MIT suspending SAT/ACT requirement for next application cycle(mitadmissions.org)
mitadmissions.org
MIT suspending SAT/ACT requirement for next application cycle
https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-suspending-our-sat-act-requirement-for-the-2021-2022-application-cycle-as-well/
219 comments
One of the more obnoxious things is how biases are buried into things like personal essays and extracurriculars. They're so subjective that it lets evaluators sneak bias into their decisions.
The Harvard undergraduate admissions lawsuit a year ago or two provides an example. Asian applicants were consistently ranked to have inferior personalities to white people, even with otherwise identical applications. There's no particular reason to think Asians are inferior to white people, and Harvard is really just promoting racist ideologies that say that Asians are mindless automatons who might be technically proficient but lack the creative, human impulses that would make them suitable for social roles higher than servitude.
The Harvard undergraduate admissions lawsuit a year ago or two provides an example. Asian applicants were consistently ranked to have inferior personalities to white people, even with otherwise identical applications. There's no particular reason to think Asians are inferior to white people, and Harvard is really just promoting racist ideologies that say that Asians are mindless automatons who might be technically proficient but lack the creative, human impulses that would make them suitable for social roles higher than servitude.
The so called "holistic reviews" were introduced to limit the number of Jewish people admitted to top colleges. See story here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/histor...
It can be permanent. In addition to the effort of removing standard tests, education reforms are happening left and right. San Francisco school union recently decided to remove fast tracks. The union will also delay the teaching of geometry to grade 9, which IMHO will make teaching physics and algebra really hard.
I can understand that the motivation of such reform is to improve equity, as numerous studies have shown positive correlation between family income and testing scores. Therefore, lowering the difficulty of challenging courses and removing requirements of standard tests appear to be a natural choice towards better equity. Besides, many of us do not need advanced math or STEM in our profession anyway, why spend so much time on STEM, right?
That said, I don't see how such reform will lead to more equity. Studying and taking tests are probably the most inexpensive activities out there. All that a driven student needs to learn well is a library, a good teacher, and a few like-minded classmates. And tutoring school does not necessarily make a difference, either. But with all the reforms, what would happen? Here is what I can imagine:
And I'll be happy if someone could show me how wrong I am.
I can understand that the motivation of such reform is to improve equity, as numerous studies have shown positive correlation between family income and testing scores. Therefore, lowering the difficulty of challenging courses and removing requirements of standard tests appear to be a natural choice towards better equity. Besides, many of us do not need advanced math or STEM in our profession anyway, why spend so much time on STEM, right?
That said, I don't see how such reform will lead to more equity. Studying and taking tests are probably the most inexpensive activities out there. All that a driven student needs to learn well is a library, a good teacher, and a few like-minded classmates. And tutoring school does not necessarily make a difference, either. But with all the reforms, what would happen? Here is what I can imagine:
- Tutoring schools will make more difference. Family with means will send their kids to
tutoring schools so their kids can learn geometry or algebra in grade 5 and have all
the time to study AP courses in high school. Who suffers? Smart kids from poor families.
Same goes for history, writing, English, and etc.
- Money will matter more. Families with means will send their kids to robotics camps,
science research labs, coding schools, professional sports coaches, and etc.
You know, things that poor families have a hard time to afford. With non-differentiating
test scores, guess what school admission officers will look at?
And I'll be happy if someone could show me how wrong I am.
As someone who grow up with very few opportunities, accelerated programs and standardized tests were far and away the single biggest reason I was able to go from growing up poor and without any connections to a top 10 school and then a great career in software. In turn, that's allowed me to support my family in everything from mentoring to financial support.
This is a heartbreaking example of how some people today take equality to mean taking everyone down rather than trying to bring everyone up. Or in other words, "they don't love the poor, they just hate the rich"
This is a heartbreaking example of how some people today take equality to mean taking everyone down rather than trying to bring everyone up. Or in other words, "they don't love the poor, they just hate the rich"
> "delay the teaching of geometry to grade 9"
This part shocks me a little bit. All kids in Vietnam start geometry at grade 6. I have a hard time comprehend what is the difference that makes kids in a developing countries can learn things 3 years ahead of a developed countries.
This part shocks me a little bit. All kids in Vietnam start geometry at grade 6. I have a hard time comprehend what is the difference that makes kids in a developing countries can learn things 3 years ahead of a developed countries.
I agree. Compared to extracurriculars, SAT/ACT test prep is (was?) probably the most cost effective way of improving the chance of admissions for low-income students. It is possible to significantly improve the score simply by being familiar with the test format and a few test-taking strategies, and this is all doable even with just a SAT prep book and a timer.
> positive correlation between family income and testing scores
Correlation != causation.
One of the best SAT prep available today is https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat and that is free for everyone.
Standardized tests are important, otherwise students are not evaluated using a uniform criteria. GPAs can be compared only within the same school district.
Even the curriculum is not standardized across states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_implementation_by_...
Correlation != causation.
One of the best SAT prep available today is https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat and that is free for everyone.
Standardized tests are important, otherwise students are not evaluated using a uniform criteria. GPAs can be compared only within the same school district.
Even the curriculum is not standardized across states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_implementation_by_...
I think we'll actually see more of a divide as those who are motivated to study on their own go through online programs like OCW and use that knowledge to do impressive things in lieu of credentialing themselves (though they may also leverage the impressive things to get credentials).
The hard part will be that the poorer folks won't have the same luxury of free time to study like this.
So in the end I'm not sure that we'll really escape from Matthew's Law ("the rich get richer and the poor get poorer").
The hard part will be that the poorer folks won't have the same luxury of free time to study like this.
So in the end I'm not sure that we'll really escape from Matthew's Law ("the rich get richer and the poor get poorer").
> The union will also delay the teaching of geometry to grade 9
That's when I took it as a youth and nobody in either of the school districts I went to around those years took it any earlier.
(For non-North Americans, 9th grade is 14-15yo).
(And did you mean 'board' instead of 'union'?)
EDIT: Some basic googling isn't coming up with anything about this, the closest I've found is SF high schools delaying algebra 1 until 9th grade, but with an option for kids to take both algebra 1 and geometry at the same time (or algebra 2 and geometry at the same time). Details at https://www.sfusdmath.org/high-school-pathways.html
> I'll simply send them to private schools, all kinds of camps, or tutoring schools. They will learn calculus in grade 7 or early if they are talented. They will have a bucket list of volunteering experience and so-called leadership proof in their resume. They will build their ML-powered robots or conduct their favorite chemistry/physics experiments in their private lab that I can help build, if they are interested. And in the worse case, my wife and I have no problem and plenty of time to home school my kids.
Sounds like a great way to give them one hell of a complex.
I've had co-workers who were parents of kids in the Princeton NJ school district (and adjacent districts) and from what they say it is an incredibly stressful and competitive experience. On the opposite coast, there's a reason kids in Palo Alto are killing themselves so much more than elsewhere.
That's when I took it as a youth and nobody in either of the school districts I went to around those years took it any earlier.
(For non-North Americans, 9th grade is 14-15yo).
(And did you mean 'board' instead of 'union'?)
EDIT: Some basic googling isn't coming up with anything about this, the closest I've found is SF high schools delaying algebra 1 until 9th grade, but with an option for kids to take both algebra 1 and geometry at the same time (or algebra 2 and geometry at the same time). Details at https://www.sfusdmath.org/high-school-pathways.html
> I'll simply send them to private schools, all kinds of camps, or tutoring schools. They will learn calculus in grade 7 or early if they are talented. They will have a bucket list of volunteering experience and so-called leadership proof in their resume. They will build their ML-powered robots or conduct their favorite chemistry/physics experiments in their private lab that I can help build, if they are interested. And in the worse case, my wife and I have no problem and plenty of time to home school my kids.
Sounds like a great way to give them one hell of a complex.
I've had co-workers who were parents of kids in the Princeton NJ school district (and adjacent districts) and from what they say it is an incredibly stressful and competitive experience. On the opposite coast, there's a reason kids in Palo Alto are killing themselves so much more than elsewhere.
Yeah, pushing kids may not always work out for kids. I used those examples to show it's possible for some kids to get advantages. That's also the reason I kept quantifying the examples with "if they are interested/talented" and etc. Maybe a reversed example is better: some kids could've stood out but didn't because they didn't have the edge of being in those camps/tutoring schools. I'm already seeing such trend: kids are in arm race of taking as many APs as possible. Kids rush to STEM contests, and etc. Schools can take out challenges, but the competitions won't stop simply because top-quality education is a scarce resource.
I get this but can’t bear to not participate!
The world is very quickly bifurcating into 1. a small professional elite and 2. poverty for the rest. The middle class is going away, and with it, jobs and dignity for B, C, and D students.
As a parent I feel if I don’t go into six figure debt paying for camps, tutors, sports, accelerated this, and advanced that, then there is some other parent doing this whose kid will take her spot on the train. Id be dooming her to a future of poverty.
College placement is a highly competitive, zero sum slugfest and for her sake I need to at least try.
The world is very quickly bifurcating into 1. a small professional elite and 2. poverty for the rest. The middle class is going away, and with it, jobs and dignity for B, C, and D students.
As a parent I feel if I don’t go into six figure debt paying for camps, tutors, sports, accelerated this, and advanced that, then there is some other parent doing this whose kid will take her spot on the train. Id be dooming her to a future of poverty.
College placement is a highly competitive, zero sum slugfest and for her sake I need to at least try.
> The union will also delay the teaching of geometry to grade 9, which IMHO will make teaching physics and algebra really hard.
In the usual secondary sequence, Geometry is between Algebra I and Algebra II; doing it in 9th grade, even with a full year precalc after Algebra II, gets you to Calculus I in 12th. with a combined Algebra II/Trig and no separate precalc, which has long been thr common accelerated course, it gets you to Calculus II.
Physics in high school is typically non-calculus based and works well alongside precalc or calc I or even Algebra II; there’s no difficulty having it in 11th/12th with geometry in 9th.
It may create problems keeping mathematically advanced students engaged, it doesn’t create problems teaching algebra or physics.
In the usual secondary sequence, Geometry is between Algebra I and Algebra II; doing it in 9th grade, even with a full year precalc after Algebra II, gets you to Calculus I in 12th. with a combined Algebra II/Trig and no separate precalc, which has long been thr common accelerated course, it gets you to Calculus II.
Physics in high school is typically non-calculus based and works well alongside precalc or calc I or even Algebra II; there’s no difficulty having it in 11th/12th with geometry in 9th.
It may create problems keeping mathematically advanced students engaged, it doesn’t create problems teaching algebra or physics.
AP Physics is calculus based.
Some other points:
1) SFUSD actually delayed Algebra 1 until 9th grade, not just Geometry.
2) This choice was a bit silly, but beginning algebra concepts are still being taught in middle school. The title of the course is less relevant than the actual content, and this was less of a radical change than the course title makes it sound.
3) The actual issue is that SFUSD eliminated algebra tracking, and for ideological reasons thinks that students who are ready to study calculus in 8th grade must be put into the same classes as students who are struggling with basic arithmetic. Every student has special needs, and it's a disservice to all of them to pretend that a single unified curriculum and classroom is equally suitable to all students.
Some other points:
1) SFUSD actually delayed Algebra 1 until 9th grade, not just Geometry.
2) This choice was a bit silly, but beginning algebra concepts are still being taught in middle school. The title of the course is less relevant than the actual content, and this was less of a radical change than the course title makes it sound.
3) The actual issue is that SFUSD eliminated algebra tracking, and for ideological reasons thinks that students who are ready to study calculus in 8th grade must be put into the same classes as students who are struggling with basic arithmetic. Every student has special needs, and it's a disservice to all of them to pretend that a single unified curriculum and classroom is equally suitable to all students.
There are 4 different physics tests currently offered for AP.
Calculus based: AP Physics C Mechanics, AP Physics C E&M
No calculus: AP Physics 1, AP Physics 2
Of course you would need the one with calculus to get credit that works for any STEM major. Without calculus, you aren't likely to get more than a generic science credit.
Calculus based: AP Physics C Mechanics, AP Physics C E&M
No calculus: AP Physics 1, AP Physics 2
Of course you would need the one with calculus to get credit that works for any STEM major. Without calculus, you aren't likely to get more than a generic science credit.
When I was taking high-school physics, we started without calculus, but we definitely needed geometry. Otherwise, one wouldn't be able to work on free body diagram, circular motion, optics, and etc, as all of them involves trigonometry and some basic geometry.
Furthermore...
This was years ago but there's no particular reason I'd expect things to have changed. But basically if you looked at outcomes--I think this included post-uni outcomes like salary--the quantitative measures like SAT score had a lot more predictive value than interview/letters of recommendation/essays/etc.
