4 ms·

Just make tests hard enough so that you wouldn't need lottery

UncleMeat 2y ago
At some point a test stops becoming a general aptitude test and starts becoming a "how good are you at taking this test" situation. You get specific prep courses designed just around that one specific test and strategies optimized for that specific test. You start selecting for "elite" rather than "smart." A merit lottery also keeps everybody from having to waste shitloads of time studying for this one test.
- EvgeniyZh 2y ago
  Any test checks how good are you at taking this test. I've not seen evidence that at some complexity level it stops correlating with success in university, have you?
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
The lottery sortition above the minimum standard (which can still be set quite high) is the solution to preventing a competitive monoculture that a strict "top N scores admitted" policy would make.
jjeaff 2y ago
any tests will always be gamed by those with the resources to game them. either ethically (through special tutors and private programs) or unethically (cheating).
- watwut 2y ago
  Paying tutors is not gaming the system. It is trying to learn effectively. I get that one wants to avoid creating a system where students are forced to spend too much time to learn purely for competition sake with no real practical need, but still. The core issue is the pyramid shaped system where not being at one of these super places means that you are out of the competition for best work in general.
  - saberience 2y ago
    Having to pay for tutors to have a chance of getting into the best colleges biases the whole system in favour of the wealthy. Do you want only rich kids going to college?
    - dagw 2y ago
      If you are genuinely smart you will do well enough on qualify for top schools just by studying at school and on your own and relying on your own ability. And even the best and most expensive tutors cannot do that much to improve your scores if you just don't have the aptitude and discipline. The system now is far more geared towards sending only rich kids to college than any national testing and admissions system would be.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        There's a diminishing return on the value invested in tutoring where innate ability plays a bigger part.
        dagw 2y ago
        I've witnessed this first hand via a friend of the family. Their kid didn't have the grades or entrance exam test scores to study what they wanted at university. So the kid got to take a year off after high school and focus entirely on studying for the entrance exams with regular tutoring from various private tutors. And while their test scores absolutely did improve quite a bit by doing this, they didn't improve enough, and they still ended up having to study at a secondary choice anyway.
      - watwut 2y ago
        That is not how it works. People having tutors are genuinely smart, have discipline, do well and then get tutor to do even better.
        saberience 2y ago
- EvgeniyZh 2y ago
  Any system can and will be cheated, that wasn't the point of neither OP's or mine proposals. Standardized testing is a good predictor. In my country people are admitted based on standardized testing only (country wide subject exams and sat-like test) or results of university-adjacent "preparation courses" and it works fairly well. The affirmative action is realized directly as a bonus points to your scores based on the background, which reduces the effect of ethical gaming.

At some point a test stops becoming a general aptitude test and starts becoming a "how good are you at taking this test" situation. You get specific prep courses designed just around that one specific test and strategies optimized for that specific test. You start selecting for "elite" rather than "smart." A merit lottery also keeps everybody from having to waste shitloads of time studying for this one test.

EvgeniyZh 2y ago
Any test checks how good are you at taking this test. I've not seen evidence that at some complexity level it stops correlating with success in university, have you?

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

The lottery sortition above the minimum standard (which can still be set quite high) is the solution to preventing a competitive monoculture that a strict "top N scores admitted" policy would make.

jjeaff 2y ago

any tests will always be gamed by those with the resources to game them. either ethically (through special tutors and private programs) or unethically (cheating).

watwut 2y ago
Paying tutors is not gaming the system. It is trying to learn effectively. I get that one wants to avoid creating a system where students are forced to spend too much time to learn purely for competition sake with no real practical need, but still. The core issue is the pyramid shaped system where not being at one of these super places means that you are out of the competition for best work in general.
- saberience 2y ago
  Having to pay for tutors to have a chance of getting into the best colleges biases the whole system in favour of the wealthy. Do you want only rich kids going to college?
  - dagw 2y ago
    If you are genuinely smart you will do well enough on qualify for top schools just by studying at school and on your own and relying on your own ability. And even the best and most expensive tutors cannot do that much to improve your scores if you just don't have the aptitude and discipline. The system now is far more geared towards sending only rich kids to college than any national testing and admissions system would be.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      There's a diminishing return on the value invested in tutoring where innate ability plays a bigger part.
      - dagw 2y ago
        I've witnessed this first hand via a friend of the family. Their kid didn't have the grades or entrance exam test scores to study what they wanted at university. So the kid got to take a year off after high school and focus entirely on studying for the entrance exams with regular tutoring from various private tutors. And while their test scores absolutely did improve quite a bit by doing this, they didn't improve enough, and they still ended up having to study at a secondary choice anyway.
    - watwut 2y ago
      That is not how it works. People having tutors are genuinely smart, have discipline, do well and then get tutor to do even better.
      - saberience 2y ago
EvgeniyZh 2y ago
Any system can and will be cheated, that wasn't the point of neither OP's or mine proposals. Standardized testing is a good predictor. In my country people are admitted based on standardized testing only (country wide subject exams and sat-like test) or results of university-adjacent "preparation courses" and it works fairly well. The affirmative action is realized directly as a bonus points to your scores based on the background, which reduces the effect of ethical gaming.