4 ms·

It's a hard problem and anyone who says it's easy (including "just look at SAT/GPA!!") shouldn't be taken seriously. The problem with SAT, GPA is that once eve

It's a hard problem and anyone who says it's easy (including "just look at SAT/GPA!!") shouldn't be taken seriously. The problem with SAT, GPA is that once everyone knows what you're measuring, they optimize for that measure, and it loses its meaning. Of ten kids with no particular extra tutoring over what they got in their average public school, SAT and GPA are going to tell you a lot about underlying aptitude. Have one of those kid's parents send the kid to a bunch of extra tutoring, and it ruins the ability to do the comparison. Have every kid get all that exact same level of tutoring and it's back to an even playing field, but you've managed to ruin everyone's childhood. And you might've beaten a lot of creativity and other useful-for-real-life but less useful for mass-produced-college-education skills out of them. Today we're somewhere in between - well-off kids often get the helicopter-parent-study-to-the-test short-term-maximization childhood; less well-off ones do not. So you need a new metric, or some secret sauce, but the secret sauce is only useful if it's secret. And if it's secret, it's hard to tell if it's legitimately trying to value the right things... If we were starting schools greenfield it might make sense to just let them all do whatever they want, and then see how their graduates do, but... we're saddled with a lot of legacy shit from existing wealth, past wrongs, etc, that make that real tough. And then some people put crazy expectations on colleges to do things like fix those historical problems, too, when in reality so much damage to some kids prospects are done WAY earlier: https://crookedtimber.org/2023/02/06/can-college-level-the-playing-field-no-it-really-cant/ https://crookedtimber.org/2023/02/06/can-college-level-the-p...