(The way the one school I'm familiar with used to do things was that basically everyone went on an X-Y graph with X being a normalized quant score and the Y being a normalized everything else score. Everyone up and to the right. No one down and to the left did. Those in the middle band were looked at a bit more carefully.
This was years ago but there's no particular reason I'd expect things to have changed. But basically if you looked at outcomes--I think this included post-uni outcomes like salary--the quantitative measures like SAT score had a lot more predictive value than interview/letters of recommendation/essays/etc.
(The way the one school I'm familiar with used to do things was that basically everyone went on an X-Y graph with X being a normalized quant score and the Y being a normalized everything else score. Everyone up and to the right. No one down and to the left did. Those in the middle band were looked at a bit more carefully.
> the quantitative measures like SAT score had a lot more predictive value than interview/letters of recommendation/essays/etc.
I've also read SAT scores are highly correlated to family income. Family income probably has a huge impact on post university outcomes.
I've also read SAT scores are highly correlated to family income. Family income probably has a huge impact on post university outcomes.
I would imagine the socialization benefits of family income probably massively enhance interview skill and (even more) letters of recommendation as well, no? And for the essay, this seems easiest to fix with wealth as you can hire someone to either write it for you or massively edit it and assist you with it.
Any time someone proposes to get rid of this or that requirement for being correlated to wealth, I'd like to see what the alternative is and see if it's any better.
We want something somewhat meritocratic, where we can tell the difference between natural capability and hard work on the one hand and simply being lucky to be born into wealth on the other... but it's not clear to me that objective measures like the SAT are going to be worse than interviews/letters-of-rec/essays in discerning that.
Any time someone proposes to get rid of this or that requirement for being correlated to wealth, I'd like to see what the alternative is and see if it's any better.
We want something somewhat meritocratic, where we can tell the difference between natural capability and hard work on the one hand and simply being lucky to be born into wealth on the other... but it's not clear to me that objective measures like the SAT are going to be worse than interviews/letters-of-rec/essays in discerning that.
I have never considered this issue before, so what are the good alternatives to this? For MIT admissions to call their teachers and ask questions?
I don't get why students need to be apply to be accepted. Why can't everyone go to MIT? Is there a scarcity on chalk boards, shitty chairs and cinder blocks?
Because you want to have a minimum level of ability so that you can maintain a certain pace of instruction. If you have students of various levels of ability and you teach high tier material, most of those kids will fail and drop out. Why set them up for failure?
That's a nice thought, but it's about status. If they let everyone in, they'd lose status, and having an MIT degree wouldn't have signaling value. If what you said was accurate, they'd just set minimum qualifications and accept way more people.
> Why can't everyone go to MIT?
Everyone can, online. All of MIT's course content is available for free online:
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Everyone can, online. All of MIT's course content is available for free online:
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
It's not really, it's a dumping ground of university assets.
Um, video lectures, lecture notes, problem sets, solutions, and references to textbooks is more than just "a dumping ground". When I look at what's available on OCW for the classes I took when I was at MIT, everything that I got any learning value from is there.
The biggest part of any "elite" university is being surrounded by similarly high achieving people, to learn from and be motivated by. Attending any random state college gives you theoretical access to all the non-human resources (except labs) that the typical MIT undergraduate will access.
> The biggest part of any "elite" university is being surrounded by similarly high achieving people, to learn from and be motivated by.
While this is a common belief (and many people, before I went to MIT, were very effusive in telling me how much it would benefit me), my experience is that it is a myth (or at least it was at MIT when I was there). Of course there were high achieving people at MIT when I was there, but there were also plenty who were not; overall I don't think the distribution of motivation was much different from high school. (Motivation is not the same thing as grades: most of my fellow students at MIT got straight A's in high school for the same reason I did, that for us, high school was simply not that challenging academically, so we could be lazy and still make the grades.) As for what I learned from my fellow students, I can't say I learned nothing (since, for example, learning what pot smells like counts as learning something), but I don't think I learned anything significant academically that I wouldn't have learned from my peers at a less selective school.
While this is a common belief (and many people, before I went to MIT, were very effusive in telling me how much it would benefit me), my experience is that it is a myth (or at least it was at MIT when I was there). Of course there were high achieving people at MIT when I was there, but there were also plenty who were not; overall I don't think the distribution of motivation was much different from high school. (Motivation is not the same thing as grades: most of my fellow students at MIT got straight A's in high school for the same reason I did, that for us, high school was simply not that challenging academically, so we could be lazy and still make the grades.) As for what I learned from my fellow students, I can't say I learned nothing (since, for example, learning what pot smells like counts as learning something), but I don't think I learned anything significant academically that I wouldn't have learned from my peers at a less selective school.
It's not theoretical, you simply need to search a bit more for same resources at a random state school.
There are plenty of top quality professors at such schools.
Not every professor can make things work for their family at Stanford or MIT. Maybe their partner has a modest income so to afford a house so they go work at Penn State or whatever.
There are plenty of top quality professors at such schools.
Not every professor can make things work for their family at Stanford or MIT. Maybe their partner has a modest income so to afford a house so they go work at Penn State or whatever.
(I don't understand the parent post other than it saying that top notch people can end up at state schools. )
We are...
We are...
Here's a tell of critical incompleteness — find Analysis 1, which is a must-have course for math and adjacent technical majors.
> find Analysis 1
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100b-analysis-i-f...
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100b-analysis-i-f...
Now everyone can look and make their own judgment call.
Or you could just say explicitly what you think is missing from the course called "Analysis I" that I linked to, instead of making vague insinuations. Your call.
Not the OP, but it seems that videos of lectures are missing, which is the case for most OCW courses - they are mostly incomplete and often outdated. Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for some of the marvelous OCW courses I took, but suggesting it can substitute actually studying at MIT is a bit too... optimistic.
> videos of lectures are missing, which is the case for most OCW courses
Yes, fair point.
> suggesting it can substitute actually studying at MIT is a bit too... optimistic
My personal experience at MIT was that I didn't learn much from lectures; too long, too boring, and too much tailored to the professor's style instead of the student's. In this respect lectures at other schools where teaching is valued more relative to research might actually be better. (One of the professors I had at MIT who was the exception--an excellent lecturer, who actually responded usefully to questions from students in a freshman-level class of 200 or more--was criticized by the MIT administration for not publishing enough research papers.)
Yes, fair point.
> suggesting it can substitute actually studying at MIT is a bit too... optimistic
My personal experience at MIT was that I didn't learn much from lectures; too long, too boring, and too much tailored to the professor's style instead of the student's. In this respect lectures at other schools where teaching is valued more relative to research might actually be better. (One of the professors I had at MIT who was the exception--an excellent lecturer, who actually responded usefully to questions from students in a freshman-level class of 200 or more--was criticized by the MIT administration for not publishing enough research papers.)
There's more to a degree than just the coursework.
If you mean there is more to the credential than the coursework, of course that's true. But the only possible value in the credential is scarcity; if everyone gets it, it ceases to have any value as a credential.
Or if you mean there's more to the experience of going to college than just the coursework, of course that's true as well. But if everyone went to MIT (or any other selective school), that experience would change too; all those people would not be getting the same experience that people going to MIT now are getting.
In short, it is not really possible for everyone to "go to MIT" (or any other selective school) in either of the above senses. So I was focusing on what is possible, namely, for everyone to have access to the same actual learning materials that MIT students have access to.
There is one other thing you could be referring to that the online materials can't give you, namely in person instruction and feedback. Personally, if I think back to the classes I took at MIT, I didn't learn anything significant in those ways; everything significant I learned, as far as the actual academic material was concerned, I learned from reading the course notes and textbooks and working the problem sets and taking the exams (and seeing what I got right and what I got wrong). And all those things are available to anyone who goes to the OCW site. I can't say for sure what other people's experiences are, but I think this quote from Gibbon is relevant:
"The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."
Or if you mean there's more to the experience of going to college than just the coursework, of course that's true as well. But if everyone went to MIT (or any other selective school), that experience would change too; all those people would not be getting the same experience that people going to MIT now are getting.
In short, it is not really possible for everyone to "go to MIT" (or any other selective school) in either of the above senses. So I was focusing on what is possible, namely, for everyone to have access to the same actual learning materials that MIT students have access to.
There is one other thing you could be referring to that the online materials can't give you, namely in person instruction and feedback. Personally, if I think back to the classes I took at MIT, I didn't learn anything significant in those ways; everything significant I learned, as far as the actual academic material was concerned, I learned from reading the course notes and textbooks and working the problem sets and taking the exams (and seeing what I got right and what I got wrong). And all those things are available to anyone who goes to the OCW site. I can't say for sure what other people's experiences are, but I think this quote from Gibbon is relevant:
"The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."
> There is one other thing you could be referring to that the online materials can't give you, namely in person instruction and feedback
It's the labs and the projects. Especially for engineering degrees, a good part of learning comes from shipping projects. I think it's where "everyone doing MOOC" falls short.
It's the labs and the projects. Especially for engineering degrees, a good part of learning comes from shipping projects. I think it's where "everyone doing MOOC" falls short.
> It's the labs and the projects
True, this is one thing that online course materials can't give you. But I also don't think a school like MIT has any real advantage in this respect over other schools. At least, not if the labs I had there are any indication; the materials we were given to work with were just as half-baked as anywhere else.
True, this is one thing that online course materials can't give you. But I also don't think a school like MIT has any real advantage in this respect over other schools. At least, not if the labs I had there are any indication; the materials we were given to work with were just as half-baked as anywhere else.
And if I'm really honest, not to suggest the coursework (especially hands-on) didn't have value, but a huge part of what I learned was exposure to many things--including non-STEM--and various activities outside of classwork. I only use things I learned undergrad in the most general sense today.
> a huge part of what I learned was exposure to many things--including non-STEM--and various activities outside of classwork
I think these things can be found at any decent school. Or, for that matter, in many kinds of activities outside of any school.
I think these things can be found at any decent school. Or, for that matter, in many kinds of activities outside of any school.
Oh, I don't disagree. Certainly with respect to hiring, I'm usually interviewing fairly senior people in not-directly hands-on tech roles. I won't say I don't look at the schools but they don't really play a factor in my evaluation. And some of the best senior folks I know are from schools that no one's heard of.
That's my observation too.
At the senior level, folks have typically carved a path out for themselves. College is typically the oldest thing on their resume anyways.
At the senior level, folks have typically carved a path out for themselves. College is typically the oldest thing on their resume anyways.
Yeah, without in any way to disclaim a rather privileged background, and without every really being outside of a engineering-adjacent space, I have had a very twisty turny path. And I don't think that's at all uncommon for a lot of people with a long career.
I think a lot of people here assume a fairly linear SWE progression beginning with a CS degree but that's not the norm for a lot of people who work in the computer industry in various roles even that didn't involve wholesale career shifts.
I think a lot of people here assume a fairly linear SWE progression beginning with a CS degree but that's not the norm for a lot of people who work in the computer industry in various roles even that didn't involve wholesale career shifts.
Because the big money isn't in selling an education. The big money is in selling the credential.
The admissions criteria is probably most of the value of MIT. If you have a degree from MIT you're probably smart, and we know that because you were able to get in to MIT (and graduate).
If we could find proper way to do testing and administer unlimited class sizes, one option could be just allow everyone in first year remote with some lower tuition rate. And then just drop all of the students who do not do good enough to get inside quota of spots for further years.
Lab based courses are crucial to the natural sciences. Even an institution as well off as MIT can't afford to buy enough NMR spectrometers for everyone to take their chemistry classes. Simulations and videos are not adequate substitutes for real lab work.
> Simulations and videos are not adequate substitutes for real lab work.
citations needed
citations needed
With online schooling this is true now more than ever. Why _cant_ i just follow along online, have a bot grade the assignments, and get a degree? Makes you start to question what going to prestigious schools is really about.
>Makes you start to question what going to prestigious schools is really about.
Parents should teach their kids about the importance of networking and signaling while growing up. Obviously, it's secondary to actually being proficient and productive, but still just as necessary.
Parents should teach their kids about the importance of networking and signaling while growing up. Obviously, it's secondary to actually being proficient and productive, but still just as necessary.
How about kids test in? They can take classes online, if they perform well enough, they get to attend in person, everyone else can bang on the gates via a MOOC.
Why not take 1 or 2 university classes your junior and senior year of HS?
Why not take 1 or 2 university classes your junior and senior year of HS?
> Why not take 1 or 2 university classes your junior and senior year of HS?
Wasn't this the point of AP classes?
Wasn't this the point of AP classes?
I think so, but in the method I am outlining, the student would be doing an audition with a university they would like to attend, it isn't just for college credit.
That would be neat.
I think there are some Community Colleges/Universities that will allow it, or used to.
I think there are some Community Colleges/Universities that will allow it, or used to.
