7 ms·

Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It

34 points by drjohnson 12y ago

hawkharris 12y ago
I've always been fascinated by the philosophical divide among the nations with the best educational systems. Some (i.e. Finland) deemphasize tests, while others such as India and South Korea place strong emphasis on them. The issue is not black and white enough for us to categorically embrace or condemn tests. Different cultural and environmental factors are obviously in play.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I'm actually pretty sure that it's not). As for the South Korean educational system, idk if it should be considered a model to follow considering kids there spend like 16 hours a day in school but perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who spend maybe less than half of that time in school.
  - hawkharris 12y ago
    Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I'm actually pretty sure that it's not). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology As for the South Korean educational system, idk if it should be considered a model to follow considering kids there spend like 16 hours a day in school but perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who spend maybe less than half of that time in school. The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment where tests are deemphasized. Having said that, it's hard to make the cross-cultural argument that standardized testing is always positive or negative.
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of IIT. That does not really disprove my point though. Your argument is similar to if someone was said that Mexico is a poor country and someone made a counterargument saying that Carlos Slim Helu lives in Mexico ergo it's not a poor country. > The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment where tests are deemphasized. Kinda hard to argue with this if you are not providing what sort of metrics you are using.
danso 12y ago
I'm glad I applied to college before ubiquitous digital storage was a thing...I vaguely remember trying to come up with contrived ways to sound like an interesting person. I think I even mentioned listening to country music. In terms of measurements of character, has there been much thought given to looking at longitudinal data of a student's career? An easy one would be improvement on standardized tests over time. I qualified for the National Merit Award because I happened to be doing prep work for SATs...I didn't even know the PSATs meant anything, but just because I performed well on one test, I was the beneficiary of all those schools who use "Number of National Merit Scholars in freshman class" as some kind of quality metric...My SAT performance afterward was only middling-good. I don't think that should've put me in a higher bracket than someone who struggled at first, but rather than giving up, did what it took to reach a higher percentile. But what about students who go from being a flop, say, in their sophomore year, to really growing in terms of performance and accomplishments by their senior years? A student who, over 4 years, has a C average, but by senior year, is acing AP classes...that takes a considerable amount of grit. And the student is on the upswing. Hell, even a student who did no sports until senior year, but manages to letter on a high-performing team in a sport new to him/her...that to me is about as outstanding as a state champion who competed since the age of 5.
colechristensen 12y ago
Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well sure that the day is soon. Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more? There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format. Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just because) copyleft. Pay Universities for thorough certification of knowledge for particular subjects, and finally join Universities for capstone activities which will grant degrees upon completion. Keep graduate-level education as is. Why do there have to be tens of thousands of Calculus I courses every year when one or two online would do? The technology and market exists for this, but the inertia of an antiquated undergrad education system gets in the way.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - colechristensen 12y ago
    >no one is buying the bullshit Here is some writing feedback for you: this style of discourse isn't wanted here. The vast majority of STEM undergraduate courses fit very well into the format and are very arguably better suited to computer delivery.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      >no one is buying the [premise] is a fine word substitution. but the problem with your observation (assuming it is correct), is that nobody is paying money for commodity education. people are lining up to pay money (in the hope that) a "peer reviewed" credential will set them apart.
- yaketysax 12y ago
  Not all educations are equal. Not all university educations are equal. And (the quality of an) education isn't strictly a function of one's character.
- sudont 12y ago
RhysU 12y ago
From TFA: > The flaws in standardized testing are well-documented at this point.... their predictive powers only forecast a student’s progress as far as the first semester of their freshman year. Let's be honest. Raise your hand if you needed markedly more than your first semester of freshman year to figure out which of your friends at college were going to cut it in some traditional academic sense. Not saying that's the only sense, but as far as the college should be able to measure, academics for 4(+) years are the only fair initial barometer. Of course, academics can't say anything about who can write a 7+ figure donation to the college 30 years after graduation...
- saalweachter 12y ago
  Actually, that's an interesting thought. If you asked high-schoolers (not necessarily even seniors) which of their peers would do the best in college, do you think they would give useful answers?