rufus_foreman 4y ago
How much does tutoring raise an SAT score typically?
tomsthumb 4y ago
The impact of test prep is commonly overstated. According to Washington Post and Slate, both being rather progressive, SAT prep might improve scores 10-20 points on average, with greater effect on the math section. There is a paper on the ACT website suggesting 30-60 points. Downward adjustments for high performing demographics can be double that. A cup of coffee would probably see similar or better improvements than test prep. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/09/can-coaching-truly-boost-sat-scores-for-years-the-college-board-said-no-now-it-says-yes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/... https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-they-work-bias.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the... https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1710-investigating-test-prep-impact-2018-07.pdf https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R171...
- onos 4y ago
  This statement just does not match reality.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    Do you have any studies showing the opposite?
    - onos 4y ago
      Do you think school also doesn’t help sat scores?
- lordnacho 4y ago
  The Slate article says the points effect is modest but also that a few points make a big difference to college admissions at the selective schools. I also question how the controlling is done. The control group does better seemingly from doing the test more. You'd think that's one of the things that shouldn't be controlled for. After all isn't it part of test prep?
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Khan Academy claims that doing their test prep is associated with a 115-point increase. Fortunately, their test prep is free, and is usable by anyone with access to a computer/phone/library. I don't know about the SAT prep specifically, but much of their content is also downloadable for offline use, which is pretty cool.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  Among admits, there are small differences in actual test scores especially among whites and Asians.[1] Also, there are racial gaps among actually using SAT prep.[2] Whites may actually be the least likely to use test prep courses depending on which source you look at.[3] I guess if you are applying to Harvard, test prep could actually be pretty significant. When Harvard makes it decisions, test prep could actually be a major factor in admission there since scores are so close(assuming the numbers you gave). Especially since they try to reach out to people in different regions of the US. [1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/widget/2018/10/21/sat-by-race-graphic/ https://www.thecrimson.com/widget/2018/10/21/sat-by-race-gra... [2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0002831211425609 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/000283121142560... [3]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/th...
civilized 4y ago
> well-off kids often get the helicopter-parent-study-to-the-test short-term-maximization childhood; less well-off ones do not. This criticism of standardized tests is ubiquitous, but what never, ever seems to be discussed is whether holistic review of many facets actually improves this problem or simply entrenches the well-off further. Say you're a poor, smart kid who works to support a dysfunctional family. You want to go to a life-changing school. Would you rather prove your potential by simply taking a test, perhaps along with a brief note about your disadvantaged background, or would you rather have to submit materials reflecting ten different dimensions of yourself, all of which the wealthy have hired armies of consultants to optimize for them, and networks of insiders to feed them knowledge of what the schools want to see? We don't have to answer that because the schools have never asked. It was never their goal to get poor students in the first place, and income statistics of admits at Ivies show this clearly.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  In practice the wealthy and connected are likely to be somewhat advantaged either way. Whatever system you set up is going to get gamed, whether that means having someone ghostwrite/coach their admissions essays, exaggerate their recommendation letters, prep them (or even help them cheat) on admissions tests, train them in exclusive sports, help them obtain experiences inaccessible to other students such as working in a research laboratory or visiting exotic places, or just directly bribe the school with cash. But IMO you still have to try to push back against those games. The purely test-based system is absolutely ruinous for some kinds of ambitious parents’ children. Look at the childhoods of kids growing up in e.g. South Korea or some Chinese social classes. It’s nonstop test prep from morning to night starting from age 3 or 4 through the end of high school. Sure some of the kids who succeed in that system are “working hard for it”, but at what cost? And while one particular extraordinary disadvantaged kid might succeed in that system, it’s not any kind of general recipe for social mobility or fixing large-scale social justice problems.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    Best thing is probably something straightforward that can't be gamed like a difficult to game SAT. Instead we have a complicated set of criteria that can basically only be gamed by rich people. Worst case scenario if you are are poor and want to get into one of these colleges.
cuteboy19 4y ago
How can this be a defense of the "holistic" admission process? Its as if you are defending "holistic" medicine by saying that actual medicine can't cure cancer. (But of course holistic medicine can't either)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DiscourseFan 4y ago
At the end of the day, yes there are a lot of rich kids who get helicopter parented and sent to ivy leagues and they perpetuate the system of benefitting the few who have the most resources in life. But quite a few kids who are less fortunate, perhaps a bad combination of less fortunate with terrible homelifes who have little chance to succeed in school, are able to move to fairly high quality state schools after doing a couple years at what are usually free, if not incredibly affordable community colleges. The problem is with the existence of colleges like the Ivys, or MIT, or any other massive private research university. There is no sense in schools like this holding so much wealth with their disgustingly large endowments. Why can't these schools be broken up, or, better yet, nationalized (or turned into state schools)? The problem is not affirmative action or prep-school kids, but the very existence of these massive, corrupt institutions which function increasingly not so much as halls of education but hedge-funds for the ultra-wealthy.
rayiner 4y ago
> Have every kid get all that exact same level of tutoring and it's back to an even playing field, but you've managed to ruin everyone's childhood Spending a summer studying for the SAT is both more approachable and less disruptive to childhood than putting together a bunch of bullshit extracirrculars.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  Spending a summer studying for the SAT is a 100% waste of time, with no redeeming value whatsoever beyond playing an admissions game. Every hour that students collectively spend on SAT prep is an hour thrown away, not spent on some activity with more social/personal value. People encouraging all students to spend hours on this are effectively advocating an extra uncompensated time tax on high school students. It’s grotesque, especially considering students are already forced to spend thousands of hours in school. “Extracurricular” activities are only bullshit if you make them so. Otherwise, the whole point of “extracurricular” activity is that it is outside of the curriculum, based on students’ personal choices about how to spend their time. There are thousands of worthwhile ways to spend time outside of school, and no particular “bullshit” choice is forced on anyone. (Indeed, admissions officers are more interested in the students who find their own interesting things to do vs. do stuff they think is bullshit but are told to do by their parents or others.)
  - brhsagain 4y ago
    The equivalent of the kind of personally edifying extracurricular activity you’re talking about would be actually reading a lot and doing a lot of math, and then just doing well on the SAT using your actual knowledge. If you’re the kind of kid who would do that then great, just like if you’re the kind of kid who naturally becomes #1 at archery or something then great. Most kids are not like that, and it is assumed that whatever the criteria for admission is, most people will be gaming it. From that perspective, the extracurriculars game is way more time consuming, money consuming, and more bullshit.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
thereare5lights 4y ago
> less well-off ones do not. False. I don't get why people keep pretending like less well off children do not have access to this. People like me growing up needed this as an avenue as this was often times one of the only avenues available to the less fortunate for standing out. We don't have access to other privileged activities that holistic reviews love. People that want to take this away from us are short sighted and demonstrative of how the privileged have no idea what the impact their policies have on the people they ostensibly want to help.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