Given the massive endowments that MIT & the Ivy's are sitting on, it's borderline criminal that they're so selective IMO.
Their massive endowment comes from being selective. Seeing where someone graduated from is an excellent tool that companies use to filter out candidates and that filter is of genuine value to the economy. Hiring people is very very risky, especially new grads. Imagine having to sift through 1000s of potential candidates and not having indicators such as whether they graduated, where they graduated from, how well they did compared to their peers, etc...
It would result in massive inefficiencies and major risks.
With few exception (medical school, some very specialized research), you do not go to MIT if what you genuinely and strictly want is a good education. There is nothing that an undergrad is going to learn at MIT that can't be learned online. There's nothing secretive that MIT teaches that only MIT grads could possibly know about. There is no proprietary research or knowledge that MIT teaches to its students that isn't well established and that other colleges don't have access to. And finally, MIT and most other Ivy league schools and schools in general don't have any kind of specialty when it comes to lecturing or any kind of area of expertise on delivering educational material in any kind of special way; on the contrary most professors are pretty bad at teaching and teaching is not their area of expertise. The textbooks, the lectures, heck even the tests and assignments, are all available for anyone to learn from if they so choose.
You go to MIT because it puts you ahead of well over 95% of the population in virtually every future aspect of your career.
It would result in massive inefficiencies and major risks.
With few exception (medical school, some very specialized research), you do not go to MIT if what you genuinely and strictly want is a good education. There is nothing that an undergrad is going to learn at MIT that can't be learned online. There's nothing secretive that MIT teaches that only MIT grads could possibly know about. There is no proprietary research or knowledge that MIT teaches to its students that isn't well established and that other colleges don't have access to. And finally, MIT and most other Ivy league schools and schools in general don't have any kind of specialty when it comes to lecturing or any kind of area of expertise on delivering educational material in any kind of special way; on the contrary most professors are pretty bad at teaching and teaching is not their area of expertise. The textbooks, the lectures, heck even the tests and assignments, are all available for anyone to learn from if they so choose.
You go to MIT because it puts you ahead of well over 95% of the population in virtually every future aspect of your career.
You know test prep courses are a thing, and that the wealthy are the primary consumers of them, right? Pretty much everything in the USA is pay to win.
You're being downvoted, but I think this sentiment is right and if you take it seriously, it's an argument for the SAT. Pretty much _everything_ in the USA is pay to win, not just the SAT, and the more subjective factors like essays, extracurriculars, and even grades, are more biased.
Test prep companies have an incentive to overhype their services but research suggests the improvement isn't that much.
There's a Jacobin article making the case for the SAT that people following this debate might enjoy reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/sat-class-race-inequality...
Test prep companies have an incentive to overhype their services but research suggests the improvement isn't that much.
There's a Jacobin article making the case for the SAT that people following this debate might enjoy reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/sat-class-race-inequality...
Test prep has a more or less negligible effect size. Extra curriculars and paying someone to write your essay for you on the other hand are all about privilege.
Yes, and high-quality free prep solutions exist: https://www.khanacademy.org/SAT
Spending 10k on a prep class isn't going to cause your dimwitted child to outperform a bright kid from a disadvantaged background, but it can probably buy a better essay
Spending 10k on a prep class isn't going to cause your dimwitted child to outperform a bright kid from a disadvantaged background, but it can probably buy a better essay
At least in the past, Harvard had a far higher rate of students with learning disabilities than lower tier schools, because having one meant you could get unlimited time on the SAT (giving the time to, on the math part, test every multiple choice solution manually rather than solve once and choose or use other higher level strategies).
Richer families were more likely to have connections with a doctor to give the diagnosis, afford the insurance deductible, or even be in the right circles or to know through word of mouth or paid admissions advisers that it was a thing to try and acquire for the kid.
Richer families were more likely to have connections with a doctor to give the diagnosis, afford the insurance deductible, or even be in the right circles or to know through word of mouth or paid admissions advisers that it was a thing to try and acquire for the kid.
That's genius. I've seen it elsewhere too.
Again, you should expect every metric to be thoroughly gamed.
Again, you should expect every metric to be thoroughly gamed.
This is an oft-repeated meme, but I don't think it holds much water - the main value of SAT test prep is in taking a few practice tests, which you can do by yourself with a $20 book. You can't buy your way to a 2400, it takes being able to actually solve the problems. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more of them.
> You can't buy your way to a 2400
Well, no, since that would be 150% of the maximum score.
You can buy your way to the maximum score, and people have been doing it, but test prep won't get you there. (As you note, prep is worth nearly nothing in terms of score gains.) You need advance access to the answers, or a substitute to take the test for you, or something along those lines.
Well, no, since that would be 150% of the maximum score.
You can buy your way to the maximum score, and people have been doing it, but test prep won't get you there. (As you note, prep is worth nearly nothing in terms of score gains.) You need advance access to the answers, or a substitute to take the test for you, or something along those lines.
Ha are they back to 1600? When did they get rid of writing?
Sure, yes, maybe bribery or fraud could get you there. Have there been reported cases?
Sure, yes, maybe bribery or fraud could get you there. Have there been reported cases?
1600 is the high score again as of 2016.
Yes, there have been various reported cases of fraud on the SAT. The most prominent two that come to mind are the recent college admissions scandal, in which strategies included both (1) having a substitute take the SAT in place of the student and (2) bribing the test proctor, and the year in which every test result from South Korea was canceled due to widespread cheating.
https://world.time.com/2013/05/10/for-the-first-time-sat-tes...
Yes, there have been various reported cases of fraud on the SAT. The most prominent two that come to mind are the recent college admissions scandal, in which strategies included both (1) having a substitute take the SAT in place of the student and (2) bribing the test proctor, and the year in which every test result from South Korea was canceled due to widespread cheating.
https://world.time.com/2013/05/10/for-the-first-time-sat-tes...
Wow, TIL, thanks!
I'd rather have people paying for test prep services than essay ghostwriters or fraudulent extracurriculars.
Yes, everything. But testing is the least gameable (assuming you can prevent actual cheating). So getting rid of it makes admission more gameable overall.
At least the wealthy still have to take the test. With essays, there is no guarantee that the person wrote it. There are numerous websites for purchasing essays
This was downvoted because it's a disingenuous reply. Obviously, OP was not arguing that SAT can't be gamed.
I think I know when I'm being disingenuous, thank you very much, and that was not it. Mistaken, perhaps, but not disingenuous.
Even so:
> In any case, even small effects can be unfair. Let’s assume the effects of short-term coaching are really just a 20- or 30-point jump in students’ scores. That means they ought to be irrelevant to college admissions officers. Briggs found otherwise, however. Analyzing a 2008 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, he noted that one-third of respondents described a jump from 750 to 770 on the math portion of the SAT as having a significant effect on a student’s chances of admissions, and this was true among counselors at more and less selective schools alike. Even a minor score improvement for a high-achieving student, then—and one that falls within the standard measurement error for the test—can make a real difference.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
Test prep, even if it's as rudimentary as taking the test multiple times (thus, being able to afford to take the test multiple times), is an advantage that matters.
Even so:
> In any case, even small effects can be unfair. Let’s assume the effects of short-term coaching are really just a 20- or 30-point jump in students’ scores. That means they ought to be irrelevant to college admissions officers. Briggs found otherwise, however. Analyzing a 2008 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, he noted that one-third of respondents described a jump from 750 to 770 on the math portion of the SAT as having a significant effect on a student’s chances of admissions, and this was true among counselors at more and less selective schools alike. Even a minor score improvement for a high-achieving student, then—and one that falls within the standard measurement error for the test—can make a real difference.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
Test prep, even if it's as rudimentary as taking the test multiple times (thus, being able to afford to take the test multiple times), is an advantage that matters.
That's fair.
In extremely competitive situations, the slightest edge matter. Arguably test prep is less of an edge than spending a summer on some community project would be but even a relatively small point jump is an edge for someone on the bubble. And, of course, elite schools have become hyper-competitive. I have very few illusions that I would have the school choice I had when I went to college--especially given that that about an eighth of my class went to the school in question.
In extremely competitive situations, the slightest edge matter. Arguably test prep is less of an edge than spending a summer on some community project would be but even a relatively small point jump is an edge for someone on the bubble. And, of course, elite schools have become hyper-competitive. I have very few illusions that I would have the school choice I had when I went to college--especially given that that about an eighth of my class went to the school in question.
The real problem [edit: with scores] here is that scores are reported on a 200-800 scale. If they were reported in terms of standard deviation from the mean, then those 20-40 point differences wouldn't matter to admissions officers. As it is, a 30 point difference looks significant, even though it's only around 0.15 SD.
I'd hope that admissions officers are sophisticated enough to know that. Having said, there's some band in which you're basically flipping coins given overall criteria so you flip coins based on statistically insignificant numbers rather than complete random number generators.
you know they also pay people to write their essays or give them tutoring to get a high GPA right? And that GPA's are inflated at private schools?
The SAT is the one mechanism that poor asian and jewish and nigerian kids could prepare for and do well on. But obviously the objective is to get rid of them as "theres too many"
Its also the only measure thats the same for everyone. There also isnt any indication that as a whole the test prep classes actually "work" to a serious degree. Maybe theyll take your score up 20 points but wont raise it 300.
The SAT is the one mechanism that poor asian and jewish and nigerian kids could prepare for and do well on. But obviously the objective is to get rid of them as "theres too many"
Its also the only measure thats the same for everyone. There also isnt any indication that as a whole the test prep classes actually "work" to a serious degree. Maybe theyll take your score up 20 points but wont raise it 300.
I'd like to point out that there's an egalitarian approach to college admissions that I found interesting. Every single time I've brought it up with people, no matter their politics, they got angry about it, but I think it would be interesting to see it implemented and then compare the outcomes.
A lottery system of admissions, with a guarantee of admission to at least some universities. It's described here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/admit-everybody/
A lottery system of admissions, with a guarantee of admission to at least some universities. It's described here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/admit-everybody/
I've heard of similar proposals for funding grants; have a first pass to make sure the grant proposals aren't total BS, then lottery among those that pass.
That assumes that the primary purpose of higher education is education, instead of maintaining social stratification under the auspices of meritocracy.
This will definitely help make it easier for admissions to discriminate against Asian students.
From a business perspective it must be more lucrative to select candidates by their cultural projection and the money connections than on the basis of academic potential.
I suppose that is true for MIT, for mainstream media, and for US corporations.
I suppose that is true for MIT, for mainstream media, and for US corporations.
We can compare the audience of an flamewar post about racism in US, vs the readership of a paper on fixed point theorems, and it makes sense that organizations that don't care about science like US universities choose to favor the former.
MIT undergraduates in the class of 2024 are 42% Asian. White is 39%. What makes you think MIT discriminates against Asian students?
It's low compared to some base rates.
60% of 750 - 800 math SAT scorers are Asian
https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
I looked through the list of USAMO finalists in recent years and > 80% have Asian surnames.
60% of 750 - 800 math SAT scorers are Asian
https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
I looked through the list of USAMO finalists in recent years and > 80% have Asian surnames.
Anecdotal evidence, but I did well on the SAT and spent very little money. I bought a few books, but easily could have pirated them online (like I did for all of my AP tests previously).
I think the SAT is likely more egalitarian than extracurriculars, although I cannot comment on its effectiveness as an indicator for college performance.
Someone who has to work after high school to support their family would not have the time or energy to play sports, do choir, run clubs, etc. But they could go to the library, pirate some books, print out the pages and practice 20 minutes a day starting 10-12 months ahead of time. It would be more difficult, of course, but I still think studying for a test is easier and cheaper than having extensive extracurriculars.
Anecdotally, I've also always heard SAT test prep is a waste of money.
I think the SAT is likely more egalitarian than extracurriculars, although I cannot comment on its effectiveness as an indicator for college performance.
Someone who has to work after high school to support their family would not have the time or energy to play sports, do choir, run clubs, etc. But they could go to the library, pirate some books, print out the pages and practice 20 minutes a day starting 10-12 months ahead of time. It would be more difficult, of course, but I still think studying for a test is easier and cheaper than having extensive extracurriculars.
Anecdotally, I've also always heard SAT test prep is a waste of money.
Did SAT/ACT scores ever make a difference in applications here? I know they probably cut off around 1300-1400 (as do plenty of schools), but my understanding was that MIT wanted you to be doing tons of extracurriculars and other stuff that wasn't represented by standardized tests anyway.
IMO high scores were a necessary but not sufficient condition. It was definitely a data point used
The system when I was familiar with it basically used SAT/GPA as one axis and other stuff on another axis. So you needed to hit some cutoff but if all you had was a perfect SAT, that wasn't enough.
Well that's one way to hide your discrimination against Asian kids.
