5 ms·

The misguided war on the SAT

16 points by mannykannot 3y ago

rahimnathwani 3y ago
One of the comments on the NYT site captures two important points: "Equity in education has nothing to do with the Ivys" The first point is familiar to most people outside an elite bubble: a large proportion of colleges are not meaningfully selective, i.e. applicants are not competing with each other for places. Accepting one person doesn't mean rejecting another. The second point still seems to be lost on most people: for most applicants, the main point of going to Harvard or MIT instead of some less famous college isn't due to the quality of education, or even due to the quality of your peers. It's the signalling value of a degree from Harvard or from MIT. Elite colleges are selling signalling devices, not education. Signalling devices only have value if they're scarce, so admissions must be zero-sum. Imagine you care about skin-color diversity at the leadership levels of society, above any other concern. The easiest way to achieve that is by changing who gets into elite universities. You could try to improve the K-12 system in the hope that racial gaps disappear, but you have no guarantee it would work, and it's hard work that would take a long time. It's much easier to just change the admissions process to get the mix you want.
- Whoppertime 3y ago
  Elite schools are effectively zero sum as you say and that's where Affirmative Action becomes a problem. Colleges can say they're not penalizing White or Asian students just giving Black and Latino students a boost. Which immediately leads to a situation where students with the same test scores are approved or denied on the basis of race, where the black student gets accepted and the Asian student gets turned down
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    There are many folks who have little sympathy for this argument, because they believe one or more of these: - each student is not an individual, but a representative of an ethnic group - the use of test scores discriminates against ethnic groups who, in aggregate, do poorly due to reasons that are unrelated to merit or potential (socioeconomic factors, legacy of discrimination in the past etc.) - Asian students who are rejected from Harvard 'will do fine' wherever they land - SAT/ACT scores aren't predictive of academic success - college admissions processes shouldn't be trying to maximize expected college GPA The most balanced work I've read about these issues is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling.
    - usaar333 3y ago
      > I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling. I found the arguments on page 44 particularly weak and undermine much of the paper. It destroys a previously more objective definition of "invidious" and "benign" motives [1] made earlier in the paper. Because the author doesn't want to justify preferring whites to Asian students, even though her own earlier analysis on page 12 does view that as a benign motive (reduce race gaps), she constructs this cop-out based on a completely arbitrary definition of "disadvantage". A more confident author would have accepted the implication and moved on OR established objective criteria for disadvantage. [1] The word choice can be disputed, but at least it was objective.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > Colleges can say they're not penalizing White or Asian students just giving Black and Latino students a boost. They cannot do this (legally) in the wake of the SFFA decision by SCOTUS.
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      Yes, they can. The SCOTUS decision was explicit: 1. At the level of an individual applicant, you can't take race/ethnicity into account when making a decision 2. Other ways to affect racial mix are still permitted. For example, nothing in the ruling prohibits colleges from: - having lower standards for people from certain neighborhoods (zip codes) - having lower standards for people from certain high schools - eliminating tests on which certain ethnic groups do worse than others
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino students a boost."
        rahimnathwani 3y ago
        Yup. My understanding is that Harvard could still give someone a boost for having attended a particular high school (which happens to be 95% non-white-non-Asian).
        gnicholas 3y ago
        That is an open question, especially if their reason for doing so is based on racial considerations. This question (is a policy that is racially neutral on its face allowable, if it was motivated by racial animas?) is being litigated in the TJ case, where school board members are alleged to have tweaked their HS admissions program with the goal of reducing Asian student enrollment.
        3y ago
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  My broken record comment is people with non ivy league schools should always take any opportunity to wreck that sort of signaling. You have two qualified candidates, one from an ivy and other other not? Veto the ivy. You might say that's unfair. But that is what people from ivy's do and feel totally justified when they do it.
gnicholas 3y ago
> Likewise, a faculty committee at the University of California system — led by Dr. Henry Sánchez, a pathologist, and Eddie Comeaux, a professor of education — concluded in 2020 that test scores were better than high school grades at predicting student success in the system’s nine colleges, where more than 230,000 undergraduates are enrolled. The relative advantage of test scores has grown over time, the committee found. Interesting, given the UC system is not merely test-optional, but refuses to consider test scores at all. I wonder if that will change, if even their faculty committees are recognizing the superior predictive value of tests over GPA. My guess is that they might create their own test, but that it would not have a purely academic score. It would have the “adversity score” of the SAT built in, and impossible to separate out. Of course, making a second test for students to take would disproportionately affect kids with fewer resources in terms of test prep, which would be counterproductive to the UC’s stated goals regarding equity.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  >“adversity score” I don't understand what this means. You would penalize students for, what, growing up in a stable two-parent household?
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    IIRC the SAT added this several years ago. It gave students more points based on zip code, and perhaps some other factors. They got some blowback at first, but modified it and I believe it still exists. But it's separate from your "regular" SAT score, which is what everyone talks about. My theory is that the UC system might create a test where the adversity score is baked in, and you have no way to disaggregate it.
    - sinuhe69 3y ago
      How do you imagine they could do that? SAT are multiple choices tests, with answers are objectively wright or wrong. The scores are simply summed up. Where is the place to put in adversity score or any “adjustment” scores?
CharlesGELUK 3y ago
[dead]
janemona24 3y ago
[dead]

16 points by mannykannot 3y ago

One of the comments on the NYT site captures two important points: "Equity in education has nothing to do with the Ivys" The first point is familiar to most people outside an elite bubble: a large proportion of colleges are not meaningfully selective, i.e. applicants are not competing with each other for places. Accepting one person doesn't mean rejecting another. The second point still seems to be lost on most people: for most applicants, the main point of going to Harvard or MIT instead of some less famous college isn't due to the quality of education, or even due to the quality of your peers. It's the signalling value of a degree from Harvard or from MIT. Elite colleges are selling signalling devices, not education. Signalling devices only have value if they're scarce, so admissions must be zero-sum. Imagine you care about skin-color diversity at the leadership levels of society, above any other concern. The easiest way to achieve that is by changing who gets into elite universities. You could try to improve the K-12 system in the hope that racial gaps disappear, but you have no guarantee it would work, and it's hard work that would take a long time. It's much easier to just change the admissions process to get the mix you want.