How much does tutoring raise an SAT score typically?

tomsthumb 4y ago

The impact of test prep is commonly overstated. According to Washington Post and Slate, both being rather progressive, SAT prep might improve scores 10-20 points on average, with greater effect on the math section. There is a paper on the ACT website suggesting 30-60 points. Downward adjustments for high performing demographics can be double that. A cup of coffee would probably see similar or better improvements than test prep. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/09/can-coaching-truly-boost-sat-scores-for-years-the-college-board-said-no-now-it-says-yes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/... https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-they-work-bias.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the... https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1710-investigating-test-prep-impact-2018-07.pdf https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R171...

onos 4y ago
This statement just does not match reality.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  Do you have any studies showing the opposite?
  - onos 4y ago
    Do you think school also doesn’t help sat scores?
lordnacho 4y ago
The Slate article says the points effect is modest but also that a few points make a big difference to college admissions at the selective schools. I also question how the controlling is done. The control group does better seemingly from doing the test more. You'd think that's one of the things that shouldn't be controlled for. After all isn't it part of test prep?
gnicholas 4y ago
Khan Academy claims that doing their test prep is associated with a 115-point increase. Fortunately, their test prep is free, and is usable by anyone with access to a computer/phone/library. I don't know about the SAT prep specifically, but much of their content is also downloadable for offline use, which is pretty cool.
onetimeusename 4y ago
Among admits, there are small differences in actual test scores especially among whites and Asians.[1] Also, there are racial gaps among actually using SAT prep.[2] Whites may actually be the least likely to use test prep courses depending on which source you look at.[3] I guess if you are applying to Harvard, test prep could actually be pretty significant. When Harvard makes it decisions, test prep could actually be a major factor in admission there since scores are so close(assuming the numbers you gave). Especially since they try to reach out to people in different regions of the US. [1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/widget/2018/10/21/sat-by-race-graphic/ https://www.thecrimson.com/widget/2018/10/21/sat-by-race-gra... [2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0002831211425609 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/000283121142560... [3]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/th...

civilized 4y ago

> well-off kids often get the helicopter-parent-study-to-the-test short-term-maximization childhood; less well-off ones do not. This criticism of standardized tests is ubiquitous, but what never, ever seems to be discussed is whether holistic review of many facets actually improves this problem or simply entrenches the well-off further. Say you're a poor, smart kid who works to support a dysfunctional family. You want to go to a life-changing school. Would you rather prove your potential by simply taking a test, perhaps along with a brief note about your disadvantaged background, or would you rather have to submit materials reflecting ten different dimensions of yourself, all of which the wealthy have hired armies of consultants to optimize for them, and networks of insiders to feed them knowledge of what the schools want to see? We don't have to answer that because the schools have never asked. It was never their goal to get poor students in the first place, and income statistics of admits at Ivies show this clearly.

