4 ms·

Except that metrics like how many TVs a household has are indicators of performance on SAT scores. Obviously this is a proxy for socioeconomic status, and peop

Except that metrics like how many TVs a household has are indicators of performance on SAT scores. Obviously this is a proxy for socioeconomic status, and people higher on that ladder will have better support structures to do better in school. This is begging the question as socioeconomic status is the primary indicator of educational attainment in our country today. They aren't measuring potential, but the persons ability and advantages. Just as buying more TVs won't improve your students performance.

gizmo686 3y ago
This point is specifically addressed in the paper. The predictive power of SAT/ACT goes far beyond its corralation to socioeconomic status. > Importantly, the relationship between first-year college GPA and SAT/ACT scores is likewise quite similar across neighborhood income and other demographic subgroups at Dartmouth. By contrast, Chetty, Deming, and Friedman (2023) show that certain non-test score inputs in the admissions process, such as guidance counselor recommendations, do not predict college performance even though they do advantage more-advantaged applicants at IvyPlus institutions, increasing their admissions chance
- nyrikki 3y ago
  Disadvantage students having lower GPA isn't surprising, it is the expectation. The question that hard to answer is did those lower performance groups still learn, and what was the delta on where they started. Private tutoring, existing life skills, access to money to free up studying time etc... A student that has to work through school or has to help with the career of a family member has to sometimes sacrifice GPA for life's reality. Obviously GPA is important for social ladder climbing. But this is part of the reason social mobility is the US is far lower than many other countries. A B or C+ student is still learning and allowing for a path for those in the lowe 'casts' is how we grow economically. This isn't a zero sum game. Eugenics based policies have hurt our competitiveness.
nostrademons 3y ago
The point of the report is that SAT scores are less correlated with socioeconomic status than other metrics used by admissions like GPA, high school reputation, extracurriculars, essay content, etc. They're still correlated. One of the interesting findings of social science research is that a lot of different metrics like IQ (itself a correlation between different subtest performances), GPA, parental income, child's income, parental wealth, child's wealth, college acceptance chance, eventual education level, ability to delay gratification, general health, etc are all correlated - that's the idea behind the g-factor, a measure of general intelligence that highly correlates with wealth & income. But this research shows that among those correlates, SAT scores are actually less correlated with socioeconomic status than the other metrics that admissions committees can use. This is also why the SAT was adopted by Harvard in 1934. Prior to that, most students attending Harvard came from private New England boarding schools that could only be afforded by the upper class. They saw an opportunity to diversify the student body by testing the general public and admitting those that scored highest. As an added benefit, the SAT was much easier to grade than previous essay-based admissions standards, and so it reduced cost for the University.
- nyrikki 3y ago
  A Harvard, Princeton, and Yale alumni survey found three-quarters live in zip codes that rank in the top 20 percent by income and education. Half live in the top 5 percent of zip codes. So their efforts didn't work.
  - nick7376182 3y ago
    Is that for alumni, not incoming students?
    - nyrikki 3y ago
      Currently, the Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 15% of each entering class using legacy admissions. Add that to the zip code correlation that is the strongest indicator of SAT scores and it does matter. Students without parents that are college graduates are also at a disadvantage no matter what their potential is. It is one of the barriers to social mobility.

gizmo686 3y ago

This point is specifically addressed in the paper. The predictive power of SAT/ACT goes far beyond its corralation to socioeconomic status. > Importantly, the relationship between first-year college GPA and SAT/ACT scores is likewise quite similar across neighborhood income and other demographic subgroups at Dartmouth. By contrast, Chetty, Deming, and Friedman (2023) show that certain non-test score inputs in the admissions process, such as guidance counselor recommendations, do not predict college performance even though they do advantage more-advantaged applicants at IvyPlus institutions, increasing their admissions chance

nyrikki 3y ago
Disadvantage students having lower GPA isn't surprising, it is the expectation. The question that hard to answer is did those lower performance groups still learn, and what was the delta on where they started. Private tutoring, existing life skills, access to money to free up studying time etc... A student that has to work through school or has to help with the career of a family member has to sometimes sacrifice GPA for life's reality. Obviously GPA is important for social ladder climbing. But this is part of the reason social mobility is the US is far lower than many other countries. A B or C+ student is still learning and allowing for a path for those in the lowe 'casts' is how we grow economically. This isn't a zero sum game. Eugenics based policies have hurt our competitiveness.

nostrademons 3y ago

The point of the report is that SAT scores are less correlated with socioeconomic status than other metrics used by admissions like GPA, high school reputation, extracurriculars, essay content, etc. They're still correlated. One of the interesting findings of social science research is that a lot of different metrics like IQ (itself a correlation between different subtest performances), GPA, parental income, child's income, parental wealth, child's wealth, college acceptance chance, eventual education level, ability to delay gratification, general health, etc are all correlated - that's the idea behind the g-factor, a measure of general intelligence that highly correlates with wealth & income. But this research shows that among those correlates, SAT scores are actually less correlated with socioeconomic status than the other metrics that admissions committees can use. This is also why the SAT was adopted by Harvard in 1934. Prior to that, most students attending Harvard came from private New England boarding schools that could only be afforded by the upper class. They saw an opportunity to diversify the student body by testing the general public and admitting those that scored highest. As an added benefit, the SAT was much easier to grade than previous essay-based admissions standards, and so it reduced cost for the University.

nyrikki 3y ago
A Harvard, Princeton, and Yale alumni survey found three-quarters live in zip codes that rank in the top 20 percent by income and education. Half live in the top 5 percent of zip codes. So their efforts didn't work.
- nick7376182 3y ago
  Is that for alumni, not incoming students?
  - nyrikki 3y ago
    Currently, the Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 15% of each entering class using legacy admissions. Add that to the zip code correlation that is the strongest indicator of SAT scores and it does matter. Students without parents that are college graduates are also at a disadvantage no matter what their potential is. It is one of the barriers to social mobility.