by definition and nature lack experience, lack knowledge, are ignorant — need guidance, and thus the quality of the schools, the quality of the teaching is crucial. Nothing is totally in the control of the student, nor should it be, for the student's own good.
- gameman144 4y ago
  > A gym is a mere building. > I was referring to schools as the places where the students meet the teachers. I think for any gym with personal trainers, this is still a pretty one-to-one analogy. > How successful do you expect most children would be with entirely self-directed learning? No teachers, no tutors, not even parents. That's what I meant. Ah, I think I might have been missing your point here -- essentially does it boil down to "If tests are all that we're measuring, what's the point of all the grading and process that schools go through", to which the answer is presumably "Tests aren't all that matters"? If that's the case, we probably agree here (in that learning is the thing that matters, and schools might perform a lot of functions which don't map to test scores, but might map to better learning). LMK if this is still off base, though.