jacobolus 4y ago
In practice the wealthy and connected are likely to be somewhat advantaged either way. Whatever system you set up is going to get gamed, whether that means having someone ghostwrite/coach their admissions essays, exaggerate their recommendation letters, prep them (or even help them cheat) on admissions tests, train them in exclusive sports, help them obtain experiences inaccessible to other students such as working in a research laboratory or visiting exotic places, or just directly bribe the school with cash. But IMO you still have to try to push back against those games. The purely test-based system is absolutely ruinous for some kinds of ambitious parents’ children. Look at the childhoods of kids growing up in e.g. South Korea or some Chinese social classes. It’s nonstop test prep from morning to night starting from age 3 or 4 through the end of high school. Sure some of the kids who succeed in that system are “working hard for it”, but at what cost? And while one particular extraordinary disadvantaged kid might succeed in that system, it’s not any kind of general recipe for social mobility or fixing large-scale social justice problems.
- kelipso 4y ago
  Best thing is probably something straightforward that can't be gamed like a difficult to game SAT. Instead we have a complicated set of criteria that can basically only be gamed by rich people. Worst case scenario if you are are poor and want to get into one of these colleges.

cuteboy19 4y ago

How can this be a defense of the "holistic" admission process? Its as if you are defending "holistic" medicine by saying that actual medicine can't cure cancer. (But of course holistic medicine can't either)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DiscourseFan 4y ago

At the end of the day, yes there are a lot of rich kids who get helicopter parented and sent to ivy leagues and they perpetuate the system of benefitting the few who have the most resources in life. But quite a few kids who are less fortunate, perhaps a bad combination of less fortunate with terrible homelifes who have little chance to succeed in school, are able to move to fairly high quality state schools after doing a couple years at what are usually free, if not incredibly affordable community colleges. The problem is with the existence of colleges like the Ivys, or MIT, or any other massive private research university. There is no sense in schools like this holding so much wealth with their disgustingly large endowments. Why can't these schools be broken up, or, better yet, nationalized (or turned into state schools)? The problem is not affirmative action or prep-school kids, but the very existence of these massive, corrupt institutions which function increasingly not so much as halls of education but hedge-funds for the ultra-wealthy.

rayiner 4y ago

> Have every kid get all that exact same level of tutoring and it's back to an even playing field, but you've managed to ruin everyone's childhood Spending a summer studying for the SAT is both more approachable and less disruptive to childhood than putting together a bunch of bullshit extracirrculars.

jacobolus 4y ago
Spending a summer studying for the SAT is a 100% waste of time, with no redeeming value whatsoever beyond playing an admissions game. Every hour that students collectively spend on SAT prep is an hour thrown away, not spent on some activity with more social/personal value. People encouraging all students to spend hours on this are effectively advocating an extra uncompensated time tax on high school students. It’s grotesque, especially considering students are already forced to spend thousands of hours in school. “Extracurricular” activities are only bullshit if you make them so. Otherwise, the whole point of “extracurricular” activity is that it is outside of the curriculum, based on students’ personal choices about how to spend their time. There are thousands of worthwhile ways to spend time outside of school, and no particular “bullshit” choice is forced on anyone. (Indeed, admissions officers are more interested in the students who find their own interesting things to do vs. do stuff they think is bullshit but are told to do by their parents or others.)
- brhsagain 4y ago
  The equivalent of the kind of personally edifying extracurricular activity you’re talking about would be actually reading a lot and doing a lot of math, and then just doing well on the SAT using your actual knowledge. If you’re the kind of kid who would do that then great, just like if you’re the kind of kid who naturally becomes #1 at archery or something then great. Most kids are not like that, and it is assumed that whatever the criteria for admission is, most people will be gaming it. From that perspective, the extracurriculars game is way more time consuming, money consuming, and more bullshit.
  - jacobolus 4y ago

thereare5lights 4y ago

> less well-off ones do not. False. I don't get why people keep pretending like less well off children do not have access to this. People like me growing up needed this as an avenue as this was often times one of the only avenues available to the less fortunate for standing out. We don't have access to other privileged activities that holistic reviews love. People that want to take this away from us are short sighted and demonstrative of how the privileged have no idea what the impact their policies have on the people they ostensibly want to help.