Whoppertime 3y ago
Elite schools are effectively zero sum as you say and that's where Affirmative Action becomes a problem. Colleges can say they're not penalizing White or Asian students just giving Black and Latino students a boost. Which immediately leads to a situation where students with the same test scores are approved or denied on the basis of race, where the black student gets accepted and the Asian student gets turned down
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  There are many folks who have little sympathy for this argument, because they believe one or more of these: - each student is not an individual, but a representative of an ethnic group - the use of test scores discriminates against ethnic groups who, in aggregate, do poorly due to reasons that are unrelated to merit or potential (socioeconomic factors, legacy of discrimination in the past etc.) - Asian students who are rejected from Harvard 'will do fine' wherever they land - SAT/ACT scores aren't predictive of academic success - college admissions processes shouldn't be trying to maximize expected college GPA The most balanced work I've read about these issues is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354321 I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling.
  - usaar333 3y ago
    > I disagree with the author on many points, and the paper (at least the earlier versions) had a couple of arguments that I thought were weak and one-sided. But overall it's an excellent read. Even better than the Harvard vs. SFFA ruling. I found the arguments on page 44 particularly weak and undermine much of the paper. It destroys a previously more objective definition of "invidious" and "benign" motives [1] made earlier in the paper. Because the author doesn't want to justify preferring whites to Asian students, even though her own earlier analysis on page 12 does view that as a benign motive (reduce race gaps), she constructs this cop-out based on a completely arbitrary definition of "disadvantage". A more confident author would have accepted the implication and moved on OR established objective criteria for disadvantage. [1] The word choice can be disputed, but at least it was objective.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Colleges can say they're not penalizing White or Asian students just giving Black and Latino students a boost. They cannot do this (legally) in the wake of the SFFA decision by SCOTUS.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    Yes, they can. The SCOTUS decision was explicit: 1. At the level of an individual applicant, you can't take race/ethnicity into account when making a decision 2. Other ways to affect racial mix are still permitted. For example, nothing in the ruling prohibits colleges from: - having lower standards for people from certain neighborhoods (zip codes) - having lower standards for people from certain high schools - eliminating tests on which certain ethnic groups do worse than others
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      They can do things that have the effect you describe, using broad and not 100% precise methods. But they can no longer explicitly "giv[e] Black and Latino students a boost."
      - rahimnathwani 3y ago
        Yup. My understanding is that Harvard could still give someone a boost for having attended a particular high school (which happens to be 95% non-white-non-Asian).
        gnicholas 3y ago
        That is an open question, especially if their reason for doing so is based on racial considerations. This question (is a policy that is racially neutral on its face allowable, if it was motivated by racial animas?) is being litigated in the TJ case, where school board members are alleged to have tweaked their HS admissions program with the goal of reducing Asian student enrollment.
        3y ago
Gibbon1 3y ago
My broken record comment is people with non ivy league schools should always take any opportunity to wreck that sort of signaling. You have two qualified candidates, one from an ivy and other other not? Veto the ivy. You might say that's unfair. But that is what people from ivy's do and feel totally justified when they do it.

gnicholas 3y ago

> Likewise, a faculty committee at the University of California system — led by Dr. Henry Sánchez, a pathologist, and Eddie Comeaux, a professor of education — concluded in 2020 that test scores were better than high school grades at predicting student success in the system’s nine colleges, where more than 230,000 undergraduates are enrolled. The relative advantage of test scores has grown over time, the committee found. Interesting, given the UC system is not merely test-optional, but refuses to consider test scores at all. I wonder if that will change, if even their faculty committees are recognizing the superior predictive value of tests over GPA. My guess is that they might create their own test, but that it would not have a purely academic score. It would have the “adversity score” of the SAT built in, and impossible to separate out. Of course, making a second test for students to take would disproportionately affect kids with fewer resources in terms of test prep, which would be counterproductive to the UC’s stated goals regarding equity.

remarkEon 3y ago
>“adversity score” I don't understand what this means. You would penalize students for, what, growing up in a stable two-parent household?
- gnicholas 3y ago
  IIRC the SAT added this several years ago. It gave students more points based on zip code, and perhaps some other factors. They got some blowback at first, but modified it and I believe it still exists. But it's separate from your "regular" SAT score, which is what everyone talks about. My theory is that the UC system might create a test where the adversity score is baked in, and you have no way to disaggregate it.
  - sinuhe69 3y ago
    How do you imagine they could do that? SAT are multiple choices tests, with answers are objectively wright or wrong. The scores are simply summed up. Where is the place to put in adversity score or any “adjustment” scores?

CharlesGELUK 3y ago

[dead]

janemona24 3y ago

[dead]