3 ms·

At the same time, we're getting rid of testing in admissions decisions. So instead we're in an era of squishy, difficult-to-judge metrics... and of course, the

by mlyle 3y ago

At the same time, we're getting rid of testing in admissions decisions. So instead we're in an era of squishy, difficult-to-judge metrics... and of course, the places where one could stand out-- interesting stories on one's transcript or essay-- are increasingly being evaluated by AI.

el_nahual 3y ago
The cynical(?) explanation is that it is precisely because of the dismantling of standardized testing that getting rid of legacy admissions tenable...because it means schools can still proxy for class in admissions decisions (except veiled as extracurriculars, or "oh, this student knows calculus" in boston/sf). If Harvard or USC were on the list I'd wager this to be the case, but MIT, Mellon & Pitt are serious schools so I believe them when I say it's in favor of increased rigor.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Some schools probably have a higher academic floor. The other thing that happens is that a fair number of good but not spectacular students who nonetheless want to get into the best school they can will put somewhere like Harvard on their list even though they know it's a long shot. If they have so-so SATs (especially in math) they won't even try for MIT--and probably wouldn't like it anyway.
- mlyle 3y ago
  I'm not sure it's deliberate, but I broadly agree with you that getting rid of tests favors class (despite the reasons purportedly being for equity). While you can buy small improvements in test scores, most things that have replaced tests in admissions decisions are easier to buy. > MIT, Mellon & Pitt MIT still requires SAT scores, so it's a non-factor there.
elteto 3y ago
It's because schools want to retain a measure of control over who they let in. A true merit based admissions system (say min SAT score + lottery after that) is uncheatable and therefore schools have _zero_ control on who they have to accept. The only reason why Harvard has kept its mythos of being the incubator of the next ruling class is because, well, they accept the children of the current one. Those are most likely to become part of the next ruling class by virtue of having been born into it. It's an old boys club. There's no intrinsic property of Harvard that turns them into this incubator. And from the other side you have the brain dead equity idiots who are also against true merit systems, for equally twisted, but different reasons.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Schools have the ultimate control. We're merely discussing whether certain things are used as inputs to a very complicated decision process. Test scores are no longer being used as inputs in many places, in the name of equity: but I think almost anything you'll weigh higher will favor class, instead. They're also removing race. And legacy status. The net effect is an admissions landscape that will look very different.

by mlyle 3y ago

el_nahual 3y ago

The cynical(?) explanation is that it is precisely because of the dismantling of standardized testing that getting rid of legacy admissions tenable...because it means schools can still proxy for class in admissions decisions (except veiled as extracurriculars, or "oh, this student knows calculus" in boston/sf). If Harvard or USC were on the list I'd wager this to be the case, but MIT, Mellon & Pitt are serious schools so I believe them when I say it's in favor of increased rigor.

ghaff 3y ago
Some schools probably have a higher academic floor. The other thing that happens is that a fair number of good but not spectacular students who nonetheless want to get into the best school they can will put somewhere like Harvard on their list even though they know it's a long shot. If they have so-so SATs (especially in math) they won't even try for MIT--and probably wouldn't like it anyway.
mlyle 3y ago
I'm not sure it's deliberate, but I broadly agree with you that getting rid of tests favors class (despite the reasons purportedly being for equity). While you can buy small improvements in test scores, most things that have replaced tests in admissions decisions are easier to buy. > MIT, Mellon & Pitt MIT still requires SAT scores, so it's a non-factor there.

elteto 3y ago

It's because schools want to retain a measure of control over who they let in. A true merit based admissions system (say min SAT score + lottery after that) is uncheatable and therefore schools have _zero_ control on who they have to accept. The only reason why Harvard has kept its mythos of being the incubator of the next ruling class is because, well, they accept the children of the current one. Those are most likely to become part of the next ruling class by virtue of having been born into it. It's an old boys club. There's no intrinsic property of Harvard that turns them into this incubator. And from the other side you have the brain dead equity idiots who are also against true merit systems, for equally twisted, but different reasons.

mlyle 3y ago
Schools have the ultimate control. We're merely discussing whether certain things are used as inputs to a very complicated decision process. Test scores are no longer being used as inputs in many places, in the name of equity: but I think almost anything you'll weigh higher will favor class, instead. They're also removing race. And legacy status. The net effect is an admissions landscape that will look very different.