Like a lot of things, the pandemic will be used as cover to stop (or change) stuff everyone hates, but otherwise don't have the courage to discontinue otherwise.
--
Is anyone using lotteries as part of admissions?
My interest in lotteries comes thru 1) warming up to the notion of sortition, 2) tired of the food fight over affirmative action, and 3) rejection of ever increasing bureaucracy and credentialing.
As a mental model, I'm starting to think of lotteries as an optimization technique.
--
I briefly worked on some student facing stuff in higher ed. The course registration stuff is insane. There's got to be more fair, easier to administrate systems. Something like an auction. Release some fraction of courses every time interval. Figure out some rational way to prioritize bids. Like add weight for seniority, students in program, declared major. Or whatever. Then administrators can add or remove courses, sections, labs, whatever as needed.
--
Now that our university monopolies have been privatized, why hasn't Freedom Markets™ logic prevailed? Raise supply to meet demand.
Higher ed loves government pork. But are completely unaccountable.
If we are states are no longer willing to adjudicate bottom up, they must now impose some kind of top down pressure.
The most simple idea I can think of is raid (radical cashectomies) the endowments. Use it or lose. Compel places like MIT and Harvard to spend down their hoard. Increase slots. Add campuses. Adopt other universities and invest in them, like scholastic version of sport farm teams.
Let Freedom Markets™ sing!
--
Is anyone using lotteries as part of admissions?
My interest in lotteries comes thru 1) warming up to the notion of sortition, 2) tired of the food fight over affirmative action, and 3) rejection of ever increasing bureaucracy and credentialing.
As a mental model, I'm starting to think of lotteries as an optimization technique.
--
I briefly worked on some student facing stuff in higher ed. The course registration stuff is insane. There's got to be more fair, easier to administrate systems. Something like an auction. Release some fraction of courses every time interval. Figure out some rational way to prioritize bids. Like add weight for seniority, students in program, declared major. Or whatever. Then administrators can add or remove courses, sections, labs, whatever as needed.
--
Now that our university monopolies have been privatized, why hasn't Freedom Markets™ logic prevailed? Raise supply to meet demand.
Higher ed loves government pork. But are completely unaccountable.
If we are states are no longer willing to adjudicate bottom up, they must now impose some kind of top down pressure.
The most simple idea I can think of is raid (radical cashectomies) the endowments. Use it or lose. Compel places like MIT and Harvard to spend down their hoard. Increase slots. Add campuses. Adopt other universities and invest in them, like scholastic version of sport farm teams.
Let Freedom Markets™ sing!
One question on my mind (as someone who has a master's degree and engineering degree and has never taken the ACT/SAT) is how kids will go about showing pure intellectual merit?
Like let's say you grow up ok but you can't really afford to join the ski club or for a tutor and maybe you work in the evenings but you crush the SAT/ACT because you're incredibly intelligent. How will universities like MIT take that into account? If we're talking about merit - boy that sure speaks of merit to me compared to a laundry list of clubs, activities, and organizations that the kids with hyper-dedicated parents or lots of money have on their applications.
I'll also say, I didn't take either of these tests and came from a family where to this day I'm still the only one to attend college, but if I had taken the SAT or ACT and scored remarkably well - I think that would have opened doors I didn't even know exist. High school counselor ideally would have noticed a high score and helped with applications.
I don't like these tests but I have to imagine a subset of the population uses them to great effect. Like many things, it seems, I bet that removal of these tests will result in bifurcation in the education system, or will wind up hurting poorer students (while making the middle extremely competitive).
Anyway. There are so many problems with the university system, starting with using universities to train workers, that it's difficult to feel emotion anymore around the issue because it's so overwhelming.
-edit-
For what it's worth I don't know if the SAT/ACT are a good show of intellect. And these tests can be effectively gamed - not just illegally as we saw with the recent scandal but with tutors and test prep.
-edit 2-
Many students who are intelligent but grow up poor have a difficult time in universities, especially when they don't get to take the same classes as their peers did in high school. I know I'm probably an average student, but when I went to my calculus classes after being out of high school for around 5 years I could grasp how to do derivatives and their meaning, but couldn't understand the log functions or trigonometry. So I'd do most of the homework and take the quizzes, then bomb the exams when these concepts came into play. I felt miserable and I didn't know how to study or how to even really get help - I didn't even have a concept of what I didn't know. I just thought I was dumb. It took 3 tries but I eventually got enough help and practice (thanks Khan Academy and others) to make it through, graduate, and go on to do other things.
Fortunately I had training in resilience from the military. What about that kid who grows up crushes a standardized test and fails a class and then thinks that they're stupid and they don't know how to ask for help or can't afford tutoring? Those kids maybe they fail out, or maybe they have mediocre grades so when they go to try and get a job they're competing against 3.8s with tons of on-campus activities. Yet again perpetuating the cycle of getting dumped on. Needs lots of luck or persistence to break the cycle.
Like let's say you grow up ok but you can't really afford to join the ski club or for a tutor and maybe you work in the evenings but you crush the SAT/ACT because you're incredibly intelligent. How will universities like MIT take that into account? If we're talking about merit - boy that sure speaks of merit to me compared to a laundry list of clubs, activities, and organizations that the kids with hyper-dedicated parents or lots of money have on their applications.
I'll also say, I didn't take either of these tests and came from a family where to this day I'm still the only one to attend college, but if I had taken the SAT or ACT and scored remarkably well - I think that would have opened doors I didn't even know exist. High school counselor ideally would have noticed a high score and helped with applications.
I don't like these tests but I have to imagine a subset of the population uses them to great effect. Like many things, it seems, I bet that removal of these tests will result in bifurcation in the education system, or will wind up hurting poorer students (while making the middle extremely competitive).
Anyway. There are so many problems with the university system, starting with using universities to train workers, that it's difficult to feel emotion anymore around the issue because it's so overwhelming.
-edit-
For what it's worth I don't know if the SAT/ACT are a good show of intellect. And these tests can be effectively gamed - not just illegally as we saw with the recent scandal but with tutors and test prep.
-edit 2-
Many students who are intelligent but grow up poor have a difficult time in universities, especially when they don't get to take the same classes as their peers did in high school. I know I'm probably an average student, but when I went to my calculus classes after being out of high school for around 5 years I could grasp how to do derivatives and their meaning, but couldn't understand the log functions or trigonometry. So I'd do most of the homework and take the quizzes, then bomb the exams when these concepts came into play. I felt miserable and I didn't know how to study or how to even really get help - I didn't even have a concept of what I didn't know. I just thought I was dumb. It took 3 tries but I eventually got enough help and practice (thanks Khan Academy and others) to make it through, graduate, and go on to do other things.
Fortunately I had training in resilience from the military. What about that kid who grows up crushes a standardized test and fails a class and then thinks that they're stupid and they don't know how to ask for help or can't afford tutoring? Those kids maybe they fail out, or maybe they have mediocre grades so when they go to try and get a job they're competing against 3.8s with tons of on-campus activities. Yet again perpetuating the cycle of getting dumped on. Needs lots of luck or persistence to break the cycle.
Standardized testing is widely vilified, but it's probably been the greatest single force for meritocracy in American history. Prior to widespread adoption, elite universities awarded slots on a "holistic" basis. Which mostly meant the well-connected scions of high society families.
When the SAT went mainstream in the 1960s it opened up a world of opportunity to the previously overlooked gifted kids from middle-class families and excluded ethnic groups. It was now possible for a bright kid whose parents were garment workers in the Lower East Side to objectively compete with the Kennedys or the Astors in Exeter or Dalton. And the raw numbers meant that college admissions officers could no longer pretend this wasn't true.
It's almost certain that the 21st century's version of "holistic admissions" winds up operating much the same way as the early 20th century. There will certainly be more diversity window dressing. But at the end of the day it will still primarily benefit the powerful, rich, and well-connected. They'll be a few less Rockefellers and Bushes and a few more descendants of Eric Holder and Carlos Slim. But at the end of the day, the result will be the same. Keeping out kids from the wrong side of town.
When the SAT went mainstream in the 1960s it opened up a world of opportunity to the previously overlooked gifted kids from middle-class families and excluded ethnic groups. It was now possible for a bright kid whose parents were garment workers in the Lower East Side to objectively compete with the Kennedys or the Astors in Exeter or Dalton. And the raw numbers meant that college admissions officers could no longer pretend this wasn't true.
It's almost certain that the 21st century's version of "holistic admissions" winds up operating much the same way as the early 20th century. There will certainly be more diversity window dressing. But at the end of the day it will still primarily benefit the powerful, rich, and well-connected. They'll be a few less Rockefellers and Bushes and a few more descendants of Eric Holder and Carlos Slim. But at the end of the day, the result will be the same. Keeping out kids from the wrong side of town.
Preach it brother/sister. I couldn’t agree more. You’ve written this much more succinct than I could have.
> But at the end of the day the result will be the same. Keeping out kids from the wrong side of town.
> But at the end of the day the result will be the same. Keeping out kids from the wrong side of town.
I did well on the SAT and ACT, but one problem is that it's just not enough. Parents who shove their kids into piano and tennis lessons since age 4, push them to run for student government and take petitions to the city council, whatever, those parents are also going to make their kids spend every evening studying for the SAT. They've also had tutors when they need it. How does Harvard tell the difference between "this kid did well because she's brilliant" vs "this kid got $10k worth of SAT prep classes"?
One interesting idea: the College Board could add in a class of problems requiring a particular novel, non-obvious approach that are effectively poison pills. Students who take the SAT prep courses are drilled on how to answer them, while students who take the test naively are bound to answer them incorrectly. It doesn't affect the actual score reported to the student. But when the score is reported to universities, a shadow score that represents likelihood that the student received extensive prep is also reported, which gives that kind of context.
Harvard could easily do that. They have financial info on the parents family.
Unfortunately it's not really possible to measure intellectual merit in a standardized way without inadvertently also selecting for children of wealthier backgrounds. Standardized testing ultimately needs to be formulaic in nature in order to produce comparable scores. As long as the test is formulaic, it will be possible to purchase test preparation services that essentially teach you the formula. Test preparation services are purchased by people of means; their children confound the test score's signal of intellectual merit with a signal of test preparatory ability. The more elite the institution, the narrower the range of acceptable test scores, the more that the score signals test preparation rather than intellectual merit.
For any sufficiently in-demand institution, a healthier approach would be to define a minimum bar ahead of time, accept applications only from students who meet the bar, then select applicants by lottery from the pool according to available openings. Ultimately, selecting for perfect and near-perfect scores is actually counterproductive - Goodhart's Law is as applicable as ever.
For any sufficiently in-demand institution, a healthier approach would be to define a minimum bar ahead of time, accept applications only from students who meet the bar, then select applicants by lottery from the pool according to available openings. Ultimately, selecting for perfect and near-perfect scores is actually counterproductive - Goodhart's Law is as applicable as ever.
> ike let's say you grow up ok but you can't really afford to join the ski club or for a tutor and maybe you work in the evenings but you crush the SAT/ACT because you're incredibly intelligent. How will universities like MIT take that into account?
If the kid's that smart then presumably they'll have a top GPA as well. Absolute GPA of course is gameable, but class ranking really isn't. Texas at least has a "top 10%" law (https://news.utexas.edu/key-issues/top-10-percent-law/) which would get them in to a state school, and if that kid was really hankering for MIT then maybe they can transfer.
If they're lucky enough not to be in Texas, well, there's nothing wrong with state schools in any of the other several states, and furthermore there's no shame in going to a community college first if you have to.
If the kid's that smart then presumably they'll have a top GPA as well. Absolute GPA of course is gameable, but class ranking really isn't. Texas at least has a "top 10%" law (https://news.utexas.edu/key-issues/top-10-percent-law/) which would get them in to a state school, and if that kid was really hankering for MIT then maybe they can transfer.
If they're lucky enough not to be in Texas, well, there's nothing wrong with state schools in any of the other several states, and furthermore there's no shame in going to a community college first if you have to.
> If the kid's that smart then presumably they'll have a top GPA as well.
I definitely wouldn’t make that assumption.
> If they're lucky enough not to be in Texas, well, there's nothing wrong with state schools in any of the other several states, and furthermore there's no shame in going to a community college first if you have to.
Oh no doubt. I went to two public state universities and I believe my education was just as good as I’d find anywhere. Though there are differences (opportunities), the education is pretty good overall. But! That doesn’t tell the whole story. Many of the kids I went to school with in undergrad had taken classes like AP Physics, or AP Chemistry, or math beyond geometry. I didn’t. So I had to work much harder in some classes. I failed Calculus I twice before getting an A (maybe a B+? Don’t remember) and moving on with my life. For other students this could send them out of engineering, or maybe out of school altogether, and I’d argue it’s not really an intellect thing more so than it is not being on a level playing field to start with. This is an issue even at state schools. Maybe more so if they lack enough resources to cover tuition and room and board. People growing up in poverty (not that I did myself but much of my family did) think debt == bad or maybe they’re afraid to ask for help.