toehead2000 12y ago
Does anyone know how/where one might get access to a data set like the one he uses in this paper? (1993 student demographic data, high school GPAs, SAT scores, and freshman GPAs)
xname 12y ago
There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing. Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities". Tests are tests, they do not and should not care about students' socioeconomic background. Whether universities should account for socioeconomic status of applicants or not, that's their consideration, not test makers' consideration. Of course standardized tests do not measure all aspects of a student, but they never claim they do. This critique is also silly. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to measure "traits such as optimism, curiosity, resilience" of a person, especially when you want to use the results in college admission. Current psychological instruments for those traits are not developed for that purpose. No serious psychologist will suggest colleges to use those psychological instruments in college admission. Do no blame standardized testing for those silly reasons!
- joe_the_user 12y ago
  Please cease argument-by-repeated words.
- spamizbad 12y ago
  > It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities" A test can be written with a bias that favors or punishes any group. I don't think its intentional, as it is quite difficult to create them without these issues. A simple example to show the point: Which of the following is not like the others: A) Chicken B) Moose C) Cow D) Pig E) Dog Many people would answer A: A chicken is a bird and everything else is a mammal. But if you come from an agricultural background, in addition examining the animals based on their Biological Kingdom, you might be tempted to say B, Moose: It's the only animal that has no role on a farm. B is not an illogical answer from that perspective, but within the context of the test it's likely wrong. When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question can become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background. The question above is easy for most of us, but would probably be solved slower by anyone who grew up on a farm.
angersock 12y ago
Maybe they should try doing a better job with helping students who have financial problems or mental health issues? That'd be an easy start.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  That makes about as much sense as suggesting bar owners should try doing a better job helping drinkers with infertility.
Spooky23 12y ago
Colleges are attempting to deal with claims of racial bias by watering down their standards. The bias claims are there because disadvantaged groups are well... Disadvantaged. They have a shitty education in primary school that poisons the well for them. Why should character or "heart" matter? What if you're a smart kid who is a real asshole? Or a dumb kid with a good sales pitch? Or you didn't participate in extra-circular activities for whatever reason? Why should some guy wading through 10,000 applications be making some evaluation and judgement of my character? They should drop the pretense of some sort of fair selection process and just do a pure lottery. If you can't read and get into Harvard, you'll wash out quickly.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  For elite schools atleast, I don't think it has anything to do with watering down their standards. These schools have the pick of the crop and if 3.3million high school students graduate in the US alone every year, the top 1% of students make up about 33,000 applicants, far more than the 2000 or so Harvard admitted in last year. The issue really morphs from "How do I select the best students for my school?" to "What sort of arbitrary metrics can I use to filter down this list of already amazing students?" If I had to guess however, I'd say these schools, under the guise of character, are trying to select students that have the highest potential to give back to the university. "Oh this student does part-time acting? Well we will accept her on the chance she becomes the next Natalie Portman. This guy has a best selling app? Better put him on the list of potential Zuckerbergs." I'm not an admissions officer (not even close), but that would be my best guess on what someone an admissions officer would do faced with the problem of having so many amazing students to fill their undergrad class 10 times over. At some point it no longer makes sense to filter on raw academic ability (see also, Google's "GPA does not matter"), and a purely random lottery would 1.) never actually be a random lottery (thank you alumni) and 2.) may massively favor one group of people (if I have to choose 2000 our of 33,000, and 60% of that 33,000 are asian from a 150,000k+ income family, you run the risk of homogenous class - if you have to ask whats wrong with this, consider this, would you like to work at a job that hired exclusively white men (or whatever race/gender you are)). Another way to look at it would be this way: if you were given the task to hire a new team of software engineers, and once the resume's came in they all had, 3.9+ college GPAs, Ph.ds in CS, and multiple years of experience on your tech stack of choice, would you just "do a pure lottery" to see who works for your company? Chances are you might end up filtering them on the most circumstantial of metrics (i.e. "This guy was a Yankees fan, I don't think we would get along very well")
james1071 12y ago
I have said this before, but the admissions system at so many US colleges looks very strange to British eyes. There is special treatment for people who play sport, whose parents went to the same college (especially if they give money) and for those who have the right sort of hobbies. If that was not bad enough, there are different rules for different ethnic groups. It really is quite extraordinary.

34 points by drjohnson 12y ago

I've always been fascinated by the philosophical divide among the nations with the best educational systems. Some (i.e. Finland) deemphasize tests, while others such as India and South Korea place strong emphasis on them. The issue is not black and white enough for us to categorically embrace or condemn tests. Different cultural and environmental factors are obviously in play.

adamnemecek 12y ago
Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I'm actually pretty sure that it's not). As for the South Korean educational system, idk if it should be considered a model to follow considering kids there spend like 16 hours a day in school but perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who spend maybe less than half of that time in school.
- hawkharris 12y ago
  Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I'm actually pretty sure that it's not). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology As for the South Korean educational system, idk if it should be considered a model to follow considering kids there spend like 16 hours a day in school but perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who spend maybe less than half of that time in school. The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment where tests are deemphasized. Having said that, it's hard to make the cross-cultural argument that standardized testing is always positive or negative.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of IIT. That does not really disprove my point though. Your argument is similar to if someone was said that Mexico is a poor country and someone made a counterargument saying that Carlos Slim Helu lives in Mexico ergo it's not a poor country. > The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment where tests are deemphasized. Kinda hard to argue with this if you are not providing what sort of metrics you are using.

danso 12y ago

I'm glad I applied to college before ubiquitous digital storage was a thing...I vaguely remember trying to come up with contrived ways to sound like an interesting person. I think I even mentioned listening to country music. In terms of measurements of character, has there been much thought given to looking at longitudinal data of a student's career? An easy one would be improvement on standardized tests over time. I qualified for the National Merit Award because I happened to be doing prep work for SATs...I didn't even know the PSATs meant anything, but just because I performed well on one test, I was the beneficiary of all those schools who use "Number of National Merit Scholars in freshman class" as some kind of quality metric...My SAT performance afterward was only middling-good. I don't think that should've put me in a higher bracket than someone who struggled at first, but rather than giving up, did what it took to reach a higher percentile. But what about students who go from being a flop, say, in their sophomore year, to really growing in terms of performance and accomplishments by their senior years? A student who, over 4 years, has a C average, but by senior year, is acing AP classes...that takes a considerable amount of grit. And the student is on the upswing. Hell, even a student who did no sports until senior year, but manages to letter on a high-performing team in a sport new to him/her...that to me is about as outstanding as a state champion who competed since the age of 5.

colechristensen 12y ago

Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well sure that the day is soon. Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more? There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format. Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just because) copyleft. Pay Universities for thorough certification of knowledge for particular subjects, and finally join Universities for capstone activities which will grant degrees upon completion. Keep graduate-level education as is. Why do there have to be tens of thousands of Calculus I courses every year when one or two online would do? The technology and market exists for this, but the inertia of an antiquated undergrad education system gets in the way.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- colechristensen 12y ago
  >no one is buying the bullshit Here is some writing feedback for you: this style of discourse isn't wanted here. The vast majority of STEM undergraduate courses fit very well into the format and are very arguably better suited to computer delivery.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    >no one is buying the [premise] is a fine word substitution. but the problem with your observation (assuming it is correct), is that nobody is paying money for commodity education. people are lining up to pay money (in the hope that) a "peer reviewed" credential will set them apart.
yaketysax 12y ago
Not all educations are equal. Not all university educations are equal. And (the quality of an) education isn't strictly a function of one's character.
sudont 12y ago

RhysU 12y ago

From TFA: > The flaws in standardized testing are well-documented at this point.... their predictive powers only forecast a student’s progress as far as the first semester of their freshman year. Let's be honest. Raise your hand if you needed markedly more than your first semester of freshman year to figure out which of your friends at college were going to cut it in some traditional academic sense. Not saying that's the only sense, but as far as the college should be able to measure, academics for 4(+) years are the only fair initial barometer. Of course, academics can't say anything about who can write a 7+ figure donation to the college 30 years after graduation...

saalweachter 12y ago
Actually, that's an interesting thought. If you asked high-schoolers (not necessarily even seniors) which of their peers would do the best in college, do you think they would give useful answers?

toehead2000 12y ago

Does anyone know how/where one might get access to a data set like the one he uses in this paper? (1993 student demographic data, high school GPAs, SAT scores, and freshman GPAs)

xname 12y ago

There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing. Test scores will always always always always always always always always always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will always always always always always always always always always always be socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities". Tests are tests, they do not and should not care about students' socioeconomic background. Whether universities should account for socioeconomic status of applicants or not, that's their consideration, not test makers' consideration. Of course standardized tests do not measure all aspects of a student, but they never claim they do. This critique is also silly. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to measure "traits such as optimism, curiosity, resilience" of a person, especially when you want to use the results in college admission. Current psychological instruments for those traits are not developed for that purpose. No serious psychologist will suggest colleges to use those psychological instruments in college admission. Do no blame standardized testing for those silly reasons!

joe_the_user 12y ago
Please cease argument-by-repeated words.
spamizbad 12y ago
> It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities" A test can be written with a bias that favors or punishes any group. I don't think its intentional, as it is quite difficult to create them without these issues. A simple example to show the point: Which of the following is not like the others: A) Chicken B) Moose C) Cow D) Pig E) Dog Many people would answer A: A chicken is a bird and everything else is a mammal. But if you come from an agricultural background, in addition examining the animals based on their Biological Kingdom, you might be tempted to say B, Moose: It's the only animal that has no role on a farm. B is not an illogical answer from that perspective, but within the context of the test it's likely wrong. When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question can become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background. The question above is easy for most of us, but would probably be solved slower by anyone who grew up on a farm.

angersock 12y ago

Maybe they should try doing a better job with helping students who have financial problems or mental health issues? That'd be an easy start.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
That makes about as much sense as suggesting bar owners should try doing a better job helping drinkers with infertility.

Spooky23 12y ago

Colleges are attempting to deal with claims of racial bias by watering down their standards. The bias claims are there because disadvantaged groups are well... Disadvantaged. They have a shitty education in primary school that poisons the well for them. Why should character or "heart" matter? What if you're a smart kid who is a real asshole? Or a dumb kid with a good sales pitch? Or you didn't participate in extra-circular activities for whatever reason? Why should some guy wading through 10,000 applications be making some evaluation and judgement of my character? They should drop the pretense of some sort of fair selection process and just do a pure lottery. If you can't read and get into Harvard, you'll wash out quickly.

nemothekid 12y ago
For elite schools atleast, I don't think it has anything to do with watering down their standards. These schools have the pick of the crop and if 3.3million high school students graduate in the US alone every year, the top 1% of students make up about 33,000 applicants, far more than the 2000 or so Harvard admitted in last year. The issue really morphs from "How do I select the best students for my school?" to "What sort of arbitrary metrics can I use to filter down this list of already amazing students?" If I had to guess however, I'd say these schools, under the guise of character, are trying to select students that have the highest potential to give back to the university. "Oh this student does part-time acting? Well we will accept her on the chance she becomes the next Natalie Portman. This guy has a best selling app? Better put him on the list of potential Zuckerbergs." I'm not an admissions officer (not even close), but that would be my best guess on what someone an admissions officer would do faced with the problem of having so many amazing students to fill their undergrad class 10 times over. At some point it no longer makes sense to filter on raw academic ability (see also, Google's "GPA does not matter"), and a purely random lottery would 1.) never actually be a random lottery (thank you alumni) and 2.) may massively favor one group of people (if I have to choose 2000 our of 33,000, and 60% of that 33,000 are asian from a 150,000k+ income family, you run the risk of homogenous class - if you have to ask whats wrong with this, consider this, would you like to work at a job that hired exclusively white men (or whatever race/gender you are)). Another way to look at it would be this way: if you were given the task to hire a new team of software engineers, and once the resume's came in they all had, 3.9+ college GPAs, Ph.ds in CS, and multiple years of experience on your tech stack of choice, would you just "do a pure lottery" to see who works for your company? Chances are you might end up filtering them on the most circumstantial of metrics (i.e. "This guy was a Yankees fan, I don't think we would get along very well")

james1071 12y ago

I have said this before, but the admissions system at so many US colleges looks very strange to British eyes. There is special treatment for people who play sport, whose parents went to the same college (especially if they give money) and for those who have the right sort of hobbies. If that was not bad enough, there are different rules for different ethnic groups. It really is quite extraordinary.