5 ms·

How is hiring a tutor "gaming" it? They spend extra time learning, and as a result they do better. It's not like the tutors secretly give them a cheat sheet lis

How is hiring a tutor "gaming" it? They spend extra time learning, and as a result they do better. It's not like the tutors secretly give them a cheat sheet list of all the test answers; they still have to answer the questions the same as everyone else. If somebody puts more time into studying, whether on their own or with a tutor or with their parents, they'll do better than somebody who didn't.

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
Prepping for a test doesn't give you any practical knowledge or expand how you think about things; it's just about getting familiar with the test’s format and the way the question authors think. It'd be a bit like getting “better” at poker by always playing with the same people and learning their tells. It's “gaming” it because you're not better at what the test is supposed to measure, you're just better at what it actually does measure.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Prepping for the test is a valuable signal when you're talking about the entire pool of high school students. And it does not gate opportunities by economics as much as you'd think: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/magazine/asian-test-prep-centers-offer-parents-exactly-what-they-want-results.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/magazine/asian-test-prep-.... Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests.
  - zenta 4y ago
    It's not though. Give ten kids from the same class a self study online course and give another ten a private tutor, and they won't see the same score distribution. Where's the signal there? SAT results don't have a line item that notes the amount of wealth or privilege that went into preparing. > Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests. Some families can't. Other families aren't aware, or aren't interested. But we judge the kids in the family for that. That said... I don't know how the _new_ system will work at fighting that privilege -- there are still lots of ways for it to disguise itself. But we have to at least acknowledge the issues with the SAT. But, to me at least, this goes beyond privilege. This is about diversity of skills and diversity of learner profiles and moving away from linear quantification of potential.
    - Hermitian909 4y ago
      I'm a former educator and tutor. The effects of studying "for the test" as you put have been measured, improved test taking skills tends to be worth ~30 points which is not that significant. This matches my anecdotal experience and that of people I know who run SAT prep courses. It's far more effective to actually teach students the material, either by teaching them new concepts or by firming up their understanding to ones they've already been exposed to. Particularly in Math, many students in high school have shaky understandings of fractions or algebra. Firming up these foundations can often lead to >100 point increase (given sufficient lead time). Those foundations are something the test is actually looking for since numeracy and strong algebra skills are a strong predictor of success in Calculus. It's true that tutoring grants unfair advantages but this is going to be true in any system that uses skills as part of a selection criteria.
      - derbOac 4y ago
        I'm familiar with that 30 point differential because it shows up in research. You're right that 30 points isn't that much if you're thinking about the whole distribution, but I guarantee it can be significant around the selection threshold. That threshold might be implicit or explicit, but it's there, and if it's enough to nudge applicants past it, it's significant.
        Hermitian909 4y ago
        Sure, but having read a large chunk of educational literature I'm not aware of any alternatives with fewer distortions from parental aid. Grades correlate more highly with a good home life than test scores do, for example. As long as we have "prestige" universities there's going to be some form of skills testing, and no one has ever designed an un-gameable test that can be administered nationally. The question we have to ask ourselves then is how we can reduce game-ability and I doubt we can make improvements that are more than incremental.
        lordnacho 4y ago
        Would you have some papers I could google, or some keywords to get me started? I'm quite interested in reading those studies.

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago

Prepping for a test doesn't give you any practical knowledge or expand how you think about things; it's just about getting familiar with the test’s format and the way the question authors think. It'd be a bit like getting “better” at poker by always playing with the same people and learning their tells. It's “gaming” it because you're not better at what the test is supposed to measure, you're just better at what it actually does measure.

rayiner 4y ago
Prepping for the test is a valuable signal when you're talking about the entire pool of high school students. And it does not gate opportunities by economics as much as you'd think: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/magazine/asian-test-prep-centers-offer-parents-exactly-what-they-want-results.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/magazine/asian-test-prep-.... Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests.
- zenta 4y ago
  It's not though. Give ten kids from the same class a self study online course and give another ten a private tutor, and they won't see the same score distribution. Where's the signal there? SAT results don't have a line item that notes the amount of wealth or privilege that went into preparing. > Immigrant families eligible for reduced price lunch are able to scrounge up the money for these tests. Some families can't. Other families aren't aware, or aren't interested. But we judge the kids in the family for that. That said... I don't know how the _new_ system will work at fighting that privilege -- there are still lots of ways for it to disguise itself. But we have to at least acknowledge the issues with the SAT. But, to me at least, this goes beyond privilege. This is about diversity of skills and diversity of learner profiles and moving away from linear quantification of potential.
  - Hermitian909 4y ago
    I'm a former educator and tutor. The effects of studying "for the test" as you put have been measured, improved test taking skills tends to be worth ~30 points which is not that significant. This matches my anecdotal experience and that of people I know who run SAT prep courses. It's far more effective to actually teach students the material, either by teaching them new concepts or by firming up their understanding to ones they've already been exposed to. Particularly in Math, many students in high school have shaky understandings of fractions or algebra. Firming up these foundations can often lead to >100 point increase (given sufficient lead time). Those foundations are something the test is actually looking for since numeracy and strong algebra skills are a strong predictor of success in Calculus. It's true that tutoring grants unfair advantages but this is going to be true in any system that uses skills as part of a selection criteria.
    - derbOac 4y ago
      I'm familiar with that 30 point differential because it shows up in research. You're right that 30 points isn't that much if you're thinking about the whole distribution, but I guarantee it can be significant around the selection threshold. That threshold might be implicit or explicit, but it's there, and if it's enough to nudge applicants past it, it's significant.
      - Hermitian909 4y ago
        Sure, but having read a large chunk of educational literature I'm not aware of any alternatives with fewer distortions from parental aid. Grades correlate more highly with a good home life than test scores do, for example. As long as we have "prestige" universities there's going to be some form of skills testing, and no one has ever designed an un-gameable test that can be administered nationally. The question we have to ask ourselves then is how we can reduce game-ability and I doubt we can make improvements that are more than incremental.
        lordnacho 4y ago
        Would you have some papers I could google, or some keywords to get me started? I'm quite interested in reading those studies.