I guess that’s to say, I think it’s a problem in the entire system, all the way down to elementary school (Lebron James Family Foundation is doing a good job in my view of trying to address this).
My main issue with Ivy League schools is the perception and recruiting exclusivity. Wanna work at Goldman? Yale. Google? Harvard. Netflix? CMU. Etc.
Not a whole lot of tech recruiting going on at, say, Ohio University where I did my undergrad. Fuck those kids. Not in our recruiting footprint. Not one of our “target schools”. As if you need to go recruit at Duke to hire a BA?
In my personal life I do a lot of work to try and get more employers and recruiters down there and find ways to help. It’s tough sledding. Sometimes I wonder why I bother when it seems like so few others care.
I fantasize like damn if I had a ton of money or a huge grant there are so many things I’d love to try and do. It’s just too hard to quit my full time work. I’ll have to wait until I’m older and financially secure.
I definitely wouldn’t make that assumption.
> If they're lucky enough not to be in Texas, well, there's nothing wrong with state schools in any of the other several states, and furthermore there's no shame in going to a community college first if you have to.
Oh no doubt. I went to two public state universities and I believe my education was just as good as I’d find anywhere. Though there are differences (opportunities), the education is pretty good overall. But! That doesn’t tell the whole story. Many of the kids I went to school with in undergrad had taken classes like AP Physics, or AP Chemistry, or math beyond geometry. I didn’t. So I had to work much harder in some classes. I failed Calculus I twice before getting an A (maybe a B+? Don’t remember) and moving on with my life. For other students this could send them out of engineering, or maybe out of school altogether, and I’d argue it’s not really an intellect thing more so than it is not being on a level playing field to start with. This is an issue even at state schools. Maybe more so if they lack enough resources to cover tuition and room and board. People growing up in poverty (not that I did myself but much of my family did) think debt == bad or maybe they’re afraid to ask for help.
I guess that’s to say, I think it’s a problem in the entire system, all the way down to elementary school (Lebron James Family Foundation is doing a good job in my view of trying to address this).
My main issue with Ivy League schools is the perception and recruiting exclusivity. Wanna work at Goldman? Yale. Google? Harvard. Netflix? CMU. Etc.
Not a whole lot of tech recruiting going on at, say, Ohio University where I did my undergrad. Fuck those kids. Not in our recruiting footprint. Not one of our “target schools”. As if you need to go recruit at Duke to hire a BA?
In my personal life I do a lot of work to try and get more employers and recruiters down there and find ways to help. It’s tough sledding. Sometimes I wonder why I bother when it seems like so few others care.
I fantasize like damn if I had a ton of money or a huge grant there are so many things I’d love to try and do. It’s just too hard to quit my full time work. I’ll have to wait until I’m older and financially secure.
I would challenge if ACT/SAT is much about pure intellectual merit, considering how much one can boost their score with dedicated tutors and so on, but I digress. How to show intellectual merit other than standardized tests without relying on rich parents:
(a) Straight As
(b) (if applicable) Take all AP courses available at your high school
(c) (if applicable) Take additional college courses through community college dual enrollment or online school
(d) (if applicable) Join the math club, honors society, run for some kind of student council position, or other academics-oriented or leadership-oriented club role that doesn't require a hefty buy-in
b-d may or may not apply, depending on your school, school district, and state.
(a) Straight As
(b) (if applicable) Take all AP courses available at your high school
(c) (if applicable) Take additional college courses through community college dual enrollment or online school
(d) (if applicable) Join the math club, honors society, run for some kind of student council position, or other academics-oriented or leadership-oriented club role that doesn't require a hefty buy-in
b-d may or may not apply, depending on your school, school district, and state.
> I would challenge if ACT/SAT is much about pure intellectual merit, considering how much one can boost their score with dedicated tutors and so on, but I digress. How to show intellectual merit other than standardized tests without relying on rich parents:
I don't think the difference between dedicated tutors and individual studying with Khan Academy is a large difference. The majority of low scorers score low because they're either lower on the intelligence scale or didn't spend time individually studying.
I don't think the difference between dedicated tutors and individual studying with Khan Academy is a large difference. The majority of low scorers score low because they're either lower on the intelligence scale or didn't spend time individually studying.
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
If your suggested measures were considered, they would quickly become targets & add to the already insane workload that high school students must put up with in order to be considered competitive applicants. It's unfortunately not a scenario where you can say 'Pick one of (a) through (d)', because it will quickly become all of (a) through (d).
If your suggested measures were considered, they would quickly become targets & add to the already insane workload that high school students must put up with in order to be considered competitive applicants. It's unfortunately not a scenario where you can say 'Pick one of (a) through (d)', because it will quickly become all of (a) through (d).
Applicants to top universities are already doing (a) through (d), so removing the SAT should help - it's one less thing to worry about. If the AP/IB exams are just as good a proxy for "college aptitude", we should just us those, right?
While I agree in theory that AP/IB exams could be used instead of SAT/ACT, they are unfortunately not available at all schools. Students nowadays are already occasionally forced to travel to different schools in their area in order to take as many AP/IB classes as possible.
Additionally, removing any of the objective requirements forces students to add even more activities to their existing laundry list of extracurriculars in order to stand out. I don't have any evidence, but I fear that students will have to work even harder & spend even more hours outside the classroom just to stand out without SAT/ACT scores. Students are massively overworked as it is.
Additionally, removing any of the objective requirements forces students to add even more activities to their existing laundry list of extracurriculars in order to stand out. I don't have any evidence, but I fear that students will have to work even harder & spend even more hours outside the classroom just to stand out without SAT/ACT scores. Students are massively overworked as it is.
> I don't have any evidence, but I fear that students will have to work even harder & spend even more hours outside the classroom just to stand out without SAT/ACT scores. Students are massively overworked as it is.
This is basically a tautology ;) it doesn't matter how the targets change, as selectivity increases students (and their parents, for the well-to-do) will work harder and harder to pass whatever filters exist.
This is basically a tautology ;) it doesn't matter how the targets change, as selectivity increases students (and their parents, for the well-to-do) will work harder and harder to pass whatever filters exist.
It seems the students (parents?) who are inclined to spend every waking moment doing "college prep" of some sort are already doing so.
Personally, I hate the whole test industry - it incentivizes poor behavior (ie the existence of the entire test prep industry). But, I don't have a better answer. I wish colleges could rely on GPA, course selection, and extracurriculars, but apparently that doesn't work either.
At a macro level, I'm not even sure it matters much. The students who are marginal for acceptance to MIT or other top-tier universities are already going to be successful wherever they land. The real stand-outs are going to get in regardless - they're just that good. And everybody else will do just fine at the best state u. (or whatever other selective but not "ivy tier" college) in their region.
Anecdotally, my friends kids are getting into top universities without the insanity. A bunch to UVA, W&M, and VT (we live in VA), a few Ivies, a few to Stanford and Berkeley. The few kids I know doing test prep and other stuff like that are mostly getting into 2nd tier privates, which they likely would have gone to without the insanity.
Personally, I hate the whole test industry - it incentivizes poor behavior (ie the existence of the entire test prep industry). But, I don't have a better answer. I wish colleges could rely on GPA, course selection, and extracurriculars, but apparently that doesn't work either.
At a macro level, I'm not even sure it matters much. The students who are marginal for acceptance to MIT or other top-tier universities are already going to be successful wherever they land. The real stand-outs are going to get in regardless - they're just that good. And everybody else will do just fine at the best state u. (or whatever other selective but not "ivy tier" college) in their region.
Anecdotally, my friends kids are getting into top universities without the insanity. A bunch to UVA, W&M, and VT (we live in VA), a few Ivies, a few to Stanford and Berkeley. The few kids I know doing test prep and other stuff like that are mostly getting into 2nd tier privates, which they likely would have gone to without the insanity.
> they would quickly become targets
This is already the case. My list is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive nor aspirational
This is already the case. My list is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive nor aspirational
> This is already the case. My list is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive nor aspirational
I misunderstood the intent of the list, I agree with you.
I misunderstood the intent of the list, I agree with you.
yeah, try finding good “free” math club when kid is 6-7 y.o.
And by the time there are actually viable free options the kids are already far behind.
Preparing for tests are much cheaper than joining good clubs and/or preparing to write a food essays
And by the time there are actually viable free options the kids are already far behind.
Preparing for tests are much cheaper than joining good clubs and/or preparing to write a food essays
I'm not sure I understand your point. GP was looking for how an applicant who is smart but not privileged can show how they are smart, so that's what I was listing. Literally, what I did in high school. I joined the math team and went to competitions. When my school didn't have the funding or interest to go to regional competitions, I managed to get myself signed up as a team of 1 representing my school and hitch a ride with a neighboring school.
that’s literally what I did too and (not to brag but) I got on my country’s international math team and got free admission to university because of that. But how many were there? 10 at most.
Edit: my point is that finding the right math club at the right time is even more luck and effort than getting good on standard tests.
Edit: my point is that finding the right math club at the right time is even more luck and effort than getting good on standard tests.
Oh sorry, to be clear "math club" here was supposed to mean like, local math club, not successful competitive math club.
I mostly convinced classmates to go to local competitions because it was a day out of class and we could stop by the mall afterwards. We didn't win jack shit, my crowning "achievement" was beating half the schools at a regional competition, which is typically teams of 4, but as a team of 1 (and there's no award for 50th percentile).
Nonetheless, I had "President - Mu Alpha Theta" on my college application and I did end up making it to an elite university.
I mostly convinced classmates to go to local competitions because it was a day out of class and we could stop by the mall afterwards. We didn't win jack shit, my crowning "achievement" was beating half the schools at a regional competition, which is typically teams of 4, but as a team of 1 (and there's no award for 50th percentile).
Nonetheless, I had "President - Mu Alpha Theta" on my college application and I did end up making it to an elite university.
I think it's the opposite,
ACT/SAT scores are more representative of your socioeconomic level rather than just straight up smarts.
ACT/SAT scores are more representative of your socioeconomic level rather than just straight up smarts.
it's hard to show intellectual merit using the SAT, because the test isn't hard enough so people just max out the score. the 25th percentile student at MIT got 790/800 for the math section.
it definitely does make a difference for bright students who do unexpectedly well -- but it gets them into "merely" good schools not ultra-selective institutions like MIT.
it definitely does make a difference for bright students who do unexpectedly well -- but it gets them into "merely" good schools not ultra-selective institutions like MIT.
sounds like the test is a good “necessary” (not sufficient) condition for admission
It's a common defense of the SAT that it gives a fair shot to smart students whose cultural background means they don't know how to play the admissions game.
But I think this is not true at hyper-selective institutions, because as you say a perfect SAT score is necessary but not sufficient.
A student who has been on the normal, non-advanced educational track, not playing the resume game, and suddenly gets a 1600 SAT, still typically won't have a shot at MIT.
What they will get is a bunch of great full scholarships to good, but not hyper-selective elite, universities.
But I think this is not true at hyper-selective institutions, because as you say a perfect SAT score is necessary but not sufficient.
A student who has been on the normal, non-advanced educational track, not playing the resume game, and suddenly gets a 1600 SAT, still typically won't have a shot at MIT.
What they will get is a bunch of great full scholarships to good, but not hyper-selective elite, universities.
Absolutely. MIT wants to admit a varied population of students who are probably smart enough to do well if they apply themselves. They don't really need a harder standardized test. (There are also whatever the Achievement Tests are called these days.)
Preface: I scored extremely well on the SAT/ACT so I would have every incentive to keep the status quo. I think these tests should stick around as an option for students to prove their aptitude but that the requirement for them should be dropped.
Being smart does help you on these tests but not as much as you would hope. The things that meaningfully affect your score are studying for them and learning the specific material on the test. So there are two ways to do well: you study your ass off with test-prep materials or you go to one of the "good" high schools that tailor their entire curriculum to the ACT/SAT, AP and IB tests.
tl;dr these exasm only test how good you are at school and leave very little room to prove your aptitude in areas that aren't the primary subjects in school. CS being one area that until very recently was completely absent from all but the very best schools.
Being smart does help you on these tests but not as much as you would hope. The things that meaningfully affect your score are studying for them and learning the specific material on the test. So there are two ways to do well: you study your ass off with test-prep materials or you go to one of the "good" high schools that tailor their entire curriculum to the ACT/SAT, AP and IB tests.
tl;dr these exasm only test how good you are at school and leave very little room to prove your aptitude in areas that aren't the primary subjects in school. CS being one area that until very recently was completely absent from all but the very best schools.
> I scored extremely well on the SAT/ACT so I would have every incentive to keep the status quo.
I did too (well, the SAT; given that and that evrywhere I wanted to apply took the SAT, the ACT would have been superfluous), but...
> Being smart does help you on these tests but not as much as you would hope.
Its pretty much all being smart. Focussed study has some effect (and because small score differences at the high end make big competitive differences, can be worthwhile), bit don’t really do much.
Scores are quite tightly correlatee with IQ, which is why, e.g., MENSA accepts them in place of IQ tests.
> The things that meaningfully affect your score are studying for them and learning the specific material on the test.
Sure, those are the things in your control near the time of taking the test that affect your score, aside from “not getting wasted the morning of the test”. There’s not much you (or anyone else) can do after early childhood to significantly improve your probable IQ at the time you take the test, but that’s still the main outcome driver.
I did too (well, the SAT; given that and that evrywhere I wanted to apply took the SAT, the ACT would have been superfluous), but...
> Being smart does help you on these tests but not as much as you would hope.
Its pretty much all being smart. Focussed study has some effect (and because small score differences at the high end make big competitive differences, can be worthwhile), bit don’t really do much.
Scores are quite tightly correlatee with IQ, which is why, e.g., MENSA accepts them in place of IQ tests.
> The things that meaningfully affect your score are studying for them and learning the specific material on the test.
Sure, those are the things in your control near the time of taking the test that affect your score, aside from “not getting wasted the morning of the test”. There’s not much you (or anyone else) can do after early childhood to significantly improve your probable IQ at the time you take the test, but that’s still the main outcome driver.
> Focussed study has some effect
This statement requires some elaboration. Cramming for the SAT/ACT in the short time before the test has a small effect on your overall score. But if you go to a preparatory middle and high school where you will essentially spend 6-12th grade studying for the tests because the school designed the curriculum specifically to prepare you for them you will see a big difference.
Over the four years I spent in high school I was assigned as homework every. single. AP Calc I & II problem that had ever been published. Is it really that surprising that our class did well?
Another way of saying this.
* If you read voraciously as a child you will score extremely well on the reading section without really trying. You aren't smarter. You just spent a decade inadvertently studying.
* I was a math nerd as a child. I read math textbooks for fun. I was doing college-level math in 9th grade. And surprise to no one I scored almost perfect on the math section. But crucially, this didn't make me smarter than my peers. Literally anyone who had decided to spend their time at recess reading number theory textbooks would have done just as well.
This statement requires some elaboration. Cramming for the SAT/ACT in the short time before the test has a small effect on your overall score. But if you go to a preparatory middle and high school where you will essentially spend 6-12th grade studying for the tests because the school designed the curriculum specifically to prepare you for them you will see a big difference.
Over the four years I spent in high school I was assigned as homework every. single. AP Calc I & II problem that had ever been published. Is it really that surprising that our class did well?
Another way of saying this.
* If you read voraciously as a child you will score extremely well on the reading section without really trying. You aren't smarter. You just spent a decade inadvertently studying.
* I was a math nerd as a child. I read math textbooks for fun. I was doing college-level math in 9th grade. And surprise to no one I scored almost perfect on the math section. But crucially, this didn't make me smarter than my peers. Literally anyone who had decided to spend their time at recess reading number theory textbooks would have done just as well.
> Over the four years I spent in high school I was assigned as homework every. single. AP Calc I & II problem that had ever been published. Is it really that surprising that our class did well?
AP tests are different than the SAT/ACT. AP tests measure knowledge of something (the degree to which one can study the test independently of the notional subject matter may be debatable, sure), but SAT/ACT are very much proxy IQ tests. They may frequently be used together (but MIT is dropping SAT/ACT, not AP), but are not equivalent to each other.
> If you read voraciously as a child you will score extremely well on the reading section without really trying. You aren't smarter.
There is considerable, though as in most things intelligence-related, not conclusive, evidence that reading, especially early reading, does improve general intelligence.
> I read math textbooks for fun. I was doing college-level math in 9th grade. And surprise to no one I scored almost perfect on the math section. But crucially, this didn't make me smarter than my peers.
How do you know that you didn’t both do this in part because you were already smarter than your peers, and that doing it didn’t make you even smarter than you would otherwise have been?
> Literally anyone who had decided to spend their time at recess reading number theory textbooks would have done just as well.
Even if that was provably true, that doesn’t mean doing it didn’t make you smarter, since if it did it would presumably also have that effect on others who did it.
AP tests are different than the SAT/ACT. AP tests measure knowledge of something (the degree to which one can study the test independently of the notional subject matter may be debatable, sure), but SAT/ACT are very much proxy IQ tests. They may frequently be used together (but MIT is dropping SAT/ACT, not AP), but are not equivalent to each other.
> If you read voraciously as a child you will score extremely well on the reading section without really trying. You aren't smarter.
There is considerable, though as in most things intelligence-related, not conclusive, evidence that reading, especially early reading, does improve general intelligence.
> I read math textbooks for fun. I was doing college-level math in 9th grade. And surprise to no one I scored almost perfect on the math section. But crucially, this didn't make me smarter than my peers.
How do you know that you didn’t both do this in part because you were already smarter than your peers, and that doing it didn’t make you even smarter than you would otherwise have been?
> Literally anyone who had decided to spend their time at recess reading number theory textbooks would have done just as well.
Even if that was provably true, that doesn’t mean doing it didn’t make you smarter, since if it did it would presumably also have that effect on others who did it.
Well, I scored 760 on the verbal because I read constantly and voraciously. I didn't "study" for it except in the sense that I'd spent the last decade with my face in a book on the bus, during lunch, as I walked from class to class, after I finished work in class, and so on.
Of course my aptitude at picking out synonyms didn't really indicate a damn thing about how well I could write an exam essay about the Reconstruction Era, so the fact that I got a good score without studying doesn't say that much for the test.
Of course my aptitude at picking out synonyms didn't really indicate a damn thing about how well I could write an exam essay about the Reconstruction Era, so the fact that I got a good score without studying doesn't say that much for the test.
I mean you can play this game with any subject. I scored a 5 on the CS AP tests without studying because I had been coding nonstop since I was 10.
You are proving my point pretty much exactly. You didn't score well because you were smart in some vague objective sense -- you scored well because you had essentially spent 10 years inadvertently studying.
You are proving my point pretty much exactly. You didn't score well because you were smart in some vague objective sense -- you scored well because you had essentially spent 10 years inadvertently studying.
The fundamental issue is that crushing the SAT/ACT is more of a reflection of “mom and dad got me good tutoring or prep” than it is intellectual merit.
I “weaseled” my way into CMU via athletic admissions (I was an actual athlete, not a Lori Laughlin style one), but did very well at CMU once I got there. People who aced the SATs did not do as well. Fwiw I still did okay, 32 ACT score, but there were 35/36’s around.
IOW, prediction of academic success is hard; career success harder. These standardized tests don’t add much.
I “weaseled” my way into CMU via athletic admissions (I was an actual athlete, not a Lori Laughlin style one), but did very well at CMU once I got there. People who aced the SATs did not do as well. Fwiw I still did okay, 32 ACT score, but there were 35/36’s around.
IOW, prediction of academic success is hard; career success harder. These standardized tests don’t add much.
[deleted]
"These standardized tests don’t add much."
A 32 is still 96th percentile, or a little better than "okay" for most Americans. In the future if you want to argue that ACT doesn't predict academic success it might be more effective to leave your own score and academic success out of it.
[deleted]
The 25th percentile student at MIT gets a 790 math SAT, it's 730 for language. Difference between 790 and 800 is basically luck. It's at the point where the test can only hurt you not help you.
There's no upside, but if you don't prepare, or happen to have a bad day, it can ruin your chances. For students applying to MIT-caliber schools it's a hoop to jump through, not an opportunity to distinguish themselves.
I am honestly curious how the MIT admissions office is able to use the SAT to predict anything about student success, given a huge majority of the students got a nearly perfect score. It seems like there should be almost no signal.
There's no upside, but if you don't prepare, or happen to have a bad day, it can ruin your chances. For students applying to MIT-caliber schools it's a hoop to jump through, not an opportunity to distinguish themselves.
I am honestly curious how the MIT admissions office is able to use the SAT to predict anything about student success, given a huge majority of the students got a nearly perfect score. It seems like there should be almost no signal.
> I am honestly curious how the MIT admissions office is able to use the SAT to predict anything about student success, given a huge majority of the students got a nearly perfect score.
A huge majority of the students who got accepted (since those are the only ones you're looking at) got a nearly perfect score. But only about 7% of students who apply to MIT get accepted. SAT scores, back when they were required to be provided, were one of the primary filters on applicants. (Not to mention the "filter" of many kids not even applying because they knew their scores were too low for them to be considered.)
A huge majority of the students who got accepted (since those are the only ones you're looking at) got a nearly perfect score. But only about 7% of students who apply to MIT get accepted. SAT scores, back when they were required to be provided, were one of the primary filters on applicants. (Not to mention the "filter" of many kids not even applying because they knew their scores were too low for them to be considered.)
So there will be no “standard” tests (with all their pros and cons) but there still will be “essays”, and “extracurricular clubs/activities” preparing for which (and joining the clubs) are far more expensive.
So many university recruiters at that level just suggest a minimum application criteria after which a lottery is applied to select acceptable applicants. A truly randomized lottery would ensure no bias in student selection.
If you have, let’s say, 3000 open positions and 15,000 applications of which all are academically qualified does it really matter who they pick for admission? It’s not like there is going to be any real world performance difference between candidate 1200 and 12000 if they are valedictorians with 4.0 GPAs.
If you have, let’s say, 3000 open positions and 15,000 applications of which all are academically qualified does it really matter who they pick for admission? It’s not like there is going to be any real world performance difference between candidate 1200 and 12000 if they are valedictorians with 4.0 GPAs.
Being the valedictorian of a class of 12 brings less information than a class of 1K. Its the same story for the rigor of the classes themselves between different schools/states/countries and the actual classes taken by any given student. Getting As in all AP classes carries more information than all As in easy courses. Its really nice to have an aptitude test to select the students you think have the best shot of succeeding or the brightest kids. An aptitude test is also an avenue to select bright kids who went to really bad schools or didn't do well in school for some reason.
You can't throw away information and expect a better outcome.
You can't throw away information and expect a better outcome.
> It’s not like there is going to be any real world performance difference between candidate 1200 and 12000 if they are valedictorians with 4.0 GPAs.
It's fun to say things!
On the other hand, it's not like people haven't thought of this before. https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
It's fun to say things!
On the other hand, it's not like people haven't thought of this before. https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
Is 180 IQ the baseline of admission into schools like Harvard or MIT? No, its not. Apples and oranges.
Most biased comments about college admission always get hung up on one of two irrelevant qualities:
* illusory perceptions that childhood genius far outside even their selective populations somehow equate to real world adult performance
* a selection bias that schools must supremely optimize some precise quality during admissions that they don't nurture or measure
Instead of you just look at the data, remove all the emotional nonsense, and assign everybody a number with a set of performance metrics most of what people care about are things the schools care nothing about and ultimately don't matter.
Most biased comments about college admission always get hung up on one of two irrelevant qualities:
* illusory perceptions that childhood genius far outside even their selective populations somehow equate to real world adult performance
* a selection bias that schools must supremely optimize some precise quality during admissions that they don't nurture or measure
Instead of you just look at the data, remove all the emotional nonsense, and assign everybody a number with a set of performance metrics most of what people care about are things the schools care nothing about and ultimately don't matter.
That was a really interesting paper, thank you for posting it
> valedictorians with 4.0 GPAs
Not trying to say you are wrong and not trying to claim any kind of authority as I have zero insider knowledge of college admissions process but just thinking out loud as a student, there can be a world of difference between an A from one teacher to an A from another teacher from the same school. Now if we extrapolate it across schools throughout the nation (we have not even gotten into international students), there is a wide gulf.
I like your solution though and this is probably very easily feasible without much protest assuming we reserve a small portion of the seats for donors and/or "legacy". Although, probably would be better just auctioning off those seats to the highest bidder now that I think about it. We will still treat everyone equally after students are admitted (and all auctions are nonrefundable) but we don't have to leave money on the table with an auction system for a small portion of the available seats.
Not trying to say you are wrong and not trying to claim any kind of authority as I have zero insider knowledge of college admissions process but just thinking out loud as a student, there can be a world of difference between an A from one teacher to an A from another teacher from the same school. Now if we extrapolate it across schools throughout the nation (we have not even gotten into international students), there is a wide gulf.
I like your solution though and this is probably very easily feasible without much protest assuming we reserve a small portion of the seats for donors and/or "legacy". Although, probably would be better just auctioning off those seats to the highest bidder now that I think about it. We will still treat everyone equally after students are admitted (and all auctions are nonrefundable) but we don't have to leave money on the table with an auction system for a small portion of the available seats.
If you're optimizing for having prestigious alumni, then it definitely does matter. I saw an article by a high school student who earned 35k on GitHub's bug bounty program. I was a valedictorian with a 4.0 GPA, and I will never do something like that.
people go to great universities because of the environment and friends and peers they will network with. Great lectures from top professors can be found online for almost free these days.
Making admissions non-competitive will ruin top schools.
Making admissions non-competitive will ruin top schools.
> Making admissions non-competitive will ruin top schools.
I never suggested that.
I never suggested that.
I recommend this episode of This American Life if you're interested in hearing more about the current debate over the SATs and schools choosing not to use them:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee...
Am I the only one surprised it was still required? I'd gathered that many high- and top-tiered US uni's had swapped to "accepted, not required" over a decade ago. Perhaps the momentum here swung back in light of conversations around the way this applies towards different races/ethnicities?
MIT already has enough applicants with close to perfect SAT scores that they could fill their class multiple times over. So this is a bit of a meaningless differentiator and tbh might even negatively affect someone who e.g. has below average grades but tests well.
Help me reconcile this:
1. Asking for voter id is racist because it disproportionately effects black voters.
2. Making this move that disproportionately effects Asian students is not racist?
1. Asking for voter id is racist because it disproportionately effects black voters.
2. Making this move that disproportionately effects Asian students is not racist?
On the one hand, it is ridiculous that one of the main metrics used in admissions is a glorified IQ test. On the other hand, it is ridiculous that we don't have a single commonly used standardized-exam that evaluates proficiency and expertise in the core curriculum.
I know America has a serious NIH syndrome, but the situation could be improved overnight if every single public school adopted the GCSE/A levels or IB curriculum and exams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kin...
https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/
I know America has a serious NIH syndrome, but the situation could be improved overnight if every single public school adopted the GCSE/A levels or IB curriculum and exams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kin...
https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/
Please omit nationalistic flamebait from your posts to HN, regardless of which country it's about. It may not have led to a nationalistic flamewar in this case, but statistically it very much does, and such threads are the opposite of what we want here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sorry, that certainly wasn't my intention, and I'll be more mindful in future
Why would an IQ test for admissions be ridiculous? Any knowledge test at all will eventually test and select for higher IQ so there’s really no getting around it unless all ability-based admissions standards are dropped.
> On the one hand, it is ridiculous that one of the main metrics used in admissions is a glorified IQ test. On the other hand, it is ridiculous that we don't have a single commonly used standardized-exam that evaluates proficiency and expertise in the core curriculum.
You don't like the use of an IQ test in school admissions, and you want to establish an IQ test instead?
You don't like the use of an IQ test in school admissions, and you want to establish an IQ test instead?
I agree with your implicit point, but GP is likely emphasizing the delineation between measuring aptitude and measuring proficiency.
Standardized national exams on proficiency in math, languages, science, etc... are very different from IQ tests and only somewhat correlated with IQ, being instead much more strongly correlated with consciensciousness, and generally how good of a student you are and will be.
It is shocking that the above comment is being downvoted, but not the comment it is responding to. Proficiency exams in specific subjects like Math/Biology/History/Literature etc are most certainly not IQ tests. Just because something rewards intelligence to some extent, doesn't make it an IQ test. Calling the GCSE History exam an IQ test would be like calling the YC application process an IQ test.
[deleted]
Conscientiousness itself correlates with IQ.
Yes? And? General grades still correlate more strongly with consciensciousness than IQ.
And consciensciousness is actually negatively correlated with IQ.
And consciensciousness is actually negatively correlated with IQ.
Grades show a strong influence from conscientiousness, but exam scores do not.
> And consciensciousness is actually negatively correlated with IQ.
In the same way that SAT math scores are negatively correlated with SAT verbal scores, which is to say only in thresholded samples.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014
> And consciensciousness is actually negatively correlated with IQ.
In the same way that SAT math scores are negatively correlated with SAT verbal scores, which is to say only in thresholded samples.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014
Which exam scores are we talking about? Grades themselves are generally by preponderance the result of exams.
In non-thresholded samples there is still a small negative correlation, or no correlation at all. If you could show me a study thay shows big, positive correlations between intelligence and consciensciousness without thresholding I'd be interested.
In non-thresholded samples there is still a small negative correlation, or no correlation at all. If you could show me a study thay shows big, positive correlations between intelligence and consciensciousness without thresholding I'd be interested.
This is completely untrue.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10212-011-0099-9
Personality traits are much more strongly correlated with academic aptitude than IQ is. If you disagree, you should provide a source.
Personality traits are much more strongly correlated with academic aptitude than IQ is. If you disagree, you should provide a source.
What are you trying to illustrate with your link? There is no standardized national exam among the measures.
Standardized national exams are normally very highly correlated to academic ability as represented by grades by the same teacher. Actually, where I live, this is essentially the explicit goal of the national exams - they then generate a score that normalizes the difficulty of each teacher and use it both for selection and to evaluate the accuracy of the exam and update it next year.
The data from which I learnt this isn't public AFAIK, but I'm sure similar studies exist for other countries.
The data from which I learnt this isn't public AFAIK, but I'm sure similar studies exist for other countries.
The published literature doesn't support your claims, but that's OK because you have private data which you find more palatable? This is a fun combination with your posture of
> If you disagree, you should provide a source.
> If you disagree, you should provide a source.
Well, I did five minutes of googling, and found a public article on the subject : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2333-8504....
>One index of that result was an augmentation in the correlation between the NELS Test and high school grade average from .62 to a multiple correlation of .90 based on the test plus 31 additional variables and corrections for unreliability and grading variations (see p. 72) [p. 105]
Here you go : test scores have a correlation of .9 with grades once you account for the grading difficulty of individual teachers and their unreliability (which is done by multiple national exams in the final synthetic grade). This means that they are excellent as a proxy for academic achievement, which can be restated as the following hypothetical : "what would be the grade of the students if they were to all be graded by the same, reliable teacher?"
Generally I think that the burden of proof on the statement "are exams better at predicting grades than IQ tests" lies on the negative, for the obvious reason that grades are generally composed of exams.
Also, the really cool thing with this is that you can also the reverse - after the teacher has had all of his students graded on the exam, you have all of the variables and can predict exam scores with a correlation of .9 (and thus general academic achievement with a correlation of .81), which means that you can avoid dispensing national exams at every level of schooling and simply use grades. You can even use this data later in college to evaluate how harshly a college professor is grading, and use that to generate much better grades in college!
>One index of that result was an augmentation in the correlation between the NELS Test and high school grade average from .62 to a multiple correlation of .90 based on the test plus 31 additional variables and corrections for unreliability and grading variations (see p. 72) [p. 105]
Here you go : test scores have a correlation of .9 with grades once you account for the grading difficulty of individual teachers and their unreliability (which is done by multiple national exams in the final synthetic grade). This means that they are excellent as a proxy for academic achievement, which can be restated as the following hypothetical : "what would be the grade of the students if they were to all be graded by the same, reliable teacher?"
Generally I think that the burden of proof on the statement "are exams better at predicting grades than IQ tests" lies on the negative, for the obvious reason that grades are generally composed of exams.
Also, the really cool thing with this is that you can also the reverse - after the teacher has had all of his students graded on the exam, you have all of the variables and can predict exam scores with a correlation of .9 (and thus general academic achievement with a correlation of .81), which means that you can avoid dispensing national exams at every level of schooling and simply use grades. You can even use this data later in college to evaluate how harshly a college professor is grading, and use that to generate much better grades in college!
> […]it is ridiculous that one of the main metrics used in admissions is a glorified IQ test.
SATs are a good measure of General Intelligence (and IQ).
“ This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. "
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.200...
SATs are a good measure of General Intelligence (and IQ).
“ This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. "
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.200...
Maybe not in the top decile we are discussing here.
Things like age and prep time matter a lot.
I skipped two grades so I took the SAT at age 15 without studying, did well enough, and went to one of the top state schools for CS at the age of 16.
I took the intro to CS weed out class first year and got the highest score by a mile.
Things like age and prep time matter a lot.
I skipped two grades so I took the SAT at age 15 without studying, did well enough, and went to one of the top state schools for CS at the age of 16.
I took the intro to CS weed out class first year and got the highest score by a mile.
> Maybe not in the top decile we are discussing here. Things like age and prep time matter a lot.
Not really. Of course studying for any test and preparing strategically/emotionally/psychologically makes one able to perform at their potential. If you didn't study, didn't prepare, don't know how to sit for a test or what the test will look like, no one expects good performance. Even though I run several miles every day, I'm never going to have the innate ability of an East African long distance runner.
Your extraordinarily excellent performance was not about your preparation but about your brilliance.
“
Yet research has consistently demonstrated that it is remarkably difficult to increase an individual’s SAT score, and the commercial test prep industry capitalizes on, at best, modest changes [13,17].
Short of outright cheating on the test, an expensive and complex undertaking that may carry unpleasant legal consequences, high SAT scores are generally difficult to acquire by any means other than high ability.
”
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/7/4/26/htm
Not really. Of course studying for any test and preparing strategically/emotionally/psychologically makes one able to perform at their potential. If you didn't study, didn't prepare, don't know how to sit for a test or what the test will look like, no one expects good performance. Even though I run several miles every day, I'm never going to have the innate ability of an East African long distance runner.
Your extraordinarily excellent performance was not about your preparation but about your brilliance.
“
Yet research has consistently demonstrated that it is remarkably difficult to increase an individual’s SAT score, and the commercial test prep industry capitalizes on, at best, modest changes [13,17].
Short of outright cheating on the test, an expensive and complex undertaking that may carry unpleasant legal consequences, high SAT scores are generally difficult to acquire by any means other than high ability.
”
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/7/4/26/htm
> it is ridiculous that we don't have a single commonly used standardized-exam that evaluates proficiency and expertise in the core curriculum.
We, for decades until this year, had a single commonly used set, of which different institutions mandated (or accepted as one of several alternatives) different subsets, the SAT Subject Tests (formerly SAT II, formerly Acheivement Tests.) Like the SAT itself, they've bee questioned for a while, and the COVID-19 pandemic on top of that led to their widespread abandonment and, as of this year, discontinuation.
We, for decades until this year, had a single commonly used set, of which different institutions mandated (or accepted as one of several alternatives) different subsets, the SAT Subject Tests (formerly SAT II, formerly Acheivement Tests.) Like the SAT itself, they've bee questioned for a while, and the COVID-19 pandemic on top of that led to their widespread abandonment and, as of this year, discontinuation.
Not sure about the SAT, and maybe the test has changed since I took it, but the ACT was mostly a knowledge & skills test. Math: did you pay attention through at least high school trig? Reading: how literate are you? English: how well do you understand the mechanics of SWE? Science: Can you read intentionally-shitty graphs to extract the correct information (yes, seriously, that's what it was, not anything to do with science, really) and so on.
The Math SAT is mostly straight out of the standard math curriculum. The subject tests are similar.
wouldnt this be the point? what woudl you be measuring if someone is smart other than IQ?
I thought the SATs were similar to the A Levels. What's the difference?
The SAT is a general knowledge/skill test. There's a math section (if memory serves, algebra and geometry, but not trig or calculus) and a language section (reading comprehension, vocabulary. There is an optional essay portion. Each of the 3 sections is weighted the same (800 points, so total of 1600 default, 2400 if you include the essay).
A-Levels are subject exams. They more closely align to AP exams in the US.
A-Levels are subject exams. They more closely align to AP exams in the US.
rabbits77(1)
Seems like at the moment high-school students in the US have to do two sets of exams - their normal high-school graduation exams, and also the SAT or ACT. Is that right? Why don't they use the results from one for the other? Use SAT for high-school graduation, or use high-school graduation results for university admission.
High schools vary wildly in how rigorous they are, one high school you could get a 4.0 by taking four years of underwater basket weaving, another school you could get a 3.4 because you took AP Calculus/Bio/Physics your senior year and they were tough. Not to mention that sometimes your school weighs your GPA differently and that makes those numbers not make sense.
The SAT is administered by a private "not-for-profit" corporation (College Board) and doesn't test anything like history or science that most schools try to teach kids (well, probably all schools have a requirement). And every time someone wants to put together a national test as a replacement, it gets shot down (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not good reasons).
I did AP all four years of high school because I found the normal classes too boring, and my GPA probably would've been higher if I hadn't, but I got into college.
The SAT is administered by a private "not-for-profit" corporation (College Board) and doesn't test anything like history or science that most schools try to teach kids (well, probably all schools have a requirement). And every time someone wants to put together a national test as a replacement, it gets shot down (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not good reasons).
I did AP all four years of high school because I found the normal classes too boring, and my GPA probably would've been higher if I hadn't, but I got into college.
Even worse, grade inflation is going in the other direction. Not only do most schools have broad requirements for A and B level grades, but some give a 5 for an A if an honors course and a 6 for an AP or college level class.
The purpose of standardized testing is the standardized part.
It's a convenient way to compare students from different schools. The per school graduation exams have the benefit of allowing customization on a per school (per class, even) basis. This customization is one of the good things about the US education system, IMO. We are not like Germany, with the track set for the student (Gymnasium vs trade school) at middle school age, nor are we like India, China, and Japan (single extremely high stakes test).
US schooling is uneven. Some of the schools are very good (well funded private, religious schools with a focus on schooling instead of dogma, public schools in wealthy areas). Some are terrible (public schools in poor areas, public schools in cities).
Standardized testing, when viewed from one angle, makes the world more even: the test "doesn't care" (debated) what race you are, the wealth of your parents, etc. It "objectively" (debated) measures aptitude, giving equal opportunity to all.
I'm fairly sympathetic to that view, and I'm also skeptical that removing the standardized testing requirements will lead to more equality. Standardized testing seems like the method least susceptible to rigging by rich parents, what will they replace it with that is fairer?
It's a convenient way to compare students from different schools. The per school graduation exams have the benefit of allowing customization on a per school (per class, even) basis. This customization is one of the good things about the US education system, IMO. We are not like Germany, with the track set for the student (Gymnasium vs trade school) at middle school age, nor are we like India, China, and Japan (single extremely high stakes test).
US schooling is uneven. Some of the schools are very good (well funded private, religious schools with a focus on schooling instead of dogma, public schools in wealthy areas). Some are terrible (public schools in poor areas, public schools in cities).
Standardized testing, when viewed from one angle, makes the world more even: the test "doesn't care" (debated) what race you are, the wealth of your parents, etc. It "objectively" (debated) measures aptitude, giving equal opportunity to all.
I'm fairly sympathetic to that view, and I'm also skeptical that removing the standardized testing requirements will lead to more equality. Standardized testing seems like the method least susceptible to rigging by rich parents, what will they replace it with that is fairer?
Most high schools in the US don't have graduation exams. Even for ones that do, there's no standardized high school graduation exam nationwide.
> Most high schools in the US don't have graduation exams.
So how do people fail to graduate high-school?
So how do people fail to graduate high-school?
By failing your courses and or dropping out. High Schools in the US don't have a static curriculum. Not all students graduating will have taken Algebra 2, Pre-Calc, trig. They also may not have taken Physics or a lot of the other sciences.
Most public High Schools in the US are honestly extremely hard to fail out of. As long as you get C's in all your classes you'll graduate.
Most public High Schools in the US are honestly extremely hard to fail out of. As long as you get C's in all your classes you'll graduate.
I believe at age 16 the government can't force you to go to school anymore. So one would just stop going to class, putting in the "butts in seats" time and never finish the required classes to graduate. I guess that's basically what dropping out means
In the US system you pass/fail each class based on exams and coursework and there is a minimum set of classes required to pass to graduate. The pass/fail is at the class level, there is no separate set of final overall exams as in other systems.
They fail to complete a minimum number of classes with passing grades.
If the bar sounds low and subjective, that’s because it often is, and as such I think it’s mostly useless for colleges looking to measure students against each other to choose who to admit.
If the bar sounds low and subjective, that’s because it often is, and as such I think it’s mostly useless for colleges looking to measure students against each other to choose who to admit.
My brother passed 12th grade but didn’t have enough English credits to get his diploma. I always thought that was a weird situation to be in, congrats you’re done with school.
The class grades are made up of some mix of:
* Graded homework
* Papers/Project/Labs
* Midterm/Final Exam
The teacher chooses the exact mix per class, so it's possible you fail even if you ace the exams, or pass even if you fail the exams. This variability is why the standardized tests exist.
* Graded homework
* Papers/Project/Labs
* Midterm/Final Exam
The teacher chooses the exact mix per class, so it's possible you fail even if you ace the exams, or pass even if you fail the exams. This variability is why the standardized tests exist.
I guess it makes sense to do as little as possible to scrape a C or whatever the passing grade is while at high-school and spend all your time optimising for the SAT then instead? Or not that simple?
College admissions are similarly a blend of different criteria: race, high school grades, did one of your parents go to that school (legacy), did your family donate to the school, are you a good athlete, are you a good musician, and of course what is your ACT or SAT score.
The exact weightings are not known to the students applying, but it's safe to say you can't just minmax on the standardized test.
I don't know if you've picked up the tone of some of the other comments in this thread, but people feel very strongly about what factors should be considered in college admissions. Almost no people will defend legacy admissions, few will defend athletic admissions, some will defend musicians, many will defend GPA and standardized testing.
College admissions are zero sum, and different weightings benefit one group over another. For example, "Asians" (the US does not differentiate South Asian [India, etc] from East Asians [China, Korea, Japan]) have very high test scores in the US. If you base your college admissions just on taking the people with the highest test scores, you would get a massive over-representation of Asians. Schools have decided that isn't what they want, so they take people with worse test scores in order to "balance" the student population.
This infuriates the people passed over in the name of "balance", naturally.
The exact weightings are not known to the students applying, but it's safe to say you can't just minmax on the standardized test.
I don't know if you've picked up the tone of some of the other comments in this thread, but people feel very strongly about what factors should be considered in college admissions. Almost no people will defend legacy admissions, few will defend athletic admissions, some will defend musicians, many will defend GPA and standardized testing.
College admissions are zero sum, and different weightings benefit one group over another. For example, "Asians" (the US does not differentiate South Asian [India, etc] from East Asians [China, Korea, Japan]) have very high test scores in the US. If you base your college admissions just on taking the people with the highest test scores, you would get a massive over-representation of Asians. Schools have decided that isn't what they want, so they take people with worse test scores in order to "balance" the student population.
This infuriates the people passed over in the name of "balance", naturally.
Either by failing the individual classes, or by dropping out.
By failing to pass required classes, for example because they didn't turn in any homework.
High schools typically do not have graduation exams in the sense that there are standard exams that are required for your degree. It depends on the state; some states may have standardized tests, some may have much looser requirements.
The standards for graduation across schools are massively different and the SAT/ACT is a private “solution” to the problem of measuring students across regions, for college admissions.
The standards for graduation across schools are massively different and the SAT/ACT is a private “solution” to the problem of measuring students across regions, for college admissions.
> High schools typically do not have graduation exams in the sense that there are standard exams that are required for your degree.
Nor do other schools...?
Nor do other schools...?
US high schools that is. There are definitely countries that require an exam score for a diploma and some fields where you have to pass a test to get your degree.
[deleted]
Most students do not have a normal high-school graduation exam. Neither is there a national US school curriculum. Therefore, it is difficult to compare GPAs between students from different school systems.
The SAT is also a thinly disguised IQ test, so it serves a different purpose anyway compared to high school grade records.
A lot of people have strong feelings against the SAT, but I actually think it's somewhat egalitarian. Before the SAT, prestigious colleges would only recruit from well-known feeder high schools whose curriculum was known to be rigorous. Since there is no unifying national curriculum, something like it is necessary so students from worse high-schools have a shot at getting into the nicer universities.
The SAT is also a thinly disguised IQ test, so it serves a different purpose anyway compared to high school grade records.
A lot of people have strong feelings against the SAT, but I actually think it's somewhat egalitarian. Before the SAT, prestigious colleges would only recruit from well-known feeder high schools whose curriculum was known to be rigorous. Since there is no unifying national curriculum, something like it is necessary so students from worse high-schools have a shot at getting into the nicer universities.
[deleted]
High school graduation results are definitely not standardized nationwide and could potentially be easier to rig.
Of course, the effect of eliminating SAT/ACT could mean that other factors (like social connections, reported grades like your high school graduation test, etc) will end up being more heavily relied upon, and these could possibly be easier to rig or be more dependent on a wealthy family. Hard to tell, but the play dough squishes out somewhere, right?
Of course, the effect of eliminating SAT/ACT could mean that other factors (like social connections, reported grades like your high school graduation test, etc) will end up being more heavily relied upon, and these could possibly be easier to rig or be more dependent on a wealthy family. Hard to tell, but the play dough squishes out somewhere, right?
US students don't have graduation exams per-se, there are no standardized tests for graduating.
The final exams High School seniors take are dependent on the curriculum they have chosen and are written/defined by their teachers. The outcome of these tests is reflected in the student's course grades and is reflected in their GPA (Grade Point Average) for their entire High School career.
The SAT or ACT are only used for College/University applications.
The final exams High School seniors take are dependent on the curriculum they have chosen and are written/defined by their teachers. The outcome of these tests is reflected in the student's course grades and is reflected in their GPA (Grade Point Average) for their entire High School career.
The SAT or ACT are only used for College/University applications.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Many US high schools have all kinds of weird, nebulous graduation requirements. I had to come up with forty or fifty hours of volunteer work and put together a giant 3" binder of work examples, extra-curricular awards, and other garbage that I had to present to a tribunal of teachers. Complete waste of time.
note: graduated in 2018 at a public high school in California
we didn't have any "graduation exams" as many other countries do - just needed to pass the required courses to gain the high school diploma. Our state testing exams were mainly to address progress, as the Exit Exam was suspended in 2015.
Even if we had these graduation exams, they also may vary depending on school, district, and state.
we didn't have any "graduation exams" as many other countries do - just needed to pass the required courses to gain the high school diploma. Our state testing exams were mainly to address progress, as the Exit Exam was suspended in 2015.
Even if we had these graduation exams, they also may vary depending on school, district, and state.
Most people have already mentioned that this change could result in discrimination, but I think it's also extremely important to note that these high school students are extremely overworked.
If a student is a top-tier applicant that has good grades, plays a sport, participates in a club or two, volunteers, & has a part-time job, they are easily working a minimum of 60+ hours per week. There is absolutely no way this can continue. I was pissed about this when I was in high school ~8 years ago, and it's only gotten worse since.
EDIT: Downvoted because I'm advocating for teens to not have to spend all of their waking hours preparing for college & instead get enough sleep or do something enjoyable?
If a student is a top-tier applicant that has good grades, plays a sport, participates in a club or two, volunteers, & has a part-time job, they are easily working a minimum of 60+ hours per week. There is absolutely no way this can continue. I was pissed about this when I was in high school ~8 years ago, and it's only gotten worse since.
EDIT: Downvoted because I'm advocating for teens to not have to spend all of their waking hours preparing for college & instead get enough sleep or do something enjoyable?
For schools and scholarships, I often see the requirement for volunteer hours. (not really "volunteer" if required though)
This is discrimination against people who need employment. It's a luxury to get transportation to a volunteer location, and then spend hours there, without any income earned.
This is discrimination against people who need employment. It's a luxury to get transportation to a volunteer location, and then spend hours there, without any income earned.
Selecting for students who have a track record of success in spite of 60-hours of time being "spoken for" is a not unreasonable selection process for students who will succeed at MIT.
The 60h/week figure is what I observed ~8 years ago for my peers to be competitive for our state university that was not MIT or an Ivy. My point is that I think students are being overworked because the requirements are too subjective. A student has to be involved in everything on top of having great grades and scores because the SAT/ACT was the only thing that was even close to being an objective requirement.
> Students who have not already taken the SAT/ACT, and cannot find a forthcoming opportunity to do so safely are discouraged from taking the test, in order to protect their personal health, as well as the health of their family and community. We will not make any negative presumptions regarding academic preparation based solely on the absence of SAT/ACT scores, but will instead make the best, most informed decision we can by rigorously assessing other academic aspects of their application (such as grades, coursework, and other examinations).
This is getting ridiculous.
Imagine if your kid puts in the hours and hours of studying and pulls off a 35 on their ACT -- at a school like MIT, that's not enough (considered alone) to get in.
How are you and your kid going to feel when they give her spot to someone who didn't even submit a standardized test score?
This is getting ridiculous.
Imagine if your kid puts in the hours and hours of studying and pulls off a 35 on their ACT -- at a school like MIT, that's not enough (considered alone) to get in.
How are you and your kid going to feel when they give her spot to someone who didn't even submit a standardized test score?
That's never been enough by itself to get into MIT. This just gives them more cover to be even more biased.
Loving that full scholarship at a competing school
But not loving that lower salary over the course of a lifetime as much.
That option existed regardless -- being forced to take it isn't exactly a silver lining.
Fine with this being temporary. Much less fine with the schools who have completely abandoned the SAT/ACT in the name of equality while still considering things like personal essays and extracurriculars, which are way more liable to be gamed by the wealthy than the SAT.