4 ms·

It puzzles me why US colleges are allowed to consider anything other than standardized test scores.

by ordx 3mo ago

drivebyhooting 3mo ago
Because the SAT is too easy and gets saturated.
- ordx 3mo ago
  so make it harder? Seems like a solvable problem.
  - drivebyhooting 3mo ago
    They’ve made it easier. Seems like the will to solve it didn’t exist.
kxyvr 3mo ago
There's a wonderful exchange in the movie Interstellar that speaks to this: Cooper: You're ruling my son out for college now? The kid's fifteen. Principal: Tom's score simply isn't high enough. Cooper: What's your waistline? 32? With, what, a 33 inseam? Principal: I'm not sure I see what you're getting at. Cooper: You're telling me it takes two numbers to measure your own ass but only one to measure my son's future? The point being is that a person, and their future, should not be distilled into a single number like an SAT score because people are far more complex than a single number. I would also contend that splitting them into a few numbers, such as by subject area, doesn't help either.
- triceratops 3mo ago
  The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other. If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever. Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most closely map to their preferred major.
  - kxyvr 3mo ago
    I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not. My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preference, teacher recommendations, and other people involved with the process at the school. Outside of meeting state criteria, the numbers in the test were used to identify areas of strength and weakness to help understand a child and put this in perspective of a broader story. For example, if a child struggled with math, was it because they couldn't read well, struggled with the math itself, was distractable? There were also other instances where the test scores themselves were misleading. For example, did a child perform poorly because they were sick, or the AC of the building broke, or they set a test date on a school holiday when the child knew the other kids had a day off? My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment. The SAT and college admission is not different. Purely using a test score does provide an objective score to rank a collection of applicants, but I still contend strongly that it misses the point. Depending on your point of view, college is meant to educate a populace, provide job training, give economic opportunity, or a whole host of other goals. One can use test scores a proxy to determine which applicants best approximate these goals, but I think we should consider whether they really help achieve this. I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either. I'd a friend who dated a guy who worked for Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. They were also very expensive. As a result, money and wealth can be used pretty directly to improve one's score. It's difficult for a university to fully address wealth inequality in society. However, since tests can be gamed so easily, I would caution against their over use.
    - triceratops 3mo ago
      > I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers. > My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw scores, on the other hand, are hard data. You either have them or you don't. Do factors outside of one's control go into them? Absolutely. Those factors are all-pervasive and will influence anything you might use to determine merit. > Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. Of course they would say that. Even assuming it's true, Kaplan test prep books are only around $50 on Amazon. You could also get them for free from a public or school library (or the high seas, if that's your thing). As I understand it, Kaplan has apps and dashboards and more material if you're a subscriber. Is there data about the marginal score improvement using that versus just the books? When you get right down to it, everyone's starting point is different. Reducing the number of variables improves opportunity IMO.
arjie 3mo ago
You can invert nearly anything in the US with the right justification. You can cite the environment to ensure roads don’t have bike lanes, you can cite anti-racism rules to treat individuals by their race, to protect a man from a small home you can put him on the street. It just is how it is. The framework to do it was introduced to prevent Jewish people from going to universities where it was found that when it was impossible to keep the Jewish people under 25% of enrollment it rapidly became possible once they accounted for well-roundedness. The Jewish people of the age, like Asian people today, seem to have been narrow and pointed like a spear where others were like a sphere. Such is life. We aspire to spherical homogeneity. Other shapes need not apply.

It puzzles me why US colleges are allowed to consider anything other than standardized test scores.

by ordx 3mo ago

It puzzles me why US colleges are allowed to consider anything other than standardized test scores.

drivebyhooting 3mo ago

Because the SAT is too easy and gets saturated.

ordx 3mo ago
so make it harder? Seems like a solvable problem.
- drivebyhooting 3mo ago
  They’ve made it easier. Seems like the will to solve it didn’t exist.

kxyvr 3mo ago

There's a wonderful exchange in the movie Interstellar that speaks to this: Cooper: You're ruling my son out for college now? The kid's fifteen. Principal: Tom's score simply isn't high enough. Cooper: What's your waistline? 32? With, what, a 33 inseam? Principal: I'm not sure I see what you're getting at. Cooper: You're telling me it takes two numbers to measure your own ass but only one to measure my son's future? The point being is that a person, and their future, should not be distilled into a single number like an SAT score because people are far more complex than a single number. I would also contend that splitting them into a few numbers, such as by subject area, doesn't help either.

triceratops 3mo ago
The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other. If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever. Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most closely map to their preferred major.
- kxyvr 3mo ago
  I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not. My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preference, teacher recommendations, and other people involved with the process at the school. Outside of meeting state criteria, the numbers in the test were used to identify areas of strength and weakness to help understand a child and put this in perspective of a broader story. For example, if a child struggled with math, was it because they couldn't read well, struggled with the math itself, was distractable? There were also other instances where the test scores themselves were misleading. For example, did a child perform poorly because they were sick, or the AC of the building broke, or they set a test date on a school holiday when the child knew the other kids had a day off? My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment. The SAT and college admission is not different. Purely using a test score does provide an objective score to rank a collection of applicants, but I still contend strongly that it misses the point. Depending on your point of view, college is meant to educate a populace, provide job training, give economic opportunity, or a whole host of other goals. One can use test scores a proxy to determine which applicants best approximate these goals, but I think we should consider whether they really help achieve this. I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either. I'd a friend who dated a guy who worked for Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. They were also very expensive. As a result, money and wealth can be used pretty directly to improve one's score. It's difficult for a university to fully address wealth inequality in society. However, since tests can be gamed so easily, I would caution against their over use.
  - triceratops 3mo ago
    > I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers. > My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw scores, on the other hand, are hard data. You either have them or you don't. Do factors outside of one's control go into them? Absolutely. Those factors are all-pervasive and will influence anything you might use to determine merit. > Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. Of course they would say that. Even assuming it's true, Kaplan test prep books are only around $50 on Amazon. You could also get them for free from a public or school library (or the high seas, if that's your thing). As I understand it, Kaplan has apps and dashboards and more material if you're a subscriber. Is there data about the marginal score improvement using that versus just the books? When you get right down to it, everyone's starting point is different. Reducing the number of variables improves opportunity IMO.

arjie 3mo ago

You can invert nearly anything in the US with the right justification. You can cite the environment to ensure roads don’t have bike lanes, you can cite anti-racism rules to treat individuals by their race, to protect a man from a small home you can put him on the street. It just is how it is. The framework to do it was introduced to prevent Jewish people from going to universities where it was found that when it was impossible to keep the Jewish people under 25% of enrollment it rapidly became possible once they accounted for well-roundedness. The Jewish people of the age, like Asian people today, seem to have been narrow and pointed like a spear where others were like a sphere. Such is life. We aspire to spherical homogeneity. Other shapes need